Former cabinet ministers Clare Short and Robin Cook have told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that Tony Blair exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq.
Mr Cook told the committee that although he had "no doubt about the good faith of the prime minister" he accused ministers of "not presenting the whole picture" in the run-up to war with Iraq.
And Ms Short said she believed that the US and UK decided in summer 2002 that there should be a war against Iraq in early 2003.
The London inquiry is due to be followed by a similar probe by Congress in Washington into whether the Bush administration misread or inflated threats posed by Iraq before going to war.
Should there be an inquiry into the government's claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Do you think it matters whether any weapons are found? Tell us what you think.
This debate has now closed. The following comments reflect the balance of opinions we have received:
Had Saddam had the capability to use WMD's surely he would have utilised such weapons in the dying days of his regime. It is academic now whether traces of these weapons are found or not, however surely the principle of beyond reasonable doubt should have been followed prior to risking the lives of our servicemen. Mr Blair has actually put our country in more danger by sending us to war. He knows what he did and has to live with his conscience as a committed Christian.
Chris Johnson, England
If they do exist, they now pose a far greater threat
|
Yes it does matter that they are found. If they do exist, they now pose a far greater threat, without the level of security a state controlled programme, it will be easier for terrorists to get their hands on them.
Personally I believe they do not exist and Blair and Bush should tell the truth about their lies.
Jbassi
When it is reported that no evidence has been found of WMD, it was wrongly reported. Documents have been reported to have been found in a raid on a lab in Iraq. These documents will be examined which supposedly contain plans for weapons program. Get it together and tell it right for a change.
Holly, USA
If the Saddam regime had weapons of mass destruction which could permit a lethal attack not only regionally but further afield of course they must be found. If not the threat remains, and now in unknown hands. For inexplicable reasons Saddam did not, thankfully, use these weapons against his own people or foreign forces. I can only wonder why, if he had them, he did not use them. Equally I can only wonder why the US and UK Governments were unaware of how difficult it would be to find these weapons - in spite of all their efforts the UN Weapons Inspectors had faced these same difficulties over many years and their explanations of the difficulties were not accepted by either British or American leaders, which is why the US with its allies bypassed the UN Security Council and went to war. A search for WMD must be a priority in Iraq - as must a public inquiry in the UK into how we got into this war.
Maureen Connelly,
England
Does it matter whether they are found? Yes it does! The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, but that is not a good enough reason for the war. I now think the balance is moving to there being no WMD in Iraqi. If this is the case, the public have been lied to or our leaders have failed either way they have failed us and must go.
David, UK
Yes! Weapons of mass destruction must be found as the whole legal justification for war hinges on resolution 1441 and those weapons. It's great the Iraqi people have been liberated from oppression and tyranny but it's not enough!
Kat, England
Do people expect the US/UK force to do house-to-house searches?
|
I have some sympathy for Blair - it is incredibly easy to hide WMD. Theoretically, enough plutonium to manufacture a nuclear bomb could be hidden almost undetectable in a household, without posing risk to the occupants. Do people expect the US/UK force to do house-to-house searches? Chemical weapons are even easier to conceal. Do we really need to alienate the entire population of Iraq by diverting troops from vital peacekeeping duties to search for these WMD?
Tim, UK
Those who say "the end justifies the means", may I remind you that this is very similar to what terror organisations say about their activities.
Mustafa Yorumcu,
UK/Turkey
War must never be taken lightly. It is imperative that proper debate is held before any actions are taken. American forefathers believed this so strongly that it was written into the constitution. Great pains were taken to see that no one person could declare war. It is one of our beloved checks and balances. Therefore it is of immeasurable importance that we find weapons of mass destruction, and there must be a formal inquiry.
Joe Compagna, USA
How a dictator treats his own people is totally irrelevant to US and UK policy shapers
|
Make no mistake, how a dictator treats his own people is totally irrelevant to US and UK policy shapers. Remember it was the CIA who groomed and financed Saddam for years. Whereas nearly the whole world would not miss Bush and his hawkish team, I'm still perplexed how a talented politician like Blair would go along with this aggressive episode in US foreign policy.
