Kan Hriat Phak Bak Part 2
First and foremost, I do not take any credit in this article I am writing. This is an article based on the acclaimed and award winning documentary film called “No End In Sight” produced by Charles Ferguson is about the corrupted administration of US. The film focused on the war on terror. However, I wrote this article, as I believe in it, truly but not blindly. Tell me after you read, who do you think is conspiring. So, read on and let’s start the discussion yet again.
May 1st 2003 - “ United States and our alias have prevailed” (George Bush).
The soldiers were happy, they could almost smell the breath of fresh air, taste the home cook meal back in US and watch the Sunday night game. Little did they know that Bush’s ‘prevail’ means “No End In Sight”.
5 years have gone by. There is more chaos in the country than ever before. Millions of Iraqis have no water supply, electricity or even proper sewage system anymore.
So what went wrong?
BAD START
“Estimated condition of the insurgence in Iraq became worst and worst. The President called it Guess-work and the press-spokesman calls it nay saying but what was really revealing to me was that the President hadn’t read it”
-Robert Hutchings
Chairman (03-05) National Intelligence
Whitehouse ignored the projected danger and risk that American would face when they go into Iraq.
THE BEGINING
September 12th
Marc Garlasco (Senior Iraq Analyst, 97-03, Defense Intelligence Agency)
First task assigned – To draw relationship between Saddam and Osama so that US can invade and overthrow Saddam. He went straight to counter-terrorism group and work with them for couple of days. They went over all the historical events that they could possible go through. THEIR CONCLUSION – “There was no relationship”.
Yet, that was not the case reported by Cheney. He spoke to the press about Saddam “His regime aids and protects terrorist including members of the Al Qaeda”.
The war will happen afterall.
However, the only two seniors with combat experience, Collin Powell and Richard.A expressed deep concern privately but supported the administration in public.
HISTORY
February 15, 1991
“There’s another way for a bloodshed to stop and that is the Iraqis and their military to take matters into their own hands to force Saddam Hussein to step aside”
-George Bush Senior
Press Conference
Yet when the shiyads rise up, the US administration allows Saddam to suppressed them.
In 93 Bush Sr visited Kuwait where Saddam attempted to assassinate him. 7 years later his son Bush Jr became the president. Iraq Mission personal, very personal!
THE TEAM
The war was mandate by four to five people at the top. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Ahmed Chalabi ( former INC Iraq President, A convict) None of which have a combat experience. US depended on an INC source against the advice of the National Intelligence.
Initial Plan – 3 months to 4 months in Iraq. Elect Ahmed Chalabi (Convicted criminal in Jordan, surprisingly he convince Bush that he could handle the Iraqis) Weird enough that one man can convince Bush but what is stranger is that he was a convict. It almost seems like this was already a plan. ~~ ( Ring any bell from John Perkin’s book? Appoint a govt that the US can control).
Anyways, moving on. Here is what the Defence Dept spokesman said in front of hundreds of people.
“Install the govt and then by August 2003 start a drastic reduction of the troops ( Bring them back )”
Lawrence Di Rita
Former Spokesman Defence Dept.
They know this was not going to happen and so did Col. Hughes who was director of the strategic policy in Iraq.
To bring the matter worst, Whitehouse ignored the state dept, studies on Post War Iraq, a 13 volume studies on how to tackle and go about the war. The last beak of hope to carefully implement a war had just been dismissed. The power heads just see profit and revenge.
“The Secretary and myself were disappointed to see our careful planning and the right people to be assigned were all discarded just so the more inline republicans can be appointed for the key positions.”
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson
Chief of Staff for Secretary of State. (2002-2005)
WAR
March 19, 2003. Bush declared the war on Iraq.
His Message, “To Free its people (the Iraqis) and to protect the world from great danger”.
At first, Iraqis were happy and welcomed the US troops less they did not know what was about to happen just in a few months.
Key note: In 1962, US planned 2 years in ahead as to how they will place their troop in Germany.
2003, Bush planned it 60 days before declaring wars.
April 2003 – After the Invasion, the street of Iraq was a total chaos. Lootings were taking place everywhere in a bright daylight. Govt buildings, hospitals, schools and universities were not off-limit either. The city was being torn apart. The Americans did nothing and allowed this to take place due to the direct order from the Whitehouse not to implement marshal law or interfere in general. The Iraqis officials pleaded Bush to protect some important historical place like the museums and the libraries. They promised! Even ORHA put those sites on the top of their list but they were all discarded by the Whitehouse. However, the only sight protected or of any interest to be protected by the US was…………” THE OIL MINISTRY”
Garner was put in charged of ORHA 50 days before the invasion (ORHA: Organization for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. He reported directly to Donald Rumsfeld). However, he was replaced quickly by a bigger appointed personnel Brehmen who has no military experience whatsoever and carry out 3 drastic measures. The very top of which goes completely against Garner’s work. The second, to make every officials hired under Saddam Hussein time unemployed for the rest of their lives regardless of ANYTHING. This list includes doctors, engineers, librarians, teachers, professors etc. The last but not the least was to disband the military system in Iraq, which the US military, UN etc disapprove of but still carried forward. This resulted in total outbreak, no rules, no law no limits and no law enforcers among the iraqis.
“Stuff happens……” Donald Rumsfeld in a press conference when asked about the undesired conditions in Iraq.
“That was the day, Liberation Mission promised by Bush was clear that it was never meant for the average people of Iraq”. – US Ambassador.
