Lies, Lies, Lies

[Freggyragh]

Hans Blix, head of the UN weapons inspection team, was ignored and by Blair and Bush, so we'll stick to what US and British intelligence was saying. Bear in mind that the US had been, accordig to the head of the CIA, focusing intelligence operations on the Saddam regime for seven years. And, yes, we're not supposed to say lying when we refer to these deceits - they are only 'sexing up' when we mean intelligence that Saddam does not have WMD becomes intelligence that Saddam does have WMD:

 

Here's a quote from George Tenet, speaking as head of the CIA, about pre invasion intelligence:

 

"Let me be clear: Analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the estimate.

 

They never said there was an imminent threat. Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policy-makers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests." 5/2/04

 

And yet George Bush on the eve of war, paints a subtley different picture:

 

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," 13/3/03

 

Then there was the UK's dodgy dossier which claimed to be drawn "upon a number of sources, including intelligence reports".

 

Although upheld by Tony Blair and Colin Powell as quality research, this was clearly untrue, - they chose to base much of it on an essay in The Middle East Review of International Affairs.

 

Key parts of the intelligence reports were re-worded by civil servants working under Alistair Campbell, such as aiding opposition groups being changed to supporting terrorist organisations .

 

The claim in the 'September 2002 Dossier' that Iraq could deploy biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so is the most controversial of course, particularly because of poor old Dr Kelly. A reminder of how that unfolded:

 

10/11 September 2002

 

The claim appears in a dossier draft for the first time as it says Iraq: "Envisages the use of WMD in its current military planning and could deploy such weapons within 45 minutes of the order being given.

 

"Within the last month intelligence has suggested that the Iraqi military would be able to use their chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of being ordered to do so."

 

16 September 2002

 

New draft dossier's executive summary says intelligence allows the government to judge Iraq "has military plans for the use of chemical and biological, some of which could be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them".

 

The main text adds: "The Iraqi military may be able to deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so."

 

Concerns about the claim are discussed by the JIC assessment staff and the following day at a DIS meeting called by Tony Cragg, the deputy chief of defence intelligence, which decided the worries had been dealt with satisfactorily.

 

17 September 2002

 

A member of the Defence Intelligence Staff says in an email to the JIC assessment team that the wording of the 45-minute claim is "rather strong since it is based on a single source. 'Could say intelligence suggests...'"

 

 

Downing Street media chief Alastair Campbell tells JIC chairman John Scarlett that the "may" in the main text wording of the claim is "weaker than the summary".

 

18 September 2002

 

Mr Scarlett tells Mr Campbell the language on the claim in the main text has been "tightened".

 

19 September 2002

 

Defence Intelligence Staff experts discuss the dossier, with questions raised about the 45-minute claim - Mr A told the Hutton inquiry they had not seen the intelligence on which the claim was based.

 

Brian Jones, a top DIS official in the Defence Intelligence Staff, writes to his managers relaying the concerns. He is later only thanked for his input.

 

24 September 2003

 

The dossier is published with a foreword from Tony Blair, which says: "The document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them."

 

The prime minister tells MPs the intelligence concludes that Saddam Hussein "has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population".

 

London's Evening Standard carries the headline: "45 minutes from attack".

 

24 September 2002 to 29 May 2003

 

During this period between the dossier's publication and Andrew Gilligan's reports, the Commons library has told Labour MP Peter Bradley, the 45-minute claim was mentioned only once in passing in the Commons and twice in more than 38,000 written questions.

 

25 September 2002

 

The Sun newspaper, Britain's biggest selling daily, has the headline: "Brits 45 mins from doom" about the threat to troops in Cyprus.

 

The Star newspaper has the headline "Mad Saddam ready to attack: 45 minutes from a chemical war".

 

Other newspapers include the claim in their coverage of the dossier.

 

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon was abroad and says he never saw the newspapers and only became aware of the reports later.

