Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war

[babylonsister]

This is the Englishman Wolf Blitzer interviewed this week. Info coming out with the publication of Carne Ross' book.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2076137.ece

Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war
By Colin Brown and Andy McSmith
Published: 15 December 2006

The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.

In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."

Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained".

He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said.

more...

[Wilms]

1. David Kelly

[Peace Patriot]

7. Yup! nt

[flyarm]

2. i saw that interview and cried..i thought ..now?? now you are telling this story wolfffffff..

i cried because i was so angry..DrKelly is dead..and the Downing street minutes was laughed at by wolf or ignored..and now?????????

if i knew this info 4 years ago..and that this war was all lies..what rock was wolf under?? oh wait ..he was under little lord pissy pants balls!!

fly

[AuntPatsy]

3. As well as the fact that he openly scoffed at the importane of the downing

street minutes at one time....the irony is not lost that far too many act as if they ever cared early on when they should have been more open to scrutinizing something that could have been important.

[Gregorian]

4. Who killed Dr. Kelly?

Recycled lies, manipulation of the media. All for corporate profits.

Wake up. It's time for a new direction.

We all knew this stuff! Hans Blix, Scott Ritter. What? Do they think they were lying? Get out of here!


edit-

[Zhade]

5. KICK

KICK

[Old and In the Way]

6. We'd never invaded if Saddam had theater nukes.

Bush waited for the "all clear" signal from the UN inspectors before he got his invasion underway. Not saying the UN was complicit, just that they did provide the evidence that Saddam was nuclear free. The cowardly Commander Guy and his cowardly War-profiteering VP Guy than proceeded their hostile takeover bid for Iraq National Oil.

[Peace Patriot]

8. Brilliant insight, Old and In the Way! I never thought of it quite like that.

But I had thought of their cowardice in attacking a country with no air force, after 12 years of crippling sanctions and "no fly" zone bombings. Easy pushover. Dirty Bush Cartel foothold in the Middle East.

But I hadn't thought about the sequence of events that you mention: The UN does its job. Crawls all over the place looking for WMDs. Finds none. THEN they invade. Just before that finding is fully articulated. No nukes. No other WMDs. Everything dismantled. No air force. A ragtag army of conscripts, often mere boys. (Iraqi army utterly destroyed in Gulf War I, and not much in resources to build it back up.) A hated dictator whom no one would mourn (except, just about now Iraqis are beginning to wonder if they weren't better off, on the whole, with Saddam's dictatorial hand squelching sectarian divisions and violence).

It's no wonder they don't want Iran to get nukes. Cuz that country is the other prize they want. Much better defended; much stronger economy; no apparent imperial ambitions (so, not despised the way Saddam was); and, with nukes, impregnable, except at a cost that truly would bring the American people into the streets, and would probably arouse the entire world against us (more than they already are--I mean, militarily). I also find Iran's desire for nukes understandable, in this context. I wish that general nuclear disarmament were back on "the table" (that table where things like impeachment of Bush/Cheney get taken "off," mysteriously). But, given the Bushites' cowardice--and their possible desperation, as the gears of American democracy begin slowly to grind, once again--and also given PAST US behavior toward Iran (destroying their democracy in 1954, and inflicting them with 25 years of torture and oppression under the horrible Shah)--if I were the Iranian people, I would be shit scared and looking to ANY defense that seemed feasible, and that helped to equalize things. Israel has nukes. And now the US has placed itself in Iran's direct neighbor country, right on its border, with a huge military machine, a naval fleet in the Gulf and many lethal weapons.

David Kelly (who was on the UN inspection team) once told Iraqi friends he had made, in their weapons industry, that, if they cooperate, there would be no invasion. That is what Iran is looking at. If they cooperate--and stop their nuke program--they will then be invaded by the chickenhawks in the White House. Given that precedent, they have no reason to cooperate, and, further, it is the positive duty of their leaders to prevent the same thing happening to them, that happened to Iraq. Show any "weakness" or cooperation, and massive numbers of your people will die, and your country will be destroyed.

A world made to order for bloody-minded chickenhawks and master thieves.