The case for war is blown apart

By Ben Russell and Andy McSmith in Kuwait City

29 May 2003: (The Independent) 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

                            -==-

Source: Information Clearinghouse .....
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3556.htm


Cheers, Steve..

---