Iraq Dossier = A Big Lie

ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
edited May 2011 in A Moving Train
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ma ... se-for-war

Iraq dossier drawn up to make case for war – intelligence officer

Newly released evidence to Chilcot inquiry directly contradicts Blair government's claims about dossier


Richard Norton-Taylor
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 12 May 2011




A top military intelligence official has said the discredited dossier on Iraq's weapons programme was drawn up "to make the case for war", flatly contradicting persistent claims to the contrary by the Blair government, and in particular by Alastair Campbell, the former prime minister's chief spin doctor.

In hitherto secret evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, Major General Michael Laurie says: "We knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care."

His evidence is devastating, as it is the first time such a senior intelligence officer has directly contradicted the then government's claims about the dossier – and, perhaps more significantly, what Tony Blair and Campbell said when it was released seven months before the invasion of Iraq in 2003.


Laurie, who was director general in the Defence Intelligence Staff, responsible for commanding and delivering raw and analysed intelligence, says: "I am writing to comment on the position taken by Alastair Campbell during his evidence to you … when he stated that the purpose of the dossier was not to make a case for war; I and those involved in its production saw it exactly as that, and that was the direction we were given."

He continues: "Alastair Campbell said to the inquiry that the purpose of the dossier was not 'to make a case for war'. I had no doubt at that time this was exactly its purpose and these very words were used."

Laurie said he recalled that the chief of Defence Intelligence, Air Marshal Sir Joe French, was "frequently inquiring whether we were missing something" and was under pressure. "We could find no evidence of planes, missiles or equipment that related to WMD [weapons of mass destruction], generally concluding that they must have been dismantled, buried or taken abroad. There has probably never been a greater detailed scrutiny of every piece of ground in any country."

The document is one of a number released by the Chilcot inquiry. They include top secret MI6 reports warning of the damage to British interests and the likelihood of terrorist attacks here if the UK joined the US-led invasion of Iraq.

However, a newly declassified document reveals that Sir Kevin Tebbit, then a top official at the Ministry of Defence, warned the defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, in January 2003 that the US would "feel betrayed by their partner of choice" if Britain did not go along with the invasion.

Despite its concerns, MI6 told ministers before the invasion that toppling Saddam Hussein "remains a prize because it could give new security to oil supplies".

Laurie's memo raises questions about the role of Sir John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, who later became head of MI6.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    I doubt you will get anyone to disagree that we need to get out of Iraq.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

    so this just confirms what many of us on here have been saying for 8 years.

    pretty sad....
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • wolfamongwolveswolfamongwolves Posts: 2,414
    :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

    so this just confirms what many of us on here have been saying for 8 years.

    pretty sad....
    ... though not in the least surprising.

    And yet, you can be sure there won't be any real action to hold anyone to account for it.

    And you can be sure that those who supported the war will find ways to sidestep it, so they can still hold on to their assertion that the invasion was somehow necessary and justified, and not the war crime we have long claimed it was, and that it is increasingly proving to be.
    93: Slane
    96: Cork, Dublin
    00: Dublin
    06: London, Dublin
    07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
    09: Manchester, London
    10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
    11: San José
    12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

    so this just confirms what many of us on here have been saying for 8 years.

    pretty sad....
    ... though not in the least surprising.

    And yet, you can be sure there won't be any real action to hold anyone to account for it.

    And you can be sure that those who supported the war will find ways to sidestep it, so they can still hold on to their assertion that the invasion was somehow necessary and justified, and not the war crime we have long claimed it was, and that it is increasingly proving to be.
    here is an example. i could go outside right now, find a pedestrian, and just beat the piss out of him and take his wallet, money, phone, car keys, or whatever. i would be arrested, probably beaten by the cops myself, tried, and jailed. also most likely be sued in a civil trial.

    the above example is the exact same thing we did in iraq except on an exponentially larger scale. the guy who assaults another person gets to go to jail, while those responsible for war crimes, theft of resourses, and mass murder are never held accountable to anyone for anything. i guess the lesson here is if you are gonna commit a crime, the more victims = the least punishment.

    fucking appalling...
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • byttermanbytterman Posts: 136
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Despite its concerns, MI6 told ministers before the invasion that toppling Saddam Hussein "remains a prize because it could give new security to oil supplies".

