Number 10's dossier Blair's Iraq dossier was found to contain copied extracts from a student's thesis. Submitted by Channel 4 News
Powell on WMD Full text and video of Powell's presentation, February 5, 2003. Submitted by Channel 4 News
The Blix Report Chief Weapons Inspector's report to the UN on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, February 14, 2003. Submitted by Channel 4 News
Channel 4 is not responsible for the content of third party sites.
War justified?
Iraq
Published: 28-May-2003
By: Lindsey Hilsum
He was there to thank the troops for their "magnificent performance." But when Tony Blair arrived in Kuwait this afternoon, he found himself forced to defend the coalition's main motive for going to war - Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction.
It was crisis spawned by the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who casually admitted that Iraq might have already destroyed its illegal weapons. Not so, said Blair, who has "absolutely no doubt at all" about their existence. Our Diplomatic Correspondent, Lindsey Hilsum, on the growing dilemma facing the coalition leaders:
First stop Kuwait, then tomorrow Iraq to see British troops. The Prime Minister always justified the war by saying Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were a threat to its neighbours, and current and serious threat to UK national interests, and he told journalists on the plane he was sure the evidence of those weapons would yet be found in Iraq.
A rather different message from the US Defence Secretary last night, gently lowering expectations that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would be uncovered.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:
"...It is also possible that they decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict."
Earlier this month, the Americans released photographs of a mobile laboratory they'd found in Iraq. But it had been cleaned - no trace of chemical or biological weapons to back up the claims made before the war.
American military teams are still searching Iraq for the evidence. But Mr Rumsfeld has ordered a review of the intelligence which they said at the time proved Saddam Hussein had the weapons. Administration officials appear to be gradually backtracking.
Last September, we visited sites in Iraq which the Prime Minister had mentioned in a dossier on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Like us, neither weapons inspectors nor the occupying troops have found anything.
In his foreword to the dossier, the Prime Minister said: "I am in no doubt that the threat is serious and current," adding that Saddam's "military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them."
Today the Prime Minister said he stood by that statement, but the question remains: have the politicians been surprised to find nothing, or did they exaggerate the threat?
The WMD argument was the cornerstone of the Prime Minister's reason for toppling Saddam Hussein, but President Bush used many other arguments including a supposed link with terrorism. Most Americans may be satisfied with the justification that Saddam Hussein was bad and now he's gone.
Certainly British troops who see the Prime Minister may want an explanation - their commanders were clear about why they were risking their lives.
Major General Robin Brims, Commander British Land Forces:
"Our business is to remove the weapons of mass destruction, in order to do that we're going to have to get the regime's hands off it."
Downing Street says weapons of mass destruction are like a jigsaw puzzle which still has to be put back together. An explanation which may not satisfy Mr Blair's opponents and those who believe the British public were deceived about the reason for war.
YOUR VIEWS
I don't think the war can be justified if no WMD's are found. It also means that both Blair and Bush lied and are now trying to get out of it by saying it was a war of liberation. The simple fact is that it was not a war of liberation, it was fought to get rid of WMD's. They have not found them. To me as a British citizen it means that Blair, Straw and Hoon should be tried for war crimes and the death of thousands of Iraqi citizens who are no longer in this world today, thanks to the misadventure of these guys.
Ehsan Maher
The liberties taken with the truth in the preparation for war were shocking and have set a dangerous precendent. The inadequacy of the cover for war (good faith or not) barely justifies the removal of someone as despotic as Saddam Hussain. The world can only ask, what of Mugabe, the Congo, the Chinese, the Russains in Chechnya? Unfortunately inaction in those areas of similar humanitarian concern will only fuel the resentment of the Arab world at being singled out, while others escape sanction. But wasn't it one an American president who said if "if you're going to lie; lie big!".
