August 11, 2003, 5:39pm
Either a case of willful blinders or abject apathy to facts which would ruin the “sexing up” of the Iraq WMD claims. Seeing that Curious George has now point the finger at the U.K. as the source of most of the bogus Iraq WMD claims he has been caught out on, it is interesting to see now that they were believed to be overstated there prior to use as well.
Aug. 11 (Bloomberg) – British intelligence officials had doubts about a report Prime Minister Tony Blair used to make the case for war on Iraq, a senior government official said.
Two members of the Defense Intelligence Service ``expressed concerns about specific language’’ in the government case for war, Howard told the inquiry in London.
In particular, the intelligence analysts questioned the language used in a dossier Blair published in September, which said that Iraq could deploy missiles with chemical or biological warheads weapons within 45 minutes.
The analysts had reservations about ``the level of certainty expressed’’ on Hussein’s ability to deploy the missiles in such a time, according to a Cabinet Office paper submitted to the inquiry.
Kelly may have been aware of those worries, Howard said, because he was often consulted by defense intelligence staff. ``It seems to me possible if not probable that he was aware of the views of some analysts,’’ Howard said.
and here is the impact:
Support for his Labour Party was at 34 percent in a survey by YouGov published in yesterday’s Mail on Sunday, while the opposition Conservatives scored 38 percent, the highest since the U.K. fuel tanker strike three years ago.
The parties scored the same in a MORI poll last week, which gave Blair an approval rating of minus 28 percent, trailing Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith, with minus 20 percent. Labour won 41 percent of all votes at the last election in 2001.
Curious George, watch out the lets laugh at California sweepstakes (aka the recall disaster) can’t go on forever. Better find some WMDs.
Forever? That dog will have run it’s course by October.
I’m going to go out on a limb here.
never find any weapons of mass destruction.
August 11, 2003, 6:05pm
And to make up for my typos (Me fail english, that’s unpossible!):
More cites to the Bush Adminstrations willful shenanigans on WMD’s:
At issue was Iraq’s efforts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes. The U.S. government said those tubes were for centrifuges to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb. But the IAEA, the world’s nuclear watchdog, had uncovered strong evidence that Iraq was using them for conventional rockets.
Joe [engineer-turned-CIA analyst] described the rocket story as a transparent Iraqi lie. According to people familiar with his presentation, which circulated before and afterward among government and outside specialists, Joe said the specialized aluminum in the tubes was “overspecified,” “inappropriate” and “excessively strong.” No one, he told the inspectors, would waste the costly alloy on a rocket.
In fact, there was just such a rocket. According to knowledgeable U.S. and overseas sources, experts from U.S. national laboratories reported in December to the Energy Department and U.S. intelligence analysts that Iraq was manufacturing copies of the Italian-made Medusa 81. Not only the Medusa’s alloy, but also its dimensions, to the fraction of a millimeter, matched the disputed aluminum tubes.
Oops damn them pesky liberal facts!
• Bush and others often alleged that President Hussein held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, but did not disclose that the known work of the scientists was largely benign. Iraq’s three top gas centrifuge experts, for example, ran a copper factory, an operation to extract graphite from oil and a mechanical engineering design center at Rashidiya.
• The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of October 2002 cited new construction at facilities once associated with Iraq’s nuclear program, but analysts had no reliable information at the time about what was happening under the roofs. By February, a month before the war, U.S. government specialists on the ground in Iraq had seen for themselves that there were no forbidden activities at the sites.
• Gas centrifuge experts consulted by the U.S. government said repeatedly for more than a year that the aluminum tubes were not suitable or intended for uranium enrichment. By December 2002, the experts said new evidence had further undermined the government’s assertion. The Bush administration portrayed the scientists as a minority and emphasized that the experts did not describe the centrifuge theory as impossible.
• In the weeks and months following Joe’s Vienna briefing, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and others continued to describe the use of such tubes for rockets as an implausible hypothesis, even after U.S. analysts collected and photographed in Iraq a virtually identical tube marked with the logo of the Medusa’s Italian manufacturer and the words, in English, “81mm rocket.”
• The escalation of nuclear rhetoric a year ago, including the introduction of the term “mushroom cloud” into the debate, coincided with the formation of a White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, a task force assigned to “educate the public” about the threat from Hussein, as a participant put it.
Two senior policymakers, who supported the war, said in unauthorized interviews that the administration greatly overstated Iraq’s near-term nuclear potential.
Check out the quite long article if you have doubts. Your turn Apologista’s.
