Sorry, someone has to be the man in the egg-stained tie

[cal04]

The ISG report should prompt fury about the war, not yawns


We need to strive hard to see through this cloud of smoke and remind ourselves of some basic facts about a war that has taken thousands of lives, allied and Iraqi. The warmakers always said Iraq had stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, and was close to getting its hands on nukes - and now we know that was not true. They said Iraq had refused to comply with UN resolutions demanding disarmament - that, indeed, was the legal basis of the war - and now we know that Iraq had complied in the only sense that mattered, having "essentially destroyed" its illicit weapons ability by the end of 1991, according to the report.


The UN charter allows for self-defence from an actual attack, not an intention. Even the advocates of pre-emptive war, a concept not permitted by the UN, agree there first has to be clear evidence of a threat, defined as intention plus capability. Mere intention is not enough. In other words, the ISG report does not provide sufficient evidence to meet even the most hawkish neocon's definition of legitimate war. On the contrary, it proves what the sceptics said all along: that containment worked and Saddam had been tamed. War was unnecessary.

Why does any of this matter? Euro obsessives always say Britain's future is at stake. Well, in this debate, it's the world's. If this war is allowed to pass with impunity, these will be the consequences. First, "pre-emptive" wars will be deemed acceptable, even against countries that palpably pose no threat. Second, international law will become a dead letter, to be broken by powerful states at will.

And third, in Britain, a precedent will be established. From now on, a prime minister will be able to mislead parliament and public on the gravest matter - and pay no price. He will be able to say something is "beyond doubt" when underlying intelligence for his assertion is packed with doubt - and get away with it. This is where we are now and why some of us will keep banging on about it - egg-stained tie or no.


http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1322604,00.html

[Briar]

1. More...

"To complete the process, this week's release of the report was controlled with magisterial spin. Rather than focus on the big picture - there were no WMD - much of the briefing has diverted media attention on to claims that Saddam intended to buy the favour of nations such as France, Russia and China, and individuals, including the expelled Labour MP George Galloway. That way the report can be used to discredit opponents of the war, rather than those who pushed for it.

"It's hardly a surprise that the ISG document includes these crumbs of comfort for London and Washington. After all, the Iraq Survey Group is not some independent or UN-affiliated body. It was, in fact, set up by the Bush administration, in preference to having Hans Blix and his team return to Iraq to finish their inspections. It operated as an arm of the CIA; its head, Charles Duelfer, first came to prominence as an appointee of President Bush's father.

"We need to strive hard to see through this cloud of smoke..."

In fact Duelfer was known in the inspection community to be obsessed with proving France and Russia's guilt - according to a former British diplomat interviewed on the BBC yesterday.

Once again the war criminals chose their own referee and benefited from his helpful slanting of the evidence.