The dishonesty of this so-called dossier: Pages based on ‘probably’ and ‘if’ are not good motives for war

September 2002: Blair’s reason to go to war cannot be based on ‘ifs’, ‘buts’ and ‘coulds’, writes Robert Fisk

US marines and Iraqis are seen on 9 April 2003 as the statue of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is toppled at al-Fardous square in Baghdad, Iraq (Getty)

Tony Blair’s “dossier” on Iraq is a shocking document. Reading it can only fill a decent human being with shame and outrage. Its pages are final proof – if the contents are true – that a massive crime against humanity has been committed in Iraq. For if the details of Saddam’s building of weapons of mass destruction are correct – and I will come to the “ifs” and “buts” and “coulds” later – it means that our massive, obstructive, brutal policy of UN sanctions has totally failed. In other words, half a million Iraqi children were killed by us for nothing.

Let’s go back to 12 May 1996. Madeleine Albright, the US secretary of state, had told us that sanctions worked and had prevented Saddam from rebuilding weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Our Tory government agreed, and Tony Blair faithfully toed the line. But on 12 May, Ms Albright appeared on CBS television. Leslie Stahl, the interviewer, asked: “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” To the world’s astonishment, Ms Albright replied: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it.”