I posted this on another thread.
They have taken another break until 14:00 their time. That is, I think about 6:00 a.m. our time. I think they are 8 hours ahead of us.
Here is my understanding of the crucial points in Blair's testimony:
Blair admits that he and Bush knew before the invasion, although perhaps not long before the invasion, that Saddam did not have actual WMDs other than those under UN control and that, while Saddam had long-range missiles, Saddam had reluctantly agreed to relinquish them. But, Blair says, he was convinced that Saddam had the intent to develop nuclear weapons and that, if the price of oil rose and the sanctions were lifted, Saddam would obtain nuclear weapons. Blair further said that he believed that the sanctions would be lifted if the US and Britain did not invade Iraq.
From what I could tell, a primary basis for Blair's conviction that Saddam still had the intent to build WMDs (either chemical weapons or nuclear weapons) was the fact that Saddam did not want his scientists to be interviewed outside the country. Apparently, Blair had the impression from discussions with the UN inspector Blix that Blix did not want to press Saddam regarding interviews with the scientists outside the country because Blix feared that Saddam would harm either the scientists or their families if the scientists cooperated with Blix.
Blair was impressed by Powell's claims (in January?) before the UN and the claims of the US that Saddam had chemical (or biological?) weapons. As we now know those claims were false and based on poor evidence.
Here is what troubles me about Blair's claim that the invasion was justified because Saddam had the intent of recommencing his WMD program. If we invaded Iraq based on the fact that Saddam was a cruel ruler and that Blair and Bush believed that he had the intent or hope and might obtain the means to build WMDs, can we invade any country if we convince ourselves that the country has a cruel ruler and the intent or hope and might obtain the means to build WMDs? Especially if the nation has been known to use WMDs against another nation?
Clearly a number of other countries have cruel rulers and the intention and means to build nuclear weapons, yet we have not invaded them. The USSR had nuclear weapons and invaded Hungary in 1956 and then Czechoslovakia in 1968, but we did not invade the USSR. A number of countries including Pakistan, India, Israel, France, the USSR, China, the US and, Heaven Forbid North Korea have nuclear weapons but are in tense conflicts with other countries. Some of those countries have or have had a military presence in another country at one point or another. I'm not saying that any of them should be invaded. I'm just saying that justifying the invasion of another country because the country has the intent of developing nuclear weapons and might or has in the past used those weapons or might use those weapons on another country might justify a lot of military action, a lot of war.
Further, if Blair's criteria for invasion -- intent and means to build WMDs and having used them against another nation -- were to be deemed the legal test for determining what nations could be invaded, what nation or nations might be susceptible to invasion now? Iraq used WMDs against Iran in their war. Today, I'm not even sure what the war between Iraq and Iran was really about, but it was a very local war and each side felt justified in its fight. If I recall correctly, we backed Iraq at the time. Were we as critical of Iraq's use of WMDs against Iran when Iraq used them?
Should one or two nations on their own without a strong UN mandate be allowed to apply Blair's test, make the judgments involved and invade another country without incurring severe penalties? Do we, here, in the US want that test to be the legal test that justifies the invasion of another country?
I think that Blair has talked himself into a hole on this. After hearing Blair's testimony, I am more troubled than ever by doubts about the legality of the Iraq War.
It is easy to point out that the Bush and Blair governments violated rules of human decency and possibly international law in invading Iraq on such flimsy evidence for such questionable reasons, but what does that mean for the British and American people?
The Blair testimony once again highlights the fact that in this age of information, governments can no longer operate behind closed doors in the dark, can no longer harbor secrets and can no longer lie to their citizens. Sooner or later the truth will out.
Governments can learn from this that it is best to be open, to allow criticism even if it hampers a speedy response to a crisis and to be honest because any other course will end very badly. The truth always out. These days, it outs a lot faster than in the past.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8486631.stm
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
