More neocon wailing to come as the intelligence agencies start to
speak....................
Hmmmmm Blair and Bush at the judgment seat...........
http://www.guardian.co.uk/butler/story/0,14750,1258812,00.html
Spy chiefs 'withdrew' Saddam arms claim
Gaby Hinsliff and Antony Barnett
Sunday July 11, 2004
The Observer
Tony Blair's claim that Saddam Hussein posed a 'current and serious' threat
to Britain is challenged by dramatic new allegations today that Britain's
spy chiefs have retracted the intelligence on which it was based.
The supposed proof that the Iraqi dictator was still trying, even in the
run-up to war, to produce chemical and biological weapons became crucial to
the Prime Minister's case for urgent military action rather than waiting for
inspectors to finish their task.
Yet, according to a senior intelligence source interviewed by BBC1's
Panorama tonight, MI6 has since taken the rare step of withdrawing the
intelligence assessment that underpinned the claim that Saddam had continued
to produce WMD - an admission that it was fundamentally unreliable.
The charge leaves Blair open to serious questions over why, if the nature of
the proof had changed, he did not tell the public that the evidence of WMD
was crumbling beneath him.
It will increase speculation that he may be forced to disown chunks of the
controversial September dossier on banned weapons when Lord Butler publishes
his report this week on the handling of intelligence on Iraq.
Yesterday, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, weighed into the
debate, warning that Blair would be judged before God for his actions over
Iraq and suggesting he would struggle with his conscience. Asked how Blair
would account for himself, Williams answered: 'At the judgment seat.' For
Christians, that is the point of entry either to heaven or to hell. 'When
you acknowledge that you have taken a risk which has not paid off, which has
cost, and that cost does not seem be justified, that's the punishment,' he
added.
The fresh blow comes with jitters sweeping Whitehall over the Butler
report. Blairites fear that if it is genuinely damaging, it could provoke
fresh attempts among Gordon Brown's supporters to force the Prime Minister
to stand down.
Tensions bubbled to the surface yesterday as it emerged that Blair seriously
considered resigning during his most difficult period this year, the
fortnight running up to June's local elections, when he came under repeated
attack over the war.
<snipped political reporting>
Tonight's Panorama focuses on secret intelligence produced during the days
before the dossier was published. This follows an anguished appeal from
Downing Street for more convincing evidence.
After the undisclosed material emerged, John Scarlett - chair of the Joint
Intelligence Committee which oversaw the dossier process - hardened up the
draft dossier's suggestion that Iraq 'probably' had more recently produced
stocks of banned weapons to the assertion that it 'has' continued to produce
them. That allowed Blair to claim dramatically that evidence received only
'in recent months' showed Saddam was still generating WMD.
Yet the intelligence underpinning this claim was subsequently withdrawn by
MI6, which decided it could not be relied upon, according to the senior
intelligence source interviewed by Panorama. This raised serious questions
over the quality of the work that went into the dossier, and how far it can
now be trusted.
Although it is not known exactly when MI6 changed its mind, the revelation
will prompt calls for Blair to put the record straight publicly about what
he knew, when.
Downing Street yesterday refused to say whether Blair stood by his original
claim that Iraq had been a 'current and serious threat', pending Butler's
findings. While the Prime Minister confessed last week that WMD might not be
found, he has continued to insist that Saddam was still a threat.
<see prior post on US Senate report>
When he submits his report on Wednesday, Butler is expected to conclude that
there were serious errors in British intelligence gathering and assessment -
mirroring those of the CIA identified by a US senate inquiry last week.
Scarlett may be criticised for being drawn into the 'magic circle' of
Downing Street intimates rather than remaining impartial. However, Blair
will fight to keep the man he promoted to the post of head of MI6 once the
war was over.
There were signs last night that Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, will
also escape serious censure over his advice on the legality of the war,
despite evidence passed to Butler suggesting he changed his mind as the
invasion drew closer.
Goldsmith wrote a note to Blair in the run-up to war warning that the
invasion could be illegal without a second UN resolution authorising
military force, The Observer can reveal, with Whitehall sources admitting
the legal advice process was 'messy'.
However, Downing Street is also expected to mount a robust defence of
Goldsmith, arguing that government lawyers regularly rehearse both sides of
the argument.
.
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: MI6 Withdraws Iraqi WMD Assessment |
11 Jul 2004 12:40:41 PM |
|
|
John F Lemke a écrit:
More neocon wailing to come as the intelligence agencies start to
speak....................