G Klein, South Africa
I think the American adventure in Iraq has only just begun. I wonder how many American service personnel will die before the American public demand, as I believe they will, their withdrawal? You can pretend all you like that you have right on your side. This war was always about releasing Iraqi oil in an attempt to revitalise the world economy. I agree with Robin Cook's remark at the start of the war when he said that he didn't think we'd be going to war had the American election gone the other way.
Dave Turner, U.K.
The war is over, the good guys won
Gene D. Smith, United States
|
I am astounded that after all the revelations of Saddam Hussein's barbarism on his own people, Robin Cook and Claire Short condemn Prime Minister Blair for going to war. The people of Great Britain should just tell them both that the war is over, the good guys won, and to get over it.
Gene D. Smith, United States
Even if there is not a shred of evidence of the existence of WMDs, the fact that several mass graves were found is justification in itself. I get sick of this petty back stabbing and childish bickering over this 'evidence'. We know that Saddam used historic sites to hide his ground troops and missile launchers, so who's to say that these weapons are not hidden in such places?
Mark Giblin,
UK
Our leaders must be brought to account
|
Believing that it doesn't matter whether weapons are found or not is the same as saying it doesn't matter if our leaders lie to us or not. What a sorry state of affairs! Our leaders must be brought to account. That Tony Blair does not have to answer to the inquiry is appalling.
Brad, Australia
We're talking about justice, not just the letter of the law. Those who believe the war was wrong must call for Saddam to be reinstated. They cannot claim the outcome is acceptable but the means were not.
Steve B, Scotland
Clare Short and Robin Cook have highlighted serious questions concerning the government's credibility
|
It most certainly does matter whether the weapons are found or not.
Blair made a real case to the British public for going to war. He did this on the grounds that Saddam Hussein was a despotic leader brandishing weapons of mass destruction and as such, must therefore be disarmed and removed from power. Clare Short and Robin Cook have highlighted serious questions concerning the government's credibility. An inquiry is indeed necessary.
Fiona Lister, London,
UK
How can anyone here say they don't matter? This is the most fundamental issue in a democracy; can we trust what our politicians tell us?
Vish, UK
The issue is not whether there are WMDs or not. The issue highlighted by Mr Robin Cook is that whether the weapons were in such a state that they posed an immediate threat to the West. Did he possess any capability and desire to take up such a step? His connections with al-Qaeda remain a non-starter, so how was he a threat to us?
Richard Bond, UK
At least Bush and Blair had the guts to do what needed to be done
|
If our governments knew there was nothing to find, they would have made sure that there was. Governments tend not to be stupid. At least, not deliberately so. Secondly, it doesn't matter now. What was done was done for a good enough reason - at least Bush and Blair had the guts to do what needed to be done.
James M,
Scotland
Of course it matters. For those saying that the war was justified on humanitarian grounds, those were not the terms presented to the UN as to why action needed to be taken.
Matt, UK
The world is a better place now, WMDs or not. Why not go and ask a mother or a father sifting through dead bodies in mass graves in Iraq searching for their missing families if they care about WMDs or if they want Saddam back?
Neil D, Netherlands / UK
Cook and Short are right. I'm glad Blair finally has to answer for himself. For me, it was obvious that weapons of mass destruction, al-Quaida hiding in the bushes of Iraq, or the freeing of the Iraqi people were thin excuses. Was Blair a victim also of an "honourable deception" from USA? I think it's time to ask the American administration to define the term democracy, because they use some pretty undemocratic principles themselves.
Barbro Eide, Norway
Yes - it matters. It was given as a reason to inflict war, and if they are not found we were led into this situation for no good reason.
Tom Holloway,
UK
Do they honestly think that Saddam the crafty cannot hide chemical weapons and that they are probably not in Iraq now? Clare Short and Robin Cook are unwise to impugn the integrity of Tony Blair. Their attempt to do so is a cheap political shot.
Frankie,
Canada
The point is that the Iraqi people have been freed from a very brutal dictator
|
It does not matter one bit whether WMD are found or not. The point is that the Iraqi people have been freed from a very brutal dictator.
The U.K. and U.S should be doing the same thing in Iran at this very moment and in a number of other countries too. People who oppose intervention have simply never lived under any of these cruel dictatorships.
AB, Canada
AB from Canada: Can you explain why the USA has supported, financed and armed, in the past as well in present, many dictators? The issue of exaggeration of threats matters because we need to know what is propaganda and what is truth. Half truth is even more dangerous than a lie.
Jonathan,
Britain
At this point, it is too late to look back over our shoulders and say, "Sorry, this must have been a mistake". Saddam Hussein is no longer in power and Iraq is on its way to democracy. However, if the United States and her allies that took part in this operation ever wish to have credibility on the world stage again, then it would be prudent to find these vaunted weapons, and soon.
David N. DeRicco, USA
Having just watched a TV documentary about Saddam's treatment of the marsh Shias in southern Iraq, the discovery of WMDs does not have much relevance. The UN failed to protect those people as it failed in Bosnia.
Ross, Canada
Yes it matters. Tony Blair has treated the electorate with contempt.
Derek, USA/UK
At least the US and UK are addressing the question of whether the population was misled. In Australia, the media and the opposition have given the Howard government another free pass. Many have said that this war was about the freedom and democratic rights of the Iraqi people as well as WMD. What price our democracy versus the spin of our currently elected leaders? I am ashamed at the absence of an outcry from the Australian public over a further abuse of our democratic rights.
Sean Elwick, Australia
The war was justified
|
Everyone knew that the Iraqis did have WMD in 1991 (they were used before and during the first Gulf War). One condition of the 1991 cessation of hostilities was that Saddam allow UN inspectors to verify that the WMD were destroyed. Saddam failed to do this, which is why sanctions remained in place. Since then, no-one in the anti-war camp has suggested what possible motive Saddam might have had for refusing to allow the inspectors to verify destruction of those weapons,. What could possibly have made it worth his while? So, whether the WMD are now found or not is a moot point. The war was justified.
Paul Meehan, Malaysia
I, in common with tens of thousands of others, never believed that there were WMDs in Iraq but we understood the unspoken fact that if we were ever to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein then the only pretext was disarmament as set down in the UN resolutions since 1991. We also knew that Saddam would not allow inspectors back in unless he realised that the choice was between imminent invasion or another round of inspections. The USA and UK banked on Saddam being so arrogant that he would not have the sense to fully co-operate with the UN and that therefore war and his removal from office was the inevitable outcome. All the window dressing of UN resolutions and exaggerated claims of Iraqi military threat was just that - window dressing.
James Rae, England
The fact is that the case put forward for war appears to be invalid
Paul Rowlands, United Kingdom
|
The government said that there was an immediate threat, and we went to war on that basis. It's no good saying that we got rid of a nasty man who killed innocent people. The fact is that the case put forward for war appears to be invalid.
Paul Rowlands, United Kingdom
No, I don't think there should be an inquiry. There were weapons there but the West dragged its feet so long that they were hidden or removed from the country. The removal of Saddam Hussein and the discovery of the mass graves of Iranians and Iraqis should be enough to justify this war and remove this raw cruelty practised by an Iraqi on his own people. There is some information that could cause mass panic and should not be made available to the public.
Fran Williamson, Middlesbrough, England
I have never before felt so politically alienated. This issue, thorny as it is, and as hotly debated as it, will be glossed over and ignored, its effect timid. As a voter I feel lied to, and if that charge of deception is proven, it will be worse than despicable. The most depressing thing is the sense that ultimately all this argument won't make a single bit of difference.
Richard,
UK
Continued deceit was the reason the allies went to war
|
Whether WMD are found or not is irrelevant. Iraq's continued belligerence was in defiance of the ceasefire agreement it signed up to in 1991. Continued deceit was the reason the allies went to war. Now hopefully a free Iraq can be built with respect for individual rights and the rule of law.
