TA-ANALYSIS: Britain's Butler Report on Iraq Intelligence Released - Blair: Iraq Had No WMDs

A fox news link. . . . riiiight that's going to be an unbiased report on par with the Senate Committee and the Butler Report.

cut n paste from fox news 'report'
Bush administration officials told Fox News that mustard gas (search) was also recently discovered.

A reliable souce these days, those Bush 'administration officials'.
Mustard gas? Is that from the World War One stocks?

Hey lets go to war over it - all over again!

The link doesn't work either, you have to cut and paste it.

[edit on 15-7-2004 by shanti23]

quote: Originally posted by Muaddib
I also guess that democrats were lying in 1998 when they were saying, along with Clinton that Saddam had wmd.

Clinton: Iraq must comply 'one way or the other'
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bill Clinton said Wednesday that while the United States still prefers a diplomatic solution to the current standoff with Iraq, "one way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction."

"That is our bottom line," Clinton said, while attending a White House event on education.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Hmmmm interesting choice of words deny Iraq the capacity to develop
deny : - to curb, to control, to restrain
capacity:- the ability to perform or produce
develop:- make something new

Yes I see where you came from on that one NEXT...

Clinton Faces Rocky Path In Iraq Crisis

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear," Clinton said. "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Sorry nope don't see where this one is going, I tried to find your smoking gun but all I found was

Should the U.S. merely try to punish Hussein for his latest intransigence over U.N. weapons inspections? Should it try to seriously diminish his ability to develop weapons of mass destruction? Should it actually try to topple his regime?

So lets look at the situation, you're the ruler of a sovereign state, in an unstable region of the world, wouldn't you want the weapons capabilties of neighbouring countries? it'd be all well and good having a drilled army, and a limited airforce, but when the guys around you can launch a missile attack from anywhere in their country and take out precision targets wouldn't you want a piece of that action? But then you're told by some bigger countries, with bigger and badder weapons that you have to submit your country to weapon inspections, wouldn't you find that embarrassing? a humiliation infront of your subjects and infront of your neighbouring nations who will then know your defensive capabilities. Wouldn't you try to prove that you were still in control of your country by playing games with where the inspectors could go, or preventing entry into your country? (Note : I'm not saying what happened in Iraq in the 1990's was right, but using reports of inspectors not being allowed into Iraq you have to look at it from Sadams side or you're getting the equivilent of a US/UK government press release and taking it a face value).

The following is a link to a letter from 23 senators in 1998 to president Clinton on their concern of iraq's wmd program.

CONCERN OVER RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN IRAQ
(Senate - October 09, 1998)

Hmmmmm nice peice, can't really find any holes in it, so won't contest this UNSCOM has uncovered significant undeclared proscribed weapons programmes, destroyed elements of those programmes so far identified, including equipment, facilities and materials, and has been attempting to map out and verify the full extent of these programmes in the face of serious efforts to deceive and conceal.

I do find it interesting however that the report states "destroyed elements of those programmes so far identified, including equipment, facilities and materials" but doesn't describe how these peices of evidence were destroyed, remember this is after the UN coalition had pretty much precision bombed every thing in Iraq that may of concealed WMD or been used to produce, so were they reminents of projects though not declare that had still been bombed, or were they being dismantled etc by the Iraqis? Note:I know it says in the face of serious efforts to deceive and conceal. but as recent events with the dossier tsi topic is about, selecting your wording carefully can create impressions of granduer than the subject actually deserves)

John McCain associates the Bush Iraq policy with the Clinton administration on PBS's NewsHour by saying:
"I do not and I believe that President Clinton in 1998 stated unequivocally that we needed a regime change because of Saddam Hussein's continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, nor do I believe this president of the United States, or vice president would either.

This is a serious charge and I categorically reject it. Yes, I believe that mistakes were made and yes we need to have a review of it, but somehow to believe that two administrations intentionally misled the American people, I think is a leap of imagination ..."

Excerpted from.
www.alternet.org...

weird you chose an article that gets contradicted by the earlier choices,
I believe that President Clinton in 1998 stated unequivocally that we needed a regime change because of Saddam Hussein's continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction but from your first link Clinton doesn't say anything about regime change (clintons line has already been quoted by myself in this post) Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and House Speaker Newt Gingrich, both made statements in that post saying they hoped saddam would be removed or replaced, but ut Defense Secretary William Cohen is quoted as saying "It is not our goal to remove Saddam Hussein," which I believe would be the official line on the matter.
The closest thing I could find in the 2nd link to Clintion saying about a regime change was Clinton laid out a modest goal: diminish the Iraqi threat. not particularly exciting, though this next quote may point to the quote John McCain was refering to (continues on from last quote) it's less ambitious than some earlier administration pronouncements.