Hmmmmm Blair and Bush at the judgment seat...........
http://www.guardian.co.uk/butler/story/0,14750,1258812,00.html
Spy chiefs 'withdrew' Saddam arms claim
Gaby Hinsliff and Antony Barnett
Sunday July 11, 2004
The Observer
Tony Blair's claim that Saddam Hussein posed a 'current and serious' threat
to Britain is challenged by dramatic new allegations today that Britain's
spy chiefs have retracted the intelligence on which it was based.
The supposed proof that the Iraqi dictator was still trying, even in the
run-up to war, to produce chemical and biological weapons became crucial to
the Prime Minister's case for urgent military action rather than waiting for
inspectors to finish their task.
Yet, according to a senior intelligence source interviewed by BBC1's
Panorama tonight, MI6 has since taken the rare step of withdrawing the
intelligence assessment that underpinned the claim that Saddam had continued
to produce WMD - an admission that it was fundamentally unreliable.
The charge leaves Blair open to serious questions over why, if the nature of
the proof had changed, he did not tell the public that the evidence of WMD
was crumbling beneath him.
Not if they withdraw it after he had made it. Which is what happened.
That is pure logic. The Guardian is never a reliable source.
Always ignoring things as obvious in order to further its own
anti-Western agenda.
What is incredible is that they all ignore the UN resolution breach and
its serious consequences for all the other clauses he breached.
And yes, it was assessed then that he had them then. That it is a
failure of the intelligence community, maybe, but not the leaders who
trusted what sources they had from them.
Anyone who is not braindad cannot not see all that.
But unfortunately, weasels are in season this year.
J.
It will increase speculation that he may be forced to disown chunks of the
controversial September dossier on banned weapons when Lord Butler publishes
his report this week on the handling of intelligence on Iraq.
Yesterday, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, weighed into the
debate, warning that Blair would be judged before God for his actions over
Iraq and suggesting he would struggle with his conscience. Asked how Blair
would account for himself, Williams answered: 'At the judgment seat.' For
Christians, that is the point of entry either to heaven or to hell. 'When
you acknowledge that you have taken a risk which has not paid off, which has
cost, and that cost does not seem be justified, that's the punishment,' he
added.
The fresh blow comes with jitters sweeping Whitehall over the Butler
report. Blairites fear that if it is genuinely damaging, it could provoke
fresh attempts among Gordon Brown's supporters to force the Prime Minister
to stand down.
Tensions bubbled to the surface yesterday as it emerged that Blair seriously
considered resigning during his most difficult period this year, the
fortnight running up to June's local elections, when he came under repeated
attack over the war.
<snipped political reporting>
Tonight's Panorama focuses on secret intelligence produced during the days
before the dossier was published. This follows an anguished appeal from
Downing Street for more convincing evidence.
After the undisclosed material emerged, John Scarlett - chair of the Joint
Intelligence Committee which oversaw the dossier process - hardened up the
draft dossier's suggestion that Iraq 'probably' had more recently produced
stocks of banned weapons to the assertion that it 'has' continued to produce
them. That allowed Blair to claim dramatically that evidence received only
'in recent months' showed Saddam was still generating WMD.
Yet the intelligence underpinning this claim was subsequently withdrawn by
MI6, which decided it could not be relied upon, according to the senior
intelligence source interviewed by Panorama. This raised serious questions
over the quality of the work that went into the dossier, and how far it can
now be trusted.
Although it is not known exactly when MI6 changed its mind, the revelation
will prompt calls for Blair to put the record straight publicly about what
he knew, when.
Downing Street yesterday refused to say whether Blair stood by his original
claim that Iraq had been a 'current and serious threat', pending Butler's
findings. While the Prime Minister confessed last week that WMD might not be
found, he has continued to insist that Saddam was still a threat.
<see prior post on US Senate report>
When he submits his report on Wednesday, Butler is expected to conclude that
there were serious errors in British intelligence gathering and assessment -
mirroring those of the CIA identified by a US senate inquiry last week.
Scarlett may be criticised for being drawn into the 'magic circle' of
Downing Street intimates rather than remaining impartial. However, Blair
will fight to keep the man he promoted to the post of head of MI6 once the
war was over.
There were signs last night that Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, will
also escape serious censure over his advice on the legality of the war,
despite evidence passed to Butler suggesting he changed his mind as the
invasion drew closer.
Goldsmith wrote a note to Blair in the run-up to war warning that the
invasion could be illegal without a second UN resolution authorising
military force, The Observer can reveal, with Whitehall sources admitting
the legal advice process was 'messy'.
However, Downing Street is also expected to mount a robust defence of
Goldsmith, arguing that government lawyers regularly rehearse both sides of
the argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: MI6 Withdraws Iraqi WMD Assessment |
11 Jul 2004 01:09:25 PM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:tYeIc.19425181$Id.3209613@news.easynews.com...
