The case for war is blown apart.(London Independant)

  1. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=410484
    The case for war is blown apart

    By Ben Russell and Andy McSmith in
    Kuwait City

    29 May 2003
    Tony Blair stood accused last night of misleading
    Parliament and the British people over Saddam
    Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and his claims
    that the threat posed by Iraq justified war.
    Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, seized on a
    "breathtaking" statement by the US Defence Secretary,
    Donald Rumsfeld, that Iraq's weapons may have been
    destroyed before the war, and anger boiled over
    among MPs who said the admission undermined the
    legal and political justification for war.
    Mr Blair insisted yesterday he had "absolutely no doubt
    at all about the existence of weapons of mass
    destruction".
    But Mr Cook said the Prime Minister's claims that
    Saddam could deploy chemical or biological weapons
    within 45 minutes were patently false. He added that Mr
    Rumsfeld's statement "blows an enormous gaping hole
    in the case for war made on both sides of the Atlantic"
    and called for MPs to hold an investigation.
    Meanwhile, Labour rebels threatened to report Mr Blair
    to the Speaker of the Commons for the cardinal sin of
    misleading Parliament - and force him to answer
    emergency questions in the House.
    Mr Rumsfeld ignited the row in a speech in New York,
    declaring: "It is ... possible that they [Iraq] decided that
    they would destroy them prior to a conflict and I don't
    know the answer."
    Speaking in the Commons before the crucial vote on
    war, Mr Blair told MPs that it was "palpably absurd" to
    claim that Saddam had destroyed weapons including
    10,000 litres of anthrax, up to 6,500 chemical munitions;
    at least 80 tons of mustard gas, sarin, botulinum toxin
    and "a host of other biological poisons".
    But Mr Cook said yesterday: "We were told Saddam
    had weapons ready for use within 45 minutes. It's now
    45 days since the war has finished and we have still
    not found anything.
    "It is plain he did not have that capacity to threaten us,
    possibly did not have the capacity to threaten even his
    neighbours, and that is profoundly important. We were,
    after all, told that those who opposed the resolution that
    would provide the basis for military action were in the
    wrong.
    "Perhaps we should now admit they were in the right."
    Speaking as he flew into Kuwait before a
    morale-boosting visit to British troops in Iraq today, Mr
    Blair said: "Rather than speculating, let's just wait until
    we get the full report back from our people who are
    interviewing the Iraqi scientists.
    "We have already found two trailers that both our and
    the American security services believe were used for
    the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons."
    He added: "Our priorities in Iraq are less to do with
    finding weapons of mass destruction, though that is
    obviously what a team is charged with doing, and they
    will do it, and more to do with humanitarian and political
    reconstruction."
    Peter Kilfoyle, the anti-war rebel and former Labour defence minister, said he was
    prepared to report Mr Blair to the Speaker of the Commons for misleading Parliament. Mr
    Kilfoyle, whose Commons motion calling on Mr Blair to publish the evidence backing up his
    claims about Saddam's arsenal has been signed by 72 MPs, warned: "This will not go
    away. The Government ought to publish whatever evidence they have for the claims they
    made."
    Paul Keetch, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: "No weapons means no
    threat. Without WMD, the case for war falls apart. It would seem either the intelligence
    was wrong and we should not rely on it, or, the politicians overplayed the threat. Even
    British troops who I met in Iraq recently were sceptical about the threat posed by WMD.
    Their lives were put at risk in order to eliminate this threat - we owe it to our troops to find
    out if that threat was real."
    But Bernard Jenkin, the shadow Defence Secretary, said: "I think it is too early to rush to
    any conclusions at this stage; we must wait and see what the outcome actually is of
    these investigations."
    Ministers have pointed to finds of chemical protection suits and suspected mobile
    biological weapons laboratories as evidence of Iraq's chemical and biological capability.
    But they have also played down the importance of finding weapons of mass destruction
    in Iraq. Earlier this month, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, provoked a storm of protest
    after claiming weapons finds were "not crucially important".
    The Government has quietly watered down its claims, now arguing only that the Iraqi
    leader had weapons at some time before the war broke out.
    Tony Benn, the former Labour minister, told LBC Radio: "I believe the Prime Minister lied to
    us and lied to us and lied to us. The whole war was built upon falsehood and I think the
    long-term damage will be to democracy in Britain. If you can't believe what you are told by
    ministers, the whole democratic process is put at risk. You can't be allowed to get away
    with telling lies for political purposes."
    Alan Simpson, Labour MP for Nottingham South, said MPs "supported war based on a lie".
    He said: "If it's right Iraq destroyed the weapons prior to the war, then it means Iraq
    complied with the United Nations resolution 1441."
    The former Labour minister Glenda Jackson added: "If the creators of this war are now
    saying weapons of mass destruction were destroyed before the war began, then all the
    government ministers who stood on the floor in the House of Commons adamantly
    speaking of the immediate threat are standing on shaky ground."
    The build-up to war: What they said
    Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons
    George Bush, Us President 18 March, 2003
    We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a
    claim is palpably absurd
    Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003
    Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass
    destruction
    Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003
    Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they
    wait a bit
    Tony Blair 28 April, 2003
    It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy them prior to the conflict
    Donald Rumsfeld, US Defence Secretary 28 May, 2003

    28 May 2003 21:15
    •  
  2. 9 Comments

  3. by   teeituptom
    I just dont buy into the Bush Regimes Fables
  4. by   41yroldstudent
    ...as are most wars.

