[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.An obdurate Bush set his faceagainst the leader of the UN search team.There would be no return ofthe UN search teams to Iraq.Just as emphatically Bush declared thatthe weapons would be found.Coming under attack for lack ofprogress in this regard, "coalition partner" Jack Straw, who hadbacked Blair with at least 35 positive statements that Iraq was adanger to the whole world because of its weapons of mass destruction,was forced to back peddle furiously in Parliament on May 15, 2004.According to a report filed by Nicholas Watt, political correspondentin London, on proceedings in the House of Parliament (Britain back-tracked on "Contentious Issue of Iraqi Weapons") Britain had toretreat on the all important issues of weapons of mass destruction.Taking his cue for a change of tune from U.S.Secretary of StatePowell and National Security Advisor Rice, who attempted to spintheir way out of the dilemma of failing to find the fabled Iraqiweapons, Jack Straw added his own spin:Britain backtracked on the issue of Iraq's weapons of massdestruction when foreign secretary Jack Straw was forced toconcede that hard evidence might never be uncovered.He said itwas "not crucially important" to find them because the evidence ofIraqi wrongdoing was overwhelming.He dismissed thesignificance of the failure to find banned weapons on the groundsthat Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, had uncovered a"phenomenal amount of evidence" before the war.This"phenomenal amount of evidence" consisted of 10,000 liters ofanthrax, which only partly-filled a petrol tanker."Whether or not we are able to find one third of one petrol tankerin a country twice the size if France remains to be seen," Strawsaid."We did not go to war on a contingent basis.We went to waron the basis of evidence which was fully available to theinternational community." Dr.John Coleman70His comment, seized on by critics of the war, was a dramaticretreat from the ministers' claim that Saddam Hussein couldlaunch a chemical and biological attack within 45 minutes.Mr.Straw may also find himself in trouble with Dr.Blix who may takeexception to the claim that he produced "overwhelming evidence"of banned weapons.The ever-cautious Dr.Blix only ever saidthere was a "strong presumption" that Iraq had 10,000 liters ofanthrax.As a lawyer, Mr.Straw was careful to say that Dr.Blix had only"suggested" that Iraq possessed anthrax, but he tried to show theexistence of anthrax could be accepted when he described thediscovery of chemical and biological suits as "further evidence."Alice Mahon, the Labor MP for Halifax, who has been one of thegovernment's strongest critics said; "the whole basis of the war isbased on an untruth.The whole world can see that ministers arebacking away from their claims.People genuinely believed whatthe Prime Minister said about Iraq's weapons program and itsability to launch an attack in 45 minutes.This is making the wareven more illegal."Labor dissidents, led by the former defense minister PeterKilfoyle, will step up pressure on the government by tabling acommons motion demanding evidence of mass destruction, Theyfeel particularly strongly about the issue because a series ofministers, led by Tony Blair, won the support of wavering MPsbefore the war by issuing dire warnings about the threat posed bySaddam Hussein.As criticism for the failure to find bannedweapons has increased, ministers have struggled to offer aplausible explanation.But thus far their explanations have beenbogus. We Fight For Oil71CHAPTER 8:PHANTOM WMD'SThe team searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is endingits operation without having found proof that Saddam Hussein hadstocks of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.It investigatednumerous sites identified by U.S.intelligence as those likely to harborweapons of mass destruction (WMD) but has now all but acceptedthat it is unlikely to find any weapons.Operations are being wound up and a scaled-down unit called the IraqSurvey Group will take over.The leader of the U.S.Army's 75thExploitation Task Force, Colonel Richard McPhee, said his team ofbiologists, chemists, computer experts and documents specialistsarrived in Iraq believing the intelligence community's warning thatSaddam had given "release authority" to those in charge of a chemicalarsenal."We didn't have all those people in protective suits fornothing," he told The Washington Post.But if they planned to usethose weapons there had to have been something to use and wehaven't found it.Books will be written on that in the intelligencecommunity for a long time.Saddam's alleged possession of such weapons was one of the centralpretexts given by Washington and London for the war against Iraq.Ina February 2000 presentation to the UN, Colin Powell, then U.S [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl matkasanepid.xlx.pl