 

5 March 2003

 

Then Commons leader Robin Cook's diary entry says he told Mr Blair: "It's clear from the private briefing that I have had that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction in a sense of weapons that could strike at strategic cities.

 

"But he probably does have several thousand battlefield chemical munitions. Do you never worry that he might use them against British troops?"

 

Mr Cook says the prime minister replied: "Yes, but all the effort he has had to put into concealment makes it difficult for him to assemble them quickly for use."

 

It is not technically lying to meddle with the wording of a government dossier to alter the way it will be perceived and then let gross exaggeration by the mass media pass without correction - but you've drawn your own conclusions, which no doubt will be confirmed by the Butler Report.

[VinnieK]

Bear in mind that the US had been, accordig to the head of the CIA, focusing intelligence operations on the Saddam regime for seven years. And, yes, we're not supposed to say lying when we refer to these deceits - they are only 'sexing up' when we mean intelligence that Saddam does not have WMD becomes intelligence that Saddam does have WMD

 

The National Intelligence Estimate: "Iraq's Continuing Programme for Weapons of Mass Destruction" states (as released by Dan Bartlett, White House Director of Communications) states:

 

"We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction programs... Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked it will probably have a nuclear weapon during this decade"

 

"Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities... and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure"

 

" Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)"

 

"Baghdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capability.

 

–Baghdad has mobile facilities for producing bacterial and toxin BW agents; these facilities can evade detection and are highly survivable"

 

"We judge that all key aspects - R&D, production, and weaponization - of Iraq's offensive BW program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War"

 

The National Intelligence Estimate is produced by the National Intelligence Council and represents the judgement of the United States' various intelligence agencies. Much of this information is repeated in the unclassified 2002 presentation on "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction", which bore the seal of the director of the CIA.

 

So how many of these statements, made by the intelligence community and including the CIA are correct? They screwed up.

 

It's interesting that you seem to implicitly trust the word of the CIA director, head of an organization that's notorious for covering its tracks and backpeddling when things go wrong (the CIA has been heavily criticised by the Senate Committee and others for blocking the release of intelligence for government scrutiny and obscuring attempts to evaluate its recommendations and analysis - instead releasing little more than blank, apart from page numbers, papers).

[P.K.]

Dear me, how much longer is this "WMD lies" nonsense going to rumble on for?

 

For example, because chlorine is so important for things like purification, pvc and so on like any other country Iraq has chlorine plants. Nothing wrong with that. These plants can also readily be switched to the manufacture of wmd materials such as mustard gas, nerve agents and so forth. Unfortunately, unlike other countries, Iraq has done just that and used the resultant wmd not only on the Iranians after they invaded Iran but also on their own people in places like Halabja. So frankly it is totally irrelevant if they found any e.g. mustard gas or not. Because you don't need to stockpile it if you can make as much as you need tomorrow.

 

The real issue is the plain and simple fact that Iraq had demonstrated many times in the past that they not only had the means to produce wmd but also the will to use it, even against their own. Couple that to the other plain and simple fact that Iraq had invaded two of it's neighbours in a region where the west requires stability to function and the invasion and the regime's removal was not only inevitable but neccessary.

 

Here's another little tip: Intelligence gathering isn't only a science, it's also something of an art. Sure things like aerial recce are going to show buildings etc - but not what's going on inside i.e. it's often not going to be factual but include rumour, supposition and so forth. So all the idiots who claim the Intelligence was "wrong" somehow are talking through their rear-ends. It is what it is, simple as. There is also a world of difference between presenting "intelligence" you know is unconfirmed as factual (lying) as opposed to acting upon it when maybe you should have dug a little bit deeper (misguided).

 

But I can assure you that the survivors of Halabja don't need "intelligence" to confirm the presence of Iraq's wmd.

[Lonan3]

Here's another little tip: Intelligence gathering isn't a science, it's something of a con.

Fixed.

[P.K.]

Zzzzzzz.......

 

Dear me, you know you've got to get some new "jokes".

