London Times Letter to the Editor

A question of WMD intelligence for the Prime Minister
From Professor Eric Moonman

Sir, It is deeply troubling that within a matter of a few weeks following the successful ending of the short Iraqi war, politicians and others have created such a vile atmosphere of distrust in challenging the available evidence provided by the Prime Minister (reports, June 5). At work here are the personal opportunists in his own party (Short, Cook) and those seeking party advantage (the Liberal Democrat leader).
The Prime Minister’s integrity has been damaged by charges of duplicity. And yet the evidence does not support such claims.

One charge is that he pressurised the intelligence service to provide better quality information before moving to war. What is so surprising or sinister about this demand? On a much lesser level, would not CEOs in business demand such assurances before taking a major policy issue?

A second charge against the Prime Minister is that the chemical and biological weapons have yet to be found. Is it not at least conceivable that even whilst the long-drawn-out UN negotiations were taking place for a suitable resolution, the raw materials were being shipped out?

Does no one recall that this is precisely what Saddam Hussein did on the eve of the first Gulf War, when he had his most sophisticated advanced planes dispatched to Iran? It really would not take a great deal of time to remove the various chemicals to another country near by.

The blame for the current mood of suspicion must surely lie with our intelligence services, which were clearly not up-to-date with their inquiries. They might have found valuable references on the concealment of major weaponry in the reports of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. In any event, a clear-out in the intelligence services would be most prudent.

Yours sincerely,
ERIC MOONMAN,
1 Beacon Hill, N7 9LY.
June 5.