WMD Issue Still causing Trouble For Blair(And it keeps on just getting worse)

Pressure on Tony Blair over the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction appears to be increasing, rather than receding ,since the end of the recent conflict in Iraq.
Allegations that he and his ministers misled parliament are starting to be made within his own party and the media.Unlike in the USA,the issue of WMD's was used almost soley by the UK government to convince both it's people and the Parliamentarians of the need to invade Iraq as a matter of pre-emptive self-defence.Now,7 weeks after the end of the conflict,no such weapons have been found and some Parliamentarians who voted with the Government before the conflict on those grounds are voicing there concerns and some are even suggesting that they were deliberately misled.
The statement below shows the kind of thing Blair was saying to his fellow MP's before the war.

Tony Blair PM:

"(Saddam's) military planning allows for some of the Weapons of Mass Destruction to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them."

Recent comments from across the Atlantic have brought the issue even more into focus.

Paul Wolfowitz, US deputy defence secretary:

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

This comment by Wolfowitz suggests that the issue of WMD's was convenient rather than pressing.Which if found to be true would certainly add weight to the argument that Parliament was misled.

To counter these allegations the UK government is still insisting that WMD's will be found in the course of time but again words spoken to the US domestic audience have repercussions here as recent comments by Donald Rumsfeld are seen as the start of a move by the US administation away from the WMD argument in anticipation of no such weapons being found.

This will be a long drawn out affair.Britons on this board will understand fully the consequences if the allegations that Parliament was misled were found to be true and the government are bound to balk at the call for a public enquiry on this issue.

Never a dull moment.

www.channel4.com...



[Edited on 4-6-2003 by John bull 1]

I'm personally extremely amused by the September dossier which said quite clearly that the Iraqi military could attack with chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes if ordered to.

That is obviously total rubbish. So it's already time for an enquiry, regardless of any WMD remnants that we may discover in future.

Blair's in trouble, and he knows he is. But I suspect he's not going to jump and will need a firm push.

In a not totally unrelated development.

The BBC reports that British Prime Minister Tony Blair is about to be charged as a war criminal by the Greek Bar Association before the International Criminal Court. Dimitris Paxinos, president of the lawyers' association, told the BBC that Blair will be charged with "crimes against humanity and war crimes."
President George Bush escapes being charged, as the United States is not a signatory to the ICC.

The Greeks claim that the U.S.-U.K. invasion of Iraq violates the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention and the International Criminal Court's statute.

newsmax.com...

He must pay!!

www.abc.net.au...

In an interview with Vanity Fair, Mr Wolfowitz is quoted at saying the reason for choosing Iraq's alleged stocks of chemical and biological weapons to justify going to war was taken for bureaucratic reasons.

It was, he says one of many reasons. The magazine quotes Mr Wolfowitz saying "for bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue � weapons of mass destruction � because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

Despite a concerted effort by US forces in Iraq, no chemical or biological weapons have been found. In the lead-up to the war, President Bush and his key allies, British Prime Minister, Tony Blair and Australian Prime Minister, John Howard repeated assertions that the threat posed by Saddam's stocks of banned weapons was sufficient enough to go to war and eliminate them.

[Edited on 30-5-2003 by Netchicken]

It's amazing that the US government can get away with just changing their minds all the time without ever suffering much flak.

I hope the US media don't allow Wolfowitz and co. to get away with downplaying WMD's, but I don't really hold out much hope of significant critical media coverage. Fingers crossed though, free speech may win through...

What has been found beyond any shadow of doubt is gross abuses of a humanitarian nature, an Al-Qa'eda organization which is willing to loose lives over what is going on in Iraq today.

Both add up to a simple response that the Iraqi people required saving and that Al-Qa'eda supported Saddam Hussein above and beyond Saudi interests.

If the British people see fit to take Mr. Blair out of office as a result of this, my guess is that the American public will see Britain in the same way it today sees the French.

Despite the fact that some see is the issue of WMD being hidden as rewriting history it is an explanation which is reasonable.

Fact of the matter is it is far more reasonable than the alternative given the realities of a culture willing to engage is suicide bombing.

