Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UK Inquiry Reveals Iraq Had No WMD  
User currently offlineGo Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1209 times:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3890961.stm

Key intelligence used to justify war with Iraq is now thought to have been unreliable, the Butler Report says.
The 196 page report says MI6 did not check its sources well enough, and sometimes relied on third hand reports.

It also says the 2002 dossier should not have included the claim Iraq could use WMD within 45 minutes, without explaining what that meant.

Tony Blair told MPs he "accepted" the findings and that Iraq may not have had WMD stockpiles when the war started.

'Outer limits'

Mr Blair said he takes "full responsibility" for any mistakes made in good faith.

But Conservative leader Michael Howard said the "issue is the Prime Minister's credibility. The question he must ask himself is - does he have any credibility left?"

Lord Butler's main findings were:

The 45 minutes claim was "unsubstantiated"

No individuals were to blame for failures

Intelligence had been pushed to the "outer limits but not beyond"

There was no deliberate distortion of intelligence by politicians

Limits of intelligence not "made sufficiently clear" in September 2002 dossier


It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineVafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1194 times:

Who cares about British intelligence?

(if you remember the 16 words GWB said, that should be enough)

--------------------------------------------------------------
Like we all didn't know this before!
Besides a few old, rotting chemical shells that aren't worth their weight, we've come out with nothing but dirty uniforms and less soldiers...



I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1183 times:

It wasn't about the WMD, it was about making America safe (snicker), dealing with terrorism (muffles a laugh), and being the guardian against vile dictators (rotf, l).

Signed,

The Anet Conservative Members


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21462 posts, RR: 53
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1177 times:

Now that the house of cards has officially crumbled down and has been stomped to the ground, will we ever see one of its architects being a man (or woman) and assuming responsibility? It would be the least they could do.

I don´t think we can live with self-proclaimed "leaders" whose only response is "it´s not my fault!" when the bodybags are coming home.


User currently offlineGo Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1174 times:

Tony blair accepts responsbility but hasnt apologised nor has any goverment member. The real problem for the UK now is that in the future if there is a real threat from a country then no-one will believe the goverment.


It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1168 times:

If he wants to be responsible, he should resign, and call for elections.

User currently offlineGo Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1163 times:

Yes but new labour politicans do nto do that aplha one, this is a goverment which sends out emails on sept 11 telling people it was a good day to bury bad news because of the WTC/Pentagon attacks. This is a goverment which takes no prisoners, doesnt apologise and wastes money.


It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1155 times:

Tony Blair is responsible no matter which way you cut it, which is a shame because in my opinion he's been a very good prime minister.

Of course he's been helped by the lack of any real opposition since 1997, though the Tories are finally coming back.

The problem with Labour is this: Blair is taking a lot of heat over Iraq, yet the only Labour alternative to Blair is Gordon Brown. I firmly believe that if Gordon Brown were to lead Labour they'd lose the next election.

Hence Labour are faced with the problem of losing an election were Blair to resign.


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1147 times:

It was soooo much better when Saddam was killing his own people wasn't it? Can't we just let him go?

-signed...

The Anet Liberal whine bags....


User currently offlineGo Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1145 times:

I am proud of Tony Blair for leading the way in Kosovo and for taking action in afghanistan. I am not proud of a Prime Minister which didnt check his facts, didnt ask questions and didnt stop to think.


It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1142 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If he wants to be responsible, he should resign, and call for elections.

Thing is, he'll accept the findings of the report but he won't admit he was wrong and made a mistake. If he were to apologise, he'd have to resign, fat chance of that happening. And i find it quite incredible that this report finds no individuals are to blame, someone quite obviously DID spice up the wording of the dossier to make it more alarming. Therefore making it sound like Iraq a was a real danger and menace. Where did the 45 minute claim originate from?, who changed the wording of the dossier to claim Iraq had NBC weapons, was in the process of producing more, and had the ability to threaten the west? Someone was clearly responsible for exaggerating the non-existent case for war, and they must be held accountable by resigning.

