It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: MI6 Chief Told PM: US "Fixed" Case for War

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
The BBC documentary programme Panorama to be shown tonight (UK) will claim that Tony Blair was made aware of MI6 concerns about the case for war months before the invasion. MI6 Chief Sir Richard Dearlove reportedly told the PM that the Iraq war was "inevitable" and that "the facts and the intelligence" for the war were being "fixed round the policy" By the US. The Programme will also claim that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw questioned whether the threat posed by Saddam was enough to justify invasion.
 



www.timesonline.co.uk
Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6, briefed Blair and a select group of ministers on America’s determination to press ahead with the war nine months before hostilities began.

After attending a briefing in Washington, he told the meeting that war was “inevitable”. Dearlove said “the facts and intelligence” were being “fixed round the policy” by George W Bush’s administration.

The programme argues that Blair had signed up to follow Bush’s plans for regime change in Iraq as early as April 2002.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


What with this and the Newsnight revelations it looks like the BBC is looking for round 2 with the government. The claims won't be surprising to most here, but it is good to see them get mainstream attention. The Programme (called Iraq: Tony and Truth) is on BBC one at 10.15pm tonight. Should be interesting.

Related News Links:
news.bbc.co.uk
news.scotsman.com








[edit on 20-3-2005 by kegs]




posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Good- let's see more UK before the world press. I like Time UK, lots of good articles and fine reporting



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Amazing how an American president can be nearly impeached for what he does with his willy and a cigar and have so much time, money and resources pumped into finding out "the truth", but when it appears that a nation, nay, the world may have been deceived into invading a sovereign country, it's all just accepted as part of the game and nothing can be done about it.

Bon Scott said it best. "We're on the hiiiiiiighway to hell!"



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
The question worth looking at is were the facts "fit" by Bush himslef, or was he led to the concltuion by those facts. If so, then you have to find the real person with the agenda.

Or could it simply have been bad intel and hindsight is always 20/20



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Can't quote at the moment- so
Fred you must be joking because I am laughing so very, very hard.

Someone needed to manufacture something for Bush to want to war on Iraq?

That is really far out. Iraq2 is just finishing what Bush's pop should have done if he hadn't gotten cold feet.

Iraq1 I never had a problem with, even after the discoveries that the administration had lied incessently (repeatedly x 100). The invasion of Kuwait was enough even though the Kuwaiti's egged Saddam on.

Back to this thread. The UK has always had good intelligence (since the Crusades) regarding the middle-east. They ruled Iraq for years. They knew what was really going on.
.

.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Thanks for letting us know this programme is on, I shall be watching it. It sounds as though it may be very interesting and may support what a lot of people already believed they knew.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
The implication of this isn't just that Blair knew and didn't care, or was decieved but that the UK government was actively complicit in the deception. The UK had Operation Rockingham to "cherry pick" intelligence much like the American OSP.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   
No Joe I am not joking meerly pandering to the crowd that views Bush as some sort of puppet to be led, by Cheney, Neocons, or the boogie man etc. etc. etc



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   

No Joe I am not joking meerly pandering to the crowd that views Bush as some sort of puppet to be led, by Cheney, Neocons, or the boogie man etc. etc. etc


ACTUALLY!!!! First of all, I doubt that Bush is the one gathering his own evidence. Secondly, Bush has a cabinet of advisors that I'm sure he listens to. Thirdly, if you ever read the Straussian philosophy, you will see that is essential to keep the leader in the dark for the good of the country. Why do you think Bush has such strong convictions?....because he doesn't know better.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   
wrong thread, sorry

[edit on 3/20/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I find the first quote strange here.

We went to Iraq in March/April 03. not July as quoted below. Surely going to Iraq means that war was already inevitable



TexThe BBC documentary programme Panorama to be shown tonight (UK) will claim that Tony Blair was made aware of MI6 concerns about the case for war in July 2003. MI6 Chief Sir Richard Dearlove reportedly told the PM that the Iraq war was "inevitable" and that "the facts and the intelligence" for the war were being "fixed round the policy" By the US. The Programme will also claim that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw questioned whether the threat posed by Saddam was enough to justify invasion.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
You're right Bikereddie, I'll take it out. Must of been a typo in the Scotsman report, I just copied the date from there without thinking about it. The meeting was supposed to be nine months before the invasion, so they probably meant July 2002.



posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Has there ever been any other conflict in the history of the modern world where just two years into it people of seemingly high status politically have been revealed to have made these types of allegations? Not only during the conflict, but before it? If these questions were indeed raised, just how faulty was intelligence? There really can only be one answer, it was fabricated, and it appears that there is nothing in the news that could contradict such a claim.

Not sure if the six-year average schedule for scandal to finally break a U.S. President will take place with Bush, but it appears that these revelations have been put into the media at this time to take down Blair at the very least.



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
i just wonder...what happened to the intelligence that came from Russia and told us that Saddam had intentions of making terrorist attacks in the US right after 9/11.... I wonder if all the information every country had was wrong....

The same information which was available before president Bush was in office, and by which president Clinton also mentioned in the 90s that something must be done with Saddam, including the use of force and the possible change of Saddam's regime....

I believe this war was also probably inevitable, sooner or later we would have had to wage that war. I think it was better to have done it sooner, better than latter and in US soil...

What i think about all this is that a few countries, or even powerful people, actually used Saddam, by giving him banned military technology, weapons and even wmd to lure the US into this war.

These same people, or countries, would have helped in hiding most of the evidence, which they themselves provided, and then place all the blame on the US... Pretty good plan if i might say so, and it seems to be working....

That's what I see here happening. We were certain that Saddam had the weapons, but we perhaps didn't have enough proof, would you all rather had waited to see if Saddam would use one of those weapons or if he was really intent on attacking the US with terrorist attacks?.... then people would be whining and complaining because the US did not do enough...

The Russian Sarindar plan worked perfectly....The same plan so many former Russian military defectors told us about even in the 80s...

Are we all ready for the next stage after the Sarindar plan?...


[edit on 21-3-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   

as posted by kegs
...The meeting was supposed to be nine months before the invasion...


Are you refering to this 'meeting', kegs?
Bush and Blair made secret pact for Iraq war.

Please note that not only was there a meeting between Bush [US] and Blair [UK], there was one with France. Please notice the response from France.




seekerof

[edit on 21-3-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Are you refering to this 'meeting', kegs?


No. The meeting I'm referring to is one in the first article when the head of MI6 returned from a briefing in Washington and informed the PM and a select group of Ministers that the "facts and intelligence" in the case for war were being "fixed round the policy" by the Bush administration. (The meeting was on 23rd July 2002, finally got the right date.)

Check out this time line from the programme, and what it revealed. The policy was always about regime change and never about WMD's.

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   
MI6 hated being the fall-guys for Tony's war. Blair is upsetting the Civil Service far more than even Thatch managed - Boateng shoe-horned into ambassador's post etc.

It won't take much but suspect they'll tip into the abyss

Don't F*ck with the establishment.

Bye Bye Tony, it's been .... disappointing

ANYONE BUT BLAIR! Spread the word - Tactical voting the only answer



posted on Mar, 21 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   


Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Amazing how an American president can be nearly impeached for what he does with his willy and a cigar and have so much time, money and resources pumped into finding out "the truth", but when it appears that a nation, nay, the world may have been deceived into invading a sovereign country, it's all just accepted as part of the game and nothing can be done about it.


Precicely, and the United States public question why people hate them so much... *shakes head in disbelief*




top topics



 
0

log in

join