The promise was never there. It has been 5 years and going.. Militaries are fighting wars that they don’t know what they are exactly fighting for. They gave their lives, whether living or dead, having faith that they are serving their countries when all these chaos and violence are just benefiting a few aristocratic powerheads at the top.
The film gave equal opportunity to both side of the story but it just so happens that none but one would agree to be on it from the other side. Even the one who agreed to appear for the interview didn’t know what to say several times but would just smile instead.
I wish to write more but in no way can I capture every detail in the documentary. I may have just covered 25% briefly of the entire documentary. I highly recommend you to watch it. It does not matter whether you like US or not. Just watch it if you can get hold of the copy. I promise you, you will be surprised.
Here is a trailer ( Take time to watch this trailer at the very least )
English atang a mizo a translate thei in awm hlauh chuan ka lawm viau ang. Mizo a ziah ka tum zet a mahse a buai chuar lutuk dawn avangin English law law in ka rawn post ta zawk anih hi.
Full Version ( Thanks to Silent_Man)
Full Version Here ( Thanks to Silent_Man )
WATCH
Similar Posts:
- Saddam’s Execution Video leaked, Controvery begin
- Bush lied 260 times about Iraq war
- Corruption, kan hmuh leh hriat phak bak.
- ‘Chemical Ali’ execution approved
- Breaking News : Death penalty for Saddam Hussein
November 18th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
kan double century ta e….
Bush a chuan chhiar thiam se guantanamo bay ah harold-a leh kumar-a te rual kha a tawn thla ve duh ngei ngei ang che u a….lolzzzz
[Report abuse]
November 18th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
“Yeah, they could save 40,000+ American lives by Banning automobiles too.”
Yeah if they stop producing sugar no one would die of diabetes, tobacco and alcohol disappearance would also save a few million more…and food should not have fats so that no one would die of obesity.. There is a way of life and then some. Atleast automobiles are beneficial to us in general
. War I dont see how the population in US or Iraq in general are benefiting from it.
200 kan cross ta..kan ti 300 law law dawn mi?
[Report abuse]
November 18th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
spikey nang aiin 200 ka cross hmasa zawk…lolzzzz
[Report abuse]
November 18th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Sala..in rawn sipeed up thut anih kha in rin loh laiin..a van fair lo ve..
[Report abuse]
November 18th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
“War I dont see how the population in US or Iraq in general are benefiting from it.”
I see 22 million Iraqi Shiite and Kurds getting freedom for the first time in almost a century and that is worth every drop of American soldier’s blood.
[Report abuse]
November 18th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
There is a civil war going on not just between 2 groups but 3-4 groups… I wont really call that freedom!
[Report abuse]
November 18th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
A civil war was fought in the US too, with its outcome abolishing slavery.
32,719 people were Murdered in Free India in 2007-2008, just 7,772 Iraqis have been killed so far this year and its already November 2008 and the death rate is declining, FAST. Looks like Civil war torn Iraq is not that bad after all
[Report abuse]
November 18th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Bush-a hian FIR te hi a thehluhve vaih chuan Aryan leh Spikey chu Cyber Police ho in an hlap er zawk zawk dawn anih hi
[Report abuse]
November 18th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Civil war also broke many other countries and their economies.. Burma, Uganda, Angola.
[Report abuse]
November 18th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Civil war te chu nu ber thawh fuh loh tuk hi chuan chhungkua ah pawh a awm a lawm
Bush Mush te rawn inrawlhna vak chi phei chu a ni law 
hahaha
[Report abuse]
November 18th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Keini pawh kan civil war mek mai thei tunah hian… hriat miah loh..Bush-a chu hrilh lo law law mai ang chaw te ka nghei phah te anih chauh loh chuan
[Report abuse]
November 18th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Thankfully unlike Burma, Uganda and Angola, Iraq witnessed visible improvement, election of a democratic government with Iraqis voting for the first time in a free and fair election, improvement in economy with Oil production reaching pre-war levels, more than 200 percent reduction in civilian loss of life from last year to this year, an ever increasing disposable income already surpassing countries like India, Vietnam and the Phillippines, things can only gets better from now on.
[Report abuse]
November 19th, 2008 at 10:45 am
I truly share ur hope but the problem is the GDP might increase but i hope it spread and reach the common population so they may benefit as well (not just on papers but in every aspect of their living) from the riches that their oil brings. I hope things will only get better from now on and it might since obama is the president but then it might not either. Will just have to wait and see and not make any prediction or assumption!
[Report abuse]
November 19th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Vawksa rep a topic kan thlak toh pawhin in la tui viau a,lawmawm e
Aryan i email id kha i tarlang duh awm si lova, tah hian min han mail thei ang em?? amandapari@gmail.com, i zinbo dawn ta m tih te kha @bmw te hian an hre duh deuh a, nov25th hnu vel ah chuan
[Report abuse]
November 19th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Add Australia to the list of countries who joined the war, not on the basis of their own intelligence. Repeat, Australia did not join the war as a result, or “on the basis” of their own intelligence. HEHEHEHEH. Sorry Aryan. Just like US.
[Report abuse]
November 19th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
“more than 200 percent reduction in civilian loss of life from last year to this year” – That doesn’t say crap. Why don’t you compare the present death rate with the pre-wars death rate.
[Report abuse]
November 20th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Thirkut says “Add Australia to the list of countries who joined the war, not on the basis of their own intelligence. Repeat, Australia did not join the war as a result, or “on the basis” of their own intelligence. HEHEHEHEH. Sorry Aryan. Just like US.”
Australia joined Iraq based on its own intelligence report. And the subsequent inquiry called Jull’s Report exonerated the government from putting any undue pressure on the intelligence.