Not if they withdraw it after he had made it. Which is what happened.
That is pure logic. The Guardian is never a reliable source.
It you'd read the entire article, Jean, you'd know that it isn't known for
sure at what point MI6 withdrew the assessment. That may come out shortly.
It's fair to assume that it was withdrawn before the invasion.
We may have a better feel for this after the "Panorama" program airs tonite.
These things will indeed come out in the open before long. The intelligence
community won't sit back on it's heels and take a beating after their
services were abused by Blair, Bush and Company.
Always ignoring things as obvious in order to further its own
anti-Western agenda.
Cite.
If you had paid close attention to the article, Jean, you would have seen
that it was reporting on information contained in a segment of the BBC's
"Panorama" program. This program will be seen by the entire world tonite.
So unless you're in a position to refute the testimony of the MI 6 employees
interviewed you have no real argument.
What is incredible is that they all ignore the UN resolution breach and
its serious consequences for all the other clauses he breached.
If you had read the article, Jean, you would have known that it reported
there had been a fight within the Blair Administration over the "legality"
of the invasion without a second UN resolution. Indeed there was no UN
sanction of this invasion, it was entirely unilateral on the part of the US,
Britain and a few other allies.
And yes, it was assessed then that he had them then. That it is a
failure of the intelligence community, maybe, but not the leaders who
trusted what sources they had from them.
Anyone who is not braindad cannot not see all that.
You mean like a braindead demogogue that ignores statements by government
officials testifying to the Bush Administration's, and the Blair
Administration's, manipulation of the truth in order to justify the
invasion.
But unfortunately, weasels are in season this year.
Yup, and they've been in power since the 2000 election.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: MI6 Withdraws Iraqi WMD Assessment |
11 Jul 2004 02:26:08 PM |
|
|
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:tYeIc.19425181$Id.3209613@news.easynews.com...
Not if they withdraw it after he had made it. Which is what happened.
That is pure logic. The Guardian is never a reliable source.
It you'd read the entire article, Jean, you'd know that it isn't known for
sure at what point MI6 withdrew the assessment. That may come out shortly.
It's fair to assume that it was withdrawn before the invasion.
Lie.
We may have a better feel for this after the "Panorama" program airs tonite.
Where? On the BBC?
These things will indeed come out in the open before long. The intelligence
community won't sit back on it's heels and take a beating after their
services were abused by Blair, Bush and Company.
We shall see then.
Always ignoring things as obvious in order to further its own
anti-Western agenda.
Cite.
If you had paid close attention to the article, Jean, you would have seen
that it was reporting on information contained in a segment of the BBC's
"Panorama" program. This program will be seen by the entire world tonite.
So unless you're in a position to refute the testimony of the MI 6 employees
interviewed you have no real argument.
We shall see.
What is incredible is that they all ignore the UN resolution breach and
its serious consequences for all the other clauses he breached.
If you had read the article, Jean, you would have known that it reported
there had been a fight within the Blair Administration over the "legality"
of the invasion without a second UN resolution. Indeed there was no UN
sanction of this invasion, it was entirely unilateral on the part of the US,
Britain and a few other allies.
There was no need for a second UN resolution. It was a last chance
resolution to abide by 687e. He was in breach in four instances 3
concerning Kuwait and 1 international terrorism. The resolution applied
automatically. Lest UN resolution mean nothing.
It was for all the world to see. Only the weasels who wanted to kiss
Saddam's ***** objected. (And I mean anyone who questioned the legality of
this single resolution authorizing force after Saddam had breached it in
so many ways from whatever corner hey came from.)
And yes, it was assessed then that he had them then. That it is a
failure of the intelligence community, maybe, but not the leaders who
trusted what sources they had from them.
Anyone who is not braindad cannot not see all that.
You mean like a braindead demogogue that ignores statements by government
officials testifying to the Bush Administration's, and the Blair
Administration's, manipulation of the truth in order to justify the
invasion.
This is pure logic. Governements officials are total losers in matters
of intelligence compared to the experts. they are politically motivated.
If the experts were wrong, then it is a precedent that came out
afterwards. No the top leadership must never listen to political clowns
over their top experts. Even if in one case, yellow cake, it was not
accurate. In all the rest it was, yet they all focus on the failure.
But unfortunately, weasels are in season this year.
Yup, and they've been in power since the 2000 election.
You wish.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: MI6 Withdraws Iraqi WMD Assessment |
11 Jul 2004 03:44:54 PM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:jvgIc.501503$ef4.58468@news.easynews.com...
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:tYeIc.19425181$Id.3209613@news.easynews.com...