It's a serious matter, these miscalulations, faulty/dubious intelligence, call it what you like, led to the deaths of hundreds of British soldiers and thousands of Iraqi lives. SOMEONE has to be responsible. The buck stops with Tony Blair, it was HIS decision to commit UK resources to war, no WMD's have turned up, getting rid of Saddam is fine and dandy, but that is irrelevant when it comes to the search for WMD's, which was basis for going to war. And if the intel was wrong or sketchy, then WHY did he continue to insist on going to war on circumstantial evidence?




In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineGo Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1130 times:

WMD counts more in the UK than it does in the USA, this is because the UK didnt accept the regime change arguement and hadnt been attacked on 911(before anyone says yes I know Iraq had nothing to do with 911).

If tony Blair had made more of the human rights issue and said theres evidence of WMD but we cant 100% confirm that Saddam has them but he wont confirm if he has them or not, he has brokern the UN resolutions and we think he needs removing because if we leave him alone hes going to make weapons then Mr Blair would not have so many problems.



It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1124 times:

Tony Blair is responsible no matter which way you cut it, which is a shame because in my opinion he's been a very good prime minister.

I agree on that. Although Blair lied as much as Bush, I still find him a good PM, a smart guy and a good politician, which can't be said of his US-opponent Bush.


User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1119 times:

The key points of the report:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3892809.stm

You can download the full report here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3890961.stm

Interesting that the general thrust of the BBC's criticism of the 45 minute claim - Andrew Gilligan's rant apart - are actually backed up within the report - the implication is very much that it was indeed "sexed up". I even heard Sky News say that.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1101 times:

"Although Blair lied as much as Bush, I still find him a good PM, a smart guy and a good politician, which can't be said of his US-opponent Bush."

Needless to say, both are liars.
Like Bill Clinton, who lied before them, they should both go write a book, and go on a book signing tour. Bush can write a children's book.


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 1084 times:

After reading the report, here are my conclusions.

The report is confusing in places. The public were misled, yet no one misled us. Points were exaggerated, but no one exaggerated points.

What surprised me was the similarity to Hutton, only against a different organisation. For example, Butler says there is a possibility the 45-minute claim was included in order to make the dossier appear more scary than it actually was (in effect, sexing up the dossier!) - Hutton said there was a possibility the BBC's failure to deal with the government's complaints over the Gilligan report was possibly because of anti-government feeling in the BBC.

Both are very similar, yet one led to war another tenuously led to the death of one man. One led to the resignation of high-up members of the organisation, one has already had senior government officials discounting the report.

Tony Blair's credibility has gone. No one can deny this.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1069 times:

Blair convinced himself that he needed to stay with Bush on this, helped by the fact he's wanted Saddam out since 1997 when he became PM.
This led to a fatal error of judgment on his part.
He overestimated his clout in Europe, at the UN and in some cases, with Bush.

Brown could win for Labour, his style would be different from Blair, which after 7 years, could be an advantage, in any case, the days of huge majorities have gone.
Brown was in favour of attacking Iraq, some Labour people really delude themselves about him. As he, unlike Blair, sees the need to tickle their collective tummies when needed, he's a 'Labour Man' since his early teens, unlike Blair.

Barring a major terrorist attack on UK soil, the next election will be on more mundane issues, and if Labour win on those, who is the government member responsible? Brown.





User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1062 times:

He overestimated his clout in Europe, at the UN and in some cases, with Bush.

I'm curious. Have you read John Kampfner's book, Blair's Wars?



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineDl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1062 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Has no one read the part about the Iraqis actually being in Niger (vacation no doubt) and that this portion of the intel was correct? Has everyone forgotten that it is actually confirmed that Al Queda and Saddams government held meetings and talked (exchanging recipes no doubt)? Does anyone not appreciate the fact that the Libyans gave up their wmd programs as a result of their desire toavoid the same fate? NK is back talking to us again?

