|
« Weapons of flawed intelligence
Main Enough already with the 45-minute claim » |
February 04, 2004
Dr Kay's shockwave
Interesting to see, after I wrote in the Sunday Telegraph about the way Dr David Kay's remarks had been misreported, that there is some grudging movement in that direction from other organs. The Guardian looks again at the text of his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee and quotes large chunks of it, but fails to reach a conclusion. It also still leaves out some of the specifics Kay mentioned in this and in other comments to the media, such as Iraq's attempt to produce weaponised ricin right up to the war, as well as its ballistic missile programme. In the Times, Bronwen Maddox -- who previously told us that President Bush came close to distorting what Dr Kay had said to give false backing to his claim that Saddam did have WMD -- today grudgingly concedes that Dr Kay did say that Iraq may have posed an even greater threat than was realised, but concludes that his remarks overall were 'riddled with contradictions'. Well yes, they were; but these 'contradictions' weren't noted in the previous stories in the papers, which falsely claimed he had ruled out any WMD, period. And the contradictions in what he said appear mainly in his theorising about what the hell was actually going on in Iraq, on which Dr Kay appears to be as much in the dark as everyone else. What was not riddled with contradictions was his report of what he had found, which was evidence of biological, nuclear and ballistic programmes -- ie, WMD activity, which made Saddam the menace some of us always thought he was. I am an implacable opponent of most of what this government does. But the tenacity with which Tony Blair is standing his ground on this issue, in the teeth of widespread catcalls, ridicule and pressure from so much of the country and the media, is heroic. He is doing so, it seems to me, because he still genuinely believes what he was told when he came to office, that Saddam was an unconscionable threat that had to be dealt with and that the nexus between terrorism and WMD was the most deadly danger facing the whole world. Like him, I still believe that to be the case. Posted by melanie at February 4, 2004
Comments
Melanie seems to be the only person outside the Government (apart from Lord Hutton) who wants to approve the "dodgy dossier". Even the Daily Mail appears to have lined up with the rest of public opinion in questioning Hutton and the whole WMD house of cards. Any more articles on this subject should be filed under "methinks she protests too much". Posted by: KJN at February 4, 2004 06:15 PMSo do you, that's the second time you've posted your comment! Posted by: morgan at February 4, 2004 06:26 PMAm I the only person who thinks that the Iraq war was a direct result of Sept/11? At that time Bush declared war on terrorism and I think that the Iraq war was a direct result of that declaraion - WMDs being merely a facilitator. I think there may be more to come and who knows what is going on behind the scenes! Posted by: Henry Kaye at February 4, 2004 06:47 PMMelanie "I am an implacable opponent of most of what this government does. But the tenacity with which Tony Blair is standing his ground on this issue, in the teeth of widespread catcalls, ridicule and pressure from so much of the country and the media, is heroic. He is doing so, it sems to me, because he still genuinely believes what he was told when he came to office, that Saddam was an unconscionable threat that had to be dealt with and that the nexus between terrorism and WMD was the most deadly danger facing the whole world. Like him, I still believe that to be the case." Agree entirely! Moreover, I feel that the Tory stance on this is against the national interest and will be punished by the silent majority that they should be representing. To muckrake in a way that increases the danger to our troops still engaged in perilous duties is unforgivable and, as a party political ploy, it will backfire. Go for him on his domestic record you fools and leave him alone on that which is a fait accomplis and essential to the interests of Western solidarity. Even Winston and Attlee buried the hatchet for the duration. Posted by: Frank Pulley at February 4, 2004 06:48 PMRepetition invites repetition. Posted by: KJN at February 4, 2004 06:56 PMHenry "I think there may be more to come and who knows what is going on behind the scenes!" Damn right! What is going on behind the scenes is a determined effort by an unholy alliance of all those groups that have a vested interest in destabilising the transitional handover of power to a liberated Iraq. Bush haters, Blair haters most in his own party) Israel haters and those intent on destroying the Judao/Christian base of Western civilisation; now it seems that the Tory party