Not if they withdraw it after he had made it. Which is what happened.
That is pure logic. The Guardian is never a reliable source.
It you'd read the entire article, Jean, you'd know that it isn't known
for
sure at what point MI6 withdrew the assessment. That may come out
shortly.
It's fair to assume that it was withdrawn before the invasion.
Lie.
Prove it.
We may have a better feel for this after the "Panorama" program airs
tonite.
Where? On the BBC?
Go back and read the article, for God's sake.
These things will indeed come out in the open before long. The
intelligence
community won't sit back on it's heels and take a beating after their
services were abused by Blair, Bush and Company.
We shall see then.
If you weren't blind you would have seen it already.
BAH!!!!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: MI6 Withdraws Iraqi WMD Assessment |
11 Jul 2004 11:30:19 PM |
|
|
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:jvgIc.501503$ef4.58468@news.easynews.com...
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:tYeIc.19425181$Id.3209613@news.easynews.com...
Not if they withdraw it after he had made it. Which is what happened.
That is pure logic. The Guardian is never a reliable source.
It you'd read the entire article, Jean, you'd know that it isn't known
for
sure at what point MI6 withdrew the assessment. That may come out
shortly.
It's fair to assume that it was withdrawn before the invasion.
Lie.
Screw you, you made the lie. no one proves a lie. One proves the truth.
You made the lie, sleep with it, or demonstrate it wasn't one. You
invented it, how will I prove you didn't? Only YOU can prove you didn't.
Right?
Months in the invasion Bush said that the British still stood by their
assessment about Niger.
You prove that MI5 told Blair before the invasion that they had made a
mistake, or shut your lying trap.
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: MI6 Withdraws Iraqi WMD Assessment |
12 Jul 2004 05:52:56 PM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:vtoIc.19564421$Of.3244017@news.easynews.com...
Screw you, you made the lie. no one proves a lie.
Go back, Jean, and s-l-o-w-l-y read the article, then my subsequent posts
and show me where I lied.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jha_amin" |
|
| Title: Re: MI6 Withdraws Iraqi WMD Assessment |
12 Jul 2004 09:51:09 PM |
|
|
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote in message news:<886dneE_NOdli27dRVn-sQ@locallink.net>...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:vtoIc.19564421$Of.3244017@news.easynews.com...
Screw you, you made the lie. no one proves a lie.
Go back, Jean, and s-l-o-w-l-y read the article, then my subsequent posts
and show me where I lied.
Well, failing to do that, he will certainly determine you to be anti
semetic, John. ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: " John F Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: MI6 Withdraws Iraqi WMD Assessment |
13 Jul 2004 06:12:30 AM |
|
|
"jha_amin" <jha_amin@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33b7880.0407121851.21efdc7@posting.google.com...
" John F Lemke" <jflemke@LocalLink.net> wrote in message
news:<886dneE_NOdli27dRVn-sQ@locallink.net>...
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:vtoIc.19564421$Of.3244017@news.easynews.com...
Screw you, you made the lie. no one proves a lie.
Go back, Jean, and s-l-o-w-l-y read the article, then my subsequent
posts
and show me where I lied.
Well, failing to do that, he will certainly determine you to be anti
semetic, John. ;)
Oh, dear God, no....................... :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: MI6 Withdraws Iraqi WMD Assessment |
12 Jul 2004 07:32:32 AM |
|
|
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:jvgIc.501503$ef4.58468@news.easynews.com...
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:tYeIc.19425181$Id.3209613@news.easynews.com...
Not if they withdraw it after he had made it. Which is what
happened.
That is pure logic. The Guardian is never a reliable source.
It you'd read the entire article, Jean, you'd know that it isn't
known
for
sure at what point MI6 withdrew the assessment. That may come out
shortly.
It's fair to assume that it was withdrawn before the invasion.
Lie.
Screw you, you made the lie. no one proves a lie. One proves the truth.
You made the lie, sleep with it, or demonstrate it wasn't one. You
invented it, how will I prove you didn't? Only YOU can prove you
didn't.
Right?
Months in the invasion Bush said that the British still stood by their
assessment about Niger.
You prove that MI5 told Blair before the invasion that they had made a
mistake, or shut your lying trap.
J.
The articles I've been reading indicate the Brits had a
secondary source of information (besides the receipts which
we shown to be forgeries). The story goes one or more intel
agencies in Europe have been surveiling Niger for several
years to monitor their raw Uranium resources (which they
apparently have in abundance). Some monitored conversations
indicate they were attempting to sell Uranium to several
countries, or those same countries were attempting to
purchase Uranium, and Iraq was on the list (it was about
5 or 6 countries).
