WMD claims were 'totally implausible' (UK Foreign Office diplomat)

[Barrett808]

WMD claims were 'totally implausible'
Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday June 20, 2005
The Guardian

A key Foreign Office diplomat responsible for liaising with UN inspectors says today that claims the government made about Iraq's weapons programme were "totally implausible".

He tells the Guardian: "I'd read the intelligence on WMD for four and a half years, and there's no way that it could sustain the case that the government was presenting. All of my colleagues knew that, too".

Carne Ross, who was a member of the British mission to the UN in New York during the run-up to the invasion, resigned from the FO last year, after giving evidence to the Butler inquiry.

He thought about publishing his testimony because he felt so angry. But he was warned that if he did he might be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act.

"There was a very good alternative to war that was never properly pursued, which was to close down Saddam's sources of illegal revenue", he says.

Mr Ross also says sanctions imposed against Iraq were wrong. "They did immeasurable damage to the Iraqi civilian population. We were conscious of that but we did too little to address it", he says.

(more)

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1510259,00.html

[tallahasseedem]

1. Nice.

Keep the punches coming. One is bound to land a knockout. Of course all of this depends on whether or not the MSM can grow a set of big ones.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

23. I'll be happy with a set...

big or otherwise.

[TxGran]

2. Weapon of Mind Deception

Do you think George Weapons of Mind Deception Bush cares. He seems to have gotten everything he wanted.

[Supersedeas]

5. Hell, the Frat Boy could care less--when is his next trike ride...(WMD)

[lovuian]

3. Food for Oil program was killing the Oil Industries!!!

had to get rid of Saddam!!!

[Burried News]

9. Never Thought of That, Very Good Point

Saddam was injuring OPEC. We went to war to defend a Cartel.

[TheFarseer]

4. Thank God for people like this speaking out

It is possible that the bush administration will be buried under an avalanche of such people. We can only hope.

Very interesting point about other alternatives like shutting down his illegal revenue.

[JohnyCanuck]

6. Ex Foreign Secretary Robin Cook speaking out as well.

From the Barbados Nation News:

Cook still cut up over Iraq war
Published on: 6/20/05.

by BERNARD BABB

A PROMINENT British politician who quit Tony Blair's cabinet because of a principled stance on what he calls "an unjustified war in Iraq" still questions the reasons put forward by the English Prime Minister.

Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook indicated this during the past week, while visiting Barbados as a guest speaker to the 2005 conference of the London-based Institute of Travel and Tourism.

<snip>

Cook told his audience, of more than 300 British travel professionals, that there was a deeper falsity in the war led on Iraq by American and British forces.

There was a decision made a year earlier, Cook said, to invade Iraq and the British people were never told. "They were telling us no decision had been made and the year was used to prepare the people of Britain."

More at:
http://www.nationnews.com/story/287277336793018.php

Free registration required, or use www.bugmenot.com

[passy]

8. I think he is the DSM leak!

He was in a position to attain all these documents.

[Up2Late]

7. Saddam switching his Oil sales to Euros didn't help either

So, If as they are now saying, "We all knew it was a Lie," isn't that Treason or some other "High Crime?":shrug:

[shantipriya]

10. WMD

Any average person could have arrived at this coclusion if he/she wanted to. With sanctions, no fly zones and inspectors,Saddam was nothing but a paper tiger .Then,to have believed that a country like Iraq was am imminent threat to the most powerful country was insane and absolutely shameful.
Besides, Saddam never used WMD when he had them and the reason to use them in the first war in 1991!!!!

[ieoeja]

11. This disagrees with the DSM

According to the DSM and all those other subsequent releases we saw, the Blair and Bush administrations believed WMDs did exist.

[Straight Shooter]

13. That's one way of looking at it.

OTOH, it's entirely possible, and I would submit it's probable, that bush and blair knew with 99.9% certainty there were no WMD. It was just their excuse, their rationale umbrella, because nothing motivates a population like fear.

[ieoeja]

15. If they knew otherwise...

"For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."


Then explain why, according to the DSM, they were discussing how Saddam might use the WMDs they "knew" did not exist?

[Barrett808]

17. It's possible they were thinking of the old WMDs from the '80s

Which would mostly be expired. Nobody who understood the issue believed there were new production facilities.

[ieoeja]

18. So they were worried Saddam would use expired weapons?

And what about this quote, "Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD"?

[Barrett808]

21. Maybe. "Was producing" is a bit ambiguous

"Was producing" contemporaneously (i.e., in 2003), or "was producing" in 1985?

I'm not really defending this position, just thinking it through. I think it's safe to assume that nobody at 10 Downing St. actually believed Saddam was about to produce nukes. But it is plausible to think they believed he had some mustard gas, for example.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

29. Who knows what they were worried about? The overwhelming...

...preponderance of evidence indicated that Iraq had absolutely no WMDs, and the NeoCons knew that to be true.