[Lonan3]

Zzzzzzz.......

 

Dear me, you know you've got to get some new "jokes".

Hey...not fair! If you keep trotting out the same opinionated bullshit, surely I can rehash a few old jokes.

[P.K.]

Hey...not fair! If you keep trotting out the same unpalatable facts, surely I can rehash a few old jokes.

Fixed!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Dear me, how much longer is this "WMD lies" nonsense going to rumble on for?

 

 

The real issue is the plain and simple fact that Iraq had demonstrated many times in the past that they not only had the means to produce wmd but also the will to use it, even against their own. Couple that to the other plain and simple fact that Iraq had invaded two of it's neighbours in a region where the west requires stability to function and the invasion and the regime's removal was not only inevitable but neccessary.

 

I agree to an extent with what you are saying about the West requiring stability. Yet Iran has had a history of causing far more destabilisation in the region and supported terrorist organisations. It was also well-known that it was seeking nuclear weapons

In this way, if America wished to put a stop to state-supported terrorism Iran would be top of the list.

 

Although WMD were claimed as the reason for invasion I think it is a bit of a shitty reason for invading another country as had been done. I certainly do not think it was Iraq's possible use of WMDs that worried the people in power in America. I think the U.S. just wanted to break-up the terrorist network and do the same as it did in Afghanistan under the pretext of questions over Iraq's WMD. Though the Saddam regime did not support terrorist, Iran did. Maybe the weakness of Iraq and the resulting stability over oil supplies that would come after invasion made Iraq the easier choice

 

Here's another little tip: Intelligence gathering isn't only a science, it's also something of an art. Sure things like aerial recce are going to show buildings etc - but not what's going on inside i.e. it's often not going to be factual but include rumour, supposition and so forth. So all the idiots who claim the Intelligence was "wrong" somehow are talking through their rear-ends. It is what it is, simple as. There is also a world of difference between presenting "intelligence" you know is unconfirmed as factual (lying) as opposed to acting upon it when maybe you should have dug a little bit deeper (misguided).

 

But I can assure you that the survivors of Halabja don't need "intelligence" to confirm the presence of Iraq's wmd.

 

From what I had heard, after the invasion, the WMDs stocks in Iraq in 2004 consisted of small stocks of basic chemical weapons but no evidence of biological or nuclear weapons. I thought they had found evidence that Iraq began schemes to build a nuclear capabilities but this collapsed in the mid-90s.

[Chinahand]

From what I had heard, after the invasion, the WMDs stocks in Iraq in 2004 consisted of small stocks of basic chemical weapons but no evidence of biological or nuclear weapons. I thought they had found evidence that Iraq began schemes to build a nuclear capabilities but this collapsed in the mid-90s.

Very much agree with that - with slight caveats - My understanding is that chemical and some biological were almost universally thought to exist in the international intelligence community with chemical weaponized and biological at some disagreed level of research, nuclear was much much more controversial with very little hard evidence for it, but with a regime which very much played on the strategic ambiguity of "does he, doesn't he" - Saddam was in no way being open about what he was doing. Neo Cons rightly pointed out how easy it was for the UN to verify South Africa's nuclear disarmament which involved about 3 inspectors and cooperation.

 

The trouble is WMD is an amorphous term - simple chemical weapons are piss easy to make and can kill vast numbers of unprepared people. Nuclear weapons need Phds and engineers by the bucket full and billions in hi-tech equipment etc.

 

Saddam had had WMD in the past, he'd used WMD in the past, he had the aspiration to get bigger and better WMD and was involved in a high stakes game of deception with the UN etc - he then got trumped by George W. People who disagree with that are really letting their political biases get ahead of them.

[P.K.]

Yet Iran has had a history of causing far more destabilisation in the region and supported terrorist organisations. It was also well-known that it was seeking nuclear weapons

Well, unlike Iraq, I think you'll find Iran hasn't invaded any of it's neighbours for quite a while.