So, we should wait for the terrorists to attack, and we should wait for their state sponsors to find new and better ways to help them do so.

The war on terrorism is not a police action where we need to find enough evidence to convict in the most liberal court system. It is a war where we must take proactive action and strike at the terrorists again and again until they have no fight left in them. You people who cry about the politicians you hate, would have run Churchill out on a rail after the firebombing of Dresden, and Truman out after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki....

well in war one does what is necessary to win. It is not about appeasement or pacification, it is about beating the enemy and winning.
Figure out what you want to do and proceed accordingly.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1057 times:

It's impassioned, DI021, but it's also beside the point. The issue in the inquiry has not so much been about whether or not the intelligence was correct (clearly much of it wasn't), but about whether the politicians oversold what there was to the public. The Butler report clears everyone individually of deliberately overegging the pudding, but the controversy is over the difference between the cautious, proviso-ridden data given by SIS, and the dossier put out by the government, which contained none of the qualifications the intelligence community put into their basic data. In other words, the document WAS sexed-up.

Blair's response to the report publication today contained much of what you have said above, such as should we wait until we are attacked and so on. It's a valid argument, and heaven knows taking pre-emptive action is always going to be difficult to justify even when it is correct.

It isn't that pre-emptive action was taken. It isn't even that the information was wrong. It is that the intelligence community were clearly uneasy and unsure, yet the government sold it to us on the basis of there being an abolutely clear immediate and deadly threat (the 45 minute claim) which was not only questionable in itself, but didn't even refer to anything other than battlefield weapons. The clear implication was that Iraq had ballistic missiles capable of striking British bases as far away as Cyprus - there was a deadly threat to us. The newspapers ran with it, and the government did not make any attempt whatsoever to correct the impression that they had misleadingly given.

In essence, the BBC's charge that the dossier was "sexed up" was spot on.




She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1058 times:

Has no one read the part about the Iraqis actually being in Niger (vacation no doubt) and that this portion of the intel was correct?

Goes to show that DNC hack Joe Wilson is nothing but a liar. First the Senate Intelligence report shows that everything he has been saying was a lie including the fact that his wife, CIA Analyst Valerie Plame, was the one who got him the mission to Niger. Now the British report backs up the fact that Saddam did try to buy uranium for Niger.



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1053 times:

"First the Senate Intelligence report shows that everything he has been saying was a lie including the fact that his wife, CIA Analyst Valerie Plame, was the one who got him the mission to Niger."

You havent read the Senate report obviously. Reading a cheezy article in the National Review doesnt cut it. As usual the ultra-right wing is back to its defamatory tactics when they're kicked in the cojones.

"Has no one read the part about the Iraqis actually being in Niger (vacation no doubt) and that this portion of the intel was correct?"

And the devil lies in the details doesnt it? Even Wilson reported that Iraq had approached Niger at some point. Gosh, every country had - Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel. The report also stated that Iraq had ended its quest for Uranium from Niger, and that no uranium shipments had ever been made to Iraq. Which is precisely what Wilson and the British report stated.


User currently offlineIakobos From Belgium, joined Aug 2003, 3313 posts, RR: 34
Reply 22, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 1045 times:

The "supposed" purchase of raw material from Niger...
Even if was true, and the official conclusions are it was a fraud, the material was "yellow cake". Pay attention or to paraphrase a well know American politician: "make no mistake" !
Before the cake becomes enriched uranium there is a very long and very sophisticated process which Iraq, and the immense majority of countries on earth, do not have.

Has no one read the part about the Iraqis actually being in Niger (vacation no doubt) and that this portion of the intel was correct? Has everyone forgotten that it is actually confirmed that Al Queda and Saddams government held meetings and talked (exchanging recipes no doubt)? Does anyone not appreciate the fact that the Libyans gave up their wmd programs as a result of their desire toavoid the same fate? NK is back talking to us again?