Not only that but even in 2004 Clinton was still saying that Saddam/Iraq had wmd, he was in fact convinced of this.

Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.

"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.

Excerpted from.
www.theage.com.au...

Sorry couldn't be bothered with registering to the site just to read the article, but remember it was Clintons opinion there were WMD in Iraq, and with the evidence recently released concerning the quality of inteligence gathering in Iraq in both the US and UK is it inconcievable that Clinton saw the same poor quality of intelligence to lead him to that conclussion?

What about the link between iraq and Al Qaeda, was the Bush administration the only one to think there was a link?

The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties
ARE AL QAEDA'S links to Saddam Hussein's Iraq just a fantasy of the Bush administration? Hardly. The Clinton administration also warned the American public about those ties and defended its response to al Qaeda terror by citing an Iraqi connection.

For nearly two years, starting in 1996, the CIA monitored the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. The plant was known to have deep connections to Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation, and the CIA had gathered intelligence on the budding relationship between Iraqi chemical weapons experts and the plant's top officials. The intelligence included information that several top chemical weapons specialists from Iraq had attended ceremonies to celebrate the plant's opening in 1996. And, more compelling, the National Security Agency had intercepted telephone calls between Iraqi scientists and the plant's general manager.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

We also got reports from Russian defectors that in 2002 Russia, along with other countries, had sold weapons and other banned materials to Saddam.
I will post a link when i find it, but it has been posted before in these forums.

No evidence of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties: 9/11 commission undermines another Bush war lie

The staff report of the 9/11 commission released June 16 further discredits one of the main lies employed by the Bush administration to justify its invasion and conquest of Iraq. It confirms that there was no Iraqi role in the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington and no �collaborative relationship� between Al Qaeda and former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Google can be used to find for and against arguements, to just about anything, a lot about this was is subject to contraversy.

Anyway the whole point of the inital post here was to discuss how the hell can two countries be led to war on the basis of crap intelligence yet no one be responsible, simple answer cover up, as someone said We all really do believe Dr Kelly commited suicide, was it an OD and knife cuts? He really did want to die huh! And didn't another UK WMD expert die in some sort crash that's not a coincidence it's just bad luck, Tony and his cronies are found to be Naive but ultimately unresponsible, MI6 did their best but pretty much all sources were discredited but hey it's no ones fault, who's fault is it then that US and UK soldiers are in some backwater country dying, yet no one's resposible even though the nations were led to war under the impression Iraq was a global threat? It never was about protection of peace, can anyone say 2nd largest oil field in the world?

Originally posted by zcheng
US was even trying to smuggle Nuclear material from Kuwait to Iraq, but was stopped by Kuwait.

And the link with the evidence?
I heard a rumor too that Elvis was still alive......

[edit on 15-7-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by shanti23
So both the Senate Committee and the Butler Report are wrong then are they?
Along with both the American and British army, who both say they haven't found any WMD.

Why don't you contact the White House with your world changing discovery of WMD?

The FACT is they HAD WMD, but those stocks were destroyed during the Gulf War of 1991 and subsequent weapon inspections had kept them under control.

Ok, I think you need to understand what was said. Let me give you excerpts from the Butler report....I think it is needed to see what information comes from the report. I request that in this instance a bit more than is allowed to quote can be quoted from the Butler report so that members can see what was actually reported.

Iraq and WMDs before the war
Even now it would be premature to reach conclusions about Iraq's prohibited weapons. Much potential evidence may have been destroyed in the looting and disorder that followed the cessation of hostilities. Other material may be hidden in the sand, including stocks of agent or weapons. We believe that it would be a rash person who asserted at this stage that evidence of Iraqi possession of stocks of biological or chemical agents, or even of banned missiles, does not exist or will never be found. But as a result of our review, and taking into account the evidence which has been found by the ISG and debriefing of Iraqi personnel, we have reached the conclusion that prior to the war the Iraqi regime:

a) Had the strategic intention of resuming the pursuit of prohibited weapons programmes, including if possible its nuclear weapons programme, when UN inspection regimes were relaxed and sanctions were eroded or lifted.

b) In support of that goal, was carrying out illicit research and development, and procurement, activities, to seek to sustain its indigenous capabilities.

c) Was developing ballistic missiles with a range longer than permitted under relevant United Nations security council resolutions, but did not have significant - if any - stocks of chemical or biological weapons in a state fit for deployment, or developed plans for using them.

