Iraq inquiry: Tony Blair told ‘days before invasion’ WMD had been dismantled

[sabra]

Source: UK telegraph

Tony Blair received intelligence that Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction had been “dismantled” 10 days before Britain invaded Iraq, the inquiry into the 2003 war has been told.

The Foreign Office did not believe Iraq had nuclear missiles, but Mr Blair told parliament that Saddam was a threat to security in the Middle East because he still had chemical and biological weapons which could be launched at 45 minutes’ notice.

However, Sir William Ehrman, director of international security at the Foreign Office from 2000 to 2002, told the inquiry: “We were getting in the very final days before military action some (intelligence) on chemical and biological weapons that they were dismantled and (Saddam) might not have the munitions to deliver it.

“On March 10 we got a report saying that the chemical weapons might have remained disassembled and that Saddam hadn’t yet ordered their re-assembly and he might lack warheads capable of effective dispersal of agents.”

...

Sir William was asked by Sir Lawrence Freedman, one of the Iraq Inquiry’s five panel members, why the last-minute intelligence did not lead to an urgent re-assessment of the decision to go to war.

...

Sir William replied: “There was contradictory intelligence, so I don’t think it invalidated the point about what weapons he had. It was more about their use. Even if they were disassembled the (chemical or biological) agents still existed.”

The inquiry also heard that ministers were warned there were “huge” gaps in the UK's intelligence about Iraq's WMD programmes.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/6652310/Iraq-inquiry-Tony-Blair-told-days-before-invasion-WMD-had-been-dismantled.html

[snot]

1. It seemed clear to me

the main driver of the timing of the invasion was to make sure we invaded BEFORE the UN inspectors could complete their inspection.

[Javaman]

10. of course it was.

the last thing moron* and the poodle wanted was someone gumming up the invasion with facts.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

20. No.

Never.

[Ghost Dog]

25. Too late.

There was no Security Council resolution.

Illegal aggression.

[Downwinder]

2. "Don't confuse me with the truth." n/t

[DavidDvorkin]

3. Realistically, what might the result of this inquiry be for Blair?

Will he escape entirely?

I also wonder if the results will be reported in the US press, and if so what the effects will be.

[Downwinder]

4. Another casualty of the "Coalition of the willing." n/t

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. He might lost his 2 million a year gig at J.P. Morgan Chase.

The JPMorgan/Chase CEO, Dimon, is hoping to replace Geithner.
Dimon "hired" Blair in 2008 to be an "adviser", at 2 mil a year.
If Blair becomes too hot in the news, that might be trouble for Dimon's WH goals.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

8. of course he will escape entirely

The only people "accountable" for things like this are the puppet regimes we install and then overthrow a few years later. Blair will continue on the same way he always has: using his calculated boyish smile to dupe the masses into providing him with a life of power and luxury. Accountability is for poor and brown people.

[peacetalksforall]

38. "Accountability is for poor and brown people." Truth on Thanksgiving morning.

[Ghost Dog]

26. You are joking, right?

Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war incapable of deciding on legality – judges
# Afua Hirsch, legal affairs correspondent
# guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 November 2009 22.25 GMT

The Chilcot inquiry is incapable of addressing the key issue of whether the invasion of Iraq was legal, senior judicial figures have said, adding to the controversy surrounding the inquiry's legitimacy.

The inquiry into one of the most contentious political decisions of modern times begins hearing evidence tomorrow, and its chairman, Sir John Chilcot, has insisted that the legality of the invasion in 2003 will be one of the key issues it addresses.

But one senior judge told the Guardian that analysing the war's legality was beyond the panel's competence.It does not include a single judge or lawyer.

"The truth of the matter is, if the inquiry was going to express a view with any kind of authority on the question of legality, it would need a legal member and quite a senior one," the judge said. "Looking at the membership … it seems to me that legality just wasn't going to be a question they would be asked to review."

Another senior legal figure said: "The panel clearly lacks the expertise to address the question of legality. The members are not experienced at cross-examination – it is simply not their skill set."

The criticisms come after the chairman of the inquiry has been repeatedly forced to defend its approach amid claims that the process is a "whitewash".

There have been repeated calls from influential legal and judicial figures for an investigation into whether the invasion of Iraq was illegal, including the former senior law lord Lord Bingham, who last year reiterated that it was "a serious violation of international law".

Sir John Chilcot, a former senior civil servant who was criticised for adopting a "light touch" in some aspects of his questioning during the Hutton inquiry and whom critics regard as having strong links with the establishment, appeared to acknowledge demands for an investigation of legality recently by confirming that Tony Blair, and possibly the former attorney general Lord Goldsmith, would be called to give evidence.

