WMD threat deliberately misrepresented

downquark1 · 08-01-2004, 10:52

The The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said that:

Quote:

Bush administration officials "systematically" misrepresented the danger of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, which were not an immediate threat to the United States and the Middle East,

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4091219

Granted this is just a low level think tank but it may be a preview of things to come in the Hutton report and any resulting enquiries.

Quote:

U.N. weapons inspectors had discovered that nerve agents in Iraq's chemical weapons program had lost most of their lethal capability as early as 1991

Xaccers · 08-01-2004, 11:01

I can't wait for it to be released.

Theodoric · 08-01-2004, 11:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

The The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said that:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4091219

Granted this is just a low level think tank but it may be a preview of things to come in the Hutton report and any resulting enquiries.

Much as we would hope for the truth to come out, I doubt it. The Hutton enquiry is solely concerned with Dr Kelly's death; anything else is peripheral.

downquark1 · 08-01-2004, 21:35

Looks like the BBC has caught up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3380645.stm

Julian · 08-01-2004, 21:51

Further proof that phony bliar misled us.

Xaccers · 08-01-2004, 21:52

Ah but he'll use word games to try and get out of having to resign

Marge · 08-01-2004, 21:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Further proof that phony bliar misled us.

is that short for bluddy liar ??

kronas · 08-01-2004, 21:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Further proof that phony bliar misled us.

i was always semi against the war, i didnt take sides, but something did not seem right, i saw all this 'they have WMD' but i never saw clear evidence that to me did not seem right.

downquark1 · 09-01-2004, 11:54

Here's another opinion:
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player...Points&ram-300

I can see that he is trying to be fair. But to me, this seems like one hell of a mistake.

WMD or no WMD, if they weren't sure they made a lot of assumptions. Seems like they round 0.1 to 1.

Xaccers · 09-01-2004, 12:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

Here's another opinion:
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player...Points&ram-300

I can see that he is trying to be fair. But to me, this seems like one hell of a mistake.

WMD or no WMD, if they weren't sure they made a lot of assumptions. Seems like they round 0.1 to 1.

But were the mistakes made before it was shown to the politicians?
If they knowingly lied then yes they should go, but if they didn't know the information was wrong, then they acted on it in good faith

etccarmageddon · 09-01-2004, 12:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Ah but he'll use word games to try and get out of having to resign

he already has... when he was in Iraq he called them 'weapons of mass distraction'!

downquark1 · 09-01-2004, 12:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

But were the mistakes made before it was shown to the politicians?
If they knowingly lied then yes they should go, but if they didn't know the information was wrong, then they acted on it in good faith

There should be an enquiry into why the intelligence services lied, then. It's their job to present facts, with some opinions. I find it hard to believe they said they were sure of the WMD when it's clear they didn't know enough. Seems more likely to me that they presented possibilities and suspicions and the politicians turned these to certainties.

If it wasn't the politicians it was the Intel services that lied, either way there are serious consequences.

Xaccers · 09-01-2004, 12:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

There should be an enquiry into why the intelligence services lied, then. It's their job to present facts, with some opinions. I find it hard to believe they said they were sure of the WMD when it's clear they didn't know enough. Seems more likely to me that they presented possibilities and suspicions and the politicians turned these to certainties.

If it wasn't the politicians it was the Intel services that lied, either way there are serious consequences.

yup, there definitely should.

downquark1 · 10-01-2004, 12:24

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player...20Word&wvx-300
What is wrong with these people? Saddam said he had no weapons, he let inspectors in they found nothing. Why can't they admit the mistake/lie?

I know it's a good thing he's gone, but they lied about the reasons, do they think this is going to be let go?

yesman · 10-01-2004, 21:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player...20Word&wvx-300
What is wrong with these people? Saddam said he had no weapons, he let inspectors in they found nothing. Why can't they admit the mistake/lie?

I know it's a good thing he's gone, but they lied about the reasons, do they think this is going to be let go?

It looks like they have found something,

Quote:

Danish troops have found dozens of mortar rounds buried in Iraq which initial tests show could contain blister gas, the Danish army says.

Here is the full story, maybe Blair and Bush will eventually get off the hook ?