are prepared to join that odious conspiracy for short-term electoral gain - they think! Howard is being badly advised. Posted by: Frank Pulley at February 4, 2004 07:00 PM"Heroic" is the right word for Blair. What is right word for Howard? "Small" ? from another anti-Blairite conservative Posted by: mark at February 4, 2004 11:40 PMI too can't shake off this belief that WMDs or component parts of them will eventually be found. All the major allies simultaneously launching enquries into intellegence failures is bizarre. Just remember Sir Humphrey's take on Government inquirys: "An inquiry is not to make oneself clear, it is to put oneself in the clear." I think that WMD material will be found while these inquirys are progressing. Posted by: Smit at February 5, 2004 11:36 AM"Even Winston and Attlee buried the hatchet for the duration. " Frank, reflect please, in My 1940 a Coalition Government was formed and Labour refused to serve under Halifax, but only under Churchill. I do not recall Blair offering seats in his Cabinet to Conservative or Liberal MPs; there is no national government, no draft, no state of war, but a skirmish.....did Labour support Eden over Suez ? I believe Anthony Eden shredded the treaty between Israel, France and Britain; and ignored the SIS information about his false perceptions of Egyptian agents ready to topple Nasser. I do not believe the Opposition should passively accept what the Government is doing unless they are in the loop. Surely you do not believe Chamberlain should have stayed in May 1940 - he still had a majority of 81 on the vote ? Posted by: Romulus at February 5, 2004 01:07 PMIn case you've missed it, read the Independent. Its clear that the intelligence dossier was indeed sexed up to the dismay of the intelligence experts themselves. Hutton could only conclude in his hilariously one-sided report that there was no material sexing up because the JIC took responsibility for what was in fact a report that been sexed up. The report led to the impression in the media and parliament that Iraq had WMD capable of rapid deployment - something that even the defence secretary now admits he knew was wrong. Posted by: Boris at February 5, 2004 02:09 PMRomulus "I do not believe the Opposition should passively accept what the Government is doing unless they are in the loop. Surely you do not believe Chamberlain should have stayed in May 1940 - he still had a majority of 81 on the vote ?" But to a degree, the Tories WERE in the loop up to and during the liberation of Iraq; and they were quite happy to take credit for the positive things that emanated from the action, as did Attlee during WW2 - that's all my analogy was meant to imply. And I still remember the day that Attlee was rewarded by the returning troops. Since the recent change of Tory leadership, however, they think they see an opportunity to take cheap advantage of the pacifist attack on Blair, to the detriment of allied troops still in action and have given succour to our alien enemies. Not to mention the enemy within. They have launched an amphibious Tory bandwagon on the river of juice of sour grapes spewing from a press that deduced wrongly that Hutton would write a self cancelling report by criticising both sides - but not very much. I repeat, it is cheap opportunism, and as a small c conservative it disturbs me, because I think their bandwagon will bog down in the mire that will remain after the river of bile stops surging, as it eventually will. I want Blair and his bodgers out and someone else in, but not Charles Kennedy, please. As for your other historical snippets. They are apposite and thought provoking, thank you. Posted by: Frank Pulley at February 5, 2004 02:17 PMIf the Lib Dems were led by someone in the mould of Liberalism's greatest politicians (Gladstone, Asquith, Lady Violet), then I would vote for them in a heartbeat. Charles Kennedy is no Asquith, that's for sure...the party needs to be led by an intelectual, someone with weight. The whole point of the Liberal party is it is meant to be intelectual, yet Kennedy is a bland lightweight. The same people who rubbish Hutton are also the ones who hilariously and credulously believe that all of G.I. Jessica's injuries came from the Humvee crash, a ridiculous notion as she was surrounded by soft objects and in a vehicle only travelling at 45mph. Posted by: Cobalt at February 5, 2004 05:11 PMPhilip Stephens' recent book makes plain that far from being grateful for Conservative support over Iraq, Tony Blair had nothing but contempt for Iain Duncan-Smith's stance on this issue. So really, I think we owe him nothing. Posted by: Sean Fear at February 5, 2004 05:23 PM"Even Winston and Attlee buried the hatchet for the duration." In 1940, according to Martin Gilbert, when Churchill entered the chamber of the House of Commons for the first