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.

 

Prescott 'nervous' over Iraq WMD intelligence

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Prescott 'nervous' over Iraq WMD intelligence


www.bbc.co.uk

Lord Prescott has said he was "nervous" about the limited nature of intelligence on Iraq's weapon's threat.

The former deputy prime minister told the Iraq inquiry that some of the evidence presented in 2002 was based on "tittle-tattle".
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.bbc.co.uk




posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
As ex cabinet minister and leaders of intelligence agencies give evidence before the Chilcot Inquiry, a lot of interesting testimonies are being made. Whether they all intend to try an exonerate themselves by playing down the reasons to go to war, or in Prescott's case felt 'nervous' about the initial intelligence, a very sad picture is being painted. All those concerns expressed by those against war are now adopted by those who perpetrated war.

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Lard Prescott was probably more nervous over the state of the buffet lunch than he would be over the state of international politics and the decision to send hundreds of British young men and women to their deaths, to be maimed and wounded, to be psychologically damaged for the rest of their lives and their families traumatised.

What would the great socialist care as long as he retained his Jags, his perks, and his expense account.

Lard Prescott is the embodiment of all that is wrong with Socialism.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
So a senior cabinet memeber has finally admitted being 'nervous" after the Iraqi WMD intelligence and I assume John Prescott saw the same intelligence information that the rest of the cabinet saw.

So how many more of them were "nervous" with the quality of the intelligence being presented to them. From the evidence given by Blair and Brown to the Chilcot inquiry, they both seems comfortable with the quality of intelligence, so why not John Prescott.

It begs the question if members of the cabinet were forced into going along with the decision to invade Iraq and I wonder how many other members of the cabinet had such misgivings?

Does Prescott admission change anything? Does it increase the change of Tony Blair being tried for war crimes or does John Prescott have a book in the wings and is looking for some increased PR to promote future sales?



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Youve got all these MPs now saying they knew the evidence for these WMD was a little touch n go, but why werent the facts straightened out before the damage was done. Every politician seems to know it was wrong to invade Iraq, this will keep in the spotlight until fingers can be pointed, at least.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
They are all just covering their butts.

"Nervous" is the perfect word. It means they dont have to say, "I was an idiot and completely fooled," but it also allows them to justify their choice, "Well, we only did it on the off chance the intelligence could be correct to help our people."

Im sure lots of them will be choosing "nervous" to describe their feelings in hopes that you all will allow them to stay in office.

Personally, I hope you throw them out. And, I hope we in America throw out our scoundrels too. I hope every nation whose leaders have been engaging in this global terrorism vote the terrorists out of office. And vote in people who might actually listen to their public.

I know our wolves have been pressuring your leaders. I know that America is the driving force behind this madness. But I also know that your leaders, particularly in the UK, are not unwilling participants. They are hoping to enrich themselves from these goings on just as much as ours are. And it needs to stop.

Just like we in America need to come together to stop our rogue leaders, so do all the worlds people. We really have to put the brakes on this monster.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Maybe I am just being cynical but I have no faith in these inquires.

I cannot see any politicians sitting there and telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and thus incriminating themselves.

I suspect these things are purely a showcase event to appease the masses.

edit for spelling

[edit on 30-7-2010 by quadratic]

[edit on 30-7-2010 by quadratic]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I agree with your sentiments. I haven't avidly followed the Chilcott Inquiry, but my interest really piqued when I saw the former head of MI5 give evidence and that sent chills down my spine. If you haven't seen it, this BBC article and video is worth a visit. When a government is ready to ride rough-shot over the intelligence apparatus, then what hope is there?



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Thinking a LOT of people, particularly in the American Congress, are worried about this stuff about now.

They were all complicit, and this will just shine new light on just how complicit and just how gullible they were.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by LarryLove
 


From someone that spent nearly 2 years in Iraq between 2003 and 2005 (3rd Battalion, 5th Marines) , I can make more WMD from under my sink than was found in Iraq.