But scrutiny of the panel's lack of experience on law and cross-examination techniques raises questions about the willingness of the government, which established the inquiry, to look seriously at whether the government acted illegally.

"Some of the debates around the legality of the war are quite sophisticated – it is not all clear-cut," the senior legal figure said. "It's going to be very difficult to deal with someone like Blair without a panel experienced in cross-examination.".

"Looking into the legality of the war is the last thing the government wants," said the judge. "And actually, it's the last thing the opposition wants either because they voted for the war. There simply is not the political pressure to explore the question of legality – they have not asked because they don't want the answer."

/... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/23/chilcot-inquiry-iraq-war

Rule Britannia.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

27. maybe someone should tell the press?

[Prophet 451]

29. Depends how you look at it

The inquiry doesn't have the power to prefer legal charges so the chances of Blair being jailed are, sadly, nil (although I hold out hope for a Hague trial). However, the exposure of his duplicity would almost certainly scupper his bid for the EU presidency, might lead to the loss of his MorganChase gig and will ensure history will remember him as a dishonest warmonger.

[Diclotican]

6. sabra

sabra

This was something we, who was against the Iraq war, understand long before the invation was underway. Not just days before the war, but months maybe year before US and UK was going to war, we got it...

And who know have happend if the UN innspection have shown that Iraq dosent was in breatch of something UN had told them to do?.. What if the inpection have proved withouth doubt that Iraq in 2003 dosen't had WMD in any form...

Then mr Bush and the whole administration have been shown as what they was, war mongers... And he maybe been a failed President...

We had it right we who was againt the war, and every one of them who was for it wrong... Dam f***** wrong

It is allmoust a good feeling, if it was not for the fact that a couple of million iraqis is dead as today, and thousands of americans is dead and wounded.. Not to tell that the economy in US is broke, and the economy wi be in the shitter for a really long time.. But at least, US dosen't have mr Bush as the president, and that is a good idea..

Diclotican

[Ozymanithrax]

7. This could hurt Blair's desire to be EU President.

Cold evidence that he allowed an unnecessary war to be launched hurts his credibility and could open him to warcrimes accusations.

[go west young man]

12. He has already been passed over for that one.

[democrank]

9. Remember Bush`s sickening comedy routine about WMDs?

At some annual media event if I remember correctly. Big laughs from the corporate media audience as he pretended to look under furniture...."Nope, no WMDs here!"

Real funny, Junior Bush. Real funny, Tony Blair.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

[Michigan-Arizona]

31. I was livid when I seen him do that!

I also thought the rest of America would be to. I really thought the military family's would be up in arm's over it as well, I know I would have been fuming more so had I lost a family member from his stupid lies & war.

[Amonester]

11. Oh, the hypocrisy.

Every sane person in this world knows the dice were piped by the bu$h cabal and that they were all lying through their teeth.

Every sane person in this world knows that bLiar also lied, thousands died and millions suffered injuries they didn't have to go through.

Just ask the relatives of the other 25 people who've got wounded in yesterday's suicide attack in Karbala: they KNOW just that too.

How long will the billion sane persons in this world have to listen to that disgusting hypocrisy from the powers that be?

[go west young man]

13. Lies and deception plain and simple.

1 million dead, the world more unsafe, the U.S. and Britian disgraced. A trillion dollars down a hole in the desert. No accountability. Bush and Blair hurt us all more than Al Qaeda ever could.

[Soylent Brice]

14. K&R

[Hissyspit]

15. War Criminals.

[Solly Mack]

17. Yep

[newtothegame]

16. So Sadaam did have WMD's and they were disassembled 10 days before? Is that's what this is saying?

[Bragi]

18. Intelligence to this effect was received 10 days before the invasion /NT

[winyanstaz]

35. no...it is saying that Blair was TOLD ten days before the invasion....

Saddam could have disassembled them long ago..in fact...as they have found NO wmds.....I doubt if he had any to disassemble left over from his other wars.

[RedCloud]

19. That's it! Off with his head.

No more blood for oil.