as Prime Minister, apart from the dozen or so faithful Tories who had supported him for much of his wilderness years, he was met by almost total silence from the Tory benches, and by cheers from the Labour opposition. On that occasion, he made his "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat" speech. On leaving the House to rousing cheers from all sides, Churchill is meant to have whispered to a colleague (either Richard Law or Leo Amery; I forget which): "That got the bastards, didn't it?" And, of course, a young Churchill had once complained bitterly about the Tories that they were "a party of great vested interests... Many Conservatives, in their turn, despised him not merely for being right when so many of them had been wrong, but also for possessing, so they believed, "the most terrible sin" of philo-Semitism. Sixty-four years later and it is Labour which has become the party of appeasement and the enemy of the Jewish people. The cheers now would be coming almost exclusively from the Tory benches. "So really, I think we owe him nothing." On the other hand, far more importantly, there are many, many thousands of Iraqi people who owe him and Bush their very lives. Not just the candidates for Saddam's death squads, but also the children who would have died as a result of those utterly odious sanctions. Posted by: Charles at February 5, 2004 08:07 PMSorry, Melanie, the stances of both Bush and Blair, far from being "heroic," are just plain dumb! Either they deliberately lied or they are stupid and were duped. Neither option is a good one. Neither man is fit to lead. "Saddam was an unconscionable threat that had to be dealt with. . ." Saddam was only a threat to his own people. He should have been dealt with another way besides a unilateral war. N. Korea is probably a bigger threat. Should we go shoot them up as well? " What was not riddled with contradictions was his report of what he had found, which was evidence of biological, nuclear and ballistic programmes " Melanie you are WRONG! I watched the hearings. He found nothing of the kind this time. That is all old news. Do your homework! "What Went Wrong" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4123507/ "Tinker, Tailor, Jurist, Spy" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4113438/ Lili Cor, I come to this site for a barney, and a debate's broken out! People accepting each other's points, that will never do... But good on you. I think Lili makes a fair point - but it's only one way of looking at it. Equally fair - and, ultimately, it's a debate to which there probably isn't a right answer - is that both leaders believed in what they were told, perhaps with a little "don't tell me anything that makes this less black and white". If you don't tell me, I don't have to lie. Who knows? We can speculate. And both are fit to lead, but will make mistakes - it happens. Was the war justified? Yes. Did they play the media well? No. Strategic mistakes are made all the time - just as with Afghanistan; turning Bin Laden into the focus, rather than the removal of terrorist training camps (a far greater achievement) put them on a hiding to nothing, and allowed for cheap headlines. But North Korea? The one difference, the salient point, between Iraq and other odious regimes - Zimbabwe? Liberia? - is the lack of diplomatic relations. As long as you keep diplomatic relations, keep bringing some kind of debate to the fore, then the country's allowed to continue as it is. That may not be *right* or *fair* but those are the informal rules, and those rules shape the world and its interactions. I hate what North Korea has done - killed its own people, developed a nuke etc.etc. - but the point is that they've played the game - and it's likely that they've developed their weapons not to launch them (though they would if provoked) but to try and gain enough trade concessions to rescue their bankrupt economy. You can of course object to use of the word "game", but it's just my (arguable) way of describing things. If, as Sadaam did, you keep moving goalposts - no, no weapons inspectors...ooh, is that a tank, er, okay, come in...nope, you can't go in there...ah, another tank, er, right, in you go then - that's not diplomacy, that's sheer front. He even got away with it for a while. But eventually, if you're outside of diplomatic circles, you're in trouble. That doesn't make said trouble right or wrong, of course... Posted by: Jake at February 6, 2004 11:36 AMSaddam had to be toppled simply because France, Germany and Russia were succeeding in loosening the sanctions and a matter of months away from getting them lifted completely. That would have made the whole business a farce and Saddam would have crowed. The War itself is not the issue. It was executed imperfectly by people like Rumsfeld, but that is a separate issue.