Edward Moore, England
I have changed my opinion of Clare Short whom I used to respect. I believe that Ms Short should be expelled from the Labour Party now.
Tom Rush,
England
Yes it matters whether WMD are found. Politicians, civil servants & Intelligence personnel are paid out of the nations taxes. They are NOT paid to lie, deceive, mislead or coerce the public.
Stephen Merchant, UK
When individuals can not and will not be held accountable for their actions, God help us all
|
The only way to sum up the actions of Mr. Blair & Mr. Bush is this: "they took the dishonourable means to an honourable end." But this begs the question "where is the honour in that?" even if we try to believe the end was in fact honourable. Do not be misled, when individuals can not and will not be held accountable for their actions, God help us all.
Debra Findlay, USA
I believe that the war to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein was a just war with or without WMD. But if our leaders manipulated and doctored the facts, they should be held to account.
Jesse S. Angeley, US
How can it not matter? Do the thousands of Iraqi lives lost not matter? Remember, that Bush and Blair claimed that WMD's were the reason for the invasion which killed thousands. Of course they tried to append a new reason toward the end - that of liberating the Iraqi people. That's just a popular excuse used by those who obviously do not value the lives of the Iraqi people. If it was a valid reason, and that's another debate, why stop at invading Iraq? By all means continue. There's Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Burma and I don't know how many African countries where people's rights are infringed.
Ashram,
The latest poll in the US shows that 55% of Americans think WMD have been found and almost 30% think chemical and biological weapons were used by the Iraqis. This is how badly our media has misled our population. The only ones doing any critical thinking have been the anti war demonstrators. The armchair warriors are still in denial that they got suckered by Bush and Blair.
Robert, USA
It takes more than a few weeks to search a country the size of California, the main WMD (Saddam Hussein) has been eradicated and Iraq is now on the way to democracy. End of. The only people now arguing this case are discredited politicians, desperate to try and be seen as important, and people who resent the fact that Blair was right about the war.
Ross, UK
Cook and Short cannot be accused of furthering their careers since both resigned to the back benches. Of course the matter should be pursued, but I doubt if we will ever get the truth. What is true is that we will never believe Blair on any subject, however justified, for example entry into Europe
Angela grills, UK
The IRA hid its weapons for almost thirty years in a country a lot smaller than Iraq
|
The IRA hid its weapons for almost thirty years in a country a lot smaller than Iraq - just because they haven't been found doesn't mean they don't exist. And even if they're never found, doesn't the mass graves of thousands of innocent Iraqis who were brave enough to resist the regime in the dark days justify the war?
Bill Martin, England
I feel insulted by Tony Blair. He lied to manipulate public opinion in favour of the war and what is worse he did it in the House of Commons. As a result of this lying British Servicemen are dead and their families are devastated. The likelihood of British subjects being killed in terrorist attacks has increased because of this military adventure. He should resign.
John, UK
In my opinion the importance of the war was not to discover any WMD's but to put an end to Saddam Hussein's vile regime. Somebody said that Saddam Hussein was the biggest WMD of them all, I quite agree. His reign is over, let's now help the Iraqi people to get on with their lives in peace.
Johanna Krasij, UK
It doesn't really matter if weapons are found. There is belief that they were possessed by Saddam and he had them hidden and buried. The overall result of the war has brought a stabilising coalition force into a volatile region, where the local regimes would think twice about developing WMD and harbouring terrorist groups.
Richard, UK
To accept lies from those in power is a very dangerous precedent
|
I think some people here are missing the point. If we feel it's OK for those who rule over us to lie, then were does this end? Does that mean that the police should lie to a court of law because they THINK somebody may be guilty? To accept lies from those in power is a very dangerous precedent.
Mike, UK
How many people in Congress voted to impeach Clinton when he lied about having sex with someone? Why are they not now voting to impeach Bush when he and his gang concoct fantasies about Iraqi WMD, links to terrorism, etc?
