| Author | Message | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 94 Registered: 8-2003 |
"The Guardian Why Tony went to war Terry Jones Sunday October 5, 2003 In his historic speech to the Labour Party Conference, at Bournemouth, the Prime Minister made an impassioned plea for those who attacked his decision to invade Iraq to 'at least understand why I took it and why I would take the same decision again.' He then offered us his reasons. And since it is of some importance to understand why our Prime Minister took this country into an unpopular and widely-opposed invasion of another sovereign state, it is worth quoting him at length: 'Imagine you are PM. And you receive this intelligence. And not just about Iraq. But about the whole murky trade in WMD. And one thing we know. Not from intelligence. But from historical fact. That Saddam's regime has not just developed but used such weapons gassing thousands of his own people. And has lied about it consistently, concealing it for years even under the noses of the UN Inspectors. 'And I see the terrorism and the trade in WMD growing. And I look at Saddam's country and I see its people in torment ground underfoot by his and his sons' brutality and wickedness. So what do I do? Say "I've got the intelligence but I've a hunch its wrong?" Leave Saddam in place but now with the world's democracies humiliated and him emboldened?' So let me get this straight, because, as one of the millions who opposed invading Iraq, I'm keen to understand why Tony took that decision. First he received 'some intelligence'. Apparently whatever this 'intelligence' was it wasn't just about Iraq. Fair enough, although if it wasn't about Iraq you wonder what its relevance is to dropping bombs on Iraqis. Anyway it turns out there was another piece of 'intelligence' (as opposed to the first bit of intelligence) and this was about a 'trade' in Weapons of Mass Destruction. However the Prime Minister doesn't know much about this trade because all he tells us about it is that it is 'murky'. So far I don't quite see how any of this has any bearing on his decision to attack Iraq. Doubtless he is about to explain. But wait a minute! Suddenly the Prime Minister of Great Britain is very keen to bring us onto firmer ground. Let's forget about vague things like 'intelligence' or some 'murky' trade that we don't know much about. Let's get down to a solid fact - 'one thing we know' - something based not on 'intelligence' but on 'historical fact'. We can trust this one. This must be the key reason for going to war. And what is it? It's that Saddam Hussein has gassed thousands of his own people. And not only that. He's lied about it! So that's why Tony Blair decided to drop bombs on the Iraqi people - because Saddam Hussein gassed them twelve years ago. But Tony's explanation of why he bombed Iraq isn't over yet. He tells us: 'I see the terrorism and the trade in WMD growing.' And how is this connected to Iraq? He elucidates: 'And I look at Saddam's country and I see its people in torment ground underfoot by his and his sons' brutality and wickedness.' The only connection Tony offers us is that he sees all these three things. Simple as that! Tony sees terrorism, he sees WMD and he sees Saddam's brutality and hey presto! Without troubling to make any other connection between them he decides to invade Iraq. Of course, he makes no connections between terrorism, WMD and invading Iraq because there is none. But there is another connection. In invading Iraq Tony Blair has done the opposite of what he claims he intends to do in all three spheres. In invading Iraq he has increased the threat of global terrorism - in fact his Intelligence Agencies advised him that would happen before he decided to drop his bombs. In invading Iraq he has done nothing to stop 'the murky trade in WMD'. Iraq has never been a seller of arms, it has always been a buyer. It is Britain and the US who are the murky traders. In invading Iraq he has replaced the brutality of Saddam with the brutality of an uncomprehending invading army. He has replaced the repression of Saddam Hussein with lawlessness and chaos. As someone who attacks his decision to invade a country that was no conceivable threat to Britain, I do now understand why Tony Blair took his decision. By his own account he took it for no good reason at all - other than the vacuous, incoherent ramblings of a demagogue." http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/ 0,2763,1056423,00.html | ||
| Amir (Amir)
Junior Member Username: Amir Post Number: 200 Registered: 2-2003 |
Does anyone else agree that it's Dave's internet? | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 91 Registered: 8-2003 |
Thx, Art. Before Bush managed to convince Americans through lies and deception that Saddam was behind 9/11, had ties to Al Qaeda and posed a huge and imminent threat to the USA, none of which was true, a full 70% of Americans were against this war. Later people fell for Bushs lies, and nowadays it's 70% who believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, lol. Lotsa soldiers and Iraqis to have died for a war based on lies, and which has been as counter productive as it gets. National security wise, financially for a bankrupt nation, alliance wise, etc. Although I'm convinced Bush has had it, what with recent polls showing thirteen months before the 2004 election that a solid majority of Americans say the country is seriously on the wrong track, but still Bush needs to be impeached for, and charged with, war crimes and for having lied to his citizens. Best, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/03 /national/03POLL.html | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2704 Registered: 6-2001 |
