WMD just a convenient excuse?

[FAQ]

The Bush administration focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction as the primary justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force because it was politically convenient, a top-level official at the Pentagon has acknowledged.

The extraordinary admission comes in an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary.

Taken from here.

[Ghostdog]

There is also a problem with the United Kingdom. I read a short news in a French newspaper saying that a deputy attacks Tony Blair to have lied to the gouvernment and to the people. The deputy says that Tony Blair did a false report (it took a report of the secret services and it modified it) for that the government approves the war.

I think that the tongues will untie themselves and that the rumors just start. Wait and See. the truth is elsewhere

[darkes]

Originally posted here by Ghostdog
There is also a problem with the United Kingdom. I read a short news in a French newspaper saying that a deputy attacks Tony Blair to have lied to the gouvernment and to the people. The deputy says that Tony Blair did a false report (it took a report of the secret services and it modified it) for that the government approves the war.

I think that the tongues will untie themselves and that the rumors just start. Wait and See. the truth is elsewhere

This is only partly true. One MP has accused Tony Blair of 'lying' to the government & the people. However, this is certainly not the general consensus of opinion in the UK.
All analysis of Blair's action shows him to be completely sincere over this, something that is very unusual in a politician. To suggest he deliberately modified it is ridiculous.

You are missing the real issue here, which is whether or not the intelligence itself (which France did not, and does not have access to) was interpreted correctly. There have been suggestions that, for example, the CIA exaggerated some parts to make a more compelling case.

[Ghostdog]

To suggest he deliberately modified it is ridiculous.

He plagiarized a 10 years old thesis, so why not making a false report.

[darkes]

Originally posted here by Ghostdog

He plagiarized a 10 years old thesis, so why not making a false report.

He didn't plagiarise it, just failed to acknowledge where it originated from.
Obviously, this document was given more weight than it should have been.
However, this is not the same as stating he was deliberately lying.

Are you really trying to tell me that the French president checks every single document on something he is asked to approve? Thought not ...

[Ghostdog]

He didn't plagiarise it, just failed to acknowledge where it originated from.
Obviously, this document was given more weight than it should have been.
However, this is not the same as stating he was deliberately lying.

Well, giving a report with information older than 10 years or more it's for me a deliberate lying (from Tony Blair or his friends).

Are you really trying to tell me that the French president checks every single document on something he is asked to approve? Thought not ...

1 point for you .

[powertoad5000]

He didn't plagiarise it, just failed to acknowledge where it originated from.

Just wanted to point out that this is plagiarism. If you pulled a stunt like that at uni and got busted, you'd be out of there quicker than you could say '****, that was stupid'. But like you said, it's beside the point.

You are missing the real issue here, which is whether or not the intelligence itself (which France did not, and does not have access to) was interpreted correctly. There have been suggestions that, for example, the CIA exaggerated some parts to make a more compelling case.

So did they move the weapons? Because you know, they were watching everything going out of the country with satellites, and I haven't heard anything about that. Or did they destroy all the weapons? Because you know, there's always verifiable proof of chemical weapons being destroyed, at least that was what I was led to believe.

[Zonewalker]

before I continue... can we all agree that Saddam is and was a murderous dictator who has on several ocassions been shown to turn on his own people with the kind of weapons that produce very painful deaths. Can we all agree that he did have prisons where his own people were sent to be tortured in ways I would personally prefer not to describe?

If we do all agree on that.... does it really matter any more if there are/were any WMD? Saddam has killed thousands of his own people and prooven himself unfit to lead a country... yes WMD may be a convenient excuse... but wasn't getting rid of him the thing that mattered? Also don't forget that he was given at least 2 opportunities to leave Iraq peacefully before the war started.

One other thing about biological weapons... you don't need much biological material to produce a weapon that is of considerable danger. A petrol tanker holding about 15000 litres of culture fluid could contain enough bacterial/virus to produce a huge amount of biological weapons.... anyone fancy trying to find something that size in a country the area of Iraq? Give the folks a chance will ya!

Incidentally I do have my own reservations and I am thinking that the WMD were an excuse however I am prepared to accept it was a justifiable excuse - after all if the next few months are handled properly the Iraqi's end up with a country they are proud to be able to call their own.

Just my 2p worth

Z

[bballad]

Wow an American president lied to his people and the world...this is news? Did any one on either side of the pro/anti war argument actually believe that the WMD actually existed...I know I didn't. No surprise here folks, no we shall see the real reasons, an oil payoff to Halliburton(after bush failed to deliver the Alaska reserves he needed to give them something) a route for the central Asia pipe line (Afghanistan is still to unstable), and a gift to the Saudi royalty(we can remove the troops from their country).

[rcgreen]

and a gift to the Saudi royalty(we can remove the troops from their country).

Something that should have been done long ago, but if they think they can
station them in Iraq instead, those Shi'ites may have something to say
about that. This whole operation was not well thought out. The permanent political
realities in the region are not conducive to stability.

Whether the Bush administration is cynically going after the oil or not, they are really
quite naive and over their heads, not clever conspirators. Yeah, we all knew that there were no WMD. Apparently no one cares much, but maybe the Democrats(cough) will try
to make an issue of it in the next election.