.An obdurate Bush set his faceagainst the leader of the UN search team.There would be no return ofthe UN search teams to Iraq.Just as emphatically Bush declared thatthe weapons would be found.Coming under attack for lack ofprogress in this regard, "coalition partner" Jack Straw, who hadbacked Blair with at least 35 positive statements that Iraq was adanger to the whole world because of its weapons of mass destruction,was forced to back peddle furiously in Parliament on May 15, 2004.According to a report filed by Nicholas Watt, political correspondentin London, on proceedings in the House of Parliament (Britain back-tracked on "Contentious Issue of Iraqi Weapons") Britain had toretreat on the all important issues of weapons of mass destruction.Taking his cue for a change of tune from U.S.Secretary of StatePowell and National Security Advisor Rice, who attempted to spintheir way out of the dilemma of failing to find the fabled Iraqiweapons, Jack Straw added his own spin:Britain backtracked on the issue of Iraq's weapons of massdestruction when foreign secretary Jack Straw was forced toconcede that hard evidence might never be uncovered.He said itwas "not crucially important" to find them because the evidence ofIraqi wrongdoing was overwhelming.He dismissed thesignificance of the failure to find banned weapons on the groundsthat Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, had uncovered a"phenomenal amount of evidence" before the war.This"phenomenal amount of evidence" consisted of 10,000 liters ofanthrax, which only partly-filled a petrol tanker."Whether or not we are able to find one third of one petrol tankerin a country twice the size if France remains to be seen," Strawsaid."We did not go to war on a contingent basis.We went to waron the basis of evidence which was fully available to theinternational community." Dr.John Coleman70His comment, seized on by critics of the war, was a dramaticretreat from the ministers' claim that Saddam Hussein couldlaunch a chemical and biological attack within 45 minutes.Mr.Straw may also find himself in trouble with Dr.Blix who may takeexception to the claim that he produced "overwhelming evidence"of banned weapons.The ever-cautious Dr.Blix only ever saidthere was a "strong presumption" that Iraq had 10,000 liters ofanthrax.As a lawyer, Mr.Straw was careful to say that Dr.Blix had only"suggested" that Iraq possessed anthrax, but he tried to show theexistence of anthrax could be accepted when he described thediscovery of chemical and biological suits as "further evidence."Alice Mahon, the Labor MP for Halifax, who has been one of thegovernment's strongest critics said; "the whole basis of the war isbased on an untruth.The whole world can see that ministers arebacking away from their claims.People genuinely believed whatthe Prime Minister said about Iraq's weapons program and itsability to launch an attack in 45 minutes.This is making the wareven more illegal."Labor dissidents, led by the former defense minister PeterKilfoyle, will step up pressure on the government by tabling acommons motion demanding evidence of mass destruction, Theyfeel particularly strongly about the issue because a series ofministers, led by Tony Blair, won the support of wavering MPsbefore the war by issuing dire warnings about the threat posed bySaddam Hussein.As criticism for the failure to find bannedweapons has increased, ministers have struggled to offer aplausible explanation.But thus far their explanations have beenbogus. We Fight For Oil71CHAPTER 8:PHANTOM WMD'SThe team searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is endingits operation without having found proof that Saddam Hussein hadstocks of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.It investigatednumerous sites identified by U.S.intelligence as those likely to harborweapons of mass destruction (WMD) but has now all but acceptedthat it is unlikely to find any weapons.Operations are being wound up and a scaled-down unit called the IraqSurvey Group will take over.The leader of the U.S.Army's 75thExploitation Task Force, Colonel Richard McPhee, said his team ofbiologists, chemists, computer experts and documents specialistsarrived in Iraq believing the intelligence community's warning thatSaddam had given "release authority" to those in charge of a chemicalarsenal."We didn't have all those people in protective suits fornothing," he told The Washington Post.But if they planned to usethose weapons there had to have been something to use and wehaven't found it.Books will be written on that in the intelligencecommunity for a long time.Saddam's alleged possession of such weapons was one of the centralpretexts given by Washington and London for the war against Iraq.Ina February 2000 presentation to the UN, Colin Powell, then U.S [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]