“That doesn’t say crap. Why don’t you compare the present death rate with the pre-wars death rate.”
That is called improvement over the years in violence in Iraq. And Yes, I will compare Pre war and post war Iraq when the current war is over.
And I am still waiting for your proof that ““Aznar’s govt told their intelligence agency what they wanted to hear” .
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 6:07 am
Even Howard admitted almost all the intelligence (regarding Iraqi wmd) was American or British who both were intent on war regardless of intelligence. Again, USA and Britain were pushing for war before intelligence reports on wmd, not as a result of, or after the reports. Not only that they also received intelligence report (Australia too) that Iraq did not possess WMD. They chose the report that contained lies. To say that they attacked Iraq “on the basis of their own intelligence report” is simply untrue and impossible to ascertain cemented by the fact that the supposed reports turned out to be lies.
I has asked you what KIND of evidence you wanted (for all the statements I have made for each country, not just Spain) and you didn’t give me a straight answer. You asked for evidence but as far as pure evidence, neither of us can provide any to support our stances. You know that. I can paste endless links but thats not gonna change your mind or cease the differences in oppinion. If you want support for the coments I’ve made, its as much of a mouse-click away for you as it is for me. Fetch yourself. There’s ample reliable sources which claim that the war was not based on intelligence, which can not be shrugged off as merely conspiracy theories.
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 8:25 am
Thirkut says “Even Howard admitted almost all the intelligence (regarding Iraqi wmd) was American or British who both were intent on war regardless of intelligence. Again, USA and Britain were pushing for war before intelligence reports on wmd, not as a result of, or after the reports. ”
Wrong again. US and Britain demaned inspection without interference by Saddam Hussein to avoid war, Saddam refused and kickled out UN weapons inspectors.
“Not only that they also received intelligence report (Australia too) that Iraq did not possess WMD. They chose the report that contained lies.”
Australian Intelligence report says” IRAQ did retain expertise in WMD production, and there was some evidence its programs were being reconstructed, but that the evidence was fragmentary and the circumstances under which Saddam would use such weapons were uncertain. https://www.smh.com.au/articles.....62616.html
No where in the intelligence report nor the subsequent inquiry says “Iraq did not possess WMD”
I seriosuly suggest you STOP making up lies right there.
“To say that they attacked Iraq “on the basis of their own intelligence report” is simply untrue and impossible to ascertain cemented by the fact that the supposed reports turned out to be lies.”
Australian Government built it case for war on the basis of the above Intelligence report, and joined the Iraq war, as proven by the above article.
“I has asked you what KIND of evidence you wanted (for all the statements I have made for each country, not just Spain) and you didn’t give me a straight answer. You asked for evidence but as far as pure evidence, neither of us can provide any to support our stances.”
I asked you an evidence for your statement “Aznar’s govt told their intelligence agency what they wanted to hear”. A revelation from the intelligence itself or from the government. Looks like you are trying to chicken out our PROVE it!
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 8:40 am
I ah i, oh oh oh oh, iii la, tire se shun, sede, mirena zuk.
vawiin inhmuan up a ngaih nilen leh vang.
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 8:47 am
Kanidari chu nizan che thra ani maw happy riau mai
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 9:07 am
You call that evidence??? If so…. here
https://www.commondreams.org/views05/1204-23.htm
I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
-https://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
His report, written before the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, concluded that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. – https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6143794.stm
Declassified reports were incomplete This forced the government to release a declassified (incomplete) version Monday
https://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=38912
The documents that Frank Grevil leaked are part of a rising amount of evidence that the Danish government, the Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the Minister of Foreign Affairs Per Stig Moeller knew that the “evidence” concerning Iraqs WMD was false. https://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34592
Ms Palacio said Spain had supported the war on the basis of reports from the United Nations https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/3455775.stm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter –
Tony Blair had already been embarrassed by a growing recognition that his own intelligence-based estimates regarding Iraqi WMD were every bit as cooked up as the American president’s. He faced further ignominy when Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, publicly mocked his assertions that David Kay, the former UN weapons inspector turned CIA agent who headed the so-far futile search for WMD in occupied Iraq, had found “massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories”. Dismissed by Bremer as a “red herring”, Blair’s discredited comments only underscore the sad fact that the issue of Iraqi WMD, and the entire concept of disarmament, has become a public joke.
https://www.independent.co.uk/o.....73984.html
“Mr Howard’s assertion that almost all the intelligence … came from US and British sources” https://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...../iraq.iraq “Mr Howard is in turn blaming both US and British intelligence”
“Howard government exonerated despite proof of lies” https://secure.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/aust-m05.shtml
Barton says people in the US, British, and Australian governments all knew how weak their evidence was. – https://www.parapundit.com/archives/003452.html Former Australian intelligence analyst and weapons inspector Rod Barton says even once the lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were proven false on the ground the US and allied governments in Britain and Australia kept up the drumbeat of lies.
Former Australian spy chief Philip Flood presented a report on July 22, which found that the intelligence provided by Australia’s spy agencies on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction was “thin”, “ambiguous” and “incomplete”. https://www.greenleft.org.au/2004/591/32078
Even the limited inquiries into the pre-war “intelligence failures” that the Coalition government has been forced to hold reveal evidence of a conspiracy to deceive the Australian public over the threat from Iraqi WMDs. For example, the 2004 parliamentary inquiry into the pre-war assessments of Australian intelligence agencies revealed that the Office of National Assessments changed its assessment of Iraqi WMD capabilities over the space of a single day. https://www.greenleft.org.au/2005/612/35571
As the report declares: “…the case made by the [Australian] government was that Iraq possessed WMD in large quantities and posed a grave and unacceptable threat to the region and the world, particularly as there was a danger that Iraq’s WMD might be passed to terrorist organisations.
