Britain admits error over Iraq threat amid demands for apology

[JoFerret]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041013/wl_afp/iraq_britain&cid=1512&ncid=1480

LONDON (AFP) - The British government formally withdrew one of the key arguments it had used for invading Iraq (news - web sites), as it faced demands in parliament for a "full apology" on how it presented the case for war.

However, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw stoutly defended his government's decision to join the US-led conflict as he was grilled by MPs following a new US report showing Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) possessed no banned weapons at the time.


"Although we can now see that some of the intelligence was wrong, I continue to believe the judgments we made and the actions we took were right," Straw told the House of Commons.


Given Saddam's suspicious behavior toward United Nations (news - web sites) arms inspectors and the intelligence then available, Straw said it would have required "a huge leap of faith" to give the Iraqi dictator the benefit of the doubt.


<more>

[Toby109]

1. F*cking Wanker.

Just what kind of proof is going to justify war in the future? Suspicious behavior? This shit has got to stop. Now.

[kslib]

2. They're wasting their time

governments don't give apologies, or at least ours doesn't! :eyes:

[realFedUp]

3. Enabler

to Bush's Cons.

[daleo]

4. He has it entirely backwards, of course

It was the Blair/Bush policy that required the "huge leap of faith". That is generally what it means to take drastic action with little or no evidence base to back it up. It often ends in disaster, as it has in this case.