No one denies that Saddam was a brutal dictator. You can find one of those on every corner. The fact remains that the reason for going was that Iraq's WMD's amounted to a clear and present danger to the U.S. I haven't seen that. We're we lied to? Probably.

The U.S. has now deemed it self the police of the world. Making our streets safe from evil doers while at the same time leaving our boarders open to whom ever wishes to enter.

I consider my self fairly conservative and back our troops as long as they are in harms way. But I was in the army and still have friends there. I don't want them used in a manner that does not directly relate to the security of the US When was the last time congress actually voted on a declaration of war? I've heard about resolutions and presidential authority to conduct military operations but these seem to circumnavigate the founding fathers true intensions.

Toltec I understand your point but this war has not and will not stop suicide bombings. How do you force someone into democracy. They have to work that out for them selves.

The question of turning Iraq into a democracy is as it has always been, something the Iraqi people must conclude. In respect to Iraq there were three issues; one they had WMD, second that there people were being abused and third that a relationship existed between Saddam Hussein and Al-Quaeda.

Given the conspiracy to hide the fact that the last two were an issue, that the first resulted in Saddam Hussein hiding his weapons to an extent that we have not found them yet is far beyond a fantasy.

Concluding that it is impossible to generate a democracy in Iraq (unless by force) does not take into consideration that today, the former Soviet Union is known as the Russian Republic (or for that matter that the old west could not be tamed).

Suicide Bombing is a decision and like all other decisions they are based upon a conclusion. A conclusion, which has been not only promulgated but supported by the Arab governments and their press.

Both entities prepared to deny humanitarian rights due to there anti-Semitism (the UN is no different).


Again the issue of responding to suicide bombers is no different than any other group whose intent is to stop peace.

While the process is difficult it is
not different than what has occured throughout history once a war has ended.

The bad guys become the ones who
want to continue fighting despite creed, color or race. If placing a bullet in there heads is for them the only conclusion they are prepared to accept then so be it.

After it�s all over the legacy they will leave behind will represent one particular issue.

This that a reason why war is hell is related to there deaths, as far as any other considerations while an analysis of the wave function will be noted (in time), I doubt seriously that any concern will go beyond that.

AkulA since you have made the statement do need to ask, where did you serve and under whose command?

[Edited on 31-5-2003 by Toltec]

Well tonight Tony did an interview for SkyNews (rolls eyes) and he vowed that he would prove Iraq had WMD, with REAL intelligence and documented sources, personally i hope he does, he wont look like a complete tit anymore and he'll have the "scoop" on bush.
It'll save his party in the next election if he pulls it off.
Go Tony!

Ive seen that alot on the news here. Now that the dust has settled and Iraq is in a mess, the question remains :

Where is saddamsn tools of evil?

Everyone already knew what a #head he was. Our reasons was to remove him because he was involved in Sep 11 and all that crap.

Really now, I be happy if they even tried and made up a link between the two. But they cant.

Because the only thing Saddam had in common with Sep 11 was he was glad it happened. Thats it.

So now well nuke people for being happy at the US failures?

Dom, the American public probably doesnt even care. Our media could scream all day and night that the WMD issue was a fraud, and people would say, so? They simply dont care. This virus has infected America so bad, in future conflicts, I dont even think the prez will need to make up excuses, people will just say ok, we dont care.

And they wont even care that this very apathy and bull# is gonna bury us alive.

Unfortunately Skadi I agree with you. Apathy is out worst enemy.

Toltec; I do not see Russia as a great example of democracy though you might. True it is better than what they used to have but the people are still stalked by secret police and the such.

I think what I'm trying to get through is that placing a half million troops in their country will not get them closer to democracy. This is police action not democratization.

We may very well have a worse situation with a fundamentalist islamic regime taking power. My basic concern is that there be a direct threat to the U.S. for us to take such huge measures as we did. If it was Iraq's WMD when did this threat become so overwhelming that we had to send in hundreds of thousands of troops? Was it after 9-11? Did they posess the means to attack our soil? Not by ballistic means. Sure they could send some one over here with chemical or bio and unleash a terrorist attack but thats exactly what I'm getting at, secure our borders! The action in Iraq was to counter our withdrall from saudi arabia.

So now our soldiers are bogged down by a guirrila type war to perform a police action while other countries who do have the means to launch an attack on our country threaten us and we do nothing. What sense does that make?