Telson & kds: bottom line, they knew. Telson is upset, kds thinks its ok. I tend to side with Telson here: its one thing if our country agreed to invade Iraq, knowing that the claims were false, or for another reason. When we as a nation decide to go to war, we should have good reasons, and my personal opinion is that this country would not have gone to war in Iraq over the issues now being touted. kds and I differ on that issue. Telson has apparently done his research, and if you deduct the cartoons (some of which are funny, a reverse Dave, so to speak)his arguments do set forth the facts, their location, and the source material. Art | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 89 Registered: 8-2003 |
 Kds, I wouldn't a believe a word you say after your ridiculous claim at just the right time that you were an intelligence officer, as for your offer to send photos on the web, etc, well, lol. Photo Shop, what. If this board had an ignore function as some do you'd be the first person to go on ignore for me. Somebody who quite plainly is too unintelligent and to mentally twisted beyond all what can be termed normal to be able to comprehend the FACT, after all that was written here, that Bush is a fraud and a liar, when the Administration THEMSELVES have admitted to lies is just to embarrassing an intellectual suicide on your behalf to have to witness. Bye bye Kds, sweet dreams in never never land, lol. "The Guardian How Blair was puzzled by his predicament on the eve of war with Iraq Cook's diaries expose dilemma of PM and claim he knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction before conflict began Ewen MacAskill and Richard Norton-Taylor Monday October 6, 2003 The Guardian The most damning claim in the diaries of the former foreign secretary, Robin Cook, serialisation of which began yesterday, is that Tony Blair knew two weeks before the war began that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. It is a serious charge: that a government would commit the lives of its soldiers on a false premise. A similar charge was made on May 29 by the BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan. In the months that followed Gilligan's report, No 10 and its director of communications, Alastair Campbell, relentlessly fought the charge in a battle with the BBC that only ended with the death of Dr David Kelly, in July. No 10 yesterday issued a flat denial of Mr Cook's claim but it has learned hard lessons from its confrontation with the BBC and, with Mr Campbell gone, has no desire to embark on another mammoth and debilitating battle. The excerpts from Mr Cook's diary over the last two years provide one of the most coherent accounts yet of how Mr Blair went to war. Among key insights are: 1) The degree of early opposition within the cabinet to war with Iraq Mr Cook recounts a cabinet meeting in February 2002 in which the home secretary, David Blunkett, asked for a discussion on Iraq. Mr Cook argued in cabinet that the rest of the Arab world, who saw the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, rather than the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, as the problem, would not understand the obsession with Iraq. "Somewhat to my surprise this line provides a round of 'hear, hearing' from colleagues, which is the nearest I heard to mutiny in the cabinet." He also tells of how Mr Blunkett questioned at another cabinet meeting on March 5 the same year whether there was a legal basis for action against Iraq; and Estelle Morris, then education secretary, on September 23 last year asked what had changed in Iraq to make war against it imminent, other than the election of George Bush. But these queries were isolated incidents, according to Mr Cook, and the only subsequent opposition came from himself and Clare Short, the international development secretary. 2) Scepticism within the Foreign Office about war with Iraq Although Mr Cook was demoted by Mr Blair in 2001 from foreign secretary to leader of the house, he retained his contacts at the Foreign Office. He wrote in his diaries that he could not find any of his old contacts at the Foreign Office who could see what had changed in Iraq to justify war. The Foreign Office consistently in private opposed war, preferring to continue with what it accepted was a flawed but preferable option, containment through sanctions and US and British air patrols over Iraq. 3) Blair and Iraq's conventional weapons capability In September 4 last year, Mr Cook records Mr Blair telling him: "Given the poor state of his conventional forces, it is not surprising that he wants to get his hands on nuclear weapons." That is a telling admission. Saddam's conventional forces were presented by the British government as the biggest in the Middle East, other than Israel, and a threat to its neighbours. 