 

With the US in the grip of election fever I'm sure we're going to see an awful lot more of these types of "reports" in the coming months. Of course, they'll all be from impeccable sources and of the highest calibre, integrity etc etc etc. Oh yes...

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Yet Iran has had a history of causing far more destabilisation in the region and supported terrorist organisations. It was also well-known that it was seeking nuclear weapons

Well, unlike Iraq, I think you'll find Iran hasn't invaded any of it's neighbours for quite a while.

 

With the US in the grip of election fever I'm sure we're going to see an awful lot more of these types of "reports" in the coming months. Of course, they'll all be from impeccable sources and of the highest calibre, integrity etc etc etc. Oh yes...

 

You are quite right, but the West does not go to war simply because one nation invades another and the West decides it has had enough. It is only when the West decides what is in its own interests, as I am sure you would agree. Since the Gulf War, Iraq has not had the capability to effectively strike at any of its neighbours.

But what I meant to be more exact about is that since the mid-90s Iraq did not have much of a capability for using WMD and I thought little evidence has been given to show that he was building stocks. Is this not the case?

Iran would have been the more sensible choice between the two as Iran supported terrorism.

No you right Iran hasn't invaded any of its neighbours. But its sponsorship of terrorism could be said to be destabilising. I maybe need to think more as to whether its influence has been more destabilising than that of Iraqs behaviour. Maybe you are right and it has not. I suppose you would be more correct in arguing that Iraq has been more destabilising in its history in relation to its effects on the supply of oil.

But in terms of America's goal of waging a "War On Terror", defeating Saddam made little sense when Iran was left untouched.

[P.K.]

This is going off-topic. The Middle East has been destabilised for the last 25 years or so by Iraq's ambitions and Iran's so-called government. Saddam invaded Iran because he perceived it was severly weakened by Khomeini (he purged the Shah's Armed Forces a la Uncle Joe) and because he saw it as a major threat to himself. In Iraq a Sunni minority held a Shia majority in an iron grip. In Iran a popular Shia movement had deposed the Shah in the Islamic Revolution. Saddam didn't want his Shia to get any clever ideas so he invaded Iran. As Thatcher can confirm nothing pulls a country behind you like a war - even if you started it!

 

Iran's populist "leaders" are still viewed as a threat to the Gulf States. Because the last thing they want is an "Islamic Revoluton" deposing them like the Shah.

 

As to building stocks of WMD what's the point? It can have a limited shelf life and if you can make as much as you need tomorrow you might as well not bother.

[Lonan3]

With the US in the grip of election fever I'm sure we're going to see an awful lot more of these types of "reports" in the coming months. Of course, they'll all be from impeccable sources and of the highest calibre, integrity etc etc etc. Oh yes...

As were the reports that were used to validate the invasion of Iraq?

 

[Thread back on track!]

[P.K.]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz............

 

The real issue is the plain and simple fact that Iraq had demonstrated many times in the past that they not only had the means to produce wmd but also the will to use it, even against their own. Couple that to the other plain and simple fact that Iraq had invaded two of it's neighbours in a region where the west requires stability to function and the invasion and the regime's removal was not only inevitable but neccessary.

 

Here's another little tip: Intelligence gathering isn't only a science, it's also something of an art. Sure things like aerial recce are going to show buildings etc - but not what's going on inside i.e. it's often not going to be factual but include rumour, supposition and so forth. So all the idiots who claim the Intelligence was "wrong" somehow are talking through their rear-ends. It is what it is, simple as. There is also a world of difference between presenting "intelligence" you know is unconfirmed as factual (lying) as opposed to acting upon it when maybe you should have dug a little bit deeper (misguided).

 

But I can assure you that the survivors of Halabja don't need "intelligence" to confirm the presence of Iraq's wmd

[Lonan3]

Here's another little tip: Intelligence gathering isn't only a science, it's also something of an art.

You're aware, I take it, that one of the dictionary definitions of 'art' is 'trickery or cunning'?