- The Guardian, Friday 29 January 2010
William Shawcross repeats the familiar but false claim that Saddam had, and had used, weapons of mass destruction (Thanks to this 'illegal' war, Iraqis at last have real hope for the future, 27 January). What Saddam had and used – including, despicably, against Kurdish civilians at Halabja – were battlefield chemical weapons. As Robin Cook pointed out in his resignation speech in 2003, battlefield chemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction (even if Saddam had still possessed them, which he no longer did). A weapon of mass destruction, properly so called, is one that can kill a hundred thousand or a million people in a single strike, which fortunately Saddam never possessed. It is debasing the language to use this hyperbolic term to refer to battlefield munitions, however unpleasant.
Professor David Turner
Canterbury, Kent
• William Shawcross states that after resolution 1441, weapons inspectors were still denied unfettered access in Iraq. This is contradictory to Hans Blix's account (Blair sold Iraq on WMD, but only regime change adds up, 15 December 2009), which says "Iraq became more co-operative and showed no defiance that could prompt the authorising of armed force".
Bernard Duggan
Chatham, Kent
• It is disingenuous to blame Iraqi deaths on "other Muslims". In the first days of occupation the Coalition Provisional Authority systematically dismantled all forms of order and administration in the country. The Iraqi national guard was disbanded. Weapon dumps were left unguarded. The oil ministry was secured. It showed nothing less than a reckless disregard for human life.
Laurence Rowe
Manchester
• As Andy Beckett says in his fascinating article on the Chilcot inquiry (Called to account, G2, 28 January), "around 8am, a tiny, polite queue begins to form in the icy gloom outside the conference centre". But why outside? The conference centre is easily large enough to accommodate the queue in the warmth inside. On the cold day we queued, the doors remained closed until an hour before the session started. Why is the public punished in this way for taking an interest?
Chris and Betty Birch
London
• One of the most dispiriting things about Lord Goldsmith receiving taxpayer-funded legal advice to "help" him prepare his testimony to the Chilcot inquiry (Report, 27 January) is that it comes from a government which has systematically slashed legal aid. Any ordinary member of the public, before getting legal aid, would have to show that it was is in the interest of justice for the award to be made, and the applicant would then be means-tested. Goldsmith would be unlikely to qualify on either count.
Greg Foxsmith
Solicitor, Shearman Bowen and Co