“This is not the picture that emerges from an examination of the assessments provided to the committee by Australia’s two analytical agencies.”
https://secure.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/aust-m05.shtml
Australia may have waged war on an entirely false premise. https://www.smh.com.au/articles.....71778.html
“the 147-page dossier makes clear that the Bush and Blair administrations manufactured and manipulated “intelligence” to give the false impression that Iraq had active WMD programs, as well as the capacity to utilise WMD; that all three governments lied to their populations about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein; and that the existence or otherwise of WMD had nothing to do with the real reasons for going to war.” – https://secure.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/aust-m05.shtml
“I am Not mistaken that the British Government made their own decision to join the Iraq war based on their on military inteligence report.” Again, the Br Govt didn’t make their decision based on their own military intelligence, but rather, intelligence report
In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. https://www.independent.co.uk/n.....28545.html
MI6 told Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq that a high-placed Iraqi source said that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. https://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....466512.ece
Hutton’s pose of agnosticism toward Blair’s intelligence claims did not prevent him from declaring—without any substantiation—that the government and the security services had acted in good faith in proclaiming that Iraq represented a real and immediate danger. Nor did it prevent him from denouncing as impermissible any questioning of their “integrity”. https://secure.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/hutt-f03.shtml
With hindsight, everyone agrees that much of the intelligence that the UK (and US) government published to justify their case for war against Iraq was unreliable. https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_.....481139.stm
The White House admitted that the claim that Iraq was seeking “significant quantities of uranium from Africa” – based on faked documents provided by the Italian intelligence services – should not have been included in President Bush’s speech two months prior to the war https://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BUN307A.html
Pillar said, who was CIA ‘s national intelligence officer for the near east. Pillar’s firsthand proof of intelligence manipulation appears to be unassailable: The Bush administration “went to war without requesting — and evidently without being influenced by — any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq � As the national intelligence officer for the Middle East, I was in charge of coordinating all of the intelligence community’s assessments regarding Iraq; the first request I received from any administration policymaker for any such assessment was not until a year into the war.” Pillar was CIA ‘s national intelligence officer for the near east 2000 – 2005.
The Bush administration simply manipulated the world in an attempt to gain support for declaring war with Iraq https://media.www.gsusignal.com.....0382.shtml
George Tenet And White House Admit Iraq Intelligence Chief Told Them Iraq Had No WMD
• The CIA sent thirty relatives of Iraqi scientists to Iraq to ask them what WMD Iraq had, and they uniformly reported it had nothing.
• Iraq’s foreign minister Nouri Sabri secretly told the US in 2002 that Iraq had no active WMD programs.
• Alan Foley, the head of the CIA’s Weapons Intelligence Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center, told an acquaintance just before the war that he expected we would find “Not much, if anything.”
https://rinf.com/alt-news/polit.....-wmd/4263/
Six months before the United States was dead-set on invading Iraq to rid the country of its alleged weapons of mass destruction, experts in the field of nuclear science warned officials in the Bush administration that intelligence reports showing Iraq was stockpiling chemical and biological weapons was unreliable and that the country did not pose an imminent threat to its neighbors in the Middle East or the U.S.
But the dissenters were told to keep quiet by high-level administration officials in the White House because the Bush administration had already decided that military force would be used to overthrow the regime of Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein, interviews and documents have revealed. https://globalresearch.ca/articles/LEO306D.html
> In fact, as President George W. Bush took office 25 months later, the
> CIA was reporting, “We do not have any direct evidence” https://newsgroups.derkeiler.co.....g00469.pdf
Delayed for two weeks after first reported and buried in the back pages of most major U.S. newspapers is the blockbuster story that key players in the British government believed the case for the invasion of Iraq was “thin” and that the Bush administration was manipulating intelligence to provide a rationale for an aggressive U.S. policy. https://www.independent.org/new.....sp?id=1509 “It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran.”
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 9:10 am
You call that evidence?? If thats the case I have plenty of it. Thats just part of it. I didn’t think it would change our differences in opinion but damn…. I’ll be glad to be wrong on that one.
https://www.commondreams.org/views05/1204-23.htm
I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
-https://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
His report, written before the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, concluded that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. – https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6143794.stm
Declassified reports were incomplete This forced the government to release a declassified (incomplete) version Monday
https://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=38912
The documents that Frank Grevil leaked are part of a rising amount of evidence that the Danish government, the Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the Minister of Foreign Affairs Per Stig Moeller knew that the “evidence” concerning Iraqs WMD was false. https://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34592
Ms Palacio said Spain had supported the war on the basis of reports from the United Nations https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/3455775.stm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter –
Tony Blair had already been embarrassed by a growing recognition that his own intelligence-based estimates regarding Iraqi WMD were every bit as cooked up as the American president’s. He faced further ignominy when Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, publicly mocked his assertions that David Kay, the former UN weapons inspector turned CIA agent who headed the so-far futile search for WMD in occupied Iraq, had found “massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories”. Dismissed by Bremer as a “red herring”, Blair’s discredited comments only underscore the sad fact that the issue of Iraqi WMD, and the entire concept of disarmament, has become a public joke.
https://www.independent.co.uk/o.....73984.html
“Mr Howard’s assertion that almost all the intelligence … came from US and British sources” https://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...../iraq.iraq “Mr Howard is in turn blaming both US and British intelligence”
“Howard government exonerated despite proof of lies” https://secure.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/aust-m05.shtml
Barton says people in the US, British, and Australian governments all knew how weak their evidence was. – https://www.parapundit.com/archives/003452.html Former Australian intelligence analyst and weapons inspector Rod Barton says even once the lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were proven false on the ground the US and allied governments in Britain and Australia kept up the drumbeat of lies.
