Oz PM was told Iraq war would spur terrorism, pre Iraq

The Federal Government was warned repeatedly by intelligence analysts before the Iraq war that the conflict would harm the war on terrorism by fanning Islamic extremism and spurring terrorist recruiting.

An investigation by the Herald, which has included interviews with several serving and retired intelligence figures, has uncovered that John Howard and his senior colleagues were briefed on the dangers, verbally and in written reports.


Yet the Prime Minister told Australians on the eve of the conflict that the war would lessen the terrorist threat, contradicting his intelligence advice.

It was revealed last year that Britain's joint intelligence committee said one month before the war that "al-Qaeda and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests, and that threat would he heightened by military action against Iraq".

Mr Howard has confirmed Australia received this advice and it went into the decision-making "mix", but has studiously avoided comment on what the Australian agencies told him on the subject.

Last night his spokeswoman said: "We will not respond to unsourced, non-specific allegations of this kind."

www.smh.com.au...

Whoaaa! Johnny' spokeswoman would give Rummy a run for his money.

No wonder Blair wants to lay low.

Mr Blair is concerned also that a trip to the US now would effectively be giving a boost to Bush ahead of November's presidential elections.

"The Democrats are watching the situation very carefully and there would be uproar if Tony travelled to Washington to meet (Republican) Bush so close to the presidential elections," the government source said.

"But Bush isn't letting up. The White House has already let it be known that they feel slighted because of this and believe they can use this to put pressure on Blair to get him out there."

news.com.au...

I am not commenting on this. My bias (they are all crooks) would cloud my judgment.

Sanc'.
edit:thread title

[edit on 22-8-2004 by sanctum]

BRITISH Prime Minister Tony Blair is refusing to fly to the United States to receive a medal bestowed on him by the nation for his support over last year's Iraq war, a London newspaper reported today.

After all the contradicting reports of the reason for US going into Iraq and how messy it has turned out to be I will not want a medal either bush can just federal express to the Uk.

And for Blair I will be so low key that scraping the floor will not be low enough.

I guess the only one that is still blind with his war success is bush after all.

Exactly marg,
I would not accept the highest honor (medal) that can be bestowed to a non-citizen by an idiot for
b/s me into going to war.

But, if I was in that position I would happily turn up for my "You have been sucked in" award.

After all, the "Coalition of the willing" was.
Sanc'.

Sanctum:

Here we go again...

We elect prime ministers to lead the country. If he outright LIES then fair enough, burn his A$$ BUT all these obvious labor backed "character attacks on the PM" (funnily enough, now three in the last 6 weeks - now that the election has been "unofficially" known to be called before the end of the year) it getting beyond a joke...

Talk about labor spin doctors!

I know, for a FACT that labor is VERY corrupt. Labor consists of a majaority of ex-union idiots - they wouldn't have a brain cell between them. When the pommy union leaders got kicked out by Thatcher they moved here and now they are in parliament...what a joke. I have had experience with unions and they use stand-over tactics, threats etc etc and are only concered with one thing - their job. I'm surprised no union top officials have been "knocked" off already...anyhow, back to the topic

One of the reasons why oz went to war is that Oz was a KNOWN TARGET before we went to war.

Also, the Herald has always been a "labor" supporter for years and what they "investigate" is mainly BS. If you do research on the "researchers" you will find that they are known labor supporters.

Also:

"The Federal Government was warned...that the conflict would harm the war on terrorism by fanning Islamic extremism and spurring terrorist recruiting."

Yes, obviously it would. Everybody knows this...nothing new

"...has included interviews with several serving and retired intelligence figures..."

Here's the catch...the labor spin doctors and now including "serving intelligence figures" now...

Yes...funny how there seems to be a number "campaigns" going on in the background to damage the libs credibility by MAINLY "former" sacked employees "damaging and changing" statements about the libs (typical union tactics). I'll get to the "serving" employees in a minute...

"...has uncovered that John Howard and his senior colleagues were briefed on the dangers, verbally and in written reports."

OK, here's the catch:

1) They include the "base" data that is obvious to everyone (credibility to the statement)
2) They include the testimonial people (former and serving)
3) They make the claim that build on 1), is said by the "retired" officers but is "assumed" to be also coming from the "serving" officers.

If you dig deep, you'll find that "funnily enough" the "former" employees (the ones employed by labor) are the ones making these claims. I would also suspect that the "most damaging" claims come from a "former" employee and that "the herald can't say who said who" due to confidentiality...LOL...what a joke.

The unions/herals have decided to interview "existing" employees because the two other recent "character assasinations" on the PM included all former employees. The "labor" underground campaigners have now decided to include interviews with "existing" employees and have dumped them into the "research" to "strengthen" their case.

Typical labor tactics...If I had my way, I certainly know what I'd do with all the labor/union idiots...just need a good aluminium baseball bat

Cheers

JS

[edit on 22-8-2004 by jumpspace]