The British Prime Minister Tony Blair declared that the recent invasion of Iraq will prove to be a ?defining? event in this century. What will it define? How this definition will be used to further peace in this world? Which definition will show that Iraq is better off after the invasion? When will the world see the definition that proves weapons of mass destruction did exist in Iraq?

<B>Definition One</B>

The invasion of Iraq was engineered by both Bush and Blair on the basis that Saddam Hussein not only had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) but he was capable of launching a fatal attack within 45 minutes of asking his army to get ready for war. Such was the pressing evidence on this issue that Tony Blair made a public statement alerting people that all we had left was three quarters of an hour. This is indeed very frightening, shows that Iraq had been not only manufacturing WMD but the weapons were manufactured, moulded and ready for use. ?They are there in stock piles and the PM has seen hard evidence that WMD is there visible and tangible.?

This indeed gets the adrenalin racing, gets people en masse to worry about what we should do fight or flight. Well, there is no room in the world to run away to and hide if we have only 45 minutes. The public were in fact subconsciously prepared and made aware that they have no choice and fight is the only option. The message is loud and clear ?we must attack Iraq? before ?Iraq uses its 45 minutes.? The psychology of readiness is set in motion and gets the public machinery rolling and massaging public opinion.

It has now been revealed that the intelligence service never stated to the government that Saddam could launch WMD in 45 minutes. It is suggested that Downing Street added to the MI5 report that ?WMD could be launched in 45 minutes after Saddam gives his orders?.

Thus, the evidence presented by the secret service was deliberately and purposefully distorted by a democratically elected PM. This is not only massaging the truth but making lies appear more credible than truth. The British New Labour Party has developed refined skills in presentation and spin. The spin doctors at No. 10 are considered the best at presentation, stage management, window dressing and burying bad news. This style of ?political defining moments? brings democracy in disrepute when lies are dressed up to be more truthful than the truth, dishonesty made to look more honest than honesty and insincerity to be believed as more sincere than sincerity.

Another source indicates that only one of the secret services mentioned the possibility that Saddam could be ready to launch WMD in 45 minutes. When this sort of serious statement is identified, it is usually cross-checked with other sources to verify, to authenticate and to substantiate the evidence. Any responsible government would do that. It appears that in this case, no such deliberate validation and corroboration was undertaken. This is a very surprising and astounding step. No cross checking, no question asked and purposefully thrust into public domain to frighten the people, to subjugate the anti-war movement which was gaining momentum and to prepare the country for war. Based on this engineering of a phrase in a single report, UK mobilised millions of pounds for the war chest, thousands of military equipments and personnel to Iraq, thousands of families, anxious and worried about their loved ones facing the imminent combat, and millions of innocent Iraqis facing bombs, devastation and death. Indeed, this is the defining moment. This reminds me of an extract from the Holy Quoran:

?O you who believe! if an evil-doer comes to you with a report, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you have done.? Surah Al-Hujuraat (Surah 49), Ayah 6

In contrast, here is a list of statements made by politicians to justify their actions and to mobilise public opinion based on now discredited evidence:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. George W. Bush September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world. Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

The President of the United States and the Secretary of Defence would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it. Ari Fleischer December 6, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there. Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. George W. Bush January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. Colin Powell February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. George W. Bush February 8, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not. Colin Powell March 7, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other government leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. George W. Bush March 17, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes. Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them. Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we?re going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction. Defense Policy Board member, Kenneth Adelman March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy theWMD. There are a number of sites. Pentagon Spokeswoman, Victoria Clark March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They?re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction, US forces find -- and there will be plenty. Neocon scholar, Robert Kagan April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found. Ari Fleischer April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them. George W. Bush April 24, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003

We?ll find them. It?ll be a matter of time to do so. George W. Bush May 3, 2003

I?m absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We?re just getting it just now. Colin Powell May 4, 2003

We never believed that we?d just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003

I?m not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program. George W. Bush May 6, 2003

US officials never expected that ?we were going to open garages and find? weapons of mass destruction. Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003

I just don?t know whether it was all destroyed years ago-I mean, there?s no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they?re still hidden. Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne May 13, 2003

Before the war, there?s no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found. Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we?re interrogating, I?m confident that we?re going to find weapons of mass destruction. Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don?t know the answer. Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on. Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003