4) The government dossier on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction Mr Cook recalls that on the dossier's day of publication, September 24, he was surprised "that there was so little new material in it. There is no new evidence that I could find of a dramatic increase in threat requiring urgent invasion". Mr Cook was in a better position than most to judge, having as foreign secretary read all the intelligence assessments on Iraq between 1997 and 2001. 5) The Brown-Blair relationship In a passage separate from the war coverage, Mr Cook confirms the oddity of the relationship between Mr Blair and his chancellor, Gordon Brown. Mr Cook describes how on December 10 last year even Mr Blair claimed to have no idea what the chancellor was proposing on the five economic tests that would open the way for a referendum on the euro. Mr Blair said: "Even the Treasury officials can't find out what's going on over the economic assessment, never mind us here at No 10." While Mr Brown has said little in public about Iraq, Mr Cook recalls that at a cabinet meeting on March 10 this year - 10 days before war - Mr Brown "launched a long and passionate statement of support for Tony's strategy". 6) The Blair-Bush relationship Mr Cook's view is that Mr Blair hoped in the autumn of last year that war could be avoided and even in December, when Mr Cook mentioned war, Mr Blair "held up a hand with two fingers crossed and interjected: 'It may not come to that'." In the end though, Mr Blair, faced with a choice between fulfilling an implicit promise to Mr Bush or siding with the British public, opted for the former. 7) Blair and the WMD threat Mr Cook tells of a personal briefing on February 20 this year by John Scarlett, head of the joint intelligence committee, which assesses raw intelligence. He praised Mr Scarlett for an account that was "shorn of the political slant with which No 10 encumbers any intelligence assessment". Mr Cook added: "My conclusion at the end of an hour is that Saddam probably does not have weapons of mass destruction in the sense of weapons that could be used against large-scale civilian targets." This supports those who claim that the government misled the public when it published its Iraq dossier, which appeared to suggest that the weapons of mass destruction could be delivered by ballistic missiles in 45 minutes. Mr Cook discussed Mr Scarlett's assessment with Mr Blair on March 5, at which point the prime minister appeared to agree that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction that could be used long-range, only battlefield ones. Mr Cook recalled Mr Blair telling him that, given the extent to which Saddam had gone to conceal these battlefield weapons, it would be "difficult for him to assemble them quickly for use". 8) The final days Mr Cook recalled a meeting with Alastair Campbell on March 14 in Downing Street, when Mr Campbell told him Mr Blair was to fly to the Azores for a meeting on the Sunday with Mr Bush "and made no bones about the fact that this was to seal the plans for war next week". This runs counter to what Downing Street was briefing at the time, claiming that war was not inevitable and it was not a war summit. 9) Cook's resignation Mr Cook presents the prime minister as having been either absurdly optimistic during the diplomatic negotiations at the UN in expecting France to come round, or in a state of self-denial. Mr Cook returned to the theme when he went in to see Mr Blair on Monday March 17, to resign from the cabinet: "I got the impression that he was a man who was genuinely puzzled as to how he had got into his present dilemma." Mr Cook's analysis is that the prime minister had assumed the rest of the world would come round to his view of the menace presented by Saddam." http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/ 0,2763,1056761,00.html | ||
| Admiral Nelson (Cannonbaltrader)
New member Username: Cannonbaltrader Post Number: 1 Registered: 10-2003 |
                | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 278 Registered: 5-2003 |
Telson...... I offered to prove my military and UN service by sending photos to whoever wants them and they can be posted here. I again reiterate my offer. Anyways, the fact that I was ex-military, as I am sure some others here are also, means nothing other than I have insight that some do not. I was not a lawyer, therefore the lawyers here have insight that I do not and vice-versa. You blatantly cannot fathom the simple fact that I and the others here have blatantly rebutted your argument. You can either say "everybody who was quoted lied" or "everybody, including Blix was mislead by Saddam Hussein", but you cannot say that GWB lied. Regardless......you are now consigned to troll status in my books as evidenced by your numerous insults to me and others here when confronted with evidence that you cannot refute. Furthermore, when debating it is customary and expected to answer the questions posed to you, which you have failed to do on numerous occasions Therefore you are a troll...nothing more. Have a nice day. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 87 Registered: 8-2003 |