But if this is known by European intel agencies, then it's
no longer an 'imminent threat'. They just need to selectively
interdict and prevent these transactions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: MI6 Withdraws Iraqi WMD Assessment |
12 Jul 2004 04:07:24 PM |
|
|
R. Foreman a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:jvgIc.501503$ef4.58468@news.easynews.com...
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:tYeIc.19425181$Id.3209613@news.easynews.com...
Not if they withdraw it after he had made it. Which is what
happened.
That is pure logic. The Guardian is never a reliable source.
It you'd read the entire article, Jean, you'd know that it isn't
known
for
sure at what point MI6 withdrew the assessment. That may come out
shortly.
It's fair to assume that it was withdrawn before the invasion.
Lie.
Screw you, you made the lie. no one proves a lie. One proves the truth.
You made the lie, sleep with it, or demonstrate it wasn't one. You
invented it, how will I prove you didn't? Only YOU can prove you
didn't.
Right?
Months in the invasion Bush said that the British still stood by their
assessment about Niger.
You prove that MI5 told Blair before the invasion that they had made a
mistake, or shut your lying trap.
J.
The articles I've been reading indicate the Brits had a
secondary source of information (besides the receipts which
we shown to be forgeries). The story goes one or more intel
agencies in Europe have been surveiling Niger for several
years to monitor their raw Uranium resources (which they
apparently have in abundance). Some monitored conversations
indicate they were attempting to sell Uranium to several
countries, or those same countries were attempting to
purchase Uranium, and Iraq was on the list (it was about
5 or 6 countries).
So this would make the point that there was indeed good reasons to
believe the intel was right, no?
But if this is known by European intel agencies, then it's
no longer an 'imminent threat'. They just need to selectively
interdict and prevent these transactions.
Selectively? You mean those countries who won't misuse it? LOL
What about the ones who are a concern! This solution seems to just
exacerbate the problem, no?
Anyway. The fact that the two leaders used the intel they got as
reliable from their and world agencies is the mark of great leaders.
Bush even questioned it, I don't know about Blair, and got reassurance
that it was. Now, that some may have turned out wrong afterwards is not
their fault, is it?
And yes, even though intelligence is not a perfect science, these
agencies will change their M.O. in the future to ascertain more
precision. This was too unprecedented.
But meanwhile the search for the unfound WMD in Iraq (that were
inventoried which the provisional Iraqi government (with their new found
sovereignty that didn't take that into account), will not be pursued. I
just hope that they don't end up being used, especially because of a
couple of related mistakes. They didn't disappear into thin air. Saddam
certainly didn't destroy them on his own. They are somewhere. Very
difficult to see why they all (not only the weasels) insist that they
are not. Just because of the flop on a couple of items they drop
everything. Do you find that logical? Sure the new Iraq also says it
will never again pursue that path. So if/when they find them, they may
turn them over to the UN. But if they are, or fall, in the hands of
terrorists, before that, there may be some irresponsibility in their
attitude, don't you think so? The pressure from the opponents got to the
proponents of action against them. Who will be blamed if they are used?
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: MI6 Withdraws Iraqi WMD Assessment |
13 Jul 2004 06:53:48 PM |
|
|
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words
R. Foreman a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:jvgIc.501503$ef4.58468@news.easynews.com...
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:tYeIc.19425181$Id.3209613@news.easynews.com...
Not if they withdraw it after he had made it. Which is what
happened.
That is pure logic. The Guardian is never a reliable source.
It you'd read the entire article, Jean, you'd know that it isn't
known
for
sure at what point MI6 withdrew the assessment. That may come out
shortly.
It's fair to assume that it was withdrawn before the invasion.
Lie.
Screw you, you made the lie. no one proves a lie. One proves the
truth.
You made the lie, sleep with it, or demonstrate it wasn't one. You
invented it, how will I prove you didn't? Only YOU can prove you
didn't.
Right?
Months in the invasion Bush said that the British still stood by their
assessment about Niger.
You prove that MI5 told Blair before the invasion that they had made a
mistake, or shut your lying trap.
J.
The articles I've been reading indicate the Brits had a
secondary source of information (besides the receipts which
we shown to be forgeries). The story goes one or more intel
agencies in Europe have been surveiling Niger for several
years to monitor their raw Uranium resources (which they
apparently have in abundance). Some monitored conversations
indicate they were attempting to sell Uranium to several
countries, or those same countries were attempting to
purchase Uranium, and Iraq was on the list (it was about
5 or 6 countries).
So this would make the point that there was indeed good reasons to
believe the intel was right, no?