[winyanstaz]

21. Both England and America knew damned well the reasons they made up for war was a lie..

[JohnyCanuck]

34. "protect overseas investments and control the strategic materials"

Today Britain continues to export capital on a scale unmatched by any other country apart from the United States. By 2006 British capital assets overseas were worth the equivalent of 410 per cent of Britain's GDP. This is the highest of any major capitalist economy. Much of this investment is in the United States and Europe, but a significant amount continues to be invested in extractive industries in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America. An even greater amount of money from abroad (mainly US) is invested in British financial and industrial companies, many of them now under external ownership. It is this interlocking of capital between the UK and the much stronger US economy which helps to bind UK and US foreign policy together. Britain's oil and gas giants, its mining companies and its arms manufacturers have a powerful and ongoing relationship with government and an effective lobbying influence in the office of successive Prime Ministers.

All of these strands come together with the drive for 'energy security' by the US and UK governments. It is the desire to protect overseas investments and control the strategic materials such as oil, gas and minerals that drive the foreign and defence policy of both countries. Britain no longer has the global military reach to defend its overseas investments. Increasingly it depends on the United States for this. The unwritten agreement is that, in return, the British government supports US policy around the world. The same is true for Britain's biggest arms manufacturer, BAE Systems. It has grown rapidly in recent years to become the second biggest arms manufacturer in the world, mainly through the acquisition of other US companies. It now gets more business from the Pentagon than the MoD. UK support for America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan certainly helps to oil the wheels of the UK arms business.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16210

[Hubert Flottz]

22. Sorry, but the rich and famous get away with murder again...

Tony is safe and rich and that's all that matters to Tony.

[Bragi]

23. Good for the Brits

Good to see the Brits are able to see the importance of exposing what happened.

And Obama?

[rateyes]

24. And, why have we not pursued officials in the Bush Administration?

Gotta "look forward, not backward." :puke:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

28. 'heads should rolls'

[winyanstaz]

36. We have not looked because we have a corrupt Congress and president controlling this government...

The fact is...the President does NOT get to decide who is prosecuted in America or who is not. That is supposed to be the Judicial systems job.
Presidents do not get to decide who is pardoned until AFTER a trial.
Plainly we do not have a Judicial system that is doing its job either.

[rateyes]

37. Ford pardoned Nixon. No trial.

But these guys don't get a formal pardon---just never get investigated.

[zbdent]

30. I distinctly remember the constant RW points of how we "liberals" were going

to be sorry when our troops were hit by the chemical weapons of mass destruction ...

and practically at the same time, we were being told that Saddam Hussein had hidden the WMDs in some other country ...

:silly:

[MisterP]

33. just like America was going to be sorry when Nicaragua invaded Texas

(yes, that stupid twat Reagone said they were 2 days from invading Texas)

[NRaleighLiberal]

32. They just did a nice job covering this on PBS Newshour.

The hubris of Blair (and Bush, of course) - is breathtaking.

They are murderers walking amongst us. Plain and simple.

[peacetalksforall]

39. Once again we are focusing on the facilitators, not the barons. These people.

Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and the thousands of aides did not design and execute this for themselves, they did it for the barons. Why do we not recognize this and say it.

The barons found the best people around. The best people around were ruthless cheats who were in charge of a military and ruthless and spineless politician-liars.

The barons found them and used them for decades and really ratcheted it up in the 90's in preparation for the 2000's, specifically 2000 (votes), 2001 (event), 2002-3 (push), 2004 (vote).

There big mistake - torture. Thousand of lives of normal families might have been passed over and treated with contempt and little notice. The ungodly torture couldn't be passed over as hard as some try.

The barons, people - it is a polticial farce to think it is the politicians/military brass. They are the servents at a high level. The reality is that those in power today voted for that war. It looks like I may never be able to forgive them.

But, put of the rubble, I got heroes. Paul Wellstone, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich and some others.

We don't know which heroes we will end up with. People need heroes, not barons bent on making us serfs.

What a delicate game they are playing - bringing us down to a second-third country, but stopping the descent at a place thet they have determined is necessary to protect their safety and their commerce.

It's not about Dems=Repubs or the British equivalent, it's about the Barons. And some like Blair, who doesn't getto become a Baron, but lives like one.

Bankers, investors, stockholders, heads of foundations have owned us on behalf of the Barons. Their most lethal aides are who we talk about while they go on with their agenda.

[stlsaxman]

40. Three important words missing from this entire thread: DOWNING STREET MEMO.

Was the Bush/Cheney Memory Hole THAT efficient?

:eyes: - "Jesus Fucking Christ!"

[LynnTheDem]

41. 1. No, they didn't "still existed"; 2. The vast majority of the world knew MONTHS before the illegal

invasion of Iraq that there were no "wmd".

3. ILLEGAL. INVASION.