U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts on Wednesday rebuffed calls for an investigation into whether the Bush administration lied about or bungled the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

“Calls for a formal investigation into this matter are premature,” said Roberts, the Kansas Republican who is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Questions about why no biological or chemical weapons have been found in Iraq have sparked a wave of skepticism about the Bush administration’s earlier contentions, which helped build public and political support for war.

Before the war, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair stated emphatically that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, including possible nuclear capability, and was poised to use them against the West or sell them to terrorists who would. Saddam denied having the weapons.

Now, two months after the fall of Baghdad, leaders around the world still are waiting on evidence the weapons exist.

In London, Parliament soon will conduct its own investigation into Blair’s decision to go to war.

In Washington, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., had said his Armed Services Committee and Roberts’ Intelligence Committee would conduct joint hearings into whether U.S. intelligence was inaccurate or officials manipulated data to increase public support of the war.

But on Wednesday, Roberts said no, and he made it clear his committee had jurisdiction in issues pertaining to the nation’s intelligence system.

Roberts said the committee, “as part of its continuing oversight” of U.S. intelligence-gathering agencies, would look into the issue by reviewing documentation from CIA Director George Tenet in order to evaluate the intelligence underlying prewar assessments of Iraq’s weapons capabilities and the accuracy of those reports.

¢More on the war in Iraq

The search continues

Roberts also noted that the search for weapons of mass destruction was continuing. The Iraq Survey Group, a new organization of 1,500 personnel from various government agencies, has just started its search for weapons in Iraq.

“This crucial work should be allowed to proceed unimpeded,” Roberts said.

The committee’s review will determine whether a hearing or any further action is needed, but he set no deadline for completion of that review.

Congressmen respond

Lawrence’s congressmen, meanwhile, are split over whether weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.

Rep. Jim Ryun, a Republican whose district includes western Lawrence, said Wednesday that Saddam had biological weapons as the United States prepared for war.

“We have already found biological weapons labs, which could have cost countless lives if Saddam were still in power,” Ryun said. “These findings serve as proof that the regime was actively contemplating the use of weapons of mass destruction.”

Bush has said U.S. forces found weapons of mass destruction, but that statement was based on discovery of two truck trailers suspected of being mobile biological weapons labs.

Rep. Dennis Moore, a Democrat whose district covers eastern Lawrence, said he was surprised no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, and that he was told the arms were there before he voted for a resolution last fall giving Bush authority to take military action against Iraq.

“I would be disappointed if the intelligence information that was also given to us was not correct,” he said. “I would be very disappointed.”

Moore said it was appropriate that investigations be conducted about the intelligence gathered by the United States before the war.

In fall 2002, Moore said, he had a handful of briefings with people inside and outside the Bush administration, and all agreed Saddam had biological and chemical weapons, and was close to getting nuclear weapons.

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., said the main justification for the invasion was that Saddam was a violent, unstable dictator hostile to the United States.

“We know Saddam’s regime had and used weapons of mass destruction and that these weapons were and are still missing. These are the basic facts that have not changed,” Brownback said. “One reason for going to war with Iraq was definitely the threat posed by these weapons — but it was a threat of uncertainty. We were not willing to wait for Saddam to perfect and use these weapons. Instead, we chose to confront the danger in the battlefield rather than wait for it to be used against civilians.

“It is not surprising that Saddam went to great lengths to hide or even destroy these weapons. We are not talking about a rational man.”