Tony Blair....Friend or foe?

Oil_Slick said:
Maxi_77 said:
TerryB said:
I agree that it was a misuse of imperfect intelligence rather than an outright lie . However as a barrister he knew what he was doing in deceiving parliament and the public with his terminological inexactitudes re WOMD :farao: .
He seems to have done much the same with the European Constitution, to which he now claims not to have signed up (However his exemptions are apparently meaningless according to the press).

There is a lot of talk about Bush and Blair 'lying' about the WMDs, but little about SH and his part in his own downfall. We all know now that SH had no WMDs at the time of the invasion, although he had in the past had them. He had carefully avoided the destruction of his WMDs being properly recorded and had in reality done as much as he could to make it look as if he still had them, presumably because he felt his staus in the Arab world was enhanced if he could make it look as if he was thumbing his nose at the USA.

We may never know the full story as the Iraqis are hanging every one who might have kknown the inner working of SH's governemnt as fast as they can.

Perhaps in 50 years or so when people are less intereted in scoring political points about the key players we may get some objective analisis about the events leading up to the war and some better idea of quite who conned who, but I suspect I will not be around to read it.

We always 'knew' there were no WMD's but we ignored our own intel sources… the 'intelligence' that B'Liar and Bush used to justify their apocalyptic vision was a pack of lies supplied by the Israelis who have freely admitted since that they told them what they wanted to hear.



Israel knew Iraq had no WMD, says MP


Associated Press
Wednesday February 4, 2004
The Guardian

A prominent Israeli MP said yesterday that his country's intelligence services knew claims that Saddam Hussein was capable of swiftly launching weapons of mass destruction were wrong but withheld the information from Washington.
"It was known in Israel that the story that weapons of mass destruction could be activated in 45 minutes was an old wives' tale," Yossi Sarid, a member of the foreign affairs and defence committee which is investigating the quality of Israeli intelligence on Iraq, told the Associated Press yesterday.

"Israel didn't want to spoil President Bush's scenario, and it should have," he said.

Another member of the committee, Ehud Yatom, said Israel had told the Americans it believed the weapons existed but had not seen them.

On Sunday, the former UN weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, told Y-Net, an Israeli newswire, that the Israeli intelligence services reached the conclusion years ago that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction.

"In the end, if the Israeli intelligence knew that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, so the CIA knew it and thus British intelligence too" he said.

Another MP, Roman Bronfman, said if Mr Ritter was correct, it meant the government had misled the Israeli public in the run-up to the war when it ordered people to prepare sealed rooms and gas masks in preparation for a potential WMD attack.

However, questions over the quality of Israeli intelligence are unlikely to concern the public as greatly as in Britain and the US. Israelis overwhelmingly welcomed the overthrow of the Iraqi leader.

In November 2003, a respected Tel Aviv thinktank concluded that Israeli intelligence had joined the US and Britain in an "exaggerated assessment" of Iraqi weapons.

In 2002, the former head of the Mossad intelligence agency, Efraim Halevy, told a closed meeting of Nato that there were "clear indications" that Iraq had renewed its efforts to build WMD after the UN weapons inspections were halted in 1998. He also said Iraq had preserved elements of its ability to manufacture chemical and biological weapons.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1140459,00.html

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, from what you have written we clearly dod not 'know' SH had no WMDs, yes we had information, which if we had applied what we now know to be the proper weight to it may well have led us to believe that SHs posturing was just that. It was not just bad intel, and I am happy to accept we had bad intel fed by various people who had some very specific axes to grind, not just the Israelies, but also Iraqi dissidents, but the posturing of SH that made the Bush/Blair team apply more weight than was justified to the stories that SH still had secret WMD programmes. In reality SH did almost everything he could to stop the arms inspectors finding out he had no WMDs, although there is still possibly the question of quite what did the Russians remove in those convoys through Syria just before the invasion.

I would just add could you quantify just how much you trust any info that comes out of Irael, you believe the story they lied because it satisfies your needs, just as Bush/Blair believed what they were told because it justified their needs, personally I find it difficult to believe anything they say, because they will say whatever suits their purpose, for them the only truth is Zion.
 

Oil_Slick

War Hero
Maxi_77 said:
Oil_Slick said:
Maxi_77 said:
TerryB said:
I would just add could you quantify just how much you trust any info that comes out of Irael, you believe the story they lied because it satisfies your needs, just as Bush/Blair believed what they were told because it justified their needs, personally I find it difficult to believe anything they say, because they will say whatever suits their purpose, for them the only truth is Zion.

UNSCOM found none either… we knew he had nothing, we used bogus intel to build a case for war.
 
Oil_Slick said:
Maxi_77 said:
Oil_Slick said:
Maxi_77 said:
TerryB said:
I would just add could you quantify just how much you trust any info that comes out of Irael, you believe the story they lied because it satisfies your needs, just as Bush/Blair believed what they were told because it justified their needs, personally I find it difficult to believe anything they say, because they will say whatever suits their purpose, for them the only truth is Zion.

UNSCOM found none either… we knew he had nothing, we used bogus intel to build a case for war.

Strangely enough not until their boss had got the sack, up till then he was proposing more investigation, there are too many vested interests on both sides to hav any chance of really getting the truth of what actually happened
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top