Britain went to war on 'assumption' of wmd

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well its not like we didn't know this from the beginning. Well... a lot of us didn't.

Iraq Inquiry: Britain went to war on 'assumption' of Saddam Hussein WMD

Britain went to war in Iraq on an 'assumption' that Saddam Hussein still possessed weapons of mass destruction, according to Jonathan Powell.

Intelligence on Saddam's WMD was not the pivotal factor in Tony Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq, Mr Powell, the former chief of staff to Mr Blair, has told the Chilcot Inquiry.

Mr Powell said there was a long-standing "assumption" that Saddam had WMD because of the fact that he had used them in the past.

Without any concrete evidence that Saddam had destroyed his stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons the Government remained "confident" that he still had them in 2003, he added.

"When our forces went in, we were absolutely amazed to discover there weren't any weapons of mass destruction," he said.

Mr Powell, who was former Prime Minister Mr Blair's closest aide throughout his premiership, was asked by panel member Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman at the

London hearing whether he had been "concerned" that intelligence on Saddam's weapons stocks might not be up to date.

Mr Powell said: "We had an assumption, and we had that assumption because Saddam Hussein had lied about using WMD and he had lied about getting rid of them.

We had bombed Iraq in 1998 on that basis and it would have taken some quite strong evidence to suggest he had got rid of them.

"We didn't really have any doubts about it and I don't think other people had any doubts about it.

"In September 2002 Hans Blix (the chief UN weapons inspector) told the Prime Minister Saddam Hussein hadn't met his obligations and 10,000 litres of anthrax were still unaccounted for.

"We were confident that he had weapons of mass destruction."

Mr Powell also insisted that Mr Blair had not given any undertaking to President Bush that Britain would go to war with the US when the two men met at the President's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in April 2002.

Last year the former ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, has questioned whether the Mr Blair had "signed in blood" an agreement to go to war during a private meeting with Mr Bush.

But Mr Powell said: "I was at Crawford. Sir Christopher wasn't. He was at Waco, 30 miles away.

"There was no undertaking in blood to go to war in Iraq. There was no firm discussion to go to war, in fact the record which was sent to Sir Christopher said the president acknowledged that weapons inspectors should go in and we had to give Saddam the chance to comply."

The hearing continues.

Source

Edited January 19, 2010 by Gene Hunt

[Danno 1,228]

REAlly this is a bunch of hind-sight silliness.

Had nothing been done and Sadam did have WDMS and they were then passed on to hostile groups which of course used them.... you would be singing a whole nuther tune.

I have asked many times before and I have yet to have one person show me one credible person who claimed Sadam did not have WMDS before we went in.

You are snipping over the wrong point of the matter.

The more relevant and useful question is: If Sadam or Iran has such weapons and we believe they or someone else will eventually use them to attack us... what do we do about it?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When the general public predict, with accuracy, that the war was a whitewash, that there were no WMDs, no plan for reconstructing Iraq and that going in there with an understrength force would stir up the hornet's nest, its not hindsight.

This story merely confirms other, similar stories in the British press prior to and subsequent to the war (which is why millions marched in protest across Europe).

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

REAlly this is a bunch of hind-sight silliness.

Had nothing been done and Sadam did have WDMS and they were then passed on to hostile groups which of course used them.... you would be singing a whole nuther tune.

I have asked many times before and I have yet to have one person show me one credible person who claimed Sadam did not have WMDS before we went in.

You are snipping over the wrong point of the matter.

The more relevant and useful question is: If Sadam or Iran has such weapons and we believe they or someone else will eventually use them to attack us... what do we do about it?

And if I won the lottery then my life would be different too.

The fact that the CIA knew that Saddam did not have WMDs and forwarded those findings to the Bush Administration is fact. The fact that those who claimed that there were such devices are now debunked means only one thing: they are not credible. They were either wilfully blind or deliberately misled the public. Pre-emptive strikes are nothing but pretexts to justify pointless military action. The US and the UK have nuclear weapons, that's a fact. The US and the UK have made overtly hostile actions towards Iran, so using the same logic why is Iran precluded from launching a pre-emptive strike on the US or the UK? If Iran invaded Mexico in the name of regime change, what do think the US reaction would be? Negotiation is the answer not sabre-rattling or military incursions, political bluster on both sides is just that. People don't want wars.