    I still don't understand how regime change was supposed to improve oil security, but it does seem hypocritical given that his oil was already under foreign control through an oil-for-food program. Am I missing something?
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    the issue isn't that lies were told to lead the country into war ... the issue is WHY?

    once people fully grasp the why - that's when we hope to see some change ...
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    bytterman wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Despite its concerns, MI6 told ministers before the invasion that toppling Saddam Hussein "remains a prize because it could give new security to oil supplies".

    I still don't understand how regime change was supposed to improve oil security, but it does seem hypocritical given that his oil was already under foreign control through an oil-for-food program. Am I missing something?
    maybe they thought he would light the wells on fire like he did in the early '90s. if i were going to be toppled i would burn the wells too. but he had no reaon to burn them unless he was under threat from the outside.. hmmmm... :think:
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

    so this just confirms what many of us on here have been saying for 8 years.

    pretty sad....
    ... though not in the least surprising.

    And yet, you can be sure there won't be any real action to hold anyone to account for it.

    And you can be sure that those who supported the war will find ways to sidestep it, so they can still hold on to their assertion that the invasion was somehow necessary and justified, and not the war crime we have long claimed it was, and that it is increasingly proving to be.
    here is an example. i could go outside right now, find a pedestrian, and just beat the piss out of him and take his wallet, money, phone, car keys, or whatever. i would be arrested, probably beaten by the cops myself, and put into a diversionary program that does nothing but costs money but not solving the issue at all. also most likely be sued in a civil trial.

    the above example is the exact same thing we did in iraq except on an exponentially larger scale. the guy who assaults another person gets to go to jail, while those responsible for war crimes, theft of resourses, and mass murder are never held accountable to anyone for anything. i guess the lesson here is if you are gonna commit a crime, the more victims = the least punishment.

    fucking appalling...

    I do love nitpicking...but come on...probably beaten by the cops? you are so dramatic it makes me want to set myself on fire :P

    but I completely agree with your post, we should have left them alone until the danger was real and evident for everyone to see and if it never materialized we would never have been in the mess we caused there. The ends didn't justify the means in this case at all and it is sad that they just picked what they wanted to believe.
    Ultimately it is up to us to elect better respresentatives...and unfortunately people on both sides of center and even those in the middle cannot be bothered to learn anything before they cast their vote based on whatever crazy notion they have that day.
    This is why I am so surprised you want to keep giving more money to these idiots who do this shit....all of them do it, none of them are free of complicity in this...I realize you want to help people but these idiots only want more power...I do not believe they want to help anyone the way they claim...the only one I have ever believed in was Paul Wellstone. If you don't know much about him you should check into him a little bit...sad sad story and I giant loss to the country.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • unsungunsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
    Ron Paul voted NAY on entering Iraq.
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    unsung wrote:
    Ron Paul voted NAY on entering Iraq.
    so did kucinich.



    i would have too.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    polaris_x wrote:
    the issue isn't that lies were told to lead the country into war ... the issue is WHY?
    According to the theories I've read on this board, the reasons for the invasion are:

    * Saddam's WMD's
    * Christian crusade against the Muslims by Bush and Blair
    * Oil
    * Construction and military material profits
    * Al Qaeda
    * It's Stone's fault
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Jason P wrote:
    According to the theories I've read on this board, the reasons for the invasion are:

    * Saddam's WMD's - nope, as evidenced
    * Christian crusade against the Muslims by Bush and Blair - hell no, i doubt either of them have read the bible
    * Oil - yup
    * Construction and military material profits - yup
    * Al Qaeda - no al qaeda in iraq until post invasion
    * It's Stone's fault - could be, will have to check his stock portfolio and see if he has carlysle group holdings
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    polaris_x wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    According to the theories I've read on this board, the reasons for the invasion are:

