"In March 2002, any conflict with Iraq was still far away. That month saw the first discussion by British Government officials of compiling a 'dossier of evidence' against Saddam.

George W Bush had already made it clear to Blair at a summit in Washington that Iraq 'had to be dealt with'."

I still want to know why? I was for going after the WMD. I was suckered. I want to know why they thought it necessary to take out Saddam. What were the geopolitical reasons? They know WMD were a good 'man in the street' reason, but it was not theirs. What was Bush's reasons?

More from the Guardian article, in fact the last paragraph: Sir John Stanley, Conservative MP and former Minister, gave a clear exposition of what the committee believe the issue is about. 'The most crucial aspect of the interface between intelligence and policy - and you, Mr Campbell sit right down in the middle - is that intelligence helps to formulate policy and that policy never, never helps to formulate intelligence,' he said.

Campbell now awaits the verdict of the committee in eight days' time.

7th July... I'll be waiting.

1079 Also posted to: Home page . At: 10:46:09 AM  . .
Permalink  Top  Search Google  Technorati
Other title(s) for this story: War of the words, diversionary tactics, sacrificial lambs

"Powell's presentation did not persuade the U.N. Security Council, but it did help convince many Americans that Saddam was a real threat."

I'm deeply troubled over this. I was for a war to rid Iraq of WMD. Now, I'm reading that it was a PR job, a spin put on very flimsy evidence. What would happen if they cried wolf again?

Part of me thinks that Saddam's taken his poison bottles with him. The other part thinks there never was any.

Short: Blair lied to cabinet and made secret war pact with US
... a new dossier on which Downing Street pins its hopes will be produced by US intelligence and weapons inspection teams.

Hmmm... So, a dossier saying that he had WMD is going to be spun up to cover the fact that there hasn't been any found? Are we that gullible?

Five steps to the world according to Bush
The British intelligence source said the best Humint on Saddam was held by the French who had agents in Iraq.
'French intelligence was telling us that there was effectively no real evidence of a WMD programme. That's why France wanted a longer extension on the weapons inspections. The French, the Germans and the Russians all knew there were no weapons there -- and so did Blair and Bush as that's what the French told them directly. Blair ignored what the French told us and instead listened to the Americans.' [Originally from the Sunday Herald]

My world is turning upside down. Who to believe? Do I really think a public inquiry will say Bush/Blair lied to take the US/UK to war because... ? Why? Because Rumsfield wanted to do so before Bush was elected?

My only reasoning, is that 'they' wanted to take the war on terrorism to the Middle East, rather than waiting for the inevitable.

1045 Also posted to: Home page . At: 11:45:08 AM  . .
Permalink  Top  Search Google  Technorati
Other title(s) for this story: Where are Iraq's WMDs?