[alienlovechild 75]

The fact that the CIA knew that Saddam did not have WMDs and forwarded those findings to the Bush Administration is fact. The fact that those who claimed that there were such devices are now debunked means only one thing: they are not credible. They were either wilfully blind or deliberately misled the public. Pre-emptive strikes are nothing but pretexts to justify pointless military action. The US and the UK have nuclear weapons, that's a fact. The US and the UK have made overtly hostile actions towards Iran, so using the same logic why is Iran precluded from launching a pre-emptive strike on the US or the UK? If Iran invaded Mexico in the name of regime change, what do think the US reaction would be? Negotiation is the answer not sabre-rattling or military incursions, political bluster on both sides is just that. People don't want wars.

The CIA knew it? No source?

The US and UK have nukes, is there a point here?

Hostile actions against Iran, are you kidding me?

Negotiation is the answer. Sometimes it is and sometimes it's not. Kuwait would be part of Iraq still thanks to people like you.

[mawilson 2,133]

When the general public predict, with accuracy, that the war

Fortunately, our governments rely on intelligence reports and not what "the general public predict".

[Danno 1,228]

When the general public predict, with accuracy, that the war was a whitewash, that there were no WMDs.

Still waiting to see one columnist, one Op=ed piece something that predated the invasion to back up your claim that there were questions about "IF" WMDs would be found.

[Danno 1,228]

QUOTE (IR5FORMUMSIE @ Jan 19 2010, 01:41 AM)

The fact that the CIA knew that Saddam did not have WMDs and forwarded those findings to the Bush Administration is fact. The fact that those who claimed that there were such devices are now debunked means only one thing: they are not credible. They were either wilfully blind or deliberately misled the public. Pre-emptive strikes are nothing but pretexts to justify pointless military action. The US and the UK have nuclear weapons, that's a fact. The US and the UK have made overtly hostile actions towards Iran, so using the same logic why is Iran precluded from launching a pre-emptive strike on the US or the UK? If Iran invaded Mexico in the name of regime change, what do think the US reaction would be? Negotiation is the answer not sabre-rattling or military incursions, political bluster on both sides is just that. People don't want wars.

Since The Clintons, Gore, the leaders of both parties all were in agreement, you must believe it was that one moment in history when all of Washington worked together seamlessly..... to go to war?

Edited January 19, 2010 by Danno

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

The CIA knew it? No source?

The US and UK have nukes, is there a point here?

Hostile actions against Iran, are you kidding me?

Negotiation is the answer. Sometimes it is and sometimes it's not. Kuwait would be part of Iraq still thanks to people like you.

Must I do all your homework for you?

1.National Security Directive 54, January 15, 1991. National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book Number 39, Operation Desert Storm: Ten Years After, January 17, 2001, Document 4.

2. Sharon A. Squassoni, Congressional Research Service, Iraq: U.N. Inspections for Weapons of Mass Destruction, October 7, 2003, pp. 13-14.

There are so many more papers published by not only outside sources but the CIA itself that it becomes a massive undertaking unto itself. Shall I go on? How about the Niger Uranium purchase that never was?

The US and the UK have nuclear weapons. They both send their boats up and down the coast occasionally strafing Iranian ships or otherwise crossing into Iranian waters. Hell, they shot down a Iranian civilian airliner on a commercial flight route. Can you imagine what would have happened if the Iranians mistakenly shot down an American Airlines flight. Hugging international boundaries and accidently straying into sovereign water is something that the Soviets did with us regularly and we did it with them. Can you say Gary Powers? It's a show of force and designed to test the readiness of the host nation. Will the UK or US use their nukes on Iran? I have no idea. The US strongly considered using nukes in Vietnam so why would anyone feel safe, let alone the Iranians. The missile crisis of 1962 is a classic case of US attempts to arrogate powers rather than use a world consensus. Cuba was legally justified as it broke no international law. The US in essence committed an act of war. The Soviets could have launched and they would have been in the right in defending their allies.