What a mind boggling example of Spin and Twisting Facts by you tiny minority handful of brainwashed rightwingers here, lol. As said many many times here before, there was never any "proof" that was presented for this war, as, indeed, none existed, and indeed many in the CIA, and a HUGE majority of other countries abroad were saying exactly so: no factual case for war existed ! When scrutinizing Bushs "case" for war the House Intelligence Committee came to the exact same conclusion. And, as is very obviously also borne out by the facts: the weapons ain't there. THAT is the point. That, and that US administration officials THEMSELVES admitted that WMD's were just a pretext for war, and Tony Blair who admitted knowing that Saddam posed NO threat. When you then still make claims like the following, you are, quite simply, LYING, and need to be impeached and locked up, lol: "We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." - Donald Rumsfeld, March 30 2003 10/06/02 Bush: Saddam Hussein could strike without notice and inflict "massive and sudden horror" on America. (AP, 10/6/02) When of course it was KNOWN in ADVANCE that that was BS on a mind boggling scale ! "A lack of intelligence The Sydney Morning Herald Australia's spies knew the United States was lying about Iraq's WMD programme. So why didn't the Government choose to believe them? Andrew Wilkie writes. 'Intelligence" was how the Americans described the material accumulating on Iraq from their super-sophisticated spy systems. But to analysts at the Office of National Assessments in Canberra, a decent chunk of the growing pile looked like rubbish. In their offices on the top floor of the drab ASIO building, ONA experts found much of the US material worthy only of the delete button or the classified waste chute to the truck-sized shredder in the basement.Australian spooks aren't much like the spies in the James Bond movies. Not many drink vodka martinis. But most are smart - certainly smart enough to understand how US intelligence on Iraq was badly skewed by political pressure, worst-case analysis and a stream of garbage-grade intelligence concocted by Iraqis desperate for US intervention in Iraq. It wasn't just the Australians who were mystified by the accumulating US trash. The French, Germans and Russians had long before refused to be persuaded by Washington's line. British intelligence agencies were still inclined to take a more conservative position. And the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, even went so far as to say during a late April interview that "much of the intelligence on which the capitals built their case seemed to have been shaky". Australian spooks aren't much like the spies in the James Bond movies. Not many drink vodka martinis. But most are smart - certainly smart enough to understand how US intelligence on Iraq was badly skewed by political pressure, worst-case analysis and a stream of garbage-grade intelligence concocted by Iraqis desperate for US intervention in Iraq. It wasn't just the Australians who were mystified by the accumulating US trash. The French, Germans and Russians had long before refused to be persuaded by Washington's line. British intelligence agencies were still inclined to take a more conservative position. And the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, even went so far as to say during a late April interview that "much of the intelligence on which the capitals built their case seemed to have been shaky".http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/ 30/1054177726543.html Or the CIA: "White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat' The Guardian Bush's televised address attacked by US intelligence President Bush's case against Saddam Hussein, outlined in a televised address to the nation on Monday night, relied on a slanted and sometimes entirely false reading of the available US intelligence, government officials and analysts claimed yesterday. "Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," said Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA's former head of counter-intelligence." http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/ 0%2C12271%2C807286%2C00.html Or the House Intelligence Commitee: "House Probers Conclude Iraq War Data Was Weak By Dana Priest Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, September 28, 2003; Page A01 Leaders of the House intelligence committee have criticized the U.S. intelligence community for using largely outdated, "circumstantial" and "fragmentary" information with "too many uncertainties" to conclude that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/ A10928-2003Sep27.html Bush KNEW that the case was nothing but BS. After all, the Administration themselves have admitted that they were lying to the US people when they claimed that Saddam posed an imminent threat: "WMD Just a Convenient Excuse for War, Admits Wolfowitz The Independent The Bush administration focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction as the primary justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force because it was politically convenient, a top-level official at the Pentagon has acknowledged. "For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine. The extraordinary admission comes in an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, in the July issue of the magazine Vanity Fair." http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/053103A.shtml | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 2943 Registered: 1-2002 |
