Not always wrong

About a year ago, “I wrote”: here that the war planners could not really believe that Saddam had weapons capable of destroying Tel Aviv, because, if he did, the risk of his using them far outweighed any possible benefits from killing him. This morning, we see from Robin Cook’s diaries that

“The most revealing exchange came when we talked about Saddam’s arsenal. I told him, ‘It’s clear from the private briefing I have had that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction in a sense of weapons that could strike at strategic cities. But he probably does have several thousand battlefield chemical munitions. Do you never worry that he might use them against British troops?’
“[Blair replied:] ‘Yes, but all the effort he has had to put into concealment makes it difficult for him to assemble them quickly for use’.”
“I had now twice been told that even those chemical shells had been put beyond operational use in response to the pressure from intrusive inspections. I have no reason to doubt that Tony Blair believed in September that Saddam really had weapons of mass destruction ready for firing within 45 minutes. What was clear from this conversation was that he did not believe it himself in March.”

As usual when dealing with this gang, I am astonished that they thought they could get away with such bare-faced lying; and still alittle relieved that they did in fact know they were lying and that someone somewhere kept a firm grip on reality. Of course, it remains to prove that they were wrong to think they would get away with it.

Now back to bloody work.

This entry was posted in War. Bookmark the permalink.