DI021 where did you get these three brilliant inputs ?

If you think you declared the war on terrorism, I suggest to read about terrorist events in Europe in the last 30 years and how it was (successfully)tackled.
True, you waged (an undeclared) war on Iraq. 15,000 lives further down the road, you are still nowhere closer to having made a single step towards eradicating or reducing terrorism, many, even blind, believe you actually made a step back.
I will reuse the favourite sentence of your leader in Washington, make no mistake, the kind of terrorism WE are facing now cannot be policed.
Eventhough every top in the US administration, whichever it is, would prefer to loose some of his/her fingers, your foreign policy will have to be reassessed and modified. Probably easy to understand but difficult to admit, and certainly not in the capacities of the present admin.
If you think this is surrender or giving ground to terrorists, then prepare yourselves for a horrible decade, at the end of which you will anyway have to come to it.


User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6451 posts, RR: 54
Reply 23, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 1044 times:

Just keep on talking, talking, talking....

Just keep on putting up new investigation committees, writing new reports etc.

The major fault was made by GB Sr in 1991. He stopped the Gulf War short of Baghdad, most likely because he believed that the Iraqi regime would implode by itself. Unfortunately he was wrong.

The regime which:
gassed its own people in the north
conquered Kuwait
put all Kuwaiti oil fields on fire when forced back
Fired Scud missiles against Saudi Arabia and Israel
put its own people as hostages during the UN "Oil for Food" program
etc.
that regime has not existed for well over a year by now.

So there is no reason for crying.

Instead of investigating and writing reports we should spend our efforts on supporting our people in Iraq who work hard day by day educating the Iraqis to run and control their own country in a decent way - for the first time in 4000 years.

How accurate the intelligence was on current details, how the politicians interpreted it, and how the press served it to the public, that's interesting, but not a major issue. The major issue was that the fault made by GB Sr 13 years ago did not correct itself. And GWB Jr was too shy to tell us that dad was wrong.

"I cannot honestly state that getting rid of Saddam was a mistake at all".
(T. Blair, 14th July 2004)
That's probably the understatement of the year.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 1040 times:

Now the British report backs up the fact that Saddam did try to buy uranium for Niger.

The reports also say that Saddam failed to buy uranium and didn't approach anything else - both of which were known before the invasion.

Notice how B757300 ignores these bits.

it is about beating the enemy and winning.

Enemies are usually a threat to you.

Has no one read the part about the Iraqis actually being in Niger (vacation no doubt) and that this portion of the intel was correct? Has everyone forgotten that it is actually confirmed that Al Queda and Saddams government held meetings and talked (exchanging recipes no doubt)?

Both of which are inconsequential.

It was known before the war that Saddam had not obtained uranium from Niger. It was known before the war that visits by Al Qaeda came to nought. Saddam had nothing to do with September 11th, nor any other Al Qaeda attack. If you think they 'exchanged recipes' or not shows just how the pro-war propaganda flowed before the war - it was known by the JIC that they did not.

The war on terrorism is not a police action where we need to find enough evidence to convict in the most liberal court system.

Incorrect. In the UK the war was legal only if all the evidence suggested Saddam had active and substancial WMD programmes, and was a threat to the UK. This is what the atorney general said, these were the terms of the war. It's clear from butler that all the evidence DIDN'T suggest Saddam had such WMD programmes, hence the war was illegal. Yet there's no one to blame.

The law was broken but no one broke the law.