Cormac Quinn, Glasgow
I'm not at all surprised to see the lack of "weapons of mass destruction" While this war may well have served a good purpose as a byproduct (the removal of Saddam) it is now growing increasingly clear that we have been lied to by the Govt.The evidence was poor and seemed false before the war and now the facts are coming out
J C Dammer
Just got your email about tonight's news and weapons of mass distraction, sorry I meant destruction. This news story just proves what barefaced liar's Blair and Bush are, and they can not be trusted under any circumstance. I think Tony Blair should resign and join the Tory party, where he belongs, Although he might be a little right wing even for them. Richard Pearle called him a "Neo Conservative" and I agree with him but I never thought I would hear myself agreeing with Richard Pearle. I think it's great that you keep asking this question (where wee the WDM's) and I hope you continue to do so.
Helen Chambers
War in Iraq is unjustifiable whether they find such weapons or not. If they don't find them, they will just look "stupid" on top of arrogant. But when the main charge against the imperialist governments is that of murder, which has been proven, being "stupid" is of little importance. Of no importance whatsoever to the victims.
Consuala
Those responsible for taking the innocent lives of Iraqis should be held accountable under law. If not, why shouldn't any nation wage war on another just because they consider them to be a threat. Such statement is not credible and would be considered wrong in the eyes of the world. So what was so different about Iraq. The facts were - the war made on Iraq was done so as to secure a regime change and free-up their oil reserves and place the exchange rate into dollars. That is all is was about. QED
Les Morrison
Well maybe Saddam was a victim of his own bluff.
US and UK built up the fear in all of us that leaving Saddam alone would result in a doomsday scenario for us all. Think it is a terrible situation that Iraq now has to pay for the reconstruction of it's country with its own oil after US and UK bombed the hell out of it. Nuala
Government have the responsibility to protect it's citizens. If the war was primarily to liberate Irai people then on that moral ground, why is this same principle not applied to Congo, and other non oil producing or diamond or cobolt producing countries? If the USA and Britian including those other countries want us to believe their motives for the war was more about peace to the people than finding WMD now that they cannot find them, then, there must be a push to liberate and free other countries from the terror they face every day under violent regimes. If it is the intention to do this in the future then I have to ask the question: Why was Iraq more urgent than Congo? The threat in Iraq is still not clear yet the threat in Congo we have known about for a decade. People are not stupid. We all know it was about oil and the millions made from reconstruction programmes. Sadly , Congo do not have enough mineral or contruction value to justify liberation!!!!
Chris Prinsloo - Cambridge
The latest news concerning WMD and the lack of them, seems to follow a pattern. We are told a load of untruths, are we becoming the real victims of a massive 'psycho-ops', coup, that tells us that suddenly terrorism is the greatest threat to us and the world, and we must join the US in a new crusade, rushing from country to country destroying these threats. Which later turn out not to have been as great as we were told. What's more concerning is that we have 'won the wars', then instead of returning these countries to normality we sit around acting like the conquers, shooting any protesters and deciding who we consider to be suitable to rule the country. Now Baghdad has fallen, to outsiders, at least the Mongols offered terms, then slaughtered everyone, we seem not to have offered any real terms and now are in danger of doing the same on a country wide scale. We fought the Nazis because they behaved like this in Europe, now we are in danger of being seen to be there replacements, except there is no one left to oppose or at least demand behaviour in accordance with the the standards we say we represent.Sorry for the rant, feeling that none of us has a voice that's listened to any more..or was it ever?
Peter Keating
The war on Iraq was illegal and immoral and Blair was hanging onto the coat tails of Bush hoping to bask in his glory. They were not only wrong in what they said but they actively lied to the world, Blair should resign with an apology to the world. What I find scary is Bush has already decided to invade Iran and I daresay that Blair will back him to the hilt. Bush and Blair should pay reperations from their own pockets to the Iraqi's.
Apologies, but this page is temporarily unavailable.
Our technical team are made aware of most faults almost immediately - and fix them as soon as possible. Please revisit the site at the next convenient opportunity, when we would hope and expect this problem to have been resolved.
If you have returned to the site and are still having problems, please contact us here
