|
« Oldest hatred, latest chapter
Main Oldest hatred, latest chapter » |
December 17, 2003
Tories in a twist
What on earth are the Conservatives playing at? Desperate to pin the soubriquet of 'liar' upon Tony Blair at every opportunity, they have now accused him of misleading the country once again in his latest reference to David Kay's Iraq Survey Group report. On the Today programme, their foreign affairs spokesman Michael Ancram denounced these comments as a spin too far. So what did the PM say? Here are his words: 'The Iraq Survey Group has found evidence of a massive clandestine laboratory network system.' And what did David Kay say? Here, at some length (because it is worth repeating, since the media persist in ignoring it) is his summary in his presentation of the ISG's interim report: 'We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later: 'A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research. 'A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN. 'Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons. 'New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN. 'Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS). 'A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit. 'Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN. 'Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi. 'Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment. 'In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence - hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use - are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts. For example, on 10 July 2003 an ISG team exploited the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) Headquarters in Baghdad. The basement of the main building contained an archive of documents situated on well-organized rows of metal shelving. The basement suffered no fire damage despite the total destruction of the upper floors from coalition air strikes. Upon arrival the exploitation team encountered small piles of ash where individual documents or binders of documents were intentionally destroyed. Computer hard drives had been deliberately destroyed. Computers would have had financial value to a random looter; their destruction, rather than removal for resale or reuse, indicates a targeted effort to prevent Coalition forces from gaining access to their contents. 'All IIS laboratories visited by IIS exploitation teams have been clearly sanitized, including removal of much equipment, shredding and burning of documents, and even the removal of nameplates from office doors. Although much of the deliberate destruction and sanitization of documents and records probably occurred during the height of OIF combat operations, indications of significant continuing destruction efforts have been found after the end of major combat operations, including entry in May 2003 of the locked gated vaults of the Ba'ath party intelligence building in Baghdad and highly selective destruction of computer hard drives and data storage equipment along with the burning of a small number of specific binders that appear to have contained financial and intelligence records, and in July 2003 a site exploitation team at the Abu Ghurayb Prison found one pile of the smoldering ashes from documents that was still warm to the touch'. If that isn't 'evidence of a massive clandestine laboratory network system', I don't know what is. The Tories, having supported the war, are now in danger of making their earlier position a laughing stock by aligning themselves with the wicked distortions of the anti-war appeaseniks. And all because they have decided to subordinate absolutely everything to an opportunistic strategy of attack on the Prime Minister. They may think this is clever tactics. What it actually indicates instead is a party so bankrupt in ideas of its own, it will tear up any regard for the truth in its desperate attempt to score points, however cheap or dishonest these may be. Shame. Posted by melanie at December 17, 2003
Comments
Melanie, I didn't hear the interview with Michael Ancram, but I did hear that with the PM. The latter gave me the clear understanding that this was all "new news", not something already in the public domain. That I was not alone in thinking this was confirmed by everyone else who heard the interview with me -- and then by Downing Street's reaction. Another example of the PM's flair for the 'craftily expressed' (on a par with his habit of publishing financial good news more than once -- giving, again, the impression of "new news")? I assume that this is what the Conservative Party is calling spin. Posted by: David Smith at December 17, 2003 11:59 AMMelanie, It would be really interesting if you were to come back to us in your diary with your opinions on some of the comments made in response to your articles. For example, there has been a huge argument raging between individuals in relation to 'The abandonment of marriage' for days now. What do you