Re: [OpenHeroQuest] Vote RRRRRRRRRRRRR !!!!!!!!!

From: Graham Robinson <graham_at_Faj6ky1J4q9dhDUOJyDh4dEAnZl_4NqSHaJiMv4cE9KeYvXCfQOnfqkBwxcNbVg0UrChs>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:51:24 +0100

> >But it's quite clear now that the Brits (at least) _knew_ that Iraq had
> >no WMDs, and no serious WMD programmes. Even ex-Cabinet
> >Ministers who were in the know are saying it !!
>
>Untrue. What Robin Cook said was that Blair had told him (or agreed
>or even simply nodded depending on what papers you read) that Iraq
>had no usable WMDs five or so months after the September Dossier.

Oh come on. Even John Scarlett (head of the Joint Intelligence Committee) has admitted that the "45 minute" claim only ever related to ordinary munitions. In other words, Blair's statement in the foreword to the September dossier that "military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them" was known to be a lie before the document was published.

>Which does not rule out a furtive program existing. Since the Iraqis
>were being far less than fully co-operative (i.e. co-operating in process
>but not in substance as Hans Blix put it), this is not evidence that
>the program never existed.

But no program has been found since, either.

> >The chief non-nuclear UN weapons expert
> >Hans Blix also stated his strongly felt opinion that Iraq had no WMDs or WMD
> >programmes before the war, etc.
>
>He didn't state that before the war though.

He stated that given another six months to a year, he could prove that Iraq had no WMD or WMD programs...

> >Saddam destroyed all of his weapons. er, that's it.
>
>So why didn't he co-operate with the Weapons Inspectors and showing
>them what they asked for? If he had also destroyed the documentation,
>Hans Blix gave him a list of other stuff that could be provided in lieu.
>Iraq provided none of those things.

One. Hussein's control of Iraq relied on him being in charge. If he rolled over too quickly, the Iraqis would destroy him. If he rolled over too slowly, the Americans would (and did). It was a difficult balancing act, and one he got wrong.

Two. "Iraq provided none of those things." Bullshit. There was substantial co-operation from the Iraq government. A lot less than total co-operation, but with time all the evidence may have been presented. Bush's timetable means we'll never know.

>Neither did Afghanistan. What a false security that turned out to be.

You keep mentioning Afghanistan. Presumably you fail to realise that Al Qaeda is an organisation that does not rely on the association with any country to survive - as the fact that the campaign against Afghanistan has failed to damage Al Qaeda's operational capacity should amply demonstrate.            

Powered by hypermail