Now, as we can see from the above excerpt it is stated that it is still too early to say that stockpiles of wmd are not to be found in Iraq. Also what we can surmise from the report, is that what is in question is stockpiles of wmd as were reported from the final report of the UN, that there were at least 100 metric tons and as high as 500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents. The report is not saying that no wmd have been found, but that stockpiles, as were reported, have not been found yet

Ok, now lets see what else the report says.

Uranium from Africa We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the government's dossier, and by extension the prime minister in the House of Commons, were well founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's state of the union address of 2003 that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was well founded.

As we can see from the above excerpt the report is saying that Bush did not lie. We can also see from the other excerpts that the administration did not lie that Saddam was trying to develop and acquire once more all kinds of wmd, including nuclear. Now the only thing that has not been found are stockpiles of wmd but we have found evidence for wmd and banned material in Iraq and other material which was in possetion of Iraq up to late 2003 according to the UNMOVIC report which I have reported on a week ago.

The above excerpts can be found in the below link and there is a link there to the complete "Butler Report."
www.guardian.co.uk...


One more thing before i forget. WMD " include biological and chemical agents." Also as the report states Iraq was required to abandon chemical, biological and all stocks of such agents, subsystems, and components , research, development, support and manufacturing facilities. " As well as Nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any sub-systems or components or any research,development,support or manufacturing facilities relating to [nuclear weapons] Ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 km, related major parts and repair and production facilities, as is stated in the "Butler Report". (Partially quoted from the Butler Report)



-----Edited to add a comment in another excerpt and to correct mispelling------


[edit on 15-7-2004 by Muaddib]

The fact is Lord Butler was the countries leading civil servant.
The reason they used him to conduct the report was damage limitation.
The report is written in such a legal way as to exonerate the people responsible for altering intelligence, which they clearly did.

People here were shouting 'White Wash' when Butler stepped out the car for a reason.

People here want Tony Blair OUT of government after this shameful episode.

Post till your blue in the face, it's not going to change the facts.

Meanwhile back at the Taliban cave ... they may be planning the real attack ...

There was a threat in 2001, have we solved it yet?
Or did we all get side-tracked by the Bush Empires personal vendetta on Saddam Hussein.

[edit on 15-7-2004 by shanti23]

Originally posted by shanti23
People here were shouting 'White Wash' when Butler stepped out the car for a reason.

People here want Tony Blair OUT of government after this shameful episode.

Post till your blue in the face, it's not going to change the facts.

People say a lot of things which are not true shanti23, and that is the fact. You really need back up information before you claim something like that shanti, otherwise it is slander and lies. People shout these things at Blair, Bush, or whoever else because these people just don't like them no matter what they do.

A lot of Europeans, including British people, are against "any war"....for almost any reason...except of course, many of these people themselves cause violence in their demonstrations or after a soccer game, and sometimes it feels pretty much like they want a war to overthrow all the governments in the world..well governments like Britain and U.S......except socialist and communist governments, which are supposedly the good governments now..... (being sarcastic here)

Nowadays i am seeing some people even in these boards saying everyone, mostly the U.S. and UK... were involved in 9/11 and 3/11 and everything else that is wrong in the world....

People talk, and sometimes it is a lot of trash, and that is the fact.


[edit on 16-7-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Nowadays i am seeing some people even in these boards saying everyone, mostly the U.S. and UK... were involved in 9/11 and 3/11 and everything else that is wrong in the world....

People talk, and sometimes it is a lot of trash, and that is the fact.

It's simple.
WTC 9/11 happened for a reason.
That reason remains unknown.
Military dominance of other countries will only bring more 9/11s to our doorstep.

Now tell me that we invaded Iraq with just cause.
That we haven't created a new generation of terrorists for no reason.
Show the world the irrefutable intelligence that took us all to war.
Our respective goverments have been trying to control that region for years and without evidence saying otherwise, it is starting to look like cynical use of 9/11 to achieve that economic and strategic advantage.
*Please note that I am not a conspiracy theorist who thinks that a secret government plot caused 9/11.

