The case for war is blown apart

["Nello Margiotta" <animarg at tin.it>]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=410484
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