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

Lord Butler, the head of the investigation into Britain's role in the Iraq war, has released his findings after a 5-month long query.
The report is centering mainly on intelligence failures.
He finds that Tony Blair's "45 minute warning" of WMD deployment potential was "incorrectly used" and that the intelligence received pre-war was "taken to the outer limits." Butler indicated Britain's involvement in the Iraq war was based on "serious flaws in pre-war intelligence." He criticized Tony Blair's speech about the incorrect 45 minute timeline as potentially misleading British citizens into believing there was an imminent danger of an attack by Saddam Hussein.
In a statement following the report, Tony Blair for the first time admitted that Iraq had no WMDs.



Butler says there is no evidence showing that Iraq had WMDs and that the Joint Intelligence Committee used the intelligence dossier to promote war.

MI6 has been criticized much the same way the CIA was for allowing discredible intelligence to influence policymakers' decision in the Iraq invasion. Despite the harsh intelligence criticism, Butler did not call for the resignation of JIC chairman and current MI6 head John Scarlett.

The Attourney General, Lord Goldsmith, advised UK government officials that for the war to be legal by British law, Prime Minister Tony Blair must have concrete facts that Iraq posed a serious threat. In finding the intelligence failures, this implies that Blair did not have the definitive proof needed for the war to be legal.

Lord Butler indicated that no one person was to blame for the intelligence failures and cleared Tony Blair of any deliberate wrongdoing.

Tony Blair says he continues to stand by his decision to enter Iraq, but he takes full responsibility for the intelligence failures.

Tory party leader Michael Howard soundly criticized Blair today, saying he had lost all credibility with the British people due to the report's findings. "It is now clear that in many ways the intelligence services got it wrong but their assessments included caveats, cautions and qualifications." he said. "The prime minister chose to leave out these caveats, qualifications and cautions."


Related News Stories:
BBC
Full Text of the Butler Report
Sky.com
BBC - Michael Howard's Criticism

[edit on 14-7-2004 by Banshee]

[edit on 7-15-2004 by Valhall]

[edit on 7-20-2004 by Valhall]

beat me to it by 3 minutes.

wonder if MI6 will be left holding the bag, or if, *gasp*, this might go all the way to the politicians for a change?

-koji K.

[edit on 14-7-2004 by koji_K]

[edit on 14-7-2004 by koji_K]

I'm sure it will be a great consolation (not) to the family of the man hounded to his death for saying the very same thing.

Originally posted by waynos
I'm sure it will be a great consolation (not) to the family of the man hounded to his death for saying the very same thing.

Maybe now there is a stronger case to reconvene the inquest into the suspicious circumstances surrounding the suicide of MoD WMD expert Dr. David Kelly.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Especially in light of this recent event:

news.scotsman.com...

Also a full pardon for the brave journalism of Andrew Gilligan, the BBC reporter chastised for revealing the very fact the Butler report proves; that our country invaded a third world country under false pretenses for reasons which remain unknown.

news.bbc.co.uk...

The Butler report creates far more questions than it answers, it is essentially a smokescreen whitewash protecting the integrity of a system which we as a democracy can clearly no longer trust.

[edit on 14-7-2004 by shanti23]

this report is chock full of disturbing findings, but one that i find particularly so is the allegation that the SIS was being used to further PR ends... this strikes me as a blatant misuse of the Service. the reports conclusions on the matter specifically do not mention whether the government officials who spoke to scott ritter were SIS or not, which i find suspicious.

(Referring to paragraphs 488 and 489.)

-koji K.

What I find sadly humors are that we have two world-renowned intelligence agencies (CIA/MI6)
Both getting it wrong at the same time, and not as it happens two world powers, well the U.S.A. and their lap dog Briton, that just happen to be running out of oil,
First it was we went in for WMD, that didn�t work so then they went with,
No no, you got it wrong we are going to Iraq to get Ben Ladins boys, them from there to free Iraq from there U.S. sponsored Dictator Sadam and bring democracy to the freed peoples of that country. How does that fraise go? Don�t shoot me I�m just the messenger, well these chicken war hawks are doing just that in the hopes to expunge them self�s from blame of this disaster.

how is it possible that the intelligences agencies got it wrong?

because they wanted to. And they got played. Chalabi, Allawi and all the others had their own motives and played Bush and Blair like a game of chess. If the US and Britain really got fooled then blame it on the Non resident Iraqis who are now vieing for their place in the new iraq

Originally posted by worldwatcher
how is it possible that the intelligences agencies got it wrong?

because they wanted to. And they got played. Chalabi, Allawi and all the others had their own motives and played Bush and Blair like a game of chess. If the US and Britain really got fooled then blame it on the Non resident Iraqis who are now vieing for their place in the new iraq

i say blame it on the people who are ultimately responsible for the CIA and MI6.

-koji K.

Originally posted by koji_K
i say blame it on the people who are ultimately responsible for the CIA and MI6.

-koji K.

Exactly Koji

Originally posted by WorldWatcher
how is it possible that the intelligences agencies got it wrong?

because they wanted to. And they got played. Chalabi, Allawi and all the others had their own motives and played Bush and Blair like a game of chess. If the US and Britain really got fooled then blame it on the Non resident Iraqis who are now vieing for their place in the new iraq

We can't blame the expatriate Iraqis for this situation, that's farcical.
If what you're suggesting is true WorldWatcher, then our collective governments and their intelligence gathering resources are monumentally inept (which is true regardless).
Imagine a nuclear scenario with the same level of intelligence that involved a pre-emptive nuclear ballistic missile strike

I'm not sure I feel safe at all anymore, not because of terrorists, but because the people with their finger on the real 'button' are completely stupid.

Politicians just see what they want to see, that's the truth that has come out in this report; and if it doesn't fit then they make it fit.

