Iraq War...ex MI5 boss speaks.

Asked about the dossier, she said she had very limited involvement in its compilation but it was clear, with hindsight, that there was an "over-reliance" on certain intelligence.

She added: "We were asked to put in some low-grade, small intelligence into it and we refused because we did not think that it was reliable

I get mixed up with this bunch,I thought MI5 was homeland security[yes I have watched Spooks!] I thought MI6 was overseas threats and that Boss Scarlett endorsed all that Blair said and did.
As said I really don't know but what's MI5 talking about the threat in Iraq for if it's MI6 domain.
It's a bit murky.
As boss of MI5 she was asked what the threat to homeland security was from Iraq prior to the invasion.She also commented on the threat from British jihadists after we had invaded.All her part of ship and pertinent to the Inquiry.
Mr Scarlett boss of MI6 was promoted to that job by Blair which may go some way to explaining his loyalty plus he had a hand in the "dodgy dossier".
seafarer1939 is correct.It is very murky indeed

Edited to add last comment
From the Torygraph:-

In his statement to the Commons on September 24, 2002, Tony Blair was unequivocal about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. He told MPs that the Joint Intelligence Committee had concluded:

…that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population, and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability.

Chilling stuff. How does it measure up against today’s testimony from Baroness Manningham-Buller at the Chilcot inquiry? The former MI5 chief has revealed that she advised officials a year before the war that the threat posed by Iraq to the UK was “very limited†and that the intelligence on Iraq’s weapons threat was “fragmentaryâ€. And she added: “If you are going to go to war, you need to have a pretty high threshold to decide on that.†So how did the Joint Intelligence Committee have – according to Blair – a clear and settled conviction that Saddam was a threat yet MI5 did not? Even more damning for Blair is Manningham-Buller’s assessment of the impact of the invasion of Iraq. She said MI5 was “swamped†with terrorist plots in the aftermath of the invasion in 2003. “Our involvement in Iraq radicalised, for want of a better word, a whole generation of young people – not a whole generation, a few among a generation – who saw our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as being an attack on Islam…Arguably we gave Osama bin Laden his Iraqi jihad so that he was able to move into Iraq in a way that he was not before.†It’s hard to conceive of a more comprehensive foreign policy disaster yet the man responsible is now the Middle East peace envoy. It’s beyond parody.

From The Guardian:-

The Head of MI5 warned Home Office ministers and officials of the consequences of an invasion but, in a pointed remark, suggested she rarely saw Tony Blair in one-to-one meetings. She added: "The head of SIS [MI6] saw him more frequently than I did".

And what did Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6, tell Blair about the alleged weapons of mass destruction threat posed by Saddam? We still do not know.

Manningham-Buller referred more than once to Sir David Omand, the government's security and intelligence coordinator at the time, who gave evidence to Chilcot earlier this year.

MI6 had "over-promised and under-delivered" when it came to Iraq, Omand said.

She was asked what lessons had been learned from the invasion, and replied: "The danger of over-reliance on fragmentary intelligence in deciding whether or not to go to war. Very few would argue that the intelligence was substantial enough to make that decision."

That is a savage indictment of the Blair administration and its advisers who, unlike Manningham-Buller, kept mum at the time.


Let us now sit back and watch as the connection between Antony Lytton Bliar / British Petroleum / The Libyan Investment Authority becomes clearer.

Seems like The LIA had $185,000,000,000 to invest in 2007 and our Tone wanted in on the deal - pass the popcorn.



Lantern Swinger
At face value this really irritates me.

Surely MI5 (and their views) were represented at the Joint Intelligence Committee ?

If so, then either they ignored her/MI5 (and have misrepresented or VERY selectively the views of the meetings) or else she is being just as bad now in her testimony.

Either way (and I have no way to judge) Chilcott will have to deal with the issue, and if he doesn't it will be obvious.

Something to check when the final report comes out.



Lantern Swinger
Yes (and we all know what his views were) - but MI5 would also be at the JIC.

So either MI5 didn't press their case and the ex-head is covering her arse now because she chickened out then, or else the testimony from the head of the JIC has been less than honest.

This is something that Chilcott's report won't be able to dodge - he will have to decide who is telling the "truth".


Similar threads

Latest Threads