Tony Blair told ‘days before Iraq invasion’ WMD had been dismantled

Iraq inquiry: Tony Blair told ‘days before invasion’ WMD had been dismantled – Telegraph

What I remember is that knowledgeable inspectors and expatriate Iraq scientists were saying this all through 2002 and into early 2003.

Here is Imad Khadduri’s piece from that winter: “Iraq has no N-weapons, claims expatriate scientist 06/01/2003. (Via my posting, at the time at IC.

Bush, Cheney, Blair and the gang knew they were lying. They were just confident that they could run out the clock on the truth.

End/ (Not Continued)

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Responses | Print |

11 Responses

  1. At the time I took my understanding of the WMD issue from many sources but mainly from Glenn Rangwala's very scholarly website rather than any of the mainstream media where there were clearly inconsistencies in the reporting and comments. That website cited UN inspectors reports and many other sources of information about the various claims of WMD being made by US and UK government officials. It was pretty clear from that information that the "evidence" presented to the press by these governments was indeed being "sexed up" to suit a particular agenda. In particular it was very clear to me at any rate that Colin Powell's presentation to the UN was a disgraceful tissue of lies about which he has subsequently expressed some regret.

    The sources of information were available at the time -governments and the press just chose to ignore them. From the newspaper reports I have read, it seems to me that the British Government officials at the current Iraq inquiry are closing ranks and coming up with a story that suggests they were less aware than they should have been. And the inquiry does not seem to have been particularly aggressive in questioning.

  2. "Bush, Cheney, Blair and the gang knew they were lying. They were just confident that they could run out the clock on the truth."

    It can now be safely said that these men weren't just lying, they were brazenly lying. By the letter of international law, the activities they were planning are considered very serious breaches. Did they have some assurance that they would never be held legally responsible? Who would have provided such assurances? What was the real reason for the invasion of Iraq? The why of the whole affair remains dim, and we can only speculate. Ahead of the invasion, US diplomats were telling colleagues in the region that US troops would be there for decades, so obviously the bases had a lot to do with it all – but still, what is the reasoning? Cheney's energy task force in early 2001 may provide clues – though the information is still unavailable – and, if so, this could have been a massive criminal conspiracy aligning government, military, and corporate interests. That goes way beyond simple lying.

  3. Not only did knowledgeable inspectors know there were no WMD's all through 2002 and 2003, but:

    1) the US position was that the sanctions would continue even if Hussein removed his WMDs

    2) Iraq in 2002 released the required report that certified that it had removed all of its WMDs and the administration, lying, claimed it had specific information about omissions from that report.

    3) The US gave data to the IAEA on many occasions, which in every case turned out to be false.

    It is just ridiculous that anyone is now pretending the knowledgeable people believed Iraq had WMDs either in late 2002 or shortly before the invasion.

  4. "They were just confident that they could run out the clock on the truth."

    A fitting epitaph for Bush the Least's administration.

  5. Interesting that no mention was made of the 2002 UN weapons inspection findings during the British inquiry. There was nothing sketchy about what the inspectors found. They inspected the sites the CIA considered the most likely to have WMD and found nothing. I remember Hans Blix said something to the affect that "the US was 100 percent certain that the WMD existed, and had zero knowledge of their location".

    Throughout the UN effort the administration, its supporters, and most of the main stream media trivialized the work they were doing and the results they found. There has got to be some tightly muzzled analysts at the CIA who knew their assessment was completely wrong by the time of the invasion.

  6. Considering all the blatant lying in the run-up to the cowardly destruction of Iraq, I was mildly surprised that the Bush junta didn't plant WMDs in Iraq to give the fakery legs. I suspect that Valerie Plame uncovered a plot to do just that and her outing was payback.

  7. It can now be safely said that these men weren't just lying, they were brazenly lying. By the letter of international law, the activities they were planning are considered very serious breaches. Did they have some assurance that they would never be held legally responsible? Who would have provided such assurances? What was the real reason for the invasion of Iraq? The why of the whole affair remains dim, and we can only speculate. Ahead of the invasion, US diplomats were telling colleagues in the region that US troops would be there for decades, so obviously the bases had a lot to do with it all – but still, what is the reasoning? Cheney's energy task force in early 2001 may provide clues – though the information is still unavailable – and, if so, this could have been a massive criminal conspiracy aligning government, military, and corporate interests. That goes way beyond simple lying.

  8. That their reasons for invading Iraq and Afghanistan were certainly bogus is now well-known. That the American public's politicians and press were bullied and bribed to support pre-emptive War making (for whatever selfish reasons) is now also history writ. imho, More nuanced, and still unexplained is not "How or Why we went Over There" as a military assault force, but "How we then came to (and Why we continue today) to remain Over There" as a military occupation force. iow, If there was nothing real to pre-empt, then what weapon, or force threat, really is "occupation" pre-empting? It will be interesting to hear the American president's speech regarding his escalation of the military occupation of Afghanistan, n'est-ce pas? “We kicked down the door to their house, but found nothing there. We then remained in their house for fear that something might appear” is how this story goes. “Many residents resented our being in their house, and began to make our life there miserable. So we're sending more troops to go live in their house ~ with The Mission to train some of the residents of the house to make the lives of the residents who are making our lives so miserable, miserable.”

  9. The truth finally comes out. These people should be put on trial for war crimes.

Comments are closed.