Found on another forum but it seems at least the BBC spoke about it, it was back in december of 2003:
Bremer 'rejects' Blair WMD claims (from BBC)
The US official running Iraq appears to have contradicted Tony Blair's claim Saddam Hussein had laboratories for developing weapons of mass destruction.
The prime minister said in a Christmas message to UK troops that the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) had unearthed "massive evidence" of clandestine labs.
The head of the Coalition Provisional Authority said it was not true.
Paul Bremer said it sounded like a "red herring" made up by someone to upset the rebuilding effort.
But Mr Bremer seems to have been unaware that the quotes had come from Mr Blair when they were put to him in an interview on ITV1's Jonathan Dimbleby programme.
"I don't know where those words come from but that is not what (ISG chief) David Kay has said," he said.
"I have read his reports so I don't know who said that.
"It sounds like a bit of a red herring to me. It sounds like someone who doesn't agree with the policy sets up a red herring then knocks it down."
However when it was pointed out the remarks had come from the leader of the US's closest ally, Mr Bremer seemed to pull back from his original remarks.
"There is actually a lot of evidence that had been made public," he said
Doubts
Former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has also cast doubt on Mr Blair's assertion.
Dr Blix said it was "innuendo" to suggest laboratories were used for WMD.
However on Sunday, Downing Street was standing by the prime minister's comments.
A spokeswoman insisted he was referring to "already published material" in the interim report by the ISG.
In the interview with the British Forces Broadcasting Service, Mr Blair had said: "The Iraq Survey Group has already found massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories, workings by scientists, plans to develop long range ballistic missiles.
Now, frankly, these things weren't being developed unless they were developed for a purpose."
Echoing what Mr Bremer said, Dr Blix said that the ISG had failed to produce any concrete evidence that the laboratories they had found were working on WMD.
However, Mr Bremer rejected Dr Blix's claim that there were no WMD left for Saddam to give up. "You might conclude that Dr Blix is out of touch," he said.
Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said that he would be pressing ministers on the state of the government's knowledge about Iraqi WMD when Parliament returns in the New Year.
"It is high time the prime minister cleared this matter up once and for all," he said.
"Just exactly what was the British Government's state of knowledge at the time of military action about the presence of weapons of mass destruction and the facilities for manufacturing them; and what do they know now?"
@Zund: I don't want to trust a private media that is runned by a tycoon close (too close) to some politicians and not others. The group of Rupert Murdoch showed more than once during this whole year they are probably one of the most biased news group in the world.
As for state run media news, I agree they may not seem independant, but in a lot of cases, they are. Believe me. BBC was and Belgian television is.
An example of the Belgian television some years ago: they showed a news report proving the implication of the Belgian government (the catholic party that was in power) and the French government (the socialist gvt that was in power) in the Rwanda genocide. Later on, both countries settled an "independant" comission that cleared them out (just like Blair and the Hutton report vs BBC)...but the Belgian TV once again proved that the head of this independant Belgian comission was himself heavely implicated in the Rwanda genocide...this and another scandal made the catholic party to lose its leadership in power and they were rejected in the opposition since...
Biased ? This was from Belgian state runned but independant TV...(we also have private runned TVs and frankly, the news from these are often crappy, outdated or just looking for "sensionalism" at all cost without checking their news... just to make an audience).
I think you underestimate too much the links that exist between politicians and media news, either private or state runned. The example of France is flagrant, the biggest private runned TV is close to all politicians and ask permission to those before airing some too much sensitive news...(it was the case for the Rwanda genocide but also other matters).
Only experience and a close watch to different channels may give you an hint on who is the closest to independance...and given the fact I live on a crossroad of Europe and the world, I can tell you BBC, "despite" being state runned, is probably the best news channel in the world.