    * Saddam's WMD's - nope, as evidenced
    * Christian crusade against the Muslims by Bush and Blair - hell no, i doubt either of them have read the bible
    * Oil - yup
    * Construction and military material profits - yup
    * Al Qaeda - no al qaeda in iraq until post invasion
    * It's Stone's fault - could be, will have to check his stock portfolio and see if he has carlysle group holdings
    this is pretty accurate based on what i have read these last 8 years.

    except for the stone part, of course...
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    polaris_x wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    According to the theories I've read on this board, the reasons for the invasion are:

    * Saddam's WMD's - nope, as evidenced
    * Christian crusade against the Muslims by Bush and Blair - hell no, i doubt either of them have read the bible
    * Oil - yup
    * Construction and military material profits - yup
    * Al Qaeda - no al qaeda in iraq until post invasion
    * It's Stone's fault - could be, will have to check his stock portfolio and see if he has carlysle group holdings
    this is pretty accurate based on what i have read these last 8 years.

    except for the stone part, of course...
    Maybe I've played too much RISK, but I think the Bush administration saw this as an opportunity to assert control in a key region of energy supply for the entire world. The pragmatic side of me may have done the same if I was in control at the time, especially if W.M.D.s were an actual threat and I ignored the "rebuilding" stage. I would have issues with lying about W.M.D.'s though.

    As for Stone, the jury is still out. The Binaural tour ended in late 2000, which allowed enough time for him to have secret meetings with Rumsfield and Cheney to plan the invasion. It may have been a secret attempt by Stone to help motivate Ed's creative side and keep him focused on pumping out records. At the time, he may have had no idea on what the cost and toll would be. You never know ...

    :D
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Jason P wrote:
    As for Stone, the jury is still out. The Binaural tour ended in late 2000, which allowed enough time for him to have secret meetings with Rumsfield and Cheney to plan the invasion. It may have been a secret attempt by Stone to help motivate Ed's creative side and keep him focused on pumping out records. At the time, he may have had no idea on what the cost and toll would be. You never know ...

    :D

    Maybe Stone figured that an invasion of U.S troops into Iraq would help introduce Pearl Jam's music to the Iraqi's? As it turned out, he was right, because wasn't it later revealed that Pearl Jam's music was just one of many bands whose music was played to prisoners at Abu Ghraib to prevent them sleeping?


    *Takes Cover*
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Jason P wrote:
    Maybe I've played too much RISK, but I think the Bush administration saw this as an opportunity to assert control in a key region of energy supply for the entire world. The pragmatic side of me may have done the same if I was in control at the time, especially if W.M.D.s were an actual threat and I ignored the "rebuilding" stage. I would have issues with lying about W.M.D.'s though.

    As for Stone, the jury is still out. The Binaural tour ended in late 2000, which allowed enough time for him to have secret meetings with Rumsfield and Cheney to plan the invasion. It may have been a secret attempt by Stone to help motivate Ed's creative side and keep him focused on pumping out records. At the time, he may have had no idea on what the cost and toll would be. You never know ...

    :D

    war = higher oil/gas prices ... bush is from texas ... from the oil industry ... where he has LOTS of friends ... cheney is from haliburton ... rumsfield was part of the carlysle group ... coincidentally, all those companies/industries benefited from a war widely accepted as based on lies ...
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited May 2011
    polaris_x wrote:
    war = higher oil/gas prices ... bush is from texas ... from the oil industry ... where he has LOTS of friends ... cheney is from haliburton ... rumsfield was part of the carlysle group ... coincidentally, all those companies/industries benefited from a war widely accepted as based on lies ...

    And Stone is a fan of the Dallas Cowboys. 8-)
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,158
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Maybe Stone figured that an invasion of U.S troops into Iraq would help introduce Pearl Jam's music to the Iraqi's? As it turned out, he was right, because wasn't it later revealed that Pearl Jam's music was just one of many bands whose music was played to prisoners at Abu Ghraib to prevent them sleeping?


    *Takes Cover*
    They didn't force them to listen to Evacuation on repeat, did they! :o :shock:

    *Takes cover also*
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
Sign In or Register to comment.