I see Iraq and I see dust and rubble and dead children and I'm sorry but I need a reason which is better that the braindead mantra of: 'the world is a safer place'.

A lot of Europeans, including British people, are against "any war"

Exactly, that's the idea .. we have had enough war thank you.

You really need back up information before you claim something like that shanti, otherwise it is slander and lies

Ok, you see for yourself what the people of the world think of the Butler report:

news.bbc.co.uk...

I am not alone in thinking these 'slanderous' thoughts.
Funny that, maybe it's not all in my head. . .

That's the good thing about democracy; I'll have my slanderous say soon enough and Tony Blair will not be getting my vote.
And to be honest, I think people in your country will vote in a similar way after this farce.
Let us hope it's not overturned by the Surpreme Court Justices, again

[edit on 16-7-2004 by shanti23]

It is very simple, we went to Iraq for a couple of reasons.

#1) To rid Saddam of WMD. We know he had them, Saddam knows he had them, Saddam admitted he had them at the end of the first Gulf War.

#2) Saddam or Saddam Loyalist had connections to al queda. Al queda is known to operate in Iraq. Bush said we will not tolerate any country the provides a safe place for terrorist to hide out. Al Queda was hiding in Iraq after running from Afghanistan.

#3) Put 1 and 2 together and Saddam had the capability to supply a terrorist group, like Al Queda, with chemicals to be used in a Sept.11th style attack on the United States or anywhere in Europe.

#4) You are going to hate this one but it is a plus!! To save another hundred thousand innocent Iraqi lives. To bad we couldn't save the three hundred thousand to a million innocent Iraqis that died before we decided to do something.

#5) Oil, that is right, Oil. I like oil, oil makes the world go around. I am all for lower gas prices, but it shouldn't come at the cost of American lives?

The new iraqi government is charging Saddam for the deaths and missing of a million people. A million!!, If thats not enough for you to do something, i feel sorry for you. You are a weak person to let another million people die. If Bush hadn't butched up and confronted Saddam, we would be talking about a hundred thousand more lives lost. What would you do?

Saddam Will Burn in Hell!!!

[edit on 16-7-2004 by AntiPolitrix]

worldnetdaily.com...

www.insightmag.com...

I for one will hold out in my belief that Saddam had WMD's, stockpiled, and moved them. They remain in the hands of the enemy, for sure.

Here is the sentence that says the most from the report.

*There is no evidence of "deliberate distortion" of the intelligence material or of "culpable negligence"

Blows away the lie argument doesn't it? It's amazing how people can read an article, gloss over relevent facts and take slices of what they read to bolster their point. If they didn't do it deliberately then they made an error. That's not lieing- Bush and Blair hater's- that's would be a mistake.

Originally posted by Variable
Here is the sentence that says the most from the report.

*There is no evidence of "deliberate distortion" of the intelligence material or of "culpable negligence"

Blows away the lie argument doesn't it? It's amazing how people can read an article, gloss over relevent facts and take slices of what they read to bolster their point. If they didn't do it deliberately then they made an error. That's not lieing- Bush and Blair hater's- that's would be a mistake.

Ok, one last time...

Everyone in Britain KNOWS we were taken to the war in Iraq over a dossier where the government claimed that Saddam Hussein could deploy Weapons of Mass Destruction to anywhere in the world within 45 minutes.
How do we know? Because we were all here when they told us!

A reason he contradicts in this following speech:

We have seen one element - intelligence about some WMD being ready for use in 45 minutes - elevated into virtually the one fact that persuaded the nation into war.

...

In other words, they disagreed then and disagree now fundamentally with the characterisation of the threat. We were saying this is urgent; we have to act; the opponents of war thought it wasn't. And I accept, incidentally, that however abhorrent and foul the regime and however relevant that was for the reasons I set out before the war, for example in Glasgow in February 2003, regime change alone could not be and was not our justification for war. Our primary purpose was to enforce UN resolutions over Iraq and WMD.

Tony Blair, Prime Minister UK, 5 March 2004

There were a number of versions of that dossier, the first version was complete with caveats and doubt (which the public never saw), the final published version was EDITED COMPLETELY and no-one down the line is held responsible.
So Variable, you're telling me that the document edited itself are you?

news.independent.co.uk...