IMHO, I think you're concentrating on the wrong information contained in the memo and the six supporting documents.

[Frederik]

20. It is clear from the minutes

that they though Iraq's WMD "stockpile" was very small or non-existant. But you have to plan for every possibility. I think they thought there might well be some weapons there, but it was massively exaggerated.

[ieoeja]

22. True

They went in to change the culture, replace the anti-western school books, etc. Which could only work if we occupy the place and re-educate the populace through several generations. And even then there is no guarantee (re: Ireland).

[Spazito]

31. Here it is in a nutshell...

You need to read the WHOLE paragraph and post it otherwise you have taken it out of context:

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD.

It is the PM working it to try and find a way to sell it to the UN, it in NO way says he actually believes it.

Here, in a nutshell, is what it is all about, the three paragraphs preceding your 'clip' of a sentence:

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_2,00.html

(Please put a link to whatever you are quoting from, it makes it easier to understand what it is you are pointing to in it's totality, thanks!)

[Bread and Circus]

16. Not from what I have read. I think all knew they weren't there.

That's the point of the DSM.

[Frederik]

19. Not really

That's the NYT's spin on it. What was being said in the minutes was that Saddam's weapons capabilities were less than those of Iran, North Korea and Libya. Which is to say, close to zero.

[Selteri]

12. More truth about Whiners for Mass Deception

Beautiful article, it's all falling apart.

Things are going in a direction where nobody can really deny it.

[King Coal]

14. But, see, you're not getting it right.

In early 2001, Iraq was contained, had no WMD programs and the policy of containment was working. And don't forget, we and the UN had many sanctions against them so the administration, I think, has said to the American people that it is a generational commitment to Iraq. I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon. We're going to seek a peaceful solution to this. We think that one is possible. No one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. He's trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year. After September 11th, the White House had no prior knowledge that Al Qaeda was planning to hijack planes in a terrorist attack. Richard raised this issue about were we really sure that we wanted to put Iraq front and center at this point, given the war on terrorism and other issues. And I said, essentially, that that decision's been made, don't waste your breath.

[AceAlmighty82]

24. What need to do now...

is talk to this key FO diplomat and get him try tell his story regardless of the Official Secrets Act. I understand the act but this is beyond secrets...this can cost more people their lives and billions more in cash that we don't have. On a side note..who would be President and VP if all who lied and committed international war crimes be prosecuted? Kerry and Edwards? Or do we move on down the line of the Executive Order?

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. An article by him from January

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2005/0128stories.htm

[rebel holler]

25. George pissed off Tony

by ignoring global warming and Africa. It was soon thereafter that the leaks began.
Coincidence? I doubt it. Blair may not be directly behind the leaks, but I don't see him doing anything about them.
Looks to me like the FRAT BOY FROM HELL finally alienated his only real ally, and now he's paying the piper.

[wrate]

28. But how is he paying. I doubt he cares a bit about DSM or any of this.

What exactly do the U.S. need in order to put this guy in jail?

[struggle4progress]

27. I wish our British cousins would scrap the Official Secrets Act.

It's been screwing their democracy for decades ...

[jchristy2001]

30. WMD claims were 'totally implausible'

We all knew after "shock n' awe" that if Saddam had WMD's he would have used them on our troops when they were 6 days making their way across the desert to Baghdad...simple as that...

[Voltaire99]

32. Implausible? Not to John Kerry!

"I think Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that's why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him."

-- Kerry on NPR's All Things Considered, 3-19-03


The problem is that gullible centrists like Kerry swallowed the WMD bait hook, line and sinker.

Not because it was skillfully dangled before them; this was the Bush administration, remember, whom you had to be woefully ignorant or half-deranged to believe.

No, they swallowed because they're essentially imperialists, too. America uber alles requires believing in and promoting a lot of harmful rubbish, from the Wilsonian crap to the conjurations of WMDs in the desert.

So as certain hopeful Democrats rally around the DSM diversion, realize: it's a confirmation not merely of Bush's lies but the essential culpability of both political parties.

John Kerry, take a bow. You're a co-author of the unnecessary Iraq War.

[obxhead]

33. Damn.

Right before bed ya gotta drag me back in.
Iraq(gate) hope it goes half as deep as it needs to.
hope it gets a better name too :)

[demo dutch]

34. Listen to the French! They basically invented international diplomacy

Check out this interview with President Chirac in March 2003

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/France/MFA/france-mfa-chirac-031003.htm

[savemefromdumbya]

35. Remember Dr Kelly the scientist who 'committed suicide'

Yes and remember Colin Powell showing us all those photos of chemical WMDs on TV? What a blatant liar! How could he stand up there and lie for them? Most British MPs KNEW there wer eno WMDs remember the ludicrous statement by the British cabinet that one could zap us within 45 minutes? If Bush was so worried about human rights of Saddam why didn't he go for N Korea and Pakistan first where they do have Nukes?