Former Australian spy chief Philip Flood presented a report on July 22, which found that the intelligence provided by Australia’s spy agencies on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction was “thin”, “ambiguous” and “incomplete”. https://www.greenleft.org.au/2004/591/32078
Even the limited inquiries into the pre-war “intelligence failures” that the Coalition government has been forced to hold reveal evidence of a conspiracy to deceive the Australian public over the threat from Iraqi WMDs. For example, the 2004 parliamentary inquiry into the pre-war assessments of Australian intelligence agencies revealed that the Office of National Assessments changed its assessment of Iraqi WMD capabilities over the space of a single day. https://www.greenleft.org.au/2005/612/35571
As the report declares: “…the case made by the [Australian] government was that Iraq possessed WMD in large quantities and posed a grave and unacceptable threat to the region and the world, particularly as there was a danger that Iraq’s WMD might be passed to terrorist organisations.
“This is not the picture that emerges from an examination of the assessments provided to the committee by Australia’s two analytical agencies.”
https://secure.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/aust-m05.shtml
Australia may have waged war on an entirely false premise. https://www.smh.com.au/articles.....71778.html
“the 147-page dossier makes clear that the Bush and Blair administrations manufactured and manipulated “intelligence” to give the false impression that Iraq had active WMD programs, as well as the capacity to utilise WMD; that all three governments lied to their populations about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein; and that the existence or otherwise of WMD had nothing to do with the real reasons for going to war.” – https://secure.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/aust-m05.shtml
“I am Not mistaken that the British Government made their own decision to join the Iraq war based on their on military inteligence report.” Again, the Br Govt didn’t make their decision based on their own military intelligence, but rather, intelligence report
In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. https://www.independent.co.uk/n.....28545.html
MI6 told Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq that a high-placed Iraqi source said that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. https://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....466512.ece
Hutton’s pose of agnosticism toward Blair’s intelligence claims did not prevent him from declaring—without any substantiation—that the government and the security services had acted in good faith in proclaiming that Iraq represented a real and immediate danger. Nor did it prevent him from denouncing as impermissible any questioning of their “integrity”. https://secure.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/hutt-f03.shtml
With hindsight, everyone agrees that much of the intelligence that the UK (and US) government published to justify their case for war against Iraq was unreliable. https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_.....481139.stm
The White House admitted that the claim that Iraq was seeking “significant quantities of uranium from Africa” – based on faked documents provided by the Italian intelligence services – should not have been included in President Bush’s speech two months prior to the war https://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BUN307A.html
Pillar said, who was CIA ‘s national intelligence officer for the near east. Pillar’s firsthand proof of intelligence manipulation appears to be unassailable: The Bush administration “went to war without requesting — and evidently without being influenced by — any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq � As the national intelligence officer for the Middle East, I was in charge of coordinating all of the intelligence community’s assessments regarding Iraq; the first request I received from any administration policymaker for any such assessment was not until a year into the war.” Pillar was CIA ‘s national intelligence officer for the near east 2000 – 2005.
The Bush administration simply manipulated the world in an attempt to gain support for declaring war with Iraq https://media.www.gsusignal.com.....0382.shtml
George Tenet And White House Admit Iraq Intelligence Chief Told Them Iraq Had No WMD
• The CIA sent thirty relatives of Iraqi scientists to Iraq to ask them what WMD Iraq had, and they uniformly reported it had nothing.
• Iraq’s foreign minister Nouri Sabri secretly told the US in 2002 that Iraq had no active WMD programs.
• Alan Foley, the head of the CIA’s Weapons Intelligence Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center, told an acquaintance just before the war that he expected we would find “Not much, if anything.”
https://rinf.com/alt-news/polit.....-wmd/4263/
Six months before the United States was dead-set on invading Iraq to rid the country of its alleged weapons of mass destruction, experts in the field of nuclear science warned officials in the Bush administration that intelligence reports showing Iraq was stockpiling chemical and biological weapons was unreliable and that the country did not pose an imminent threat to its neighbors in the Middle East or the U.S.
But the dissenters were told to keep quiet by high-level administration officials in the White House because the Bush administration had already decided that military force would be used to overthrow the regime of Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein, interviews and documents have revealed. https://globalresearch.ca/articles/LEO306D.html
> In fact, as President George W. Bush took office 25 months later, the
> CIA was reporting, “We do not have any direct evidence” https://newsgroups.derkeiler.co.....g00469.pdf
Delayed for two weeks after first reported and buried in the back pages of most major U.S. newspapers is the blockbuster story that key players in the British government believed the case for the invasion of Iraq was “thin” and that the Bush administration was manipulating intelligence to provide a rationale for an aggressive U.S. policy. https://www.independent.org/new.....sp?id=1509 “It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran.”
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 9:18 am
I actually didn’t consider articles like the ones you posted as “evidence” but if you do then here goes. As I mentioned I doubt this will end our disagreement but since you consider links like the ones you posted as evidence, then maybe I’m wrong. (And Im not gonna just force your dome with that of Spain’s wrongdoings) US, British, UK, Australia, Denmark…
More to come if I feel like it
https://rinf.com/alt-news/polit.....-wmd/4263/
Six months before the United States was dead-set on invading Iraq to rid the country of its alleged weapons of mass destruction, experts in the field of nuclear science warned officials in the Bush administration that intelligence reports showing Iraq was stockpiling chemical and biological weapons was unreliable and that the country did not pose an imminent threat to its neighbors in the Middle East or the U.S.