But if this is known by European intel agencies, then it's
no longer an 'imminent threat'. They just need to selectively
interdict and prevent these transactions.
Selectively? You mean those countries who won't misuse it? LOL
What about the ones who are a concern! This solution seems to just
exacerbate the problem, no?
The Butler report is supposed to come out around July 14. It
should add more light to the subject. I don't really know what
their options were. It seems a lot easier to stop a transaction
at a shipping pier with a special force operation than to send
1/2 million troops and 5 years at $7Billion/month.
Anyway. The fact that the two leaders used the intel they got as
reliable from their and world agencies is the mark of great leaders.
Bush even questioned it, I don't know about Blair, and got reassurance
that it was. Now, that some may have turned out wrong afterwards is not
their fault, is it?
And yes, even though intelligence is not a perfect science, these
agencies will change their M.O. in the future to ascertain more
precision. This was too unprecedented.
But meanwhile the search for the unfound WMD in Iraq (that were
inventoried which the provisional Iraqi government (with their new
found
sovereignty that didn't take that into account), will not be pursued. I
just hope that they don't end up being used, especially because of a
couple of related mistakes. They didn't disappear into thin air. Saddam
certainly didn't destroy them on his own. They are somewhere. Very
difficult to see why they all (not only the weasels) insist that they
are not. Just because of the flop on a couple of items they drop
everything. Do you find that logical? Sure the new Iraq also says it
will never again pursue that path. So if/when they find them, they may
turn them over to the UN. But if they are, or fall, in the hands of
terrorists, before that, there may be some irresponsibility in their
attitude, don't you think so? The pressure from the opponents got to
the
proponents of action against them. Who will be blamed if they are used?
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jean Guernon" |
|
| Title: Re: MI6 Withdraws Iraqi WMD Assessment |
14 Jul 2004 01:08:14 PM |
|
|
R. Foreman a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words
R. Foreman a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:jvgIc.501503$ef4.58468@news.easynews.com...
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:tYeIc.19425181$Id.3209613@news.easynews.com...
Not if they withdraw it after he had made it. Which is what
happened.
That is pure logic. The Guardian is never a reliable source.
It you'd read the entire article, Jean, you'd know that it isn't
known
for
sure at what point MI6 withdrew the assessment. That may come out
shortly.
It's fair to assume that it was withdrawn before the invasion.
Lie.
Screw you, you made the lie. no one proves a lie. One proves the
truth.
You made the lie, sleep with it, or demonstrate it wasn't one. You
invented it, how will I prove you didn't? Only YOU can prove you
didn't.
Right?
Months in the invasion Bush said that the British still stood by their
assessment about Niger.
You prove that MI5 told Blair before the invasion that they had made a
mistake, or shut your lying trap.
J.
The articles I've been reading indicate the Brits had a
secondary source of information (besides the receipts which
we shown to be forgeries). The story goes one or more intel
agencies in Europe have been surveiling Niger for several
years to monitor their raw Uranium resources (which they
apparently have in abundance). Some monitored conversations
indicate they were attempting to sell Uranium to several
countries, or those same countries were attempting to
purchase Uranium, and Iraq was on the list (it was about
5 or 6 countries).
So this would make the point that there was indeed good reasons to
believe the intel was right, no?
But if this is known by European intel agencies, then it's
no longer an 'imminent threat'. They just need to selectively
interdict and prevent these transactions.
Selectively? You mean those countries who won't misuse it? LOL
What about the ones who are a concern! This solution seems to just
exacerbate the problem, no?
The Butler report is supposed to come out around July 14. It
should add more light to the subject. I don't really know what
their options were. It seems a lot easier to stop a transaction
at a shipping pier with a special force operation than to send
1/2 million troops and 5 years at $7Billion/month.
It is out. No blame for Blair. Zero
And, to answer your question, it cost a lot more to repair what would be
a broken toothless UN if they hadn't implemented the resolution they all
signed than do it. If they didn't want a last chance resolution
resulting into war at the first breach, they should never whine after 4
blatant ones plus all those about WMD, they should have changed the
wording or not signed.
J.
Anyway. The fact that the two leaders used the intel they got as
reliable from their and world agencies is the mark of great leaders.
Bush even questioned it, I don't know about Blair, and got reassurance
that it was. Now, that some may have turned out wrong afterwards is not
their fault, is it?
And yes, even though intelligence is not a perfect science, these
agencies will change their M.O. in the future to ascertain more
precision. This was too unprecedented.
