Sir Richard Dearlove - what's the verdict?

#1
Dearlove was the author of the "Dodgy Dossier" of false MI6 intelligence which indirectly lead to the the deaths of 179 servicemen, life-changing injuries to many more, and the death and injury of (by most estimates) several hundred thousand entirely innocent Iraqis. There has never been any - not even slightest - corroboration for the dossier that he produced. The Chilcot report redacted to public view all of his statements. so there he has effectively escaped all public accountability (not untypical for MI6 admittedly..) and has been allowed to keep his knighthood, pension etc while so many other people have greatly suffered.

I know all of this happened a painfully long time ago, but in my view that is not an excuse to bury his dishonesty under the carpet. I would be interested in other opinions...
 
#2
This is inaccurate, or just plain wrong, on so many levels.....
 
#3
I know all of this happened a painfully long time ago, but in my view that is not an excuse to bury his dishonesty under the carpet. I would be interested in other opinions...[/QUOTE]


Who gives a feck about your view?...we were getting bored fannying about on Ex firing blanks and you would have noticed that not many Toms were too fussed over this as we hadn't had a proper shindig dig for a while, do you think that the Mob were going to sit on their collectives arrses drawing coin for doing feck all forever? ..

RIP to those that paid the price and condolences to those that are still suffering.
 
#4
I was privileged to have a 15-minutes-or-so conversation with Sir Richard when he was 'C', shortly before I left the Army. His high intelligence was a given, but he also struck me as being modest, reasonable, sensible, open to argument and decidedly not a warmonger. I have no more knowledge than the next man of the murky machinations surrounding the 'dodgy dossier', but I'd be strongly inclined to put the blame firmly upon the shoulders of Messrs Blair and Campbell, who seem to have wantonly ignored important SIS caveats in their eagerness to suck up to Mr Bush.
 
#6
I was privileged to have a 15-minutes-or-so conversation with Sir Richard when he was 'C', shortly before I left the Army. His high intelligence was a given, but he also struck me as being modest, reasonable, sensible, open to argument and decidedly not a warmonger. I have no more knowledge than the next man of the murky machinations surrounding the 'dodgy dossier', but I'd be strongly inclined to put the blame firmly upon the shoulders of Messrs Blair and Campbell, who seem to have wantonly ignored important SIS caveats in their eagerness to suck up to Mr Bush.
My connection with him was his time as Master of Pembroke College; I met him at a couple of receptions in Cambridge and I concur with your assessment of him.
 
#7
I'm amazed at just how many people there are on the internet with an intimate understanding of the complexities and challenges of HUMINT...
 
#8
Bad form to quote yourself, I know, but I couldn't resist this, from the 'nerve agent' thread:

Have just heard an 'expert' called Charles Cumming on Radio 4, a lauded writer of spy stories apparently, talking about 'HUMint', the first syllable rhyming with dumb, which seems about right in his case.
 

DaManBugs

On ROPS
On ROPs
Book Reviewer
#10
... but I'd be strongly inclined to put the blame firmly upon the shoulders of Messrs Blair and Campbell, who seem to have wantonly ignored important SIS caveats in their eagerness to suck up to Mr Bush.
I believe that the last part of your post here is accurate with regard to the folks involved, but for a different reason. Power corrupts, as we all know. I think that the SIS caveats were deliberately ignored because Phoney Tony actually wanted to go to war, to be a “war prime minister” (just as the equally odious Bush wanted to be a "war president). Blair was reportedly “very excited” about going to war. I can well imagine that because I’ve seen it happen before in a similar case.

Rainer Eppelman was the last defence minister of the GDR. He was a man of the church and pacifist, who even spent time in the chokey because he refused to serve in the National Peoples’ Army. His job as GDR defence minister was actually to dissolve the East German Army, but when he realised how much “power” he had commanding all those forces, he changed his mind.
Rainer Eppelmann - Wikipedia

His radical change of heart is documented in the following article. I’ve taken the liberty of translating the three main objectives, whereby the second one is the most important:
Das Ende der Nationalen Volksarmee | Deutsche Einheit 1990

1. Active co-operation in the democratic renewal of the GDR
2. Retention of the National Peoples’ Army after acceding to the Federal Republic of Germany in accordance with the motto: one state – two armies, and to keep NATO and the West German Army away from the territory of the GDR.
3. Dissolution of the two military pacts, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and the creation of a new security policy.

In my view, this is exactly what transpired with Phoney Tony. He was never interested in any WMDs, or even regime change. What he wanted more than anything else was the personal “glory” of being a “war prime minister”. The pathetic gobshite!

MsG
 
#11
Coincidentally this came out today:

How the British Gov’t Faked Intelligence to Sell the Iraq War

I think it is in the public interest to find out what motivated Dearlove to write such a crassly dishonest report. Was he after a peerage?

Disclosure - I did work under him in SIS briefly. My opinion of him is that he was very good at masking his personal ambition with a veneer of humility. Not untypical of SIS officers..
 
#12
Coincidentally this came out today:

How the British Gov’t Faked Intelligence to Sell the Iraq War

I think it is in the public interest to find out what motivated Dearlove to write such a crassly dishonest report. Was he after a peerage?

Disclosure - I did work under him in SIS briefly. My opinion of him is that he was very good at masking his personal ambition with a veneer of humility. Not untypical of SIS officers..
Sputnik? Really? I can’t think why they’d trawl something up now :rolleyes:
 
#13
Further Disclosure: When I worked under Dearlove I was in PTCP department, which at the time (approx 92-95) dealt with countering nuclear/bio/chemical WMD proliferation. Even back then, Iraq had been consigned to the back-burner because it had been determined that Saddam had no more volition to seek WMDs. Iraq was just one level higher on the threat scale than Argentina, Brasil and South Africa, all of whom had at the time retracted (but possibly still re-activable) WMD programs. Our focus at that time was primarily Iran (for bio more than nuclear), Libya, Syria and Israel.

It is thus utterly incomprehensible to me that Dearlove came out with his report - especially the "45min" exaggeration.

I can only surmise that he was expecting some sort of kickback, possibly a peerage, given that is what Goldsmith was given for mysteriously changing his legal advice overnight. Dearlove would definitely have been susceptible to that sort of enticement IMO. Money no, but peerage definitely..
 
Last edited:

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
My armchair opinion was that the 45 minutes notice was for deployment of battlefield weapons. If we had not been intending to be on the battlefield in the first place that would have been an irrelevance. Blair, possibly through ignorance or possibly because a touch of spin came naturally to him, let it read as if weapons that could hit UK were at 45 minutes notice which was totally untrue.

A lot of Iraq is empty. It would not surprise me if there were nasties still buried in the far reaches of its desert although I suspect stuff was passed to Assad for safe keeping. After all, we have a steady trickle of WW2 hideouts being discovered in our crowded and busy island that were only known to a few who took the secret with them.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#15
PS The OP seems to me to have some undisclosed unresolved business with Dearlove unrelated to WMD.
 
#16
Indeed I do. But that is small talk compared to 179 dead British servicemen, countless still suffering with life-changing injuries, and hundreds of thousands of dead and injured Iraqis.

His position in history should not be glossed over. Working for SIS is a great privilege and honour, bestowed only on few people - in my opinion Dearlove abused it for personal elevation.
 
#17
Coincidentally this came out today:

How the British Gov’t Faked Intelligence to Sell the Iraq War

I think it is in the public interest to find out what motivated Dearlove to write such a crassly dishonest report. Was he after a peerage?

Disclosure - I did work under him in SIS briefly. My opinion of him is that he was very good at masking his personal ambition with a veneer of humility. Not untypical of SIS officers..
Your PERSEC isn't very good, Mr T. Still peddling the same old conspiracy theories? Do you want to tell us why you were sacked and then went on the run? Or do you want to mention your time in the TA? Or was it the Ghanain Air Force? Perhaps you might like to tell us about being kicked out of Switzerland - or any other number of iffy stories after you left the Office.
 
Last edited:
#18
Your PERSEC isn't very good, Mr T. Still peddling the same old conspiracy theories? Do you want to tell us why you were sacked and then went on the run? Or do you want to mention your time in the TA? Or was it the Ghanain Air Force? Perhaps you might like to tell us about being kicked out of Switzerland - or any other number of iffy stories after you left the Office.
That, or the OP has been leaving 'clues' from material in the public domain (alluded links to New Zealand and Russia, more or less the right timeframe for SIS service) to suggest that he is indeed Tomlinson when in fact he isn't. Either way, a poster to keep a sceptical eye on.
 
#20
That, or the OP has been leaving 'clues' from material in the public domain (alluded links to New Zealand and Russia, more or less the right timeframe for SIS service) to suggest that he is indeed Tomlinson when in fact he isn't. Either way, a poster to keep a sceptical eye on.
Did i say Tomlinson? That traitor? Perish the thought!
 

Similar threads

Top