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'




[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]


> US: 'Saddam Had No Weapons of Mass Destruction'
> By Neil Mackay
> Sunday Herald (Australia)
>
> Monday 5 May 2003
>
> 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]