"A war cabinet has been formed of five members, representing, with the Labour, Opposition, and Liberals, the unity of the nation. " There is no excuse for Blair fabricating evidence and perverting SIS; there is no reason for Hoon to have sold off military equipment and sent troops into combat ill-prepared - he had his warning during the Oman exercises. And Frank, Attlee was elected in 1945 in the first election since 1935....a decade without elections is a long time; and the electorate did not vote in a Churchill Government until 1951. Again, it was a Coalition Government with Labour MInisters.......I somehow don't see this now, so I see no reason for the Tories to support Blair as the truth starts to leak out. The sanctions Charles were about to be lifted - France and Russia saw them as so 'inhumane'....but let us remember this was the preferred solution by the anti-war crowd in 1990 over Kuwait; so 13 years later how would Kuwait be doing now ? I really don't have the same love of the Iraqis that you do Charles that i am prepared to accept the perversion of democracy here to serve their ends. WE have a Government which wants secret trials of BRitish Citizens, circumvents Parliament, lies to the Leader of the Opposition; and lets a recovering alcoholic and tabloid journalist manage product from the Intelligence Services to create a propaganda offensive to justify his party backing him in a war. At least Campbell did not stage a shoot-out at the radio-station in Gleiwitz or have an Iraqi puppet regime invite us in; but he did show his full contempt for Parliament and the democratic tradition in this country; and we can only be grateful he did not burn down the Palace of Westminster and declare a State of Emergency.
I told you W Bush was lying about Iraq. I knew he was lying since last year when W BUSH said over and over he had massive evidence on wmd and nuclear compounds in Iraq but all the leads BUSH gave to UN chief inspector BLIX about the whereabouts of these sites were BOGUS and NO GOOD. All the UN inspectors found was SAND, SAND, SAND!! The same thing Bush is finding now SAND, SAND, SAND!!!!
We have been played. Bush also said Iraqis will welcome our troops..........YEAH RIGHT!! Welcome them with what? Bullets in the head!!! After Bush declared victory in Iraq in the Aircraft carrier playing Top Gun pilot, 47 American Soldiers have been killed and others wounded,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,this is what Bush call "liberation"??? 180 plus dead American soldiers and counting won't be spending father's day with there families.....W BUSH will. He was playing golf laughing with his father. And I don't want to hear the hypocrisy from the brain washed Bushies that this war was about freedom and liberation. Since when conservatives gave a fuk about Iraqis or anybody but themselves? Where were the same conservatives when Reagan, Bush Sr., Rumsfeld and Cheney were supporting and supplying Saddam for almost a decade in the 80's??? I didn't hear anybody talk about Iraqi freedom then. When Iraq gassed the Kurds and Iranians in a war in 1988, what the fuk did Reagan, Bush Sr., Rumsfeld or Cheney do? Nothing!!!! they turned there backs.........Actually Reagan send Rumsfeld to Iraq to congratulate Saddam in person and shale his hand for his victory over Iran. Its all on VIDEO!!! Where was the out cry from these same hypocrite conservatives? If this was about freedom why isn't these same hypocrites including W BUSH goes to Pakistan, China, Sudan, Korea, Saudi and Cuba just a few places where they have murderous regimes and real wmd and and some have nuclear missiles??
Now W BUSH wants more time because he can't find shiat but SAND, SAND, SAND!!! Iraq was going to conquer the world with empty mobile trucks and sand, sand, sand!!!
So what does that makes Bush and his search team now since they can't find anything either?? Incompetents???
We have lost credibility around the world with Bush as president!!! Next time when W BUSH says a country is a big threat with wmd and nuclear weapons......WHO'S GOING TO BELIEVE HIM???.....He could be right but since he @#%$ up bigtime with lies and exageration over Iraq...he has hurt our credibility. Its like the kid who cried wolf too many times...........when a wolf finally arrives who's going to believe the kid. and before the BUSH lovers attack me here..........remember COUNTRY BEFORE PARTY!!!!! AND COUNTRY BEFORE PRESIDENT!!!