But meanwhile the search for the unfound WMD in Iraq (that were
inventoried which the provisional Iraqi government (with their new
found
sovereignty that didn't take that into account), will not be pursued. I
just hope that they don't end up being used, especially because of a
couple of related mistakes. They didn't disappear into thin air. Saddam
certainly didn't destroy them on his own. They are somewhere. Very
difficult to see why they all (not only the weasels) insist that they
are not. Just because of the flop on a couple of items they drop
everything. Do you find that logical? Sure the new Iraq also says it
will never again pursue that path. So if/when they find them, they may
turn them over to the UN. But if they are, or fall, in the hands of
terrorists, before that, there may be some irresponsibility in their
attitude, don't you think so? The pressure from the opponents got to
the
proponents of action against them. Who will be blamed if they are used?
J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: MI6 Withdraws Iraqi WMD Assessment |
15 Jul 2004 02:53:23 AM |
|
|
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:iEeJc.731360$ef4.91072@news.easynews.com...
R. Foreman a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words
R. Foreman a écrit:
Jean Guernon <jguernon@globetrotter.net> Spat the Words
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:jvgIc.501503$ef4.58468@news.easynews.com...
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:tYeIc.19425181$Id.3209613@news.easynews.com...
Not if they withdraw it after he had made it. Which is what
happened.
That is pure logic. The Guardian is never a reliable source.
It you'd read the entire article, Jean, you'd know that it isn't
known
for
sure at what point MI6 withdrew the assessment. That may come out
shortly.
It's fair to assume that it was withdrawn before the invasion.
Lie.
Screw you, you made the lie. no one proves a lie. One proves the
truth.
You made the lie, sleep with it, or demonstrate it wasn't one. You
invented it, how will I prove you didn't? Only YOU can prove you
didn't.
Right?
Months in the invasion Bush said that the British still stood by their
assessment about Niger.
You prove that MI5 told Blair before the invasion that they had made a
mistake, or shut your lying trap.
J.
The articles I've been reading indicate the Brits had a
secondary source of information (besides the receipts which
we shown to be forgeries). The story goes one or more intel
agencies in Europe have been surveiling Niger for several
years to monitor their raw Uranium resources (which they
apparently have in abundance). Some monitored conversations
indicate they were attempting to sell Uranium to several
countries, or those same countries were attempting to
purchase Uranium, and Iraq was on the list (it was about
5 or 6 countries).
So this would make the point that there was indeed good reasons to
believe the intel was right, no?
But if this is known by European intel agencies, then it's
no longer an 'imminent threat'. They just need to selectively
interdict and prevent these transactions.
Selectively? You mean those countries who won't misuse it? LOL
What about the ones who are a concern! This solution seems to just
exacerbate the problem, no?
The Butler report is supposed to come out around July 14. It
should add more light to the subject. I don't really know what
their options were. It seems a lot easier to stop a transaction
at a shipping pier with a special force operation than to send
1/2 million troops and 5 years at $7Billion/month.
It is out. No blame for Blair. Zero
"A litany of failure but no blame".. Whitewash in other words.
And, to answer your question, it cost a lot more to repair what would be
a broken toothless UN if they hadn't implemented the resolution they all
signed than do it. If they didn't want a last chance resolution
resulting into war at the first breach, they should never whine after 4
blatant ones plus all those about WMD, they should have changed the
wording or not signed.
We all now how irrelevant you really feel UN resolutions are.
J.
Anyway. The fact that the two leaders used the intel they got as
reliable from their and world agencies is the mark of great leaders.
Bush even questioned it, I don't know about Blair, and got reassurance
that it was. Now, that some may have turned out wrong afterwards is not
their fault, is it?
And yes, even though intelligence is not a perfect science, these
agencies will change their M.O. in the future to ascertain more
precision. This was too unprecedented.
But meanwhile the search for the unfound WMD in Iraq (that were
inventoried which the provisional Iraqi government (with their new
found
sovereignty that didn't take that into account), will not be pursued. I
just hope that they don't end up being used, especially because of a
couple of related mistakes. They didn't disappear into thin air. Saddam
certainly didn't destroy them on his own. They are somewhere. Very
difficult to see why they all (not only the weasels) insist that they
are not. Just because of the flop on a couple of items they drop
everything. Do you find that logical? Sure the new Iraq also says it
will never again pursue that path. So if/when they find them, they may
turn them over to the UN. But if they are, or fall, in the hands of
terrorists, before that, there may be some irresponsibility in their
attitude, don't you think so? The pressure from the opponents got to
the
proponents of action against them. Who will be blamed if they are used?
J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: MI6 Withdraws Iraqi WMD Assessment |
13 Jul 2004 04:02:12 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 04:30:19 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:jvgIc.501503$ef4.58468@news.easynews.com...
