The
Independent
London, Sunday, September 7, 2003 Britain and US
will back down over WMDs By Andy McSmith, Raymond Whitaker and Geoffrey
Lean Britain and the US have combined
to come up with entirely new explanations of why
they went to war in Iraq as inspectors on the
ground prepare to report that there are no weapons
of mass destruction there. 
David Irving
comments: WHATEVER these two
unsatisfactory and squealing statesmen may
now proclaim, my view remains unchanged.
The American-British aggression against
Iraq remains an unprovoked act of
aggression and meets all the criteria for
a war crime.
The fact that it
is unlikely to be punished in any way on
this earth does not alter this truth, but
may act as an encouragement to others to
emulate them in future.
Bush and Blair got away
with it, so why shouldn't they?
Tu quoque: the
forbidden phrase rang, unspoken, through
the corridors of the Palace of Justice at
Nuremberg in 1945 and 1946.  PS: An inquiry from a court-certified
anti-Semite: who can provide the original
family name of "weapons inspector" David
Kay? Is he another of the neo-cons? Was he
related perhaps to Danny Kaye? |
The "current and serious" threat of Iraq's WMD was
the reason Tony Blair gave for going to war,
but last week the Prime Minister delivered a
justification which did not mention the weapons at
all. On the same day John Bolton, US
Under-Secretary of State for arms control, said
that whether Saddam Hussein's regime
actually possessed WMD "isn't
really the issue".The 1,400-strong Iraq Survey Group, sent out in
May to begin an intensive hunt for the elusive
weapons, is expected to report this week that it
has found no WMD hardware, nor even any sign of
active programmes. The inspectors, headed by
David Kay, a close associate of President
George Bush, are likely to say the only
evidence it has found is that the Iraqi government
had retained a group of scientists who had the
expertise to restart the weapons programme at any
time. Foreshadowing the report, Mr Bolton said the
issue was not weapons, or actual programmes, but
"the capability that Iraq sought to have ... WMD
programmes". Saddam, he claimed, kept "a coterie"
of scientists he was preserving for the day when he
could build nuclear weapons unhindered by
international constraints. "Whether he possessed
them today or four years ago isn't really the
issue," he said. "As long as that regime was in
power, it was determined to get nuclear, chemical
and biological weapons one way or another. Until
that regime was removed from power, that threat
remained - that was the purpose of the military
action." Last week Mr Blair declared at his Downing
Street press conference: "Let me say why I still believe Iraq
was the right thing to do
[sic] and
why it is essential that we see it through. If
we succeed in putting Iraq on its feet as a
stable, prosperous and democratic country, then
what a huge advertisement that is for the values
of democracy and human rights, and what a huge
defeat it is for these terrorists who want to
establish extremist states." He added that if anyone were to ask the average
Iraqi whether they would prefer to be still living
under the old regime, "they would look at you as if
you were completely crazy". This contrasts starkly with what the Prime
Minister said in his speech to the Commons on 18
March, the day when MPs voted to endorse the
decision to go to war. Then Mr Blair asserted, "I have never put the justification for
action as regime change." Just as Britain and the US send more troops to
Iraq and seek international help to restore
stability, it has emerged that Mr Blair, almost
alone among leaders of major nations, is to stay
away from the opening of the UN General Assembly
later this month. The development is bound to
increase the Prime Minister's isolation following
his decision to join the US in going to war without
a UN resolution, and has led to speculation that he
is reluctant to leave the country at a time when
his conduct is under examination in the Hutton
inquiry. Downing Street yesterday refused to comment on
the grounds that it does not disclose the Prime
Minister's movements in advance. But this has not
applied to other international summits, where his
attendance has been announced well in
advance. 
David
Irving: "Nuremberg, the Last
Battle" (free book
download)-
|
![[]](../../std/dings/list.gif){kind=small}
write to David
Irving