But the dissenters were told to keep quiet by high-level administration officials in the White House because the Bush administration had already decided that military force would be used to overthrow the regime of Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein, interviews and documents have revealed. https://globalresearch.ca/articles/LEO306D.html
> In fact, as President George W. Bush took office 25 months later, the
> CIA was reporting, “We do not have any direct evidence” https://newsgroups.derkeiler.co.....g00469.pdf
Delayed for two weeks after first reported and buried in the back pages of most major U.S. newspapers is the blockbuster story that key players in the British government believed the case for the invasion of Iraq was “thin” and that the Bush administration was manipulating intelligence to provide a rationale for an aggressive U.S. policy. https://www.independent.org/new.....sp?id=1509 “It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran.”
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 9:19 am
BLAM…
With hindsight, everyone agrees that much of the intelligence that the UK (and US) government published to justify their case for war against Iraq was unreliable. https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_.....481139.stm
The White House admitted that the claim that Iraq was seeking “significant quantities of uranium from Africa” – based on faked documents provided by the Italian intelligence services – should not have been included in President Bush’s speech two months prior to the war https://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BUN307A.html
Pillar said, who was CIA ‘s national intelligence officer for the near east. Pillar’s firsthand proof of intelligence manipulation appears to be unassailable: The Bush administration “went to war without requesting — and evidently without being influenced by — any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq � As the national intelligence officer for the Middle East, I was in charge of coordinating all of the intelligence community’s assessments regarding Iraq; the first request I received from any administration policymaker for any such assessment was not until a year into the war.” Pillar was CIA ‘s national intelligence officer for the near east 2000 – 2005.
The Bush administration simply manipulated the world in an attempt to gain support for declaring war with Iraq https://media.www.gsusignal.com.....0382.shtml
George Tenet And White House Admit Iraq Intelligence Chief Told Them Iraq Had No WMD
• The CIA sent thirty relatives of Iraqi scientists to Iraq to ask them what WMD Iraq had, and they uniformly reported it had nothing.
• Iraq’s foreign minister Nouri Sabri secretly told the US in 2002 that Iraq had no active WMD programs.
• Alan Foley, the head of the CIA’s Weapons Intelligence Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center, told an acquaintance just before the war that he expected we would find “Not much, if anything.”
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 9:19 am
Kapow
Hutton’s pose of agnosticism toward Blair’s intelligence claims did not prevent him from declaring—without any substantiation—that the government and the security services had acted in good faith in proclaiming that Iraq represented a real and immediate danger. Nor did it prevent him from denouncing as impermissible any questioning of their “integrity”. https://secure.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/hutt-f03.shtml
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 9:20 am
“I am Not mistaken that the British Government made their own decision to join the Iraq war based on their on military inteligence report.” Again, the Br Govt didn’t make their decision based on their own military intelligence.
Kablam
In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. https://www.independent.co.uk/n.....28545.html
MI6 told Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq that a high-placed Iraqi source said that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. https://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....466512.ece
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 9:21 am
Dishdum….
Former Australian spy chief Philip Flood presented a report on July 22, which found that the intelligence provided by Australia’s spy agencies on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction was “thin”, “ambiguous” and “incomplete”. https://www.greenleft.org.au/2004/591/32078
Even the limited inquiries into the pre-war “intelligence failures” that the Coalition government has been forced to hold reveal evidence of a conspiracy to deceive the Australian public over the threat from Iraqi WMDs. For example, the 2004 parliamentary inquiry into the pre-war assessments of Australian intelligence agencies revealed that the Office of National Assessments changed its assessment of Iraqi WMD capabilities over the space of a single day. https://www.greenleft.org.au/2005/612/35571
As the report declares: “…the case made by the [Australian] government was that Iraq possessed WMD in large quantities and posed a grave and unacceptable threat to the region and the world, particularly as there was a danger that Iraq’s WMD might be passed to terrorist organisations.
“This is not the picture that emerges from an examination of the assessments provided to the committee by Australia’s two analytical agencies.”
https://secure.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/aust-m05.shtml
Australia may have waged war on an entirely false premise. https://www.smh.com.au/articles.....71778.html
“the 147-page dossier makes clear that the Bush and Blair administrations manufactured and manipulated “intelligence” to give the false impression that Iraq had active WMD programs, as well as the capacity to utilise WMD; that all three governments lied to their populations about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein; and that the existence or otherwise of WMD had nothing to do with the real reasons for going to war.” – https://secure.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/aust-m05.shtml
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 9:22 am
Haiyah.!!
https://www.independent.co.uk/o.....73984.html
“Mr Howard’s assertion that almost all the intelligence … came from US and British sources” https://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...../iraq.iraq “Mr Howard is in turn blaming both US and British intelligence”
“Howard government exonerated despite proof of lies” https://secure.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/aust-m05.shtml
Barton says people in the US, British, and Australian governments all knew how weak their evidence was. – https://www.parapundit.com/archives/003452.html Former Australian intelligence analyst and weapons inspector Rod Barton says even once the lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were proven false on the ground the US and allied governments in Britain and Australia kept up the drumbeat of lies.
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 9:23 am
Wapow!!