Nervous, I would hope so.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by misinformational
 


The sad thing is, is that I would assert that the US knew beyond a reasonable doubt that they would find no WMD there. I was working with the US Army Chemical corp on a project (Johnston Atoll) and many of them at the time were returning from the Gulf war with tales of Saddam burning his chemical weapons in huge open pits in the desert, which they felt was contributing to Gulf War Syndrome symptoms. It was open conversation among them, and us, the civilian workers.

If WE knew he had burned off and dismantled his WMD to avoid attack then, then the higher ranking people did as well. Who didnt know that was the general public. It was a sham and a farce from the outset to use his WMD as an excuse to attack.


@LarryLove, great article and video, thanks. It sounds like at least portions of your government may still be viable. I just hope the people over there, in the UK and EU in general, get active before the corruption rises to the levels it is in the US. We may not be salvageable at this point. I hope we are, but we are on the borderline. Dont let it go as far as we did. Take decisive political action if you love your countries.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
The inquiry is a sham, as many have already stated.

Nothing is given under oath - not that that is any guarantee of the truth when these leeches are concerned.
As usual, they finally produce a report, using the old "lessons have been learnt" quote, to ensure that this cannot happen again and tighter controls are put on the decision making processes that may lead us into further conflicts.
All pap for the masses and nothing will change. Those that lied and caused the death this time around will not be held accountable in any way and they'll all hope the whole issue will just go away.

The establishment know the form. One falls, they all fall, so the status quo must be maintained and us peasants appeased with meaningless inquiries with predetermined outcomes.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Matter of the fact, the UN agrees with you: The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal."

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

The war is and was illegal - mind you, I'm a Marine Veteran that sacrificed two years of my life fighting it. But apparently, "the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction to review the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq in and of itself (jus ad bellum), as the scope of the crime of aggression has not been defined, as of yet, by the numerous states party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ." [same source]

So, in 7 years, no one can define the scope and extent of the aggression, proving the crime? Say what?

The system cannot damn itself. And it never will.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I had never heard about a possible connection between Gulf War Syndrome and the open air burning of chemicals. Makes a lot of sense. A lot of sense considering the toxicity of the chemicals that must have been involved.

Back to WMDs for a moment, the lead Scientist come weapons inspector David Kelly asserted Saddam had moved a lot of weapons across the border to Syria. These were comments made in the lead-up to Kellys death, but echoed elsewhere within the weapons inspection community.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by LarryLove
 


The speculation must have reached the upper ranks too, but never seemed to make it into the public domain. The troops themselves (Chemical) were speculating on it, because these were nerve agents being burned. (And other nasties) They also wondered if it were some weird vaccine they (and us contract employees) got, (which I never was clear on what it was supposed to do, I was young and just signed) but I dont really think it was the vaccine. I dont know of any of us contract workers who received the vaccine ever coming down with Gulf war syndrome, but a fair number of the troops who felt they were exposed to the burning chemical weapons did.

I can only speculate that it never made it to the world stage because who wants to have to pay people for the damage they sustained?

I just did a quick google, and apparently they do acknowledge that it was from exposure to nerve agent,

en.wikipedia.org...


United States Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi's panel found that pre-2005 studies suggested the veterans' illnesses are neurological and apparently are linked to exposure to neurotoxins, such as the nerve gas sarin, the anti-nerve gas drug pyridostigmine bromide, and pesticides that affect the nervous system.


There is just no mention of how they said they were exposed, ie; Saddam burning up all his WMD to avoid being attacked.

Anyway, bottom line, the US had to have known if us peons did. So they knew they would find nothing. It was just an excuse to do something they already wanted to do.

They used the American people, the British people, the victims who died in 9-11, to further an economic agenda they had. And, by pushing their economic agenda, they actually let slide the one person who might legitimately have had involvement, (bin Laden) in favor of pursuing their interests in Iraqs oil fields.

It should be pursued as a crime. And all the laws the Bush administration wrote in specifying they cannot be tried for war crimes should be overturned, and all the people involved should be tried and brought to justice. And that includes the current administrations if they continue to pursue these wars that were begun illegally.

Lets not forget, we hung Saddam for killing, what, 117? Kurds illegally. Why should our leaders not stand trial for the many thousands they have murdered in the name of profit?

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join