W BUSH lied about a war that many Americans DIED, Iraqi civilans died and wounded and 80 billions of our tax payers money GONE. The main reason he use was WMD, WMD, WMD!!! Now that its obvious that Iraq never had them now conservatives want to back track and say it doesn't matter if we find WMD OR NOT!!!.....GO FIGURED!!! The reason we don't attack North Korea is that they really do have weapons of mass destruction. Posted by: KJN at February 6, 2004 07:23 PMI think KJN you lost your point in emotionalism. North Korea is a problem for China. As a Security Council member China knows how Wal-Mart can influence it through $10 bn annual purchase from Chinese factories. With SARS, Avian Flu, and a nutcase in North Korea, China has many risks to its future. It is time they liquidated North Korea rather than risk his rockets pointing at Shanghai. I think this idea that if you fight one you should fight them all argument is childish; it is akin to those who think Churchill should have refused to ally with the USSR against Hitler because Stalin and Hitler were peas in a pod. In reality you do what you can. Would it not have been better had the Dutch never employed Dr Khan ? then he would not have been able to undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which cost so much effort to set up ? This man has made the certainty of a nuclear war something we must now live with; it may well be Pakistan which becomes the new Hiroshima, but that was their choice. Posted by: Romulus at February 7, 2004 07:07 AMNorth Korea is a problem not only for China, but also for Japan and South Korea. The latter is particularly vulnerable because the North has very large deployments of conventional artillery pointing at Seoul, which no doubt could be fired with 45 minutes warning. There is a serious point in my emotionalism: not that we should attack all because we attack one; but that the example of North Korea shows how we behave when we actually believe that a country has weapons of mass destruction, and the ability to fire them with 45 minutes warning. Posted by: KJN at February 7, 2004 03:19 PMLie: telling someone something you know to be false when you say it. I start with a definition of the word 'lie', because so many on the left don't seem to know it. They must think a lie is saying something you believe to be true, but might be found to be untrue at a later time. If they do know the correct definition of the word 'lie' then they are lying when they rant about Bush and Blair, who show every indication of believing what they said, when they said it. But what I am having the most trouble understanding is why the left is so against 'unprovoked' wars all of a sudden. Do they remember when Clinton ordered the unprovoked bombing of Serbia by the U.S. military? I believe the excuse given for that war was 'ethnic cleansing'. Of course, that was a lie, as the majority of ethnic Albanians living in Serbia were not being hunted or rounded up and exterminated, and Clinton new it! I also recall that the build up to that war was much shorter than the build up to Iraq; that Clinton did not even attempt to persuade the U.N. before acting and that the bombing lasted longer than the second Gulf War, without once being called a quagmire. Bad things were happening in Serbia, but nothing compared to what was happening in Iraq. Serbia never threatened the West or refered to it as the Great Satan. Serbia had no weapons of mass destruction and was not trying to develop them. Serbia was no threat to the worlds oil supply and was not ruled by a ruthless dictator, but by a democratically elected president who was later voted out of office. Any way you slice it, the reasons for attacking Saddam were much more compelling than the reasons for attacking Serbia. The left had little problem with the bombing of Serbia. Many on the right did have a problem with it, but thought it unwise to undermine a sitting president with the country at war. (The right attacked Clinton on his domestic problems, but wished to provide a somewhat unified front to the rest of the world). Interestingly, the left feel no such compulsion, trying to undermine this sitting president for every and anything they can think of, anywhere in the world! Another point that baffles me: Bush was ridiculed for failing to 'connect-the-dots' before 9-11 and stop that tragic day from happening. You see, they reason, there were a few, cryptic clues that 9-11 might happen and Bush must have been too stupid to see it. So what happens when Bush has a lot of information about a potential threat and acts on that information? Then he is an even bigger idiot; a man to be reviled even more than a ruthless dictator who routinely hauled off men, women and children and had them tortured and executed. Bush also spends more money on education than any other president and is ridiculed for hurting education. He inacts the biggest social welfare program since the 1960's and he his called a mean-spirited person who caters only to the rich. (Of course the left also defines 'rich' as anyone who makes enough money to pay taxes.) It is obvious that many complaints against Bush are not based on rational thought, but just plain hatred of the man! (Must be that smirk!) To sum it up: many on the left are filled with hatred, they are irrational and have a serious problem understanding the definitions of simple words. If I was a liberal, I would call this a crisis and immediately demand that the rich (those who pay taxes) should pay more taxes until a cure is found. A seperate thought: KJN wrote "Since when conservatives gave a fuk about Iraqis or anybody but themselves?" The answer to that question is 'all the time'! Not only do conservatives pay most of the taxes that fuel all the liberal social programs that don't work, they also give generously to private charities that have a much better track record of helping people. While liberals collect taxes and send that money to poor countries were it is largely confiscated by corrupt governments and used to buy weapons, conservatives give directly to missions and charities, where (often conservative) people bring relief directly to those who are suffering, at the risk of there own lives. Most of the good that is done in this world is done by conservatives, while most of the whining is done be small children and liberals. Posted by: Jim at February 8, 2004 04:41 AMJim - The previous post was from me. Posted by: KJN at February 9, 2004 09:11 AM |
