Australia's Lateline >> Bush, Blair had ‘no evidence’ of Iraq WMDs: lawyer

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1605153.htm

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1605153.htm

Broadcast: 31/03/2006

Bush, Blair had ‘no evidence’ of Iraq WMDs: lawyer
Reporter: Tony Jones


TONY JONES: Phillipe Sands, thanks for being there.

PHILIPPE SANDS, INTERNATIONAL LAWYER AND AUTHOR: Delighted to join you again.

TONY JONES: Yes, indeed. It's extremely rare, isn't it, to get this kind of an insight of an extremely private, we should say secret meeting between two leaders preparing for a coming war. Tell us what you think are the main insights to be gained from the so-called White House memo?

PHILIPPE SANDS: Well, I think there are two really crucial issues. Firstly, the memo of the meeting of 31 January, which has not been challenged - its authenticity hasn't been attacked in any way, the contents haven't been attacked - confirms the decision to go to war had already been taken by President Bush, in terms irrespective of whether or not there was a second resolution. And the British PM does not demur from that decision. Secondly but I think even more significantly, the memo effectively confirms that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I think it's clear that the material indicates that both President Bush and the PM had a belief that there were weapons of mass destruction there but they didn't actually have any evidence. And that's why they engaged in the type of conversation that relates to putting up spy planes because they needed to do something to provoke some Iraqi reaction in order to justify, if you like, a second resolution.

...

TONY JONES: Here's one of the critical bits of the memo from our point of view. President Bush had to say that if we ultimately failed military action, to get the resolution that is, military action would follow anyway?

PHILIPPE SANDS: Those words are totally unambiguous. That document confirms irrevocably that the decision had been taken by President Bush and it goes onto confirm that the British PM was with him. There's an interesting question listening to your piece as to the role of Australia in all of this. No doubt, at some point, material will emerge to indicate at what point John Howard gave his unequivocal support. Anecdotally, I do know that President Bush told an Australian acquaintance of mine personally that John Howard was one man he could always count on. So I'd be personally surprised if there isn't some indication somewhere that John Howard would also have provided rather early support.