by Englishman 13 Replies latest social current
It seems that that nice Mr. Blair was acting on information believed to be genuine when he took Britain to war.
That nasty old BEEB BEEB SEE has received a right bollocking for not checking it's own information properly.
It's unprecedented for the BBC to be so castigated. CLICK HERE.
Heads are going to roll!
Englishman.
It's a leaked report and spun to suit the government.
I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that they didn't cherry pick the intelligence to suit their agenda. They always give the response that "we didn't make the intelligence up". I don't doubt it. But that is not the question.
If 100 reports said there were no weapons and 1 said there was, they focused on the 1 uncorroborated piece and didn't provide the disclaimers about it being a single source so it coudl be judged accordingly.
It's a leaked report and spun to suit the government.
Not any more it's not. The real thing has been summarised by Hutton himself. The BBC have been put through the mill and Blairs Govt barely even pin pricked. Howard owes TB a massive public apology.
Blair went to war on bad information. We all know that now. Remember though, JFK was told that there were definitely no missiles in Cuba!
I'm glad he acted, aren't you guys?
Englishman.
Absolutely agree with you, Mike.
I personally wish Bush made the 45 minute claim; that would've had heaped far more crow on Bush's plate than the Nigerian uranium claim.
When people as dedicated and knowledgeable as Generals Anthony Zinni and Wes Clark don't think we need to go to war, then chickenhawk politicians like GW Bush can't blame it on the intelligence. I don't include Tony Blair in the "chickenhawk" comment because I don't know his background and don't know if he's seen combat or not. I suspect not, however.
Sorry, this was bad policy, not bad intelligence. Every nasty tyrant in the world has some amount of weapons that we'd rather they didn't. It doesn't mean it's worth unlimited billions of dollars and the lives of thousands to go take those weapons from them.
Sincerity is not a good excuse for reckless policy, and not all "intelligence" is spy stuff.
And wasn't it nice of the BBC to dutifully report how naughty they've been? True gentlemen, all.
Nina
Wow - will the leader of the opposition apologize to Tony Blair in The House of Commons - if so I must watch it on the C-Span CHANNEL
Dons flame proof gear before wading in
The Hutton report is only about the circumstances that lead up to the death of David Kelly.
So although Tony Bluuuggghh seems to have been cleared in this report, the fact is still there that he went to war on very dodgy evidence. The question remains where are the WMDs that were meant to be ready to use in 45 minutes. There should still be an inquiry on whether the gov was justified in going to war.
That's ok. Good ole Dubya manages to avoid egg on his face like a teflon don here in the States.
Let's have a look at the facts shall we?
In his 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush cites British Intelligence stating unequivocally that Saddam Hussein was attempting to acquire uranium from Africa. Current status of this claim? The Administration has since backed off this claim entirely.
Bush did not dispute the Blair intelligence that Hussein had capability within a 45 minute time frame, and that Iraq possessed WMD. Current status: Nothing more than a speculative allegation, after almost a year, no WMD have been found.
Hell, even one of his own Cabinet secretaries, Paul O'Neill, came forward and admitted that Bush was after Hussein pre 9/11. Or how about David Kay himself coming forward in recent days and saying no WMD are there? Revisionist history is convenient for Bush supporters. This was a preemptive war based on WMD and a threat, now the facts come out that no WMD are there, and Bush instead touts the war as a victory for democracy and freedom for Iraqis under a despot. That was not the justification for the war. If it was, the US should be invading North Korea, China, and other tyrannical nations.
| Kay Blames Weak Intel in Iraq WMD Failure |  |
| 58 minutes ago |
|
By KATHERINE PFLEGER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Former top U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told members of the Senate Wednesday that the failure to turn up weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ( news - web sites) exposed weaknesses in America's intelligence-gathering apparatus.
| ||||||||||||||||||
"We've had a number of surprises," Kay told reporters after meeting behind closed doors with the Senate Intelligence Committee. "It's quite clear we need capabilities that we do not have with regard to intelligence."
Later, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee ( news - web sites ) that "we were almost all wrong ? and I certainly include myself here," in believing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
But Kay denied suggestions by Democrats that intelligence analysts felt pressured by the administration to shape intelligence to help President Bush ( news - web sites) make the case for war. He said he spoke to many analysts who prepared the intelligence and "not in a single case was the explanation that I was pressured to this."
Kay also said despite no evidence of weapons stockpiles, Iraqi documents, physical evidence and interviews with Iraqi scientists revealed that Iraq was engaged in weapons programs prohibited by U.N. resolutions.
Senators have been anxious to speak to Kay, one of a number of U.S. officials who have recently adjusted their positions on Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites )'s military capabilities. The Bush administration cited a threat from such weapons as a principle justification for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam last year.
As special adviser to CIA ( news - web sites) Director George Tenet, Kay was chosen last year as the Iraq Survey Group leader in part because he was convinced weapons would be found. "My suspicions are that we'll find in the chemical and biological areas, in fact, I think there may be some surprises coming rather quickly in that area," he said on CNN in June.
Kay resigned Friday, saying he was stepping down because resources were being shifted away from the search.
Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services panel, called the hearing to receive Kay's views directly. Before sitting down with Warner's committee, Kay told reporters he believes the work of the Iraq survey group must continue.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said: "Tis a quandary. We're at war and people are dying every day. We went to war on the presumption that we were going to be attacked very soon if we didn't do something and the reign of terror would come from weapons of mass destruction. I'm still in search of those weapons of mass destruction."
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said his committee has finished a draft report on its inquiry into the prewar intelligence and plans to get it to members next week.
He said it appears the problem is with some intelligence agencies and not the policy-makers. "Anyone who believes otherwise has not done their homework and certainly was not listening to Dr. Kay," he said.
"I still have a fundamental question that nobody has quite answered yet," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. "We know he had biological and chemical weapons in the early 1990s. What happened to them? Did they move to another country? Were they destroyed? There are indications that maybe some of them have been eliminated."
A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Tuesday that it's premature to speculate about "why we were wrong," and rejected Kay's statement that the work in Iraq is 85 percent done.
While inspectors have been unable to unearth weapons of mass destruction, they have found new evidence that Saddam's regime quietly destroyed some stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons in the mid-1990s, Kay told The Washington Post in an interview in Tuesday editions.
Democratic presidential contenders have grabbed onto Kay's conclusion on the absence of banned weapons.
"The administration did cook the books," Howard Dean ( news - web sites ) told reporters Tuesday. "I think that's pretty serious."
Kay's resignation and subsequent statements come as many in the administration subtly are changing their assertions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, including Bush. In last year's State of the Union, Bush called Saddam a "dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons."
In the State of the Union this month, Bush spoke of Saddam's programs, rather than weapons: "Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day. "
Last February, Secretary of State Colin Powell ( news - web sites ) told the United Nations ( news - web sites ) Security Council that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed "real and present dangers."
This weekend, Powell began to backpedal, saying the United States thought Saddam had banned weapons, but "we had questions that needed to be answered."