It is because of people like me that we haven't blown up the planet. You're an alien and have your own planet to go back to, I only have this one.

Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi oil reserves, according to the Iraqis. Realistically the Kuwaits helped fund the Iran-Iraq War and wouldn't forgive the debt, nor would they allow Iraq to increase world oil prices by cutting supply. Iraq was destroyed by the war with Iran and it needed to rebuild its ports, etc. Iraq was a pariah in the Arab World because it invaded Iran at the behest of the US. Look at the the US actions against Japan during 1941 led to Pearl Harbor, think about how most Americans felt about a pre-emptive strike on US soil. The US shut off oil to Japan in an effort to limit Japanese expansion and acquisition of raw materials. Japan acted in its strategic interests in an effort to control shipping in the Pacific. Should Iraq have invaded Kuwait, probably not, but it happened. A negotiated settlement for debt forgiveness could have easily been reached but the US didn't step up.

QUOTE (IR5FORMUMSIE @ Jan 19 2010, 01:41 AM)

The fact that the CIA knew that Saddam did not have WMDs and forwarded those findings to the Bush Administration is fact. The fact that those who claimed that there were such devices are now debunked means only one thing: they are not credible. They were either wilfully blind or deliberately misled the public. Pre-emptive strikes are nothing but pretexts to justify pointless military action. The US and the UK have nuclear weapons, that's a fact. The US and the UK have made overtly hostile actions towards Iran, so using the same logic why is Iran precluded from launching a pre-emptive strike on the US or the UK? If Iran invaded Mexico in the name of regime change, what do think the US reaction would be? Negotiation is the answer not sabre-rattling or military incursions, political bluster on both sides is just that. People don't want wars.

Since The Clintons, Gore, the leaders of both parties all were in agreement, you must believe it was that one moment in history when all of Washington worked together seamlessly..... to go to war?

Remember the Maine?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Fortunately, our governments rely on intelligence reports and not what "the general public predict".

Yes Mark Fortunately they are able to pick and choose which information to share to garner support (however knowingly flimsy it may be), and force the policy through via procedural technicalities rather than a plurality of opinion procured through a transparent democratic process.

Unfortunately, our governments lied to us and dragged us into a bloody, expensive, unnecessary mess in Iraq.

And yet for each new story that emerges that points unerringly toward the same conclusion - that intelligence was trumped up, that going to war in Iraq was predetermined as early as the last weeks of 2001 - there are deluded fools who continue insist that it was all above board.

Do us both a favor - and stop looking for an argument just for the sake of disagreement.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Still waiting to see one columnist, one Op=ed piece something that predated the invasion to back up your claim that there were questions about "IF" WMDs would be found.

Keep waiting. I don't care to scour the internet just to please you.

[Teacher Mark 53]

Still waiting to see one columnist, one Op=ed piece something that predated the invasion to back up your claim that there were questions about "IF" WMDs would be found.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm

Now I'm sure you'll debunk Scott Ritter, right?

[Ban Hammer 14,046]

Now I'm sure you'll debunk Scott Ritter, right?

i think he's been busy doing that all by himself.

[Teacher Mark 53]

i think he's been busy doing that all by himself.

He certainly has been busy, hasn't he?

[nowhereman 1]

REAlly this is a bunch of hind-sight silliness.

Had nothing been done and Sadam did have WDMS and they were then passed on to hostile groups which of course used them.... you would be singing a whole nuther tune.

I have asked many times before and I have yet to have one person show me one credible person who claimed Sadam did not have WMDS before we went in.

You are snipping over the wrong point of the matter.

The more relevant and useful question is: If Sadam or Iran has such weapons and we believe they or someone else will eventually use them to attack us... what do we do about it?

The question is whether or not Bush & company actually believed Iraq still had WMDs or it was used as an excuse to start a war on knowingly trumped up intel. I firmly believe that the Bush administration used WMDs as an excuse to start the war in Iraq, with the goal of establishing a strategic foothold in the middle east. Opinions are strong & emotions run deep about what the truth is & the best thing to do is agree to disagree on what the truth actually is (we may never know for sure).