Tony Blair had already been embarrassed by a growing recognition that his own intelligence-based estimates regarding Iraqi WMD were every bit as cooked up as the American president’s. He faced further ignominy when Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, publicly mocked his assertions that David Kay, the former UN weapons inspector turned CIA agent who headed the so-far futile search for WMD in occupied Iraq, had found “massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories”. Dismissed by Bremer as a “red herring”, Blair’s discredited comments only underscore the sad fact that the issue of Iraqi WMD, and the entire concept of disarmament, has become a public joke.
https://www.independent.co.uk/o.....73984.html
“Mr Howard’s assertion that almost all the intelligence … came from US and British sources” https://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...../iraq.iraq “Mr Howard is in turn blaming both US and British intelligence”
“Howard government exonerated despite proof of lies” https://secure.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/aust-m05.shtml
Ms Palacio said Spain had supported the war on the basis of reports from the United Nations https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/3455775.stm
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 9:24 am
Tony Blair had already been embarrassed by a growing recognition that his own intelligence-based estimates regarding Iraqi WMD were every bit as cooked up as the American president’s. He faced further ignominy when Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, publicly mocked his assertions that David Kay, the former UN weapons inspector turned CIA agent who headed the so-far futile search for WMD in occupied Iraq, had found “massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories”. Dismissed by Bremer as a “red herring”, Blair’s discredited comments only underscore the sad fact that the issue of Iraqi WMD, and the entire concept of disarmament, has become a public joke.
https://www.independent.co.uk/o.....73984.html
“Mr Howard’s assertion that almost all the intelligence … came from US and British sources” https://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...../iraq.iraq “Mr Howard is in turn blaming both US and British intelligence”
“Howard government exonerated despite proof of lies” https://secure.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/aust-m05.shtml
Ms Palacio said Spain had supported the war on the basis of reports from the United Nations https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/3455775.stm
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 9:27 am
“Mr Howard’s assertion that almost all the intelligence … came from US and British sources” https://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...../iraq.iraq “Mr Howard is in turn blaming both US and British intelligence”
“Howard government exonerated despite proof of lies” https://secure.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/aust-m05.shtml
Ms Palacio said Spain had supported the war on the basis of reports from the United Nations https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/3455775.stm
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 9:29 am
Okay Misual.com is not allowing me to submit coments
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 9:30 am
Barton says people in the US, British, and Australian governments all knew how weak their evidence was. – https://www.parapundit.com/archives/003452.html Former Australian intelligence analyst and weapons inspector Rod Barton says even once the lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were proven false on the ground the US and allied governments in Britain and Australia kept up the drumbeat of lies.
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 9:32 am
“Howard government exonerated despite proof of lies” https://secure.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/aust-m05.shtml
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 9:32 am
“Mr Howard’s assertion that almost all the intelligence … came from US and British sources” https://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...../iraq.iraq “Mr Howard is in turn blaming both US and British intelligence”
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 9:32 am
Tony Blair had already been embarrassed by a growing recognition that his own intelligence-based estimates regarding Iraqi WMD were every bit as cooked up as the American president’s. He faced further ignominy when Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, publicly mocked his assertions that David Kay, the former UN weapons inspector turned CIA agent who headed the so-far futile search for WMD in occupied Iraq, had found “massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories”. Dismissed by Bremer as a “red herring”, Blair’s discredited comments only underscore the sad fact that the issue of Iraqi WMD, and the entire concept of disarmament, has become a public joke.
https://www.independent.co.uk/o.....73984.html
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 9:35 am
The documents that Frank Grevil leaked are part of a rising amount of evidence that the Danish government, the Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the Minister of Foreign Affairs Per Stig Moeller knew that the “evidence” concerning Iraqs WMD was false. https://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34592
Note that the declassified intelligence information to counter this was INCOMPLETE. Govet selected what they wanted to declasify
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 9:36 am
I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
-https://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
https://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=38912
His report, written before the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, concluded that there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. – https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6143794.stm
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 9:37 am
I’ll stop here cause for some reason misual is not allowing me to post all my comments.
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Thirkut says “MI6 told Tony Blair before the invasion of Iraq that a high-placed Iraqi source said that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.” , According to a new book. https://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....466512.ece
LOL I source khi chhiar chiang teh, tu emaw ni lehkhabu ziah a an claim an rawn tar chhawng mai mai anih kha.
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 12:04 pm
“Former Australian intelligence analyst and weapons inspector Rod Barton says even once the lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were proven false on the ground the US and allied governments in Britain and Australia kept up the drumbeat of lies.”
https://www.parapundit.com/archives/003452.html
Written by another Disgruntled employee, taking advantage of his position to write a BOOK to attack the government because it is more profitable than working for government LOL! How reliable!
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 12:09 pm
“Hutton’s pose of agnosticism toward Blair’s intelligence claims did not prevent him from declaring—without any substantiation—that the government and the security services had acted in good faith in proclaiming that Iraq represented a real and immediate danger.”
Source https://secure.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/hutt-f03.shtml
LOOK at the Source World Socialist Web Site, a organisation that is specifically created to oppose all western capistalist policy particularly USA and Western Europe how pathetic!
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
The documents that Frank Grevil leaked are part of a rising amount of evidence that the Danish government, the Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the Minister of Foreign Affairs Per Stig Moeller knew that the “evidence” concerning Iraqs WMD was false.
https://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34592
And Your Source is?
After Downing Street is a nonpartisan coalition of over 200 veterans groups, peace groups, and political activist groups that has worked since May 2005 to pressure both Congress and the media to investigate whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses in connection with the Iraq war. LOL
Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS) chief Rear Admiral Joern Olesen said: “These reports that have been made public document that Iraq, according to the entire DDIS’s evaluation, probably had biological and chemical weapons just before the war.” From BBC
Again, proof that it was the intelligence NOT the Prime Minister.