Harry Hayball, England
I am confident that both the British Foreign affairs committee and the American Congressional committee will conclude that Britain and America presented false evidence to their public and to the world and completely made a hash of the whole Iraq affair. I believe that it is becoming more and more apparent that the Iraq crisis had more to do with their oil and with Bush's mideast roadmap than with any weapons of mass destruction. Thousands of innocent Iraqi, British and American lives were lost because Bush and Blair misled the world.
Roland Stephney, Guyana
Of course it matters. It's an indictment of the political apathy, that we as a people can be led to kill another people and not demand the proof to substantiate the claims for this invasion. We must seek the truth.
Glenn, UK
I don't think their existence can be called into question
|
Since it was the US which supplied Iraq with the so called WMD in the first place, I don't think their existence can be called into question. The threat posed to the UK by these weapons is, however, minimal. The economic threat to the UK, US and the rest of the world created by instability in the Middle East is however very serious, but it would be hard to justify a war on these grounds these days - whether right or wrong. Hence the WMD claim. I think that Mr Cook and Ms Short are either airing sour grapes, or this part of a further conspiracy to divert public attention away from more important matters, the EU constitution for instance?
jez, England
Mr Blair's dishonesty was most blatantly exposed when he pleaded for more time to prove the existence of WMDs. This after all was exactly what Hans Blix, the UN's Weapons Inspector had asked for, only to be overruled by Blair and Bush. More recently when responding to accusations that he misled the public and parliament over WMDs he demanded that anybody with proof should present it forthwith yet he felt able to pursue an illegal war without a shred of proof of the existence of WMDs. The man is a disgrace.
Garry Evans, U.K
Anything spent on an inquiry would be throwing good money after bad. Can it be proven that the PM knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that WMD's definitely didn't exist? How can one nation ever know what the other nation has or is willing to do? One could always argue that the simple threat that Saddam did have them was good enough to move in. I would much rather the PM err on the side of caution than have Saddam sell some nerve agent to a terror group.
Chris V,
Canada
If the Nation went to war and some of our troops died because we were misled that is very serious because we were told that the WMD were the basis of the action. If regime change was the basis of the action then any other Nation (Say China or Korea) could claim they do not like the regime in the UK and decide to change it. We must keep to international rules because unilateral action is a two edged sword that could be used against us and our interests.
Keith, England
They are two morally bankrupt politicians shamelessly using this issue to further their own careers
|
Cook and Short have no interest in WMD. They are two morally bankrupt politicians shamelessly using this issue to further their own careers. Short lost all credibility with the fiasco surrounding her first resignation. As for Cook accusing Blair of misleading or lying to us, look at your own past Robin, people in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones.
SL, London, UK
If the prime minister has nothing to hide why is he so reluctant to allow an independent inquiry ?
Tim, UK
We were all misled by the two Bs about weapons of mass destruction. They must be taken to the International Court.
Nasir Rafiq,
Karachi, Pakistan
It is a shockingly disgraceful state of affairs when the leader of a democracy refuses to give evidence to the body which has as its primary function the scrutiny of the government and the executive. This is a body which aims to preserve the integrity of our democracy and the UK government system and Mr Blair is clearly and flagrantly abusing this by not appearing.
If he has indeed acted in all good faith, even if misguided, then he must stand up to the committee and give evidence.
Scott Fissenden,
UK
There were WMD in Iraq. The real question is: Who has them now? If the mediocre Mr Cook, and Ms Short were less interested in exacting political revenge on Tony Blair that is the question they would be asking.
Robert, Switzerland
The war is now over - end of story. As a taxpayer I don't want my money being wasted on investigating a past incident. The only reason these investigations exist is to keep useless ex-ministers in jobs and on the payroll.
Rob, UK
I fail to understand the attitude of Rob from the UK. The 'War is now over - lets get on with life' brigade would love for no further questions to be asked because it would prove that this war was unjustified. It is a case of trust in the government. These people seem not to mind £3billion of taxpayers money being spent on the actual war itself, with british soldiers giving up their lives at the same time, but he has a problem with investigating whether or not there was any wrongdoing in the way we actually went out there in the first place. Quite incomprehensible. This wont go away until there is a public enquiry on this vital issue for their credibility of Blair.
