The "revelations" about American and British cynicism over weapons of mass destruction continue

On the mobile units alledged to have been used for biological weapons, the New York Times reports that no trace of germs has been found. Analysts have said the mobile units were more likely intended for other purposes and charged that the evaluation process had been damaged by a rush to judgment.

The Washington Post reports:

"Bush Certainty On Iraq Arms Went Beyond Analysts' Views

During the weeks last fall before critical votes in Congress and the United Nations on going to war in Iraq, senior administration officials, including President Bush, expressed certainty in public that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons, even though U.S. intelligence agencies were reporting they had no direct evidence that such weapons existed.

In an example of the tenor of the administration's statements at the time, the president said in the Rose Garden on Sept. 26 that "the Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons. The Iraqi regime is building the facilities necessary to make more biological and chemical weapons."

But a Defense Intelligence Agency report on chemical weapons, widely distributed to administration policymakers around the time of the president's speech, stated there was "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has or will establish its chemical agent production facilities."

The disparities between the conviction with which administration officials portrayed the threat posed by Iraq in their public statements and documents, and the more qualified reporting on the issue by intelligence agencies in classified reports, are at the heart of a burgeoning controversy in Congress and within the intelligence community over the U.S. rationale for going to war. The failure of the United States to uncover any proscribed weapons eight weeks after the end of the war is fueling sentiment among some Democrats on Capitol Hill and some intelligence analysts that the administration may have exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq".

This situation could not be more serious. We were told to believe the judgement of the leaders of our so-called representative democracies (sorry, that doesn't apply to our US friends, who get the president with the money, not the votes). They told us that the war was based upon intelligence proving that WMD could be deployed in 45 minutes. This evidence is at best debatable, at worst fraudulent, and Blair and his cronies have resorted to evasion and undermining of the intelligence services, with John Reid (pah pah pah) claiming that rogue elements had briefed against the government.

Answers to Nothing. It's all convincing me to take a pacifist line, whatever the consequences.

Posted by nathan at June 7, 2003 07:39 AM

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: