Blair's phantom WMDs - the real int is online . . . somewhere

#1
Clocked this Indie frontpager today:

Tony Blair and Iraq: The damning evidence - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

Aside from telling me what I have known since Spring 2002 - that Tony is a f#ckin' liar - it says that [redacted] intelligence documents which prove his enthusiasm for porky pies have been published (albeit quietly) online.

It does not provide a link to them, and my skills as a Google ninja have been proven to be woefully inadequate.

Anyone out there on Arrse care to shame me by posting the required linky?
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#2
if its redacted though then it wont have anything on it.

if anyone has it then it will be wikileaks or the site the ex leaks lot were going to set up
 
#3
if its redacted though then it wont have anything on it.

if anyone has it then it will be wikileaks or the site the ex leaks lot were going to set up
According to the Indie and B'Liars spokes-creatures it is [discreetly] out there courtesy of HMG.

I want an HMG link.

British soldiers died for a lie of the government of the time: I'm a bit miffed that the succcessor administration is only marginally less keen than its predecessor, to have illuminated, the myth that drove the killing.
 
#5
According to the Indie and B'Liars spokes-creatures it is [discreetly] out there courtesy of HMG.

I want an HMG link.

British soldiers died for a lie of the government of the time: I'm a bit miffed that the succcessor administration is only marginally less keen than its predecessor, to have illuminated, the myth that drove the killing.
When you say you're a " bit miffed " with the successor admin etc I take it you mean you would like to kick Cameron in the groin - whereas you would like to kick Bliar in the groin and then jump up and down on his head ?

If so - I am a bit miffed too.

Conniving, fcuking liars the lot of them.
 
#8
if its redacted though then it wont have anything on it.
Exactly. nothing new here...move along the bus now.
We've heard it all before and I doubt if names will ever be released.

Before the middle of 2002, "Iraq had been relatively low down the scale of preoccupations" in terms of WMD, according to one MI6 officer in evidence to the inquiry. In the months after Mr Blair's return from Texas, the secret services came under pressure to come up with intelligence to support a move to war.

MI6 was "on the flypaper of WMD", and had no appetite for war, admitted another officer, SIS4. "Those of us who had been around [redacted] knew perfectly well what a disaster for countless people a war was going to be." Another MI6 officer, SIS1, described the "handling" of Curveball, the Iraqi source whose claims of mobile chemical weapons laboratories were subsequently exposed as lies, and the "marketing" of the intelligence as "awful".

IIRC curveball was a taxi driver in Baghdad! or in other words made up. It's a bit like the papers quoting " a government source"
 
#9
Anyone with a lick of wit knew at the time that the case for war was faked and that the war was illegal. They also knew that Blair and co. would get away with it.
 
#13
The evidence mentioned in the Independent story will almost certainly be on the Chilcot Iraq Inquiry website here: Iraq Inquiry

Specifically, transcripts of evidence sessions taken in private are here:
Private Evidence

If you can't wait for Chilcot you will need to look in those areas.

I am not so sure about comments like "nothing to see here" or "it's all been redacted". There is a huge amount of genuine information there from which, at least, lessons can be learned. Other inquiries have been far less critical than this one might be - but we'll have to wait and see.

Personally, what I have seen so far has been slightly more reassuring than I expected about the actions of officials such as SIS and the military. Of course they would ensure that their more accurate prophecies would find their way to the Inquiry!
 
#15
Exactly. nothing new here...move along the bus now.
We've heard it all before and I doubt if names will ever be released.

Before the middle of 2002, "Iraq had been relatively low down the scale of preoccupations" in terms of WMD, according to one MI6 officer in evidence to the inquiry. In the months after Mr Blair's return from Texas, the secret services came under pressure to come up with intelligence to support a move to war.

MI6 was "on the flypaper of WMD", and had no appetite for war, admitted another officer, SIS4. "Those of us who had been around [redacted] knew perfectly well what a disaster for countless people a war was going to be." Another MI6 officer, SIS1, described the "handling" of Curveball, the Iraqi source whose claims of mobile chemical weapons laboratories were subsequently exposed as lies, and the "marketing" of the intelligence as "awful".

IIRC curveball was a taxi driver in Baghdad! or in other words made up. It's a bit like the papers quoting " a government source"
Wasn't there a German spy in WW2 who invented a spy ring to bump up his expenses a bit. But whereas Berlin may have believed in a Glasgow source obtaining info over a glass of wine ... MI5 spotted the wong'n right off the peg.

"Chep here writing about a source who is a wine drinker from Glasgow."

"Oh Carruthers you've spotted an ad hoc comment begad"


"There was a fella in the back of me cab the other day. Said we got weapons of mass destruction in slow moving vehicles moving round the country. I says that has the ing a truth about it and no mistake. Slow moving lorries on the M1 been causing chaos. That'll be the WMD lorries. That's why they govt is encouraging more motorway services. Cos they can get to a service area to fire them within forty minutes"
 
#16
I am not so sure about comments like "nothing to see here" or "it's all been redacted". There is a huge amount of genuine information there from which, at least, lessons can be learned. Other inquiries have been far less critical than this one might be - but we'll have to wait and see.
My point was, it is widely believed that the inteligence was manipulated to fit the purpose. If you think documents will be released that put names, dates and places to those beliefs, then I think you are being naiive.
As for "lessons can be learned", you sound like a politician!
 
#17
Clocked this Indie frontpager today:

Tony Blair and Iraq: The damning evidence - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

Aside from telling me what I have known since Spring 2002 - that Tony is a f#ckin' liar - it says that [redacted] intelligence documents which prove his enthusiasm for porky pies have been published (albeit quietly) online.

It does not provide a link to them, and my skills as a Google ninja have been proven to be woefully inadequate.

Anyone out there on Arrse care to shame me by posting the required linky?
Why did it take you so long to figure out that Blair is a f#ckin' liar? Don't tell me you once voted for the c*nt!
 
#18
this will mean the Whole World and His Wife will be on the Compo bandwaggon for cash from the UK...........
 
#19
Why did it take you so long to figure out that Blair is a f#ckin' liar? Don't tell me you once voted for the c*nt!
You mistake me - I knew right from the moment he came back from meeting with Dubya all those years ago, that he was peddling porkies, and no - I have never voted Labour.

I'm somewhat curious, tho', about what the Indy seems to imply is the carefully quiet release into the public domain of evidence to the Chilcott inquiry, which would finally substantiate my/our belief.

I wonder, on t'other hand, about the Indy's story: I'm beginning to think it is a piece they've been building up for some time, and kept handy for a slow news Sunday. Reading it again, I think the 'new' part of it is less the redacted private evidence, but the whispers to the journo who wrote it, (from a "a former senior MI6 officer"?) about what the Chilcott Inquiry intends to do with that evidence when it publishes its final report.

How accurate are those whispers, and how much impact the Inquiry report will have on Our Tone - only time will tell. My heart wants him brought down from his pedestal and punished: my head (Cynical? Moi?) says the boy's Teflon coating will save his day.
 
#20
independent.co.uk said:
Intelligence officers have disclosed that just the day before Mr Blair went to visit president George Bush in April 2002, he appeared to accept this but returned a "changed man" and subsequently ordered the production of dossiers to "find the intelligence" that he wanted to use to justify going to war.
Am I correct in assuming this was a Bush-Blair co-production rather than just Blair being strong-armed by Bush? If so, that's interesting, because apparently Blair was given the job of trying (and failing) to get Canada into the war.

Here's what former Canadian prime minister Chrétien said about it in 2011:

cbc.ca said:
It was Tony Blair who pushed hardest for Canada to get involved in the 2003 Iraq invasion, not George W. Bush, former prime minister Jean Chrétien says.

Speaking to Evan Solomon on CBC's Power & Politics, Chrétien said it was the former British prime minister who approached him about going to war to remove Saddam Hussein from power in 2003.

"I had more discussions about the possibility of going to war with Tony Blair than with George Bush. I always had a suspicion that Tony said to George, 'I will take care of Jean,'" Chrétien said in an interview leading up to the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S.

Chrétien said he was friendlier with Blair than with Bush, who was then the U.S. president. He said Blair tried to convince him in a conversation about Saddam being a terrible dictator.

"I said, of course, Tony, he's a terrible dictator. But if we're in the business of replacing all the dictators we don't like, who's next?" Chrétien recalls, saying he pointed to dictators like Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe within the Commonwealth.

"Why don't we solve the problem in the family first?"

Blair, he says, argued Saddam and Mugabe were different cases.

"I said of course, Mugabe has no oil ... and he didn't like it."
Chrétien says Blair pushed Canada to join Iraq war - World - CBC News

It's interesting that the discussion was apparently about what a terrible dictator Saddam Hussein was, rather than about the danger of WMD. Perhaps governments who had access to genuine intelligence didn't find the "WMD threat" very convincing so Blair didn't waste his breath trying that argument? Chrétien had said at the time that nobody had shown him any convincing proof of any serious WMD threat, and as we later see it was Blair who was the one who was personally involved in trying to get him on side.

It would be very interesting to know what may have leaked out of other countries on this subject. There is a lot of focus on what Blair and his advisers will admit now, but we need to remember that there were other countries approached on the issue and they may be more willing to talk. For example, does anyone know who (Bush or Blair) did the sales job on Australia or France, what story did they peddle, and how was it received?
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Top