Ahmad Bhatti,
England
Tony Blair and his government have lost the trust of the nation
|
This is as serious a breach of trust as was Watergate, and should be pursued with the same determination. This government has lied on many issues and this is the most serious. A lie is a lie, not spin or any other more user friendly term. Tony Blair and his government have lost the trust of the nation. If only the Tories would call a no confidence vote in the government it would be interesting to see the outcome.
Dudley Holley, UK
WMD were not the object of the war, but removal of Saddam Hussein's vicious leadership was. If Blair and Bush had not lied to us about WMD but told us their real goal - a worthy one but not as easily legitimised - support for the war would have been a lot more sturdy. UK agreement for war was given for good standing in trade terms with the USA, worth many billions of pounds, and excused by WMD cover-ups.
Richard Jarvis, UK
I have become increasingly frustrated and angry that a secret world resides within Whitehall! It is answerable to no-one and abuses its position of power by following hidden agendas for its own gain! This has once again been demonstrated with a war that should never have taken place!
Gary Simper, England
There are two issues here. First, how good was the intelligence that the government had about WMD? Second, how was this intelligence presented to the public? Based on the current post-war information, either the intelligence agencies failed or the government was "economical with the truth". Both of these have serious impacts on this country and require immediate action to correct. Just a thought, but it is not important if you have WMD, just that your enemies think you have WMD. Was Saddam Hussein playing political poker and George Bush called his bluff?
David, UK
I supported the war because I was led to believe that I was in danger of being killed by WMDs
|
Of course it matters I supported the war because I was led to believe that I was in danger of being killed by WMDs. Remember how Tony Blair lectured us that it was a case of when such an attack will occur not if. I even stopped using the tube and spent a fortune on taxis because I feared such an attack. I am annoyed that I allowed myself to be taken for a mug. Well once bitten twice shy - I won't trust anything Tony Blair or the government say in future.
Alan, UK
Well done Robin! Where were the others when you were making your principled stand??
Ivek I. Vinski, Indonesia
Does not the fact that the "Blair/Campbell double-act" have refused to appear before the inquiry say it all?
John Neal, UK
Where was their proof that convinced them they existed?
|
It matters to me - I was "pro-war" on that basis, trusting to what the politicians told us and have now lost my paddle. A small corner of my soul tells me that not all of Iraq has been searched, nor neighbouring countries, but then again, if we went to war on the basis of WMD, you'd think the people saying these things existed would have an inkling of where they could be found. If not, where was their proof that convinced them they existed?
Debbie, UK
Of the 500,000 refugees into Europe last year, 47,000 were from Iraq. Also the lack of Venezuelan oil added to a global shortage of oil. These are two of the other reasons for the war. Another is the business deals for Bush's campaign supporters.
It's possible that Saddam was keeping his WMDs in neighbouring countries. Even if he didn't have them, he was developing them and therefore there was a real threat to a Nato member, Turkey.
I'd give it at least twelve months from the end of the war before making a decision as to whether they are there or not.
John Airey, UK
I think it doesn't matter as these allegations were just the tool not the objective of the war. If Mr Bush and Mr Blair were quite sure Saddam had WMD, they couldn't have attacked him, or at least been reluctant to do so. Moreover, what is the problem with having WMD? Britain has them, America has them.
Antar Abou-Korin, Egypt
The mere chance of Saddam Hussein having them was reason enough for war
|
Whether or not WMD are found is irrelevant. The mere chance of Saddam Hussein having them was reason enough for war.
Inquiries should be held as a matter of course, after any conflict, for there are always lessons to be learned. But an inquiry held with the aim of identifying with the benefit of hindsight, intelligence failures and what not smacks more of a vindictive witch-hunt than anything else.
LP,
Egham, UK
If Blair had any respect for the public he would approve of an inquiry rather than try to cover it up.
Spending billions on a war without a good reason while the NHS and education authorities are in desperate need of money shows that all he is concerned of his own place in history, not the wellbeing of the country.
James, London
Either way I think Tony's lost his job come next election.
