WMD not ready in 45 minutes: Kelly

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=78002004

Wed 21 Jan 2004

WEAPONS expert David Kelly said that Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction were an "immediate threat" but that it would take "days or weeks" rather than 45 minutes to use them.

In a secret BBC interview, the late weapons inspector asserted that the Iraqi dictator would only launch chemical or biological weapons as a last resort if under attack.

His view undermines the Government’s Iraq dossier, which says that "military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes".

And it also casts doubt on Tony Blair’s assertion that Saddam was ready to use them to attack his neighbours and had to be taken out to stop him. However, it does not support the full thrust of BBC Defence Correspondent Andrew Gilligan’s controversial Today programme report that Downing Street had "sexed up" the dossier in a range of ways.




So does this mean the BBC report was true? Can't wait until the Hutton report comes out.

Just don't expect Hutton to say so. Even the BBC is busy stabbing Gilligan in the back in order to save Bliar's face.

"In a secret BBC interview, the late weapons inspector asserted that the Iraqi dictator would only launch chemical or biological weapons as a last resort if under attack."

So when were they at the point of "last resort"? I would think that the time would have already passed by now. (Maybe around the time US forces took control of the country). It's not like they didn't know it was coming. THEY HAD THE DAYS AND WEEKS KAY IS TALKING ABOUT. On the other hand, it's hard to prepare weapons you don't have....

SH: Get the WMD ready, we will use them as last resort, right as the largest forces arrive in baghdad and tikrit!

WMD Director: Um, I have good news and bad news

SH: What!?! Good news first.

WMDD: They're all ready!

SH: Wow, that took less than 46 minutes, how were they able to do it so fast?

WMDD: That's where the bad news comes in. We don't actually HAVE any WMD. It seems like the whole program was a program to keep you THINKING we had wmd's so the scientists had jobs and you did not kill their families

Why is a journalistic organization conducting "secret interviews"??

stuff, we could begin to have open and honest governments. But then I suppose that would be way too much to expect. Thats the way its been done for centuries to keep control of the peons and keep them believing there is a monster behind every corner.

He could not publically make comments as we was not authorised to by the government. The BBC says secret because if it came out that he was talking to the media, he would have been sidelined, made a pariah, and ultimately removed from his position


-interupt has a think-

Wow...hindsight is 20/20

there was a real chance that WMD existed and could be used? It's precisely because they had the "all clear" that the invasion was greenlighted. The UN was all over Iraq looking for these weapons; you can bet that they had a pretty good handle on the total military capabilities of Iraq.

the invasion, or am I unremembering that...?

I seem to remember several embedded journalists panicking when the air sirens went off in Kuwait trying to get in the chem suits, hold their microphone and wish their viewers a teary goodbye.


Man it was pathetic. How many SCUD missiles hit Kuwait?

1 or 2?

We're not invading North Korea, and everyone knows it's because... THEY HAVE WMD'S.

:crazy:

This hour long video sums up the debate, and is indeed well worth watching.

:shrug:

(non-subscription) Evening Standard

(subscription, free to UK internet addresses) The Times

(briefly mentioned in 'Gilligan hits back' story') The Guardian