think? Or are you embarrassed by some of the vile views and inaccurate claims made by people who think they are your 'supporters'? Can you not see the similarity between those who use political arguments to mask their anti-Semitism, and those who do the same to disguise virulent, violent, abusive homophobia? Speak to us! Posted by: Matt at December 17, 2003 12:27 PMThe Conservative 7.55 slot on Channel 4 dealt with tuition fees. Iraq has been a defining issue for Blair's reputation. Friend and foe recognise that he did the unpopular and diffIcult thing out of his sense of duty. "Shame" is the exact word to describe the Conservative attempt to trip him up over intelligence failings or presentation. He exposed himself to full democratic accountability to explain before hostile tv audiences, opportunist cabinet losers and in Parliament. I hate much of what Blair has brought to my country, but his character has now been fully tested. The Conservatives' character faces a far easier exam and they are not passing. Posted by: mark at December 17, 2003 04:47 PMWhat is the significance of why the ISG report was not given to UNMOVIC? "Muslims Humiliated," "embarrassed," "shamed"! —scream the headlines. Dozens of articles interviewing Muslims, both leaders and ordinary citizens, especially Arabs worldwide quote these as being "humiliated" by the capture of the tyrant Saddam Hussein. With predictable, bizarre, twisted "logic" in the nihilist world of Islam, the capture of the monster Saddam "humiliates" all Muslims but especially Arabs, who never speak of being humiliated or shamed by the torture chambers, the rape rooms, the wars, the genocides that Saddam perpetrated against innocents, even women and children, both Muslim and "non-believers" alike. But, they are "humiliated" because it was the hated US that captured Saddam like the vermin he is. Muslims/Arabs are not humiliated or shamed that they are as fellow Muslim, President Musharraf has said," . . . the poorest, the most illiterate, the most backward, the most unhealthy, the most un-enlightened, the most deprived, and the weakest of all the human race" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1824455.stm Muslims are not humiliated or shamed that not one of their fellow Muslims lifted a finger to help Iraq. They are not humiliated or shamed that Muslims watched for decades as Saddam tortured and murdered fellow Muslims. However, the capturing of one of their Islamic tyrants by the hated US, THAT humiliates them. It appears the illiteracy, the poverty, the backwardness of the Islamic world, THAT is not nearly as "humiliating" or "shameful" as having the US clean a bit of house by the capturing of one of their monster leaders who supported terrorism for decades. It appears there is no problem being an SOB in the Muslim world—as long as he is their SOB—an Islamic SOB. The whole of the Islamic world is infested with despotic, theocratic, totalitarian rulers yet, THAT is not humiliating or shameful to Muslims. They are not humiliated or shamed, that Muslims sponsor world wide Islamic terrorism via zakat (tithing) and private donations to the tune of billions of dollars. They are not humiliated or shamed that radical Muslims murder innocents by the thousands, world wide every year. They are not humiliated or shamed that Muslims demonstrate FOR terror and joyously celebrate the murder of innocents by radical Islamofascists. Muslims are not humiliated or shamed to teach their children hatred of Jews and the "other"—the “Unbeliever” as commanded in the Qu'ran. They are not humiliated or shamed that their Islamic clerics incite the "true-believers" to murderous jihad of innocents. They are not humiliated or shamed that radical Muslims seek to dominate the world with fascist, Islamic imperialism. It appears that a repressive, theocratic, Islamic hegemony is just fine and dandy with Muslims—indeed, it is desired, it is longed for, it is preferred. In the Islamic mind, a medieval Caliphate would be far superior to a "decadent" Western democracy. Whereas a free, democratic, prosperous, secular, pluralistic, cultural hegemony based on the rule of law, led by the US—now THAT is humiliating not to mention shameful to Muslims! Most remarkably, Islam promises all the decadent joys of life in Paradise, that it denies "true believers" in this life. Thus, Muslims have no incentive to work hard, to truly live and appreciate the gifts of this life as those from a loving God. Why work for anything if this Allah will give it to you for nothing in Paradise? Because this vengeful, violent Allah, is a god who wants to have his true-believers at his right hand in Paradise as quickly as possible, after having given them life, this Allah wants to take that life away for a better place in Paradise. The fastest ticket to the Islamic Paradise with its rivers of non-intoxicating wine and its virgins is via martyrdom. Thus, it is extremely humiliating and shameful to Muslims that the monster