Jon Lipscombe,
UK
Just because something has not yet been found does not mean it never existed. Is anyone suggesting that because neither Saddam Hussein nor Osama bin Laden has been found that they do not exist?
Martin Barrett, UK
It is important that any WMD are found and that their country of origin is determined. Perhaps then we will understand why both Mr Bush and Mr Blair aren't so concerned anymore.
Mick, UK
The WMD issue is of critical importance. Unless we demonstrate that "mistakes" of this kind will not be tolerated, the recent precedent of Britain invading Iraq on a trumped up pretext will be waiting to be used elsewhere. Such unjustified and belligerent conduct has no place in any civilised society, and Mr Blair is overdue for a clear demonstration of the fact that it is entirely unacceptable here.
C. Hunter, England
Andrew McCruden, Hans Blix stated clearly that the Iraqis were co-operating. Historically there was an issue with the refusal to allow US weapons inspectors access but this was more to do with the fact that the CIA operatives who were working with the inspection teams were spying - a fact corroborated by Scott Ritter the US weapons inspector who complained about it at the time.
Steve, UK
Why didn't he co-operate fully with the UN weapons inspectors?
|
What I want to know is, if Saddam had no WMDs hidden at all, why didn't he co-operate fully with the UN weapons inspectors?
Unless we know the answer to that question, how can we know why nothing has been found?
Andrew McCruden, UK
In my view, I believe that the WMD do not matter that much as we have liberated the people of Iraq and soon a more equal and democratic government will come into power.
Daniel Lawrence, UK
Why are we still talking about something that has been done? We have far more important issues at home to worry about. Move on people and stop worrying about an event that cannot be changed... Life is too short
Keith, UK
Does it matter whether they are found? There is a greater possibility that there were no WMD, in the first place, than any being found. I cannot believe this debate! They simply lied to us. It is plain and simple, and clearly obvious, that these two so-called leaders, Bush and Blair, lied to get what they wanted. Until both the American and British public accept this and get them out of office, these two are going to continue to lie to appease the desires of those American neo-cons. If you can not see that the case for going to war against Iraq was a ruse, then I guess we are all lost.
Miguel Nieto, Germany
Robin Cook says he has no doubts about the good faith of Tony Blair in the run-up to the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. One wonders why not.
A. Kellett-Long, UK
We spent millions on a war when we can't even treat people properly in our hospitals
|
If the investigation into the claims by the FASC show that we were lied to then all those involved have to go. We spent millions on a war when we can't even treat people properly in our hospitals.
Bruce Hosie, Scotland
I think Saddam has hidden them so well you would need to be a miracle worker. I also think, looking at the mass graves and sheer cruelty of the man, that it was long overdue.
Lindsay Owen, England
It matters because we want to know if our leaders tell us the truth. Many of us suspect they don't. If WMD were found then maybe we might have a little more confidence in them.
Phil, England
Of course it matters! We were lied to (again) by both US and UK governments. No one doubts it is good Saddam is gone, but at least Iraqis had water, electricity, food and healthcare whilst he was in power. Now they have nothing because the US/UK destroyed their country on the premise of a lie. This makes Bush and Blair culpable as war criminals, and both should be treated as such by the ICC.
Pete,
England
think that those who pushed so hard to get the war started should take the consequences
|
It seems extraordinary that such an important investigation as to whether or not there were WMD comes AFTER the war and not before. The huge public outcry against the war failed to raise enough questions in government as to the validity of the reasons for attacking Iraq. I think that those who pushed so hard to get the war started should take the consequences, even if it turns out that they were misinformed. And those who are congratulating themselves on the downfall of Saddam, must look at the suffering that exists in Iraq now, as a result of all the bombing.
Francine Last, UK
Yes, there should be a full inquiry. The reason why the UN was sidelined and why millions of demonstrators around the world were because of an imminent threat of the WMD. If the rush could have been avoided then it is possible that a UN solution could have been found that would have time to be far better organised than the US-led shambles that is going on at the moment. I was for the overthrow of Saddam but not in this way, with France, Germany and Russia left out in the cold and diplomatic ties ruined. Bush and Blair bullied the world into a war and they have to now justify why.