Sorry but I am completely lost on the wave function thing.

I served as an MP mostly stateside but made a couple trips to Korea.

Welcome, Akula. Nice to see another vet on board .

Well said. iraq had been sitting there, sanctioned and cut off, for 12 years, and all of the sudden, we decide to dump troops over there because suddenly we realized a threat?

Youre military, you know as well as I know that we spent the 90's trying to warn people terror was our new enemy, terrorism would become a major problem, but all the cattle were busy watching OJ or the Clinton scandal. What did it leave us with?

Now, the same public who didnt listen to us through a decade of Clintonization, suddenly wants to throw our asses out in the line of fire once again to take out a country that is about as much a threat as lightning strikes?

People never wanna listen till its too late, then when they act, the act irrationally.

It may, and to some nations appear arrogant that the U.S. went into Iraq for any of the reasons stated by any coalition (loose ref.) country. IMHO the short result is almost as good as the long term vision- mid-east stability(hope is a good thing anyways), the ridding of an undeniably evil individual and his minions and the giving to 25,000,000 their lives back. It is true that nations have been vilified for NOT acting when lives could have been saved. Damned if you do...

All of the chicanery will continue and we who know that should keep on observing- since real power eludes us- and hope good comes from these actions in some form . Just hoping.

I think that when you look at 210,000 people missing and presumed dead as well as the actions Al-Qa'eda took after the US was clearly in control of Iraq (against Saudi Arabia and Morocco) one can consider that clearly this is a country the US should have attacked.

I think there are two reasons Americans are hoping we do find WMD in Iraq, one is of course that it establishes beyond any shadow of doubt US intent and second it will form the conclusion that parts of Europe are populated by morons.


If we do not find those WMD will we change our minds?

Nah we just will not have that killer party

Bottom line all those people are presumed dead and what is up for debate ohh the WMD have not been found yet, no wonder our president is distancing himself from the Euro attitude.

They seem appathetic to having found 210,000 dead and presummed missing.

They are hoping to find WMD because it is the reason we spent lives and money on this war.

Finding 210,000 bodies or half a million is not the point. If the US government says here are the reasons we are going to war and then those reasons turn out to be bogus IT WAS A LIE. To justify it by say ohh look at all the people he killed he was really bad, just deflects from the original intention of sending american men and women into battle.

Millions are dead and dying or are enslaved in the Sudan but you don't see us blowing the sh*t out of them. On the contrary we're about to forgive them and take them off the list of terroist countries. Why? Why don't we say kill them fu$%ers they've hundreds of thousands of their own people thy're bad.

Why? because nations killing their own people is not what we're interested. Our mind set. They'll make more.

End Rant

Military dictatorships favoring an Islamic-oriented government have dominated national politics since independence from the UK in 1956. Sudan has been embroiled in a civil war for all but 10 years of this period (1972-82). Since 1983, the war and war- and famine-related effects have led to more than 2 million deaths and over 4 million people displaced. The war pits the Arab/Muslim majority in Khartoum against the non-Muslim African rebels in the south. Since 1989, traditional northern Muslim parties have made common cause with the southern rebels and entered the war as a part of an anti-government alliance.

ohh you mean the civil war occuring in Sudan whose side do you think we (the US) should take???

Irrelevant. Your point seemed to be that the war in Iraq was justified because 210,000 people are dead. My original point was that we were led into this war under false pretences.