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:tYeIc.19425181$Id.3209613@news.easynews.com...
Not if they withdraw it after he had made it. Which is what happened.
That is pure logic. The Guardian is never a reliable source.
It you'd read the entire article, Jean, you'd know that it isn't known
for
sure at what point MI6 withdrew the assessment. That may come out
shortly.
It's fair to assume that it was withdrawn before the invasion.
Lie.
Screw you, you made the lie. no one proves a lie. One proves the truth.
You made the lie, sleep with it, or demonstrate it wasn't one. You
invented it, how will I prove you didn't? Only YOU can prove you didn't.
Right?
Months in the invasion Bush said that the British still stood by their
assessment about Niger.
You prove that MI5 told Blair before the invasion that they had made a
mistake, or shut your lying trap.
J.
for ***** sakes. you're so damn thick you missed the fucking point.
And besides, dummy, he said MI6! Go drown yourself.
AARGH! You're so damn dense!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: MI6 Withdraws Iraqi WMD Assessment |
13 Jul 2004 03:58:44 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 19:26:08 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
John F Lemke a écrit:
"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:tYeIc.19425181$Id.3209613@news.easynews.com...
Not if they withdraw it after he had made it. Which is what happened.
That is pure logic. The Guardian is never a reliable source.
It you'd read the entire article, Jean, you'd know that it isn't known for
sure at what point MI6 withdrew the assessment. That may come out shortly.
It's fair to assume that it was withdrawn before the invasion.
Lie.
We may have a better feel for this after the "Panorama" program airs tonite.
Where? On the BBC?
These things will indeed come out in the open before long. The intelligence
community won't sit back on it's heels and take a beating after their
services were abused by Blair, Bush and Company.
We shall see then.
Always ignoring things as obvious in order to further its own
anti-Western agenda.
Cite.
If you had paid close attention to the article, Jean, you would have seen
that it was reporting on information contained in a segment of the BBC's
"Panorama" program. This program will be seen by the entire world tonite.
So unless you're in a position to refute the testimony of the MI 6 employees
interviewed you have no real argument.
We shall see.
What is incredible is that they all ignore the UN resolution breach and
its serious consequences for all the other clauses he breached.
If you had read the article, Jean, you would have known that it reported
there had been a fight within the Blair Administration over the "legality"
of the invasion without a second UN resolution. Indeed there was no UN
sanction of this invasion, it was entirely unilateral on the part of the US,
Britain and a few other allies.
There was no need for a second UN resolution. It was a last chance
resolution to abide by 687e. He was in breach in four instances 3
concerning Kuwait and 1 international terrorism. The resolution applied
automatically. Lest UN resolution mean nothing.
It was for all the world to see. Only the weasels who wanted to kiss
Saddam's ***** objected. (And I mean anyone who questioned the legality of
this single resolution authorizing force after Saddam had breached it in
so many ways from whatever corner hey came from.)
And yes, it was assessed then that he had them then. That it is a
failure of the intelligence community, maybe, but not the leaders who
trusted what sources they had from them.
Anyone who is not braindad cannot not see all that.
You mean like a braindead demogogue that ignores statements by government
officials testifying to the Bush Administration's, and the Blair
Administration's, manipulation of the truth in order to justify the
invasion.
This is pure logic. Governements officials are total losers in matters
of intelligence compared to the experts. they are politically motivated.
If the experts were wrong, then it is a precedent that came out
afterwards. No the top leadership must never listen to political clowns
over their top experts. Even if in one case, yellow cake, it was not
accurate. In all the rest it was, yet they all focus on the failure.
But unfortunately, weasels are in season this year.
Yup, and they've been in power since the 2000 election.
You wish.
J.
your moronic tendencies are above reproach. i can only wish you would
just can it oneday soon. how can anyone argue with a braindead,
blind, deaf and dumb imbecile like this?
you and Bush should get a room. seriously. you're just as thick as
each other (no pun intended).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: MI6 Withdraws Iraqi WMD Assessment |
13 Jul 2004 03:51:32 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 17:40:41 GMT, Jean Guernon
<jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote:
Not if they withdraw it after he had made it. Which is what happened.
That is pure logic. The Guardian is never a reliable source.
Always ignoring things as obvious in order to further its own
anti-Western agenda.
What is incredible is that they all ignore the UN resolution breach and
its serious consequences for all the other clauses he breached.
And yes, it was assessed then that he had them then. That it is a
failure of the intelligence community, maybe, but not the leaders who
trusted what sources they had from them.
Anyone who is not braindad cannot not see all that.
But unfortunately, weasels are in season this year.
still clutching at straws, Jean?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