August 11, 2003, 6:27pm
One last article I saw that provoked a few thoughts:
The KBR subsidiary of Halliburton, the Texas company formerly led by Vice President Dick Cheney, was chosen in a secret process to perform what some reports said was $7 billion in oil field repairs. Bechtel, a giant international construction firm with close government ties, was hired for a range of reconstruction projects under a $680 million, 18-month contract.
The choice of both firms created an immediate international furor, feeding suspicion that the invasion of Iraq had an underlying economic motive, something that the administration has repeatedly denied.
Under congressional pressure, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sharply reduced KBR’s award. Nevertheless, the General Accounting Office, responding to requests from Democratic Reps. Henry A. Waxman of California and John D. Dingell of Michigan, is reviewing the bidding process.
Oops nothing worse then getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar.
You’re getting all flushed over what came out on Day One of the Hutton Inquiry ?
Believe me, if you want to put the revelations from today in the Pit, you’re going to be pretty busy between now and it’s conclusion (fwiw, maybe sometime in September).
This is the limbering up before the game kicks off. Really, this is for the highest stakes and there’s an awful long way to go before it’s possible to even begin to find a balanced pov.
But, I tell ya, it’s a beautiful thing is democracy in action.
Juat give it time.
FAQ about the Hutton Inquiry
I don’t want to hijack (no really!) but I wonder if the Hutton Enquiry is really going to get to the bottom of this one. IMHO, it’s been a good start but there’s a long way to go yet.
When does Blair go on the stand?
Oh - and to keep it on topic - Bush won’t find WMDs, but he will find ‘evidence’ of a WMD Program which will be too secret to reveal to the world. This will happen whenever things start to get really sticky.
…Just my guess!
August 12, 2003, 12:29pm
In case anyone objects to
L_C’s use of the BBC to report on the enquiry, here’s a [url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,1-775346,00.html]transcript from the right-wing, Murdoch-owned Times of London.
I don’t think this enquiry is going to reveal enough truth for my liking, to be honest.
August 12, 2003, 12:37pm
In case ‘anyone’ objects? I can’t think who you mean jjimm!
August 12, 2003, 12:42pm
You mean our resident “expert” on the BBC? :rolleyes:
He did stay at a Holiday Inn Express I guess- yeah that’s the ticket. . .
August 12, 2003, 12:42pm
Martiju, I have to protect the anonymity of my sources on this one.
August 12, 2003, 12:44pm
Well I demand that you tell me - otherwise you’re a terrorist (or something like that)
We shouldn’t mock…
I suppose if the issue of ‘45 minutes’ claim can be diffused by HMG’s witnesses, they’ll be happy. But someone did inset that claim and it’s there to be ferreted out. So, by any measure, the Inquiry wil have failed if it’s not pinned down, imho
These things can have a kind of snow ball effect; one person reveals one thing, whcih means someone else is happier to say this . . . not sure about this Inquiry but there are issues of conscience here which tends to help the memory.
And I thnk the media hounds have got a good sniff now, it’s Campbell’s bollocks plus whoever else they can get. They’ll be nudging things along, nicely . .
I said Geoff Hoon a while back, and I’ve got to stick by that call.
And it’s all happening because of Dr Kelly’s death - worth remembering that poor man.
August 12, 2003, 12:53pm
If we’re going to link to Murdoch owned shite at least we should go to the real
August 12, 2003, 12:59pm
Absolutely. I caught a brief report on the news yesterday that (I think) said that the two intelligence people spoken to had confirmed that Kelly was the undisputed expert in the field. Of course, that was on the BBC so… :rolleyes:
Incidentally, I’ll support you on Hoon being made the ultimate scapegoat out of this, just because it’s easier for Blair to lose him than Campbell or any of the other suspects.
Campbell has said he’s out of there after this is over.
It’s getting like a Queen song. Ba Da Dum Dum Dum another one bites the dust …
I was struck by the two different spins put on this first day. The
Sun had an interpretation totally opposite from Bloomberg’s, as quoted in the OP. The Sun said
Round one to Campbell
DOWNING Street was dramatically cleared last night of “sexing up” a dossier on Iraqi arms.
Tony Blair and his media supremo Alastair Campbell emerged as the clear winners from the first day of the Hutton inquiry into the suicide of Dr David Kelly, 59.
december stick to the tits on page 3.
That can only come from a newspaper that still includes the like of: ‘Curvy Kate, from Kingston, wows punters at her local where she collects glasses. We reckon Kates a ‘glassy’ chick. She could pull our pints anyday. etc ad nauseum’