(I quite like that phrase, feel free to use it as you wish  Smile)


25 777236ER : How accurate the intelligence was on current details, how the politicians interpreted it, and how the press served it to the public, that's interestin
26 Prebennorholm : Okay 777236ER, I see your point. It may be a major BRITISH issue, if you feel manipulated by your own government. If that's the case, then you should
27 777236ER : My major point was that for well over a year Danish and British folks down there have had a splendid cooperation and have been doing a good job in sou
28 Iakobos : 777236ER Most cannot, that is called colonization and that period has been enshrined in history books.
29 Prebennorholm : Right 777236ER, we should have done that in Rwanda, of course. Shame on us that we didn't realize until far too late. Apart from that, especially Fran
30 Iakobos : Preben, any action into foreign territory has to be either mandated (UN, NATO, AUO, ECOWAS,...) or requested by the local authorities (Ivory Coast, Ch
31 Prebennorholm : Iakobos, you are right. And in a (next to) perfect world that is how it has got to be. That said, much too often that was the reason why millions of p
32 JGPH1A : RE: It was soooo much better when Saddam was killing his own people wasn't it? Can't we just let him go? -signed... The Anet Liberal whine bags.... It
33 777236ER : The UK government knew very well that had the decision to assist eliminating the former Iraqi regime been put forward to the UN Security Council again
34 Banco : No, it doesn't follow that it was automatically an illegal war. The legality is certainly questionable, but it is not clear cut one way or the other.
35 Alpha 1 : The major fault was made by GB Sr in 1991. He stopped the Gulf War short of Baghdad, most likely because he believed that the Iraqi regime would implo
36 Jaysit : "And guess what? Bush kept his word-something we don't think politicians do too often, but he kept his word, despite the fact that the rest of the wor
37 Go Canada! : Tony Blair was dishonest, the country was misled. The problem is not the fact that Saddams been removed, only an idoit would think the worlds a better
38 Post contains images 777236ER : Banco, I don't particularly WANT Tony Blair to be brought down, I think he's been a good Prime Minister and despite the war and other hiccups has done
39 Post contains links and images Banco : I don't have a lot to add to that 777236ER, except to apologise for misreading you thinking that you were hoping for Blair's fall. Realistically, havi
40 Zak : the good part about the countless inquiries and hearings that give clear indication that the war on iraq was based on flawed, sometimes beefed up evid
41 Post contains images JGPH1A : Clearly at least some of the UK electorate haven't forgiven Tony Blair for the war in Iraq - last nights by-elections in Birmingham and Leicester slas
42 Banco : JGPH1A, given that governments in mid-term generally get a kicking at by-elections, those results last night were actually fairly reasonable for Labou
43 JGPH1A : Yes, mid-term by-elections are often hijacked by protest votes, but the BBC analysis this morning indicated that the Iraq issue will not go away befor
44 Post contains images Banco : Well, I hear some analysis, and I don't agree with it being appalling news for the Tories (and I'm not a Tory, by the way). At by elections, the Lib D
45 JGPH1A : I would agree that the loss of confidence in the PM will be lasting impact of the Iraq issue, not the war itself, unless British losses mount signific
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Iraq Had No WMD? posted Sat Nov 12 2005 16:40:33 by OttoPylit
CIA’s Final Report: No WMD Found In Iraq posted Tue Apr 26 2005 22:14:18 by Tbar220
Inspectors Conclude No WMD In Iraq posted Wed Oct 6 2004 16:23:03 by Zak
Kelly Says Iraq Had WMD posted Wed Jan 21 2004 23:12:11 by Gc
UK Law Regarding Drivers With No posted Wed Sep 6 2006 16:52:01 by 53Sqdn
Those Who Have Had No Life In The Last 7 Days ;) posted Wed Sep 7 2005 10:54:09 by Gkirk
Still No WMD! posted Fri May 16 2003 09:29:36 by Flying Belgian
The UK And The Euro - It's A No, For Now. posted Thu May 15 2003 09:33:11 by Banco
US Army Search Team:No WMD. We're Leaving. posted Sun May 11 2003 19:43:02 by Heavymetal
Iraq Plans Anti-WMD Legislation posted Mon Feb 10 2003 22:28:17 by N79969