The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] US: 'Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction'



Yep, who had ever thunk that  ...



Andreas
--------------------


http://www.sundayherald.com/print33628

US: 'Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction'

By Neil Mackay


05/04/03: ( Sunday Herald) The Bush administration has admitted that Saddam
Hussein probably had no weapons of mass destruction.
Senior officials in the Bush administration have admitted that they would be
'amazed' if weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were found in Iraq.

According to administration sources, Saddam shut down and destroyed large
parts of his WMD programmes before the invasion of Iraq.

Ironically, the claims came as US President George Bush yesterday repeatedly
justified the war as necessary to remove Iraq's chemical and biological arms
which posed a direct threat to America.

Bush claimed: 'Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. We will find
them.'

The comments from within the administration will add further weight to
attacks on the Blair government by Labour backbenchers that there is no
'smoking gun' and that the war against Iraq -- which centred on claims that
Saddam was a risk to Britain, America and the Middle East because of
unconventional weapons -- was unjustified.

The senior US official added that America never expected to find a huge
arsenal, arguing that the administration was more concerned about the
ability of Saddam's scientists -- which he labelled the 'nuclear
mujahidin' -- to develop WMDs when the crisis passed.

This represents a clearly dramatic shift in the definition of the Bush
doctrine's central tenet -- the pre-emptive strike. Previously, according to
Washington, a pre-emptive war could be waged against a hostile country with
WMDs in order to protect American security.

Now, however, according to the US official, pre-emptive action is justified
against a nation which simply has the ability to develop unconventional
weapons.








_______________________________________________
Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss
To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk
All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk


[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]