Yesterday, Margaret Beckett brought the Splutterer James Cox to heel on World This Weekend when he quoted this facile version of David Kay's report. She also pointed out we do not have the IRA arms dumps but believe them to exist.

More important is the interview of Dr Al-Baradei of IAEA in Der Spiegel. He is warning that the threat of nuclear war is now very great and that the Libyan/Iran situation has shown him how far the Non-Proliferation controls have been circumvented for which Dr Khan in Pakistan deserves much blame.

Baradei believes we shall see a nuclear war.......in this he advances a position completely at variance with the one he and Blix advanced before The Security Council.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,283418,00.html

"Ein Atomkrieg rückt näher"

Nach Ansicht von Mohammed al-Baradei war die Gefahr eines Atomkriegs "noch nie so groß wie heute". Besonders beunruhigt ist der Generaldirektor der Internationalen Atomenergiebehörde über neue Erkenntnisse über den illegalen Handel mit Nukleartechnik

In English :

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/english/0,1518,283229,00.html

"A Nuclear War Is Drawing Closer"

SPIEGEL interview with chief weapons inspector Mohammed al Baradei about rogue states and the nuclear black market:

"We have had a great many successes with the non-proliferation treaty over the past 35 years, but things can't go on this way: we desperately need to adapt it to present-day actualities - to increase and expand security inspections, and to introduce sanctions for violations. In particular, though, we should put all the plants world-wide which produce weapons-grade material, such as highly enriched uranium or plutonium, under multinational control. ... I am extremely concerned about the developments in North Korea. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Pyongyang already had an operational atomic bomb at its disposal. ... I am afraid that the memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is beginning to fade. I am afraid that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of dictators or terrorists.

was developing biological weapons right up to the war:

Which war are you talking about? Malanie.

From the first moment I heard David Kay's comments quoted on the BBC I knew that I would discover later that his comments would be qualified in many ways that would make them consistent with his last WMD report in November. He'd have had either to flip his lid or to have been lying at that time for the latest comments to stand in the way the BBC presented them. The interesting question is why he allowed himself such suggestive phraseology as 'there never were any' in interviews about WMD. He must have known how the sceptic press would spin such phrases, so why use them? Was he bitter, or what?

I agree with Melanie. I would also say it's strange how little progress we've made in the last nine months. Hans Blix told us very similar things, and I was prepared to believe him, but that didn't mean that Saddam had given up scheming, and, lo, we find that he was still scheming. Surrrprise!

Straw, like all politicians is far too patient & polite with Humphrys.
Humphrys is a simple man (perhaps feigned). Humphrys insisted that Blair had claimed a direct threat to the British Isles.
Blair said in the commons in Sept 2002
" People ask why it matters to Britain. It does not matter because I am standing here saying that tomorrow Saddam is going to launch an attack on Britain. That is not the threat; the threat is that within his own region,.."
Straw needed to disabuse Humphrys of his view far more directly.

Melanie, your picture at the top of this page does not do you justice.
I saw a much younger woman on Newsnight, last night.

Melanie,

you're absolutely right - the whole WMD "issue" is a case of media hype. It was but one strand of the argument against Iraq, but has turned into the only one that is talked about, therefore the only one that MPs can reply to, therefore the sole basis, blah blah. People really need to ask themselves *if* Iraq really had no WMD - and they might well not have done - why on earth did they allow the rest of the world to think they did? Why not allow the inspectors full, unfettered access? Why produce piles of BS documentation (anyone remember that?) when push was finally coming to shove?

Pure machismo, and Sadaam's belief that he could win by front alone - and, indeed, up to a point he did. He managed to split the international community such that some people asked for more time *even* though 12 years of sanctions hadn't worked. TV coverage of Comical Ali allows people to think that we always spot and laugh at liars, but it's just not true - if someone lies often and consistently enough, *someone* will believe them. It's that simple. Daft, but the point is that if you're Sadaam and you keep spouting rubbish, claiming to be cooperating etc.etc. *some* heads of state will believe you. It was simply a game to him - get asked for proof of destroying chemical weapons, produce piles and piles of paper on related subjects. Just keep moving the goalposts, or giving partial cooperation, and rely on the idea that stupid people will think "well, if he's cooperating partially, we must just need to keep trying".

It's a mad world. But a rich and varied one...

"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."
Colin Powell, February 2001.

"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
Condoleeza Rice, April 2001.

Don't you see? We were LIED to.

salient points atomickitten. but futile in this respect with this columnist and her slavish readers.

"the whole WMD "issue" is a case of media hype.", jake what utter nonsense, the reason given as to why UK went to war is because of Saddam's alleged WMD.

the pro-war people simply cannot face upto the evidence meanwhile the bodycount goes up in iraq.

"But what Kay actually said was he thinks newly produced large scale stockpiles and a large scale WMD programme never existed after 1991 -- a very different matter."

different to what, Melanie? to the reason why UK went to war? you have built a straw arument with the "It is now passing into general discourse that David Kay has said Saddam's WMD never existed".

David Kay is saying what Colin Powell said well before the war.

Melanie is well aware of this and it is interesting to follow the pathetic line taken by the apologists for war in the UK.

Watching today's documentary on the reporting of the Iraqi conflict, I challenge anyone to try to justify this disgusting military action that our lying leaders duped us into approving.
4,000 to 10,000 civilian deaths (we will probably never know the actual figure as US statisticians stopped counting many months ago) - mainly due to the badly trained and trigger happy US forces should is truly apalling.
A scene where a US officer briefs his troops to 'kill anything that moves' and 'disregard any consideration of collateral damage', followed by film of dozens of civilian dead shot in their cars as they were unfortunate enough to be in the same area, showed the truth of this 'war'.
I just hope that those who are responsible are brought to justice for their crimes.