[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
War, War, War See other War, War, War Articles Title: Tony Blair 'was told 10 days before Iraq invasion that Saddam had dismantled WMD' Tony Blair was told Saddam Hussein may not have been able to use his chemical weapons ten days before war was declared, the Iraq Inquiry was told today. The second day of public hearings heard the Foreign Office had no evidence Saddam was trying to supply chemical or biological weapons to terrorists. The inquiry also heard Iraq was only the fourth most dangerous rogue state trying to develop weapons of mass destruction prior to the 2003 invasion. Officials were more alarmed by developments in Libya, Iran and North Korea, the Foreign Office's head of counter-proliferation said. Sir William Ehrman, who was director of international security at the Foreign Office, defended the war, claiming there was very little "contradictory" evidence that Saddam lacked weapons of mass destruction. When it was pointed out that UN weapons inspectors failed to find chemical or biological stocks in many sites, Sir William said: "Four out of 10 as a strike rate is pretty good." Sir Lawrence Freedman, for the inquiry, interrupted: "Not when you are going to war." Sir William added that ministers had been repeatedly warned that the intelligence on Iraq's chemical and biological programmes had been "patchy". Despite the warnings, however, Tony Blair told the Commons Saddam did have chemical and biological weapons when he made the case for war on the eve of the invasion in March 2003. Subsequently, it was found Saddam did not have any weapons of mass destruction, having failed to rebuild his programmes following the first Gulf War. Sir William listed a series of briefings to ministers which included major caveats about the strength of the intelligence. In April 2000 the picture was described as "limited to chemical weapons", in May 2001 the knowledge of WMD and ballistic missile programmes was "patchy", in March 2002 the intelligence was "sporadic and patchy". In August 2002 a briefing noted that "we know very little" about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons work since late 1998, and in September 2002 the intelligence "remained limited". Just days before the invasion the Government had even received intelligence that Saddam may be "We did, I think on March 10, get a report that chemical weapons might have remained disassembled and Saddam hadn't yet ordered their assembly," he said. "There was also a suggestion that Iraq might lack warheads capable of effective dispersal of agents." However Sir William said that it had not made any difference to the case for war over Saddam's refusal to give up his WMD and co-operate with United Nations inspectors. "I don't think it invalidated the point about the programmes he had. It was more about use," he said. "From the counter-proliferation point of view it just proved that he had been lying and that he had prohibited items." Tim Dowse, who was head of counter-proliferation at the Foreign Office, said that when he took up
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Horse (#0)
If Blair knew it - then Bush knew it! Both have major major blood on their hands.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||