Whose side did we take in the Iraq/Iran war? Whose side did we take in the Nicaraguan/Contra war? Like any other empire we take the side that plays ball with us. Horrible dictator or not. Saddam didn't kill all 210,000 people only after we stopped arming him. We have always known what he was about, lets not forget that Colin Powell was able top "prove" they had WMD only because he was holding the receipt.
Lets not play naive anymore. War has ALWAYS been about power and resources. Telling the people its about communists, terrorists, slavery, tea taxes or WMD is simply propaganda for rallying the sheep. Trace the money for a clearer picture of the secong gulf war. Trace the 400 million dollars in contracts for Hallibuton while their former CEO helps create military policy. Trace the 300 million dollar revenue increase since 9/11 by the Carlyle group whose board members and finaciers include the Bush family, former Secretary of state James Baker and the Bin Laden family.
Toltec stated earlier that there were three reasons for the war in Iraq. Those same three reasons can be found on any corporate controlled television channel, so I won't repeat them. Let me speculate on a few more reasons for Gulf War 2.
First, the financial kickback to the administrations friends and supporters. Don't forget that re-election time is coming up and there's plenty of other countries out there.
Second, we have always needed to establish our own substantive military presence in the mideast. Having a puppet state like Iraq sure helps that goal. The continual "Iraqi" looting and terrorist acts sure will help to manuever the american public into accepting and financing the permanent military presence.
Third, Oil. You know it and they know it. Lets not forget that we will own their oil resources ( ok, hallibuton will) until the Iraqi people are deemed responsible enough to take over, and of course our war reperations have been met. (A wonderful tactic, by the way, it worked so well with Germany after the first world war!)
Fourth, Simple expansion of the American Empire. The Great Devil led around by an illiterate cowboy from Yale.
Fifth, How about a sublime effort to undermine Tony Blair.... I've been thinking about this one a lot. Blair put himself on the line to follow us blindly. Unlike the U.S, england and europe have an actual free press that might show how Blair openly mislead his country. This could hurt his re-election chances...sorry labor party...
Sixth, Think of the wonderful advertising our DOD got to have with its new weapons in Gulf War 2. While Im sure it was absolutely nessessary to use ALL our new toys against the mighty Republican Guard, think of the benefit that all that video coverage provides. Lets not forget that the U.S is the NUMBER ONE seller of weapons (including those pesky WMD) in the world!!!
Hey, we're finally number 1 again!!! Potential salesprospects could simply turn on one of our propoganda channels (oops I meant News stations) and witness first hand "Shock and Awe". Catchy advertising phrase...better get those checkbooks ready.
It makes me laugh when I hear Bushie junior tell the american public that they will need to give up a few more constitiutional rights becuase, "its a very dangerous world out there." Sure is bushie... just the way you and your daddy and all your war mongering and war profiteering corporate buddies want it. Keep it coming.
Seventh, A good old war has always been a sure-fired way to distract the public from economic problems. In the case of Franklin Roosevelt it was his only option. Besides, what better way to cover up huge corporate scadals by people who financed your coup de ta then to have the public believe they are in immediate danger from terrorist attacks.
Pathetic and more pathetic.

[Edited on 3-6-2003 by Voice_of Doom]

[Edited on 3-6-2003 by Voice_of Doom]

Akula we don't know that yet your simply making an assumption but what we do know is that President Bush in his
speech to the Nation before the war started stated we are going to free the Iraqi people.

All those people dead and no one besides the United States responded to there plight, in fact what seems like a massive cover-up is apparent.

It is not irrelevant certain governments do not want people to feel that it was. So much, that no inquiries are even being discussed with respect to this matter.

How the hell do 210,000 people disappear during a time in which a UN inquiry is going on in a country and it is never brought up with respect to dealing with it?

Why is it the matter was never reported by Al-Jazzir until after control of Baghdad was in coalition hands?

Why is it the matter was never specifically adresses by humanitarian rights groups in reports?

With respect to the issue of Weapons of Mass destruction I have included this link which discusses the matter to a great extent.

www.time.com...

Voice of Doom the reports of the missing are with respect to the last 10 years

We keep talking about the US being the great devil and to be honest that is really pathetic. One reason being the devil is European creation offered as a means to
con people into justifying there actions in this case my impression is we are looking at the same thing, the Europeans with exception of a few would have allowed what was going on in Iraq to continue. They did not care and they still do not and to be honest they are covering up the fact they ever knew.

To me it is very strange and seems really horrible that something of this nature is being totally ignored and treated as irrelevant.

If it were not for the US this lie would have continued.

[Edited on 3-6-2003 by Toltec]

Originally posted by Toltec

How the hell do 210,000 people disappear during a time in which a UN inquiry is going on in a country and it is never brought up with respect to dealing with it?

I notice you keep bringing up 210,000 disappeared just about everyday. I imagine because it's the only thing you feel you have left that might in fact be an actual truth.

Do you have any 'official' documents stating this, or is it just something that has been reported through the media?