Saddam chose not to become a martyr for Islam. (Perhaps just to make it even more humiliating, part of Saddam's punishment on earth could be feeding him 72 raisins per day.) Leave it to Allah as to whether Saddam ultimately gets his 72 raisins, virginal houris or the torments of Hell in the hereafter. It is not possible to confer earthly justice onto an evil monster. Islam is a 7th century misanthropic, misogynistic, cultural, social and political system for controlling people, subjugating them by keeping them down, ignorant, poor and backward—all under the guise of religion. Those who don't submit to Islam are to be killed or given an inferior status as dhimmis and made to pay the poll tax that can keep the Islamic state viable. Those Muslims who question are apostates and are also to be killed. The inferior state in which Muslims suffer is due to their belief in the "immutable" Qu'ran. A document that cannot move with the times because it was deemed unchangeable and uninterpretable by Mohammed. Such self inflicted, lesser status in the world breed’s jealousy. Jealousy is a terrible worm that eats at the heart and soul of man. Thus, the hearts and souls of Muslims, worldwide, are riddled with the dark tunnels of jealousy—a jealousy that has burrowed deep into the Muslim psyche. This rot, this weakness from within, has shown Islam for what it is, a terribly, flawed fascistic system that is unjust to both man and beast alike. It will ultimately make the whole corrupt Islamic system implode and collapse onto itself. Perhaps after such a collapse Muslims can opt for a Reformation and ultimately a renaissance. Let us hope that happens before the whole world and civilization as we know it is destroyed in the name of fascist, radical Islam with the WMD they are surely seeking. Lilith Posted by: Lilith Paloma at December 17, 2003 07:33 PMdid you get out much Lili? Posted by: bernie at December 18, 2003 12:31 AMWhen David KAy can shop a complete process and product we can talk about this. I wonder if we blindfolded Melanie and gave her a tour of the labs at Imperial College London, and then a similar mystery tour of a facility at Porton Down, if she could distinguish which one was working on what ? Equipment so specific as to be used ONLY for chemical or biological weapons as opposed to dual-use or fertiliser plants ? I believe S. H. was working on developing chemical, biological, and probably nuclear weapons......but what a laboratory tells me is unclear Posted by: Romulus at December 18, 2003 07:05 AMI think mels being hard on the conservatives and too supportive of Blair. I was all for the war because Saddam was a brutal dictator who wanted to exterminate the jews. But lets not kid ourselves that thats why Blair wanted to go to war. Blair couldn't give a toss about Israel and wouldn't have dreamed have using regime change as a reason to go to war. Blairs twisted way of justifying an essential war, his pandering to the UN and obsession with pleasing everyone did huge damage to the pro-war argument and tainted the reasons to go to war with Blairs lies. The conservatives have every right to draw attention to his lies whether they were used or good or evil and lest we forget the conservatives voted overwhelmingly in support of the war - far more so than the labour party, who given the option might have left Saddam to his own devices. Posted by: Richard at December 18, 2003 01:13 PMon this subject, see also the recent Telegraph interviews with an Iraqi colonel who reveals that Saddam’s military Lt-Col al-Dabbagh, 40, who was the head of an Iraqi air defence unit in the He said they were to be used by Saddam's Fedayeen paramilitaries and units The containers, which came from a number of factories on the outskirts of In an exclusive interview with the Telegraph, Col al-Dabbagh said that he "I am the one responsible for providing this information," said the colonel, He also insisted that the information contained in the dossier relating to The devices, which were known by Iraqi officers as "the secret weapon", were "Forget 45 minutes," said Col al-Dabbagh "we could have fired these within So, which is it? ----- "Bremer contradicts Blair on WMD"
In a pre-Christmas broadcast on the British Forces Broadcasting Service, the prime minister said the Iraq Survey Group had already found "massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories". Asked on ITV's Dimbleby programme about those words, the U.S. administrator for Iraq, apparently unaware they came from Blair, was dismissive. When it was pointed out that it was Blair who had publicised those claims, Bremer appeared to row back a little. "There is a lot of evidence that has been made public," he said. . . "
Perhaps it is time for all the liars to seek other employment? Of course, that will not help the taxpayers who are footing the bill for this fiasco and it won't bring back our dead sons and daughters either. Lili Posted by: LP at December 28, 2003 05:03 PM |