    If you don't believe that there are WMD's in Iraq, then you are fooling yourself. You probably don't believe that the Hussien tyrrany was as brutal as Ida Amin was to his own people. And..you probably don't believe that the UN was subsidizing Saddam's lavish lifestyle. How? Simple. The UN was fully aware that the "Fools for Oil" funds were being pocketed by the regime. We are talking about billions of dollars. However, they kept on buying the oil. Why? Price control. OK, so now the American "imperialist" have control of the faucet. Oh, but the PBS fanatics don't want to hear the next part of the story. The oil is flowing now in Iraq and $$$money is actually reaching contractors from Iraq, which employees citizens from Iraq.

    We may not find any WMD's. I believe we will. I also believe that there will be far-reaching economic benefits to having access to the oil resource. By the way, it's not stealing if you are paying for the product. We, the world, are not going to take Iraq's oil without remunerating them. So, the bleeding heart liberals can dismiss the notion of theft.

    Will American and British oil companies benefit? Your darn tootin'! Better us than the French oil companies (which had exclusive contracts).

    I will now reliquish the floor to the left side of the political spectrum.

    Peace, Love and Tranquillity! Save the whales! Forget the whales and let's save the unborn babies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  5. by   Furball
    Great post 41 year old.....it's funny how the "save the whales" people can dismiss the slaughter of possibly millions of HUMAN BEINGS in Iraq over the years. Mass graves everywhere.
    If there wasn't a threat of WMD why were the UN inspectors there to begin with? The world picked on Hussein just for sport I guess. I can't follow people's logic or lack of logic.
  6. by   Mkue
    Originally posted by 41yroldstudent
    ...as are most wars.

    If you don't believe that there are WMD's in Iraq, then you are fooling yourself. You probably don't believe that the Hussien tyrrany was as brutal as Ida Amin was to his own people. And..you probably don't believe that the UN was subsidizing Saddam's lavish lifestyle. How? Simple. The UN was fully aware that the "Fools for Oil" funds were being pocketed by the regime. We are talking about billions of dollars. However, they kept on buying the oil. Why? Price control. OK, so now the American "imperialist" have control of the faucet. Oh, but the PBS fanatics don't want to hear the next part of the story. The oil is flowing now in Iraq and $$$money is actually reaching contractors from Iraq, which employees citizens from Iraq.

    We may not find any WMD's. I believe we will. I also believe that there will be far-reaching economic benefits to having access to the oil resource. By the way, it's not stealing if you are paying for the product. We, the world, are not going to take Iraq's oil without remunerating them. So, the bleeding heart liberals can dismiss the notion of theft.

    Will American and British oil companies benefit? Your darn tootin'! Better us than the French oil companies (which had exclusive contracts).

    I will now reliquish the floor to the left side of the political spectrum.

    Peace, Love and Tranquillity! Save the whales! Forget the whales and let's save the unborn babies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Bravo
  7. by   pickledpepperRN
    Of course there were WMD in Iraq. As the joke goes, "We have the receipt."
    Where are they now?
    If they are not destroyed as claimed we need to find them before some innocent kids do. Before they make people sick.

    The problem is that we were told by this administration we knew where they were and exactly how much. We were told they could be used against us in 45 minutes.

    PS: I am pro life. I have personally assisted more than one woman contemplating abortion to change her mind.
    One friend gave up a child at age 15. Years later she was unable to conceive. She and her husband did not even think of fertility treatments. Many adoptions later rhey have a wonderful family now, one son in medical school.
    Pro life means pro life.
    --------------------------------
    Truth is truth
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Jun4.html
    Some Iraq Analysts Felt Pressure From Cheney Visits
    By Walter Pincus and Dana Priest
    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Thursday, June 5, 2003; Page A01
    Vice President Cheney and his most senior aide made multiple trips to the CIA over the past year to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives, according to senior intelligence officials.
    Last edit by pickledpepperRN on Jun 7, '03
  8. by   donmurray
    Policy objectives? or vested interest?

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060603J.shtml
    Whatever the case may be, one fact is certain: Halliburton Petroleum, Vice President Cheney's former company, is being paid nearly $500 million by the Bush administration million to pump oil out of Iraq. Mr. Cheney is still paid some $1 million a year by Halliburton in 'deferred' benefits. Several other companies with umbilical ties to administration officials, including the Carlyle Group and United Defense, are likewise reaping great profits from the Iraq war.
  9. by   41yroldstudent
    Well, that's ok as long as Planned (Infantacide) Parenthood doesn't reap any benefits. So, you know for fact that the bid system doesn't work in Iraq? So, the Federal Gov't changes its policy for awarding contracts based on where they are doing business? I serously doubt it!
  10. by   donmurray
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by 41yroldstudent


    "We may not find any WMD's. I believe we will."

    I believe that if they do exist, then the war has made the world a far more dangerous place. They are now lying around unguarded, available to anyone who wants to look for them. (except UN weapons inspectors!)
    Conversely, If they do not now exist, then we went to war for a lie, killing more than a few infants and others in the process. These WMD were supposedly a clear and present danger, ready to be deployed at 45 min. notice. so where are they?

    "We, the world, are not going to take Iraq's oil without remunerating them."

    Who, precisely, are "We", in your world? Obviously not France, or Iraq because it belongs to them, but who else? Everyone? just the West? just the Coalition? or maybe just the US?
  11. by   41yroldstudent
    Who is going to buy the oil? Are you crazy? Anybody with the money.

    You don't think France has there nose up the our butts because they like the smell, do you? Sure France will have access to crude as it flows out of Iraq.

    On another subject, yet related. Did you see how the French behaved at the French Open? I bet the next time they are invaded and we liberate them AGAIN, they will be throwing tickertape on our troops in celebration.

    I say let's ignore the sorry SOB's and let their economy fall flat on it's face. We DO NOT need them. By the way, I have a strong french heritage as I am cajun from South Louisiana. So my position regarding the French is hard on me. BUT, I am an American first.

    Don, please don't cut my text, because I can't spell well and I my typing (I mean keyboarding) is worse.

close