Telson, get over yourself & your highest achievement in life: perfecting the cut & paste:  | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 626 Registered: 11-2002 |
Telson, you are a braindead idiot who cannot create an individual argument. KDS showed you proof that the Dems and Libs said the EXACT SAME THINGS that Bush has said, yet you don't call them a liar. WTF is your reason for being here, anyways? Nobody reads your re-posts of left-wing rags. Nobody buys any of your bullsh!t arguments. Why are you here? WHY??? Do you have even the slightest interest in F-Cars, or are you here simply to troll? | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 86 Registered: 8-2003 |
Kds, apart from Bush who lied about every single reason for this f+++++ up war another liar is you; and I'm really not interested in talking with people like you who need to hype their web credibility with obvious embellishments like your prior statement that you were an, lol, intelligence officer. Trust me, with your obvious total lack of intelligence and even the most basic comprehension skills that is one thing you never were. | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 277 Registered: 5-2003 |
Hmmmm....he seems stumped because he didn't have a cut and paste ready to poste in immediate rebuttal. Typical troll. In any event, I'm off to work, and when I get back Telson, I want to see your answer as to "who lied" before I go any further with you. You can start a new thread with the same issue as the one you were overwhelmingly defeated in before, but that does not make it any different this time around. "Who" lied Telson ??? Have a great day guys. | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 276 Registered: 5-2003 |
For a moment here I am going to side with Telson's argument....WMD's were a coverup for invading Iraq...there really were no WMD's..... To which I say......."so what" | ||
| Bruce Wellington (Bws88tr)
Advanced Member Username: Bws88tr Post Number: 3158 Registered: 4-2002 |
TELSON GO SMOKE SOME MORE CRACK................ | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 84 Registered: 8-2003 |
 When Al Qaeda attacked the United States in New York and Washington on September 11 2001 over 3000 people died. Yet, Bush diverted limited resources away from hunting down our attacker Al Qaeda, to launching an unprecedented pre-emptive and counter productive war of aggression against Iraq, a country that not only was a former ally but had also not attacked the United States, was not sponsoring Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda was in reality a natural enemy of Saddams regime, and Iraq most definitely did not pose the huge and imminent threat that Bush was constantly promising, a threat so huge that he didn't even let the weapons inspectors finish their excellent job before he attacked. Hardly anyone worldwide chose to believe Bushs key rationales for war that were based on nothing but Spin, Lies and Deceit, that have in effect totally squandered the worldwide sympathy and support we had after 9/11, acted as a massive recruiting drive for Al Qaeda, have sent a clear signal to other countries to beef up their weapons arsenals and that it's ok to attack other countries if you feel like it, reason or no reason, and have led to our isolation unlike during Gulf war 1, when, thanks to our enormous alliance back then, we had to pay no more than roughly 20% of the bill. In reality, of course, the Administration knew that Saddam did not pose a threat and was not linked to Al Qaeda: "Colin Powell Secretary of State. "But if the heart of your question is whether or not we see any complicity between Iraq and the events of Sept. 11 through Al Qaeda, we do not have that connection."" http://abcnews.go.com/sections/ nightline/DailyNews/powell_transcript021112.html "Powell 2001: WMDs Not Significant Asked about the sanctions placed on Iraq, which were then under review at the Security Council, Powell said the measures were working. In fact, he added, "(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place." http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/ 4119353.html "On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box"." http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/ content_objectid=13434081_method=full_ siteid=50143_headline=-THE%2DBIG%2DLIE-name_ page.html "Condoleeza Rice 2001: "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."" http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/ content_objectid=13434081_method=full_ siteid=50143_headline=-THE%2DBIG%2DLIE- name_page.html Wolfowitz, Prince of Darkness in Bushs evil Kingdom and, more importantly, the brains and chief strategist behind Bush's undemocratic neoconservative revolution, frankly admitted that WMD's were no more than a convenient excuse for war: "WMD Just a Convenient Excuse for War, Admits Wolfowitz By David Usborne The Independent Friday 30 May 2003 The Bush administration focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction as the primary justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force because it was politically convenient, a top-level official at the Pentagon has acknowledged. The extraordinary admission comes in an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, in the July issue of the magazine Vanity Fair. "For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Mr Wolfowitz tells the magazine. The comments suggest that, even for the US administration, the logic that was presented for going to war may have been an empty shell. They come to light, moreover, just two days after Mr Wolfowitz's immediate boss, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, conceded for the first time that the arms might never be found." http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/053103A.shtml  As bad as that is, it gets worse ! Now the published diaries of Robin Cook, British Prime Minister Tony Blairs former No. 2 man as Foreign Secretary and subsequent Leader of the House of Commons who resigned his posts over Blairs War Lies, reveal that Blair himself 'knew before war Saddam didn't have any usable weapons' !: "COOK: BLAIR KNEW WE HAD NO WAR EVIDENCE Oct 6 2003 Former Minister's Written Memoir of Destruction blasts PM saying Blair 'knew before war Saddam didn't have any usable weapons' By James Hardy, Political Editor TONY Blair knew Saddam Hussein had no usable weapons of mass destruction when he sent British troops into Iraq, Robin Cook claimed yesterday. He said the Premier was aware two weeks before the invasion that the Iraqi dictator could not launch a WMD attack within 45 minutes. And he accused Mr Blair of finding it "easier to resist the public opinion of Britain than the request of the US President". Downing Street fiercely denied the claims - made in Mr Cook's newly published diaries. But MPs from all parties immediately demanded a Hutton-style inquiry into the reasons we went to war. Mr Cook, who quit the Cabinet because of the war, said both Mr Blair and spy chief John Scarlett knew the main threat from Saddam - if one existed - was from short-range chemical artillery shells. After a briefing by Mr Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, Mr Cook wrote: "My conclusion at the end of an hour is that Saddam probably does not have weapons of mass destruction ... that could be used against large scale civilian targets." Two weeks later, on March 5, he challenged Mr Blair on the issue. He said he told Mr Blair it was clear from the briefing that Saddam could not fire long-range WMD at other countries "but probably does have several thousand battlefield munitions. Do you never worry that he might use them against British troops?' " Mr Blair said: "Yes - but all the effort he has had to put into concealment makes it difficult for him to assemble them quickly for use." Mr Cook said it showed that even if Mr Blair believed the 45 minutes claim when the September 2002 dossier was published, "what was clear from this conversation was that he did not believe it himself in March". He said the exchange left him "deeply troubled" about the reasons for going to war. "If No10 accepted that Saddam had no real WMD which he could credibly use against city targets, and if they themselves believed he could not reassemble his chemical weapons in a credible timescale for use on the battlefield, just how much of a threat did they really think he represented?" And he wrote: "I am certain the real reason he went to war was that he found it easier to resist the public opinion of Britain than the request of the US President." Downing Street said: "The idea that the Prime Minister ever said that Saddam Hussein did not have WMD is absurd. Robin Cook's views are well known and have been expressed many times before." But senior Labour, Tory and Lib Dem figures said the diaries provided proof that the country was misled. Labour MP Alice Mahon said: "This vindicates those of us who have been calling for an independent judicial inquiry into the reasons we went to war. We were told by the Prime Minister very clearly that there was a clear and present danger." Ex-Defence Minister Peter Kilfoyle said: "If Saddam did not have WMD and our leaders knew, why did we go to war?" Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said: "If these allegations are true they are explosive. "We we need an inquiry headed by a judge to look into the question of whether we went to war on a flawed prospectus, either because of inadequate intelligence or the mishandling of intelligence once obtained." Former Tory Foreign Secretary Lord Douglas Hurd said it was clear Mr Blair's case for war was wrong. "The main cause, very clearly stated, was that we and the world were under threat from weapons of mass destruction which he possessed and which were organised to attack us maybe in 45 minutes. "That is now turning out simply not to be true." Robin Cook's devastating charge that Blair went to war when he knew Iraq had no banned weapons - and posed no threat - blasts a massive hole in the Prime Minister's credibility." http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/ content_objectid=13483658_method=full_ siteid=50143_headline=-COOK%2D%2 DBLAIR%2DKNEW%2DWE%2DHAD%2DNO%2DWAR% 2DEVIDENCE-name_page.html   |