And that's why Greg Dyke and Andrew Gilligan lost their jobs from the BBC; for telling that to the public earlier this year, for their 'lies' to the British public which turns out to be TRUE - they DID 'sex up' (Fabricate) the dossier!
Note how the BBCs Director General and a reporter both lose their jobs, but everyone in government gets to keep theirs.
Kinda keeps a sense of reality about the situation, don't you think?
Also makes the Hutton report a complete white-wash too.

news.bbc.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

Why did they not WAIT for the UN weapons inspectors to do their job like France and Germany wanted to, that was the choice we all had, then we could all be sure.
That is why democracy is right, because it is that attitude that makes us FAIR!
If we do as we please, then we are no better than the terrorists we are fighting!

They found Saddam hiding in a hole! With a suitcase of short change.
Does that strike you as a powerful and dangerous man?!
Why hadn't al-Queda taken him out of the country with their super-global infra-structure.

Saddam Hussein emerged from his hiding place "very much bewildered" and said "hardly anything at first", according to Major-General Odierno.

news.bbc.co.uk...

This history is too recent to gloss over!

Here, read the whole speech to see the back-tracking in action:

ctstudies.com...

That speech was only three months ago ... 5 March 2004.

NOW it is different.
I don't know what the feeling in America is, judging by this board you seem to be happy with the explanations given, even though they remain non-transparent with the intelligence.
Here, we feel very different, cheated and lied to is exactly how we feel.

Originally by Variable
It's amazing how people can read an article, gloss over relevent facts and take slices of what they read to bolster their point.

Try looking in the mirror with that one.

[edit on 16-7-2004 by shanti23]

Shanti....it is not the first time that some reporters and even editors in newspapers have been fired for slandering or making up stories. For example what happened to the UK's Mirror.

There are people out there, like you, who nomatter what evidence is brought up, you are going to say "its a lie...i know its a lie...." even if you really can't back it up. Read the report again, and realize that banned missiles, banned chemicals, banned parts, and more has been found that were in Iraq up to late 2003. The Butler report clearly states it. The UN also reports this in the UNMOVIC report.

The Russian president admitted they warned the US that Saddam was working on bringing terrorism to the US. The UN have found banned material, rockets from banned missiles, and scraps from factories, together with satellite evidence, that Saddam and his loyalist quickly dismantled, in some cases completly, in late 2003 and sent to scrapyards around the world... this plus the fact that Saddam was playing around with the UN and the world about letting the weapons inspectors only when he wanted, only to places he wanted them to go and only after weeks or even months of notice....those facts tells us that Saddam was hiding something.

Saddam fired at least one scud missile at the coalition in Kuwait and at least 2 or three other banned missiles. (scuds were also banned from Iraq)

Just face it, you don't want to admit it, no matter what evidence is presented, you obviously think that everyone, the UN, the UK, the US, the Russians all orchestrated 9/11 and 3/11..... because these people are saying that it was terrorists and that Iraq did have banned materials, banned rockets, chemicals and factories. If there were some chemicals, banned rockets, and missiles, more are bound to be there...why would Saddam risk retaliation from the world from having just some of the banned material? and why would he quickly want to get rid of all those factories in late 2003? as well as the rest of the banned material.

You say you wanted to give Saddam more time?....... How long has it been since 1993? 10 years is not enough? He and his "loyalists" had to quickly try to get rid of evidence in 2003 to late 2003 and 2004....

Even with Saddam gone now he has loyalists that are working in trying to bring him back, but many if not most Iraqis actually want him executed now.

BTW, you must be a really good psychic to say that you know that "everyone in the UK knows...."

[edit on 17-7-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Just face it, you don't want to admit it, no matter what evidence is presented, you obviously think that everyone, the UN, the UK, the US, the Russians all orchestrated 9/11 and 3/11.....

...

BTW, you must be a really good psychic to say that you know that "everyone in the UK knows...."

That's not true.
There is mounting evidence to suggest that there is something wrong with Iraq, not lack of it.
You are failing to read my posts, because I said:

Originally by shanti23
*Please note that I am not a conspiracy theorist who thinks that a secret government plot caused 9/11.

*as a note to that statement: there is a conspiracy - that is the terrorist threat ideology, an al-Qaeda conspiracy? or is that intelligence duff too?

Yes, saying 'everyone in the UK knows', was stupid, I meant most people (national news included) don't believe the Butler report when it states that no-one is to blame for editing the dossier, which is evident from the people I've spoken to about the matter and the internet:

news.bbc.co.uk...