Chris M, UK
Blair pointed to three potential mobile weapons labs as proof of Iraq's WMD programme and justification for the conflict. Now we know they were in fact helium production vans sold to Iraq by Marconi.
I want an inquiry to establish the real motives for using taxpayer money to fund an illegal invasion, killing thousands of innocents on both sides. The only people that seem to have benefited are Bush, Blair and their cronies.
Phil, London, UK
Of course there should be an inquiry
|
The pro-war arguments of Blair and others were ludicrously unconvincing even before the war. Millions of people recognised it for a sham before a shot was fired.
Of course there should be an inquiry. Better still, the guilty and the gullible should be driven from office.
Milton A, UK
It is critical for Blair that WMDs are found - and soon. He took the UK to war in the face of overwhelming public opposition on the assertion that Iraq posed an immediate threat to our national security. To now justify the war in humanitarian terms is completely disingenuous. Only the impartiality of a full public enquiry will be sufficient to dispel the air of suspicion that hangs around this government.
Iain Harper, UK
Saddam Hussein WAS the WMD. There are thousands of bodies being dug up in the areas surrounding his notorious prisons. He was a butcher of innocent civilians and political opponents. We (the UK and USA) were right to stop his regime.
The situation in Iraq now is by no means perfect but I wonder how many Iraqi people would return to the previous murderous regime.
Andrew,
UK
It's essential that the truth of the claim be established
|
It matters very much whether WMD are found. People in this country were persuaded that war was necessary on the basis of this claim. It's essential that the truth of the claim be established. People who did support the invasion are now feeling bamboozled and betrayed.
John Wright,
Scotland
N. Akram - if this was really a war on Muslims, please could you advise why the British and American armies sustained high numbers of losses whilst trying to protect the innocent Iraqi people? They could have just obliterated the country. Turning this into a war on religion doesn't help anyone. I for one am glad that Saddam Hussein no longer has the ability to get hold of WMD, whether he actually had any or not is unimportant now.
Anon, Brighton, UK
This all but reinforces the "Crusade" claim. It was a war on Muslims and now they want to do the same to Iran, another Muslim country. What about the WMDs in Israel ?
N. Akram, UK
The accusations against Mr. Blair and Mr. Straw are very trivial and feeble
|
The accusations against Mr. Blair and Mr. Straw are very trivial and feeble. As an Iraqi, I suffered from the dictator's evil deeds. Be patient and WMDs will be found. And if not, there are other legal justifications. It was a war against an evil dictator, an immoral leader who was often a threat to us and to the world. And to N. Akram: Were we not Muslims when the regime killed us, eradicated us, violated us, and attacked Halabja with chemical weapons? I think of those innocent USA and UK citizens who sacrificed their lives to bring democracy for us.
Avesta,
Iraq
Of course it matters! The reason that the government used to justify huge public expenses (putting on hold vital public services in need of improvement) in favour of war needs to be verified. Will this turn out to be just another way to siphon public funds into the weapons and oil industry? We need to know.
George Blair, UK
Since WMD were supposedly the raison d'etre for the war it matters very much whether or not they are found. If none are found are we to believe that the Iraqi regime was incredibly efficient in destroying or hiding all the hardware that we were so afraid of? Or are we to believe that, just perhaps, they weren't there in the first place? If the public have been deliberately misled by politicians, civil servants and/or the intelligence services, every single death or injury during and since the war will have been based on a lie and the credibility of all involved will be gone
Chris Elmes, UK
Of course it matters if they are found as this was the major reason for going to war. If WMD are not found it shows that the motives for war were likely to be oil, and installing a US friendly government in the heart of the Middle East.
Jez, UK
Mr Cook says he does not doubt the "good faith" of Mr Blair, but millions of other people saw through this phoney claim. Does this mean, therefore, that our PM is - at the best - a very poor judge of fact?
Steve, London, UK
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~24~RS~)
One-Minute World News
News services
E-mail this to a friend
Printable version
Original reports and updates from inquiry