[Report abuse]
November 21st, 2008 at 1:08 pm
“Tony Blair had already been embarrassed by a growing recognition that his own intelligence-based estimates regarding Iraqi WMD were every bit as cooked up as the American president’s.”
Unlike you I do not rely on opinions of disgruntled employees and opportunist who wrote books without any evidence. I will go straight to the Inquiry held by British Judicial Inquiry which is FAR more reliable than any of your pathetic and unreliable sources.
Hutton Inquiry found that :
The dossier had not been “sexed up”, but was in line with available intelligence, although the Joint Intelligence Committee, chaired by John Scarlett, may have been “subconsciously influenced” by the government.
Yes it was inline with available Intelligence!
1) On the issues relating to the preparation of the Government’s dossier of 24 September 2002 entitled IRAQ’S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, my conclusions are as follows:
(i) The dossier was prepared and drafted by a small team of the assessment staff of the JIC. Mr John Scarlett, the Chairman of the JIC, had the overall responsibility for the drafting of the dossier. The dossier, which included the 45 minutes claim, was issued by the Government on 24 September 2002 with the full approval of the JIC.
(ii) The 45 minutes claim was based on a report which was received by the SIS from a source which that Service regarded as reliable. Therefore, whether or not at some time in the future the report on which the 45 minutes claim was based is shown to be unreliable, the allegation reported by Mr Gilligan on 29 May 2003 that the Government probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong before the Government decided to put it in the dossier, was an allegation which was unfounded.
(iii) The allegation was also unfounded that the reason why the 45 minutes claim was not in the original draft of the dossier was because it only came from one source and the intelligence agencies did not really believe it was necessarily true. The reason why the 45 minutes claim did not appear in draft assessments or draft dossiers until 5 September 2002 was because the intelligence report on which it was based was not received by the SIS until 29 August 2002 and the JIC assessment staff did not have time to insert it in a draft until the draft of the assessment of 5 September 2002.
(iv) The true position in relation to the attitude of “the Intelligence Services” to the 45 minutes claim being inserted in the dossier was that the concerns expressed by Dr Jones were considered by higher echelons in the Intelligence Services and were not acted upon, and the JIC, the most senior body in the Intelligence Services charged with the assessment of intelligence, approved the wording in the dossier. Moreover, the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons section of the Defence Intelligence Staff, headed by Dr Brian Jones, did not argue that the intelligence relating to the 45 minutes claim should not have been included in the dossier but they did suggest that the wording in which the claim was stated in the dossier was too strong and that instead of the dossier stating “we judge” that “Iraq has:- military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, including against its own Shia population. Some of these weapons are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them”, the wording should state “intelligence suggests”.
(v) Mr Alastair Campbell made it clear to Mr Scarlett on behalf of the Prime Minister that 10 Downing Street wanted the dossier to be worded to make as strong a case as possible in relation to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s WMD, and 10 Downing Street made written suggestions to Mr Scarlett as to changes in the wording of the draft dossier which would strengthen it. But Mr Campbell recognised, and told Mr Scarlett that 10 Downing Street recognised, that nothing should be stated in the dossier with which the intelligence community were not entirely happy.
(vi) Mr Scarlett accepted some of the drafting suggestions made to him by 10 Downing Street but he only accepted those suggestions which were consistent with the intelligence known to the JIC and he rejected those suggestions which were not consistent with such intelligence and the dossier issued by the Government was approved by the JIC.
(vii) As the dossier was one to be presented to, and read by, Parliament and the public, and was not an intelligence assessment to be considered only by the Government, I do not consider that it was improper for Mr Scarlett and the JIC to take into account suggestions as to drafting made by 10 Downing Street and to adopt those suggestions if they were consistent with the intelligence available to the JIC. However I consider that the possibility cannot be completely ruled out that the desire of the Prime Minister to have a dossier which, whilst consistent with the available intelligence, was as strong as possible in relation to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s WMD, may have subconsciously influenced Mr Scarlett and the other members of the JIC to make the wording of the dossier somewhat stronger than it would have been if it had been contained in a normal JIC assessment. Although this possibility cannot be completely ruled out, I am satisfied that Mr Scarlett, the other members of the JIC, and the members of the assessment staff engaged in the drafting of the dossier were concerned to ensure that the contents of the dossier were consistent with the intelligence available to the JIC.
(viii) The term “sexed-up” is a slang expression, the meaning of which lacks clarity in the context of the discussion of the dossier. It is capable of two different meanings. It could mean that the dossier was embellished with items of intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable to make the case against Saddam Hussein stronger, or it could mean that whilst the intelligence contained in the dossier was believed to be reliable, the dossier was drafted in such a way as to make the case against Saddam Hussein as strong as the intelligence contained in it permitted. If the term is used in this latter sense, then because of the drafting suggestions made by 10 Downing Street for the purpose of making a strong case against Saddam Hussein, it could be said that the Government “sexed-up” the dossier. However in the context of the broadcasts in which the “sexing-up” allegation was reported and having regard to the other allegations reported in those broadcasts, I consider that the allegation was unfounded as it would have been understood by those who heard the broadcasts to mean that the dossier had been embellished with intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable, which was not the case.
https://www.the-hutton-inquiry......12.htm#a90
Once again you are proven WRONG and Britain JOINED Iraq war based on its own intelligence report.
Oh Yes I am still waiting for your EVIDENCE of ““Aznar’s govt told their intelligence agency what they wanted to hear” too.
[Report abuse]