It was a surprise to me then it remains a surprise to me now that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it?s not for lack of trying. We?ve been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they?re simply not there. Lieutenant General James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force May 30, 2003 (Source: http://billmon.org.v.sabren.com/archives/000172.htm)

<B>Definition Two </B>

Donald Rumsfeld admitted two weeks ago that Iraq may never have had the weapons of mass destruction and now Downing Street is following suit. Tony Blair is asking for time when he ganged up with Bush to deny UN time and deny time to the weapons inspectors.The British press is inundated with articles and papers on WMD and statements from politicians. Here is an overview of how this matter is being reported. The Bush administration focused on alleged weapons of mass destruction as the primary justification for toppling Saddam Hussein by force because it was politically convenient, a top-level official at the Pentagon has acknowledged. The extraordinary admission comes in an interview with Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defence Secretary, in the July issue of the magazine Vanity Fair.

Paul Wolfowitz also discloses that there was one justification that was ?almost unnoticed but huge.? That was the prospect of the United States being able to withdraw all of its forces from Saudi Arabia once the threat of Saddam had been removed. Since the taking of Baghdad, Washington has said that it is taking its troops out of the kingdom. ?Just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to the door? towards making progress elsewhere in achieving Middle East peace, Paul Wolfowitz said. The presence of the US military in Saudi Arabia has been one of the main grievances of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

?For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on,? Paul Wolfowitz tells the magazine.

The comments suggest that, even for the US administration, the logic that was presented for going to war may have been an empty shell. They come to light, moreover, just two days after Mr Wolfowitz?s immediate boss, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, conceded for the first time that the arms might never be found.

The failure to find a single example of the weapons that London and Washington said were inside Iraq only makes the embarrassment more acute. Voices are increasingly being raised in the US ? and Britain ? demanding an explanation for why nothing has been found. Most striking is the fact that these latest remarks come from Paul Wolfowitz, recognised widely as the leader of the hawks? camp in Washington most responsible for urging President George Bush to use military might in Iraq. The magazine article reveals that Paul Wolfowitz was even pushing Mr Bush to attack Iraq immediately after the 11 September attacks in the US, instead of invading Afghanistan.

There have long been suspicions that Paul Wolfowitzhas essentially been running a shadow administration out of his Pentagon office, ensuring that the right-wing views of himself and his followers find their way into the practice of American foreign policy. He is best known as the author of the policy of first-strike pre-emption in world affairs that was adopted by George W. Bush shortly after the al-Qaeda attacks.

In asserting that weapons of mass destruction gave a rationale for attacking Iraq that was acceptable to everyone, Paul Wolfowitz was presumably referring in particular to the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell. He was the last senior member of the administration to agree to the push earlier this year to persuade the rest of the world that removing Saddam by force was the only remaining viable option. The conversion of Colin Powell was on full view in the UN Security Council in February when he made a forceful presentation of evidence that allegedly proved that Saddam was concealing weapons of mass destruction.

Critics of the administration and of the war will now want to know how convinced the Americans really were that the weapons existed in Iraq to the extent that was publicly stated. Questions are also multiplying as to the quality of the intelligence provided to the White House. Was it simply faulty - given that nothing has been found in Iraq ? or was it influenced by the White House?s fixation on the weapons issue? Or were the intelligence agencies telling the White House what it wanted to hear?

Sam Nunn, a former senator, urged Congress to investigate whether the argument for war in Iraq was based on distorted intelligence. He raised the possibility that George W. Bush?s policy against Saddam had influenced the intelligence that indicated Baghdad had weapons of mass destruction.

The CIA and the other American intelligence agencies have promised to conduct internal reviews of the quality of the material they supplied the administration on what was going on in Iraq. The heat on the White House was only made fiercer by Mr Rumsfeld?s admission that nothing may now be found in Iraq to back up those earlier claims, if only because the Iraqis may have got rid of any evidence before the conflict.

?It is also possible that they decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict,? the Defence Secretary said.

The US military said that it had released a suspected Iraqi war criminal by mistake. US Central Command said it was offering a $25 000 reward for the capture of Mohammed Jawad An-Neifus, suspected of being involved in the murder of thousands of Iraqi Shia Muslims whose remains were found at a mass grave in Mahawil, southern Iraq, last month.

