Reply #22: I don't think he changed his mind on Iraq's WMD

[reorg]

>A couple of reports have said he was one of those (like his bud, Judith Miller) who considered Saddam a serious threat. If his belief had changed enough for him to source the BBC's story, the MoD or neocons or whoever might want him silenced or punished<

Instead of relying on perhaps misleading characterisations in "a couple of reports" you can read for yourself what he said before the Foreign Relations Committee:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmfaff/uc1025-i/uc102502.htm


He clearly stuck to the government's line in the September report of Iraq being "a serious and a current threat". He qualified this as "a threat to its neighbours and to the INTERESTS of the UK" (emphasis added).

His belief was that there is a "30 percent probability" of Iraq possessing WMD (implying that more probably there aren't any left) - which may or may not translate to a "current and serious threat" - the more pertinent question being: is this enough to convince a parliament to go to war?

As to the question of how the "45 minutes" claim made its way into the report, I find the following statements very interesting:

1. He was "THE senior adviser to the proliferation and arms control secretariat" (emphasis added) with particular expertise in biological and chemical weapons.

2. He had access to all available intelligence in this field.

3. He did NOT contribute to the "intelligence part" of the September report and was not involved in discussions about it.

4. The "45 minute" claim "became apparent to (him) on publication" (i. e. in September).

5. He claims he had "no doubts on the veracity" of the September report and that "the general tenet of that document is one that (he is) sympathetic to".

6. And yet, when asked about the plausibility of the "45 minutes" claim he elaborates:

"Basically it would be very difficult to see how Iraq could deploy in 45 minutes. ... It makes a number of assumptions, that the weapons were all ready to go in the right place with whatever system was being used with the right tracking to attack, and that is very unlikely. We are talking in terms of Iraq, in terms of what we knew ten years ago, a country which filled its weapons to use them, it did not maintain a stockpile of filled weapons, with the exception of mustard gas. It is actually quite a long and convoluted process to go from having bulk agent and munitions to actually getting them to the bunker for storage and then issue them and subsequently deploy them."


I find all this entirely consistent with the BBC reports of a questionable claim being inserted in the September report at the last minute without checking it with the relevant experts - and at the same time it is consistent with the stance of a scientific expert who is loyal to his government and employer and would neither meddle with tactics and considerations of politicians nor engage in deliberate lies and deception.

Why, where and when did he "change his belief"?


I think he was shut up for good because he was undermining the government's position on the September report - as shown above even in his oral testimony before the Committee (Tony Blair on July 9 before the same Committee "there could not be a more serious allegation" - in answer to the question of whether questionable intelligence was inserted at the last minute for publicity reasons).

He also could no longer be trusted to achieve the necessary results in the search for WMD as leader (or prominent member) of the inspection team leaving for Iraq in the next few weeks. Mr. Blair on July 9 was still "absolutely convinced" that they will be found ... by way of interviewing all the relevant Iraqi scientists ...