Blair Bows To Calls For Iraq Intelligence Inquiry

The decision came one day after Washington set up its own probe into the reasons given for the invasion of the oil-rich country, and as Australian Prime Minister John Howard said he might have been wrong when he argued Iraq had chemical and biological armaments.

"I think it is right…that we have a look at the intelligence that we received and whether it was accurate or not," Blair told a senior parliamentary committee.

Until now, Blair has firmly resisted calls for an inquiry although no banned weapons have been found, months after Saddam Hussein was toppled, Reuters reported.

Clamor has grown to explain apparent flaws in intelligence that led Blair to state, prior to the invasion, that Iraq was a "serious and current" threat and that it had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons.

A move by President George W. Bush to appoint an independent commission on U.S. intelligence – confirmed Monday – turned up the heat on Britain to do the same although Blair denied being wrongfooted by Washington’s move.

"It’s humiliating that we are just being an echo of the U.S. again," former Cabinet Minister Clare Short said.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw made a statement to parliament at 1230 GMT, spelling out details of the inquiry.

He said that the inquiry would help the government evaluate the accuracy of information they were provided on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.

The official government line that evidence of weapons could yet be found has been increasingly hard to sustain since chief U.S. weapons hunter David Kay quit his post last month and blew a hole in the Anglo-American argument.

Kay said he believed Iraq had no stockpiles of illicit weapons and that "we were almost all wrong" in assuming it did.

‘Dereliction Of Duty’

Blair insisted that the lack of banned weapons did not undermine the legal or moral case for the invasion, although it was the express reason he gave for military action.

Saddam, he said, was flouting U.N. resolutions, anyway.

"Had we failed to act on the intelligence we received, I think it would have been a gross dereliction of duty," he said.

"Whatever is discovered as a result of that inquiry, I do not accept that it was wrong to remove Saddam Hussein or that the world is not a safer or better place for that".