<B>The alleged mobile weapons laboratories</B>

As scepticism grows over the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, London and Washington are attempting to turn the focus of attention to Iraq?s alleged possession of mobile weapons labs. A joint CIA and Defence Intelligence Agency report claimed that two trucks found in northern Iraq last month were mobile labs used to develop biological weapons. The trucks were fitted with hi-tech laboratory equipment and the report said the discovery represented the ?strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biowarfare programme?. Hardly a laboratory to produce massive amounts of chemical and biological weapons!

The design of the vehicles made them ?an ingeniously simple self-contained bioprocessing system?. The report said no other purpose, for example water purification, medical laboratory or vaccine production, would justify such effort and expense. But critics are not convinced. No biological agents were found on the trucks and experts point out that, unlike the trucks described by Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, in a speech to the UN Security Council, they were open-sided and would therefore have left a trace easy for weapons inspectors to detect. One former UN Inspector said that the trucks would have been a very inefficient way to produce anthrax.

<B>Definition Three</B>

This is the deadliest definition for Tony Blair. Robin Cook, the former British Foreign secretary and Leader of the House of Commons, and Senior Member of the ruling Labour Party resigned from the government because he did not agree with the invasion of a sovereign country like Iraq. His resignation speech made in the House of Commons is acknowledged as the most potent speech ever made by a resigning minister. He says clearly now that Blair has made a ?monumental blunder.? Could this be a ?defining body blow? to Tony Blair? It is well known from ?the inner circle? sources that he is obsessed by the desire to make history and be remembered by history as a great not only PM but an international politician.

That is one of the reasons he is so close to George W. Bush and even stoops to being a poodle and attempts to make an impact at international level through war. Indeed, he may have succeeded in doing just that by taking a democratic country to an illegal war when the majority of the British people opposed it; and defy world opinion, damage relations with the EU partners and now feel incapable of finding the very WMD that was supposed to be ready for use in forty five minutes.

The second important politician to resign from the cabinet is Claire Short, the International Development Secretary who went on TV to denounce Tony Blair as ?duping? her and the British public. As a minister, she was privy to confidential evidence, papers and discussions. If she is saying that the public has been ?duped?, then there must be some truth in this. Has Mr Blair deliberately stretched the evidence to risk the lives of soldiers and innocent Iraqis? Has the obsession for fame gone too far? Is he the weakest link in the international chain that he seeks to dominate? This is a very serious charge and could lead to the downfall of the PM. If this were to happen, then indeed history will have been made.

Saddam Hussein will have seen off another politician just as he did Bush Senior. In America as well, George W. Bush Jr. is coming under pressure to produce the WMD that he talked about, find where Saddam Hussein is and bring him to justice. Where are the war heads loaded with biological and chemical weapons? This is what the world wants.

At the moment, Saddam does not appear to be an issue as he is not in charge. The Americans are busy pumping the oil from Iraq to US and Israel, shipping all the valuable paintings and works of art from Iraq, dishing out the billion dollar contracts to rebuild Iraq to US/British companies while the Iraqis are still left in squalid condition with no interim government and no security. Disorder and chaos still reign supreme on the streets of Iraq. The jury is still out on Bush and Blair duo. History might see the demise of these politicians and call into question the use of ?heavy spin doctors.?

This is an exciting episode in British politics. What does democracy indeed mean in modern England? Is this the result of a large majority in the House of Commons? Absolute power corrupts. At the end of the day, the public will have to learn that it is never wise to send a new PM into office with a ?landslide? victory. The key to keeping control of the country is to ensure a reasonable opposition in parliament. The world awaits the evidence from Tony Blair and George W. Bush. No wonder they did not want to involve the UN again and refused UN weapon inspectors? entry to post-war Iraq. At least Saddam Hussein let the inspectors in several times. ?Give me more time?, ?the public will have to wait? are the cries from these war leaders. But, time is running out. Now, we have US weapon inspectors marching up and down Iraq either looking for WMD or planting WMD. Their findings will never be credible and the ordinary public will never believe either Bush or Blair. At the moment, they are the Tom and Jerry of international politics instigating a lot of fighting and then making up at the G8 summit.

Dr Taleb Durgahee