Maybe we should dress the people responsible in combats and send them to the frontline in Iraq so they can see their handywork close up.

This is more than embarrassed faces in high places, innocent people are dying right this minute and the only thing with its head on the block is a set of undefined political processes.

It's Disgusting.

[edit on 14-7-2004 by shanti23]

Soooooo..... The BBC are held basically responsible for Dr Kellys death and are now meant to be facing a re-organisation, the Director had to leave, etc.

The government invade another country for reasons which end up being proven as non-applicable, but it's 'no-one's fault'! Blair is not expected to stand down - what's going on?

Seems like no matter what it's never the government's fault...
Don't get me wrong - it's a difficult job that I would never like to do and you can never please all the people, all the time - or be truthful whilst having to keep secrets - and being responsible for the safety and well being of a whole country is no easy task... But surely they should have to face up to mistakes as much as everyone else?

I may be all wrong with this as I don't really follow politics very carefully, so I welcome any criticism... But it's just the way it seems.

Blair followed in Bush's footsteps and the following article lifts the lid on what happened in America


www.tompaine.com...

Corrupted Intelligence
Ray McGovern July 12, 2004

McGovern and other veteran intelligence officers spent the weekend
digesting the Senate Intelligence Committee report and ended up sick to
their stomachs. Not only did the report confirm what they already knew -
that the CIA skewed intelligence - but corruption ran much deeper, with
analysts cooking up outright lies. In the wake of the report, McGovern
worries media across the political spectrum aren't doing their job. They
are buying without question the administration spin about the Senate
report: that the White House lead the nation to war because of bad
intelligence, rather than ill-conceived policy.

Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst for 27 years, is co-founder of Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

MEMBERS: Do not simply post news articles in the forums without comment. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of current events, please post the first paragraph, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item.

[edit on 14-7-2004 by Banshee]

Is very simple, were Tony blair and the Bush administration the only ones to "ever" say that Saddam/Iraq had wmd? No, in fact the whole world was saying that Iraq/Saddam had wmd and was an assassin, and this was even stated before Bush was president by democratic president Bill Clinton, as well as most other democrats. Our intelligence sources in the Middle East are mostly dissidents that live in countries like Iraq, since it is kind of hard to send one of our agents to these countries and infiltrate them, but it seems people want to see intelligence gathering as the easiest thing to do.

We all know it is very easy to infiltrate any country and gather information on their secrets don't we? In fact, we could have just send a couple of our soldiers/agents over there and infiltrate Saddam's regime,(when it was still existing) or why not Al Qaeda?

Does anybody know how is it that we gather information in these countries that are tighly controlled? In who do/did we normally rely for information in countries like Russia (former U.S.S.R) and Iraq?
Not only that but now suddenly all the blame lies on the Bush administration, and on Blair?

Oh yeah, i forgot, it is part of politics to lay the blame on someone, even if those people were not the first ones to "cry wolf."

In fact, i am starting to believe this was the biggest set up in the history of mankind. I just wonder who was/were the one/s to place the trojan horse...

[edit on 14-7-2004 by Muaddib]

Before the "strike on iraq began" I remember hearing on the news that the UN was against this war because there was no evidence that suddam hussein had, any or was developing any weapons of mass destruction. In fact suddam hussein (however reluctanly) had been allowing UN officers to inspect anything in Iraq that they wanted to inspect to try to prevent this war. There were tons of UN officers in Iraq before the strike started, the first sign that the first attack was coming was seeing the long parade of white UN vans leaving Iraq because of a warning from the states. The revealation that no wmds were found really comes as no big surprise.

So blair said they had no WMD's? YAY! They admitted they lied with Bush. Now Bush will loose more supporters for the election.

Originally posted by kastinyque
Before the "strike on iraq began" I remember hearing on the news that the UN was against this war because there was no evidence that suddam hussein had, any or was developing any weapons of mass destruction. In fact suddam hussein (however reluctanly) had been allowing UN officers to inspect anything in Iraq that they wanted to inspect to try to prevent this war. There were tons of UN officers in Iraq before the strike started, the first sign that the first attack was coming was seeing the long parade of white UN vans leaving Iraq because of a warning from the states. The revealation that no wmds were found really comes as no big surprise.

You mean after Saddam allowed the weapons inspectors in some factories only after a month to a couple months of notice?
What about the factories that Saddam did not allow the UN inspectors to visit? Of course, Saddam was playing hide and seek with the US and the UN because he was a good man and didn't want the world to know that he was hiding milk and food for his people....

And of course the findings of UNMOVIC of banned rockets and material, and tons of other materials from completly dismantled factories found in scrap yards around the world which were still in possession of Iraq in late 2003 also doesn't prove anything......plus the other finds that other countries and the US have been uncovering of banned missiles and other material....

Something definitely stinks in here, and its not my feet, as I just took a shower...

[edit on 14-7-2004 by Muaddib]

BTW this is what Blair said exactly.

"Everyone genuinely tried to do their best in good faith for the country in circumstances of acute difficulty," he said. "That issue of good faith should now be at an end."
................
"But I have to accept, as the months have passed, it seems increasingly clear that at the time of invasion, Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to deploy," the Prime Minister said.

Excerpted from.
news.scotsman.com...

Do note that he says, "at the time of the invasion", but of course the fact that there were materials found, that belonged to Iraq in late 2003, that were supposedly banned by the UN does not mean anything now.



[edit on 14-7-2004 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Is very simple, were Tony blair and the Bush administration the only ones to "ever" say that Saddam/Iraq had wmd? No, in fact the whole world was saying that Iraq/Saddam had wmd and was an assassin

NARRATOR: Huh, that's weird. Because that's not what Bush's people said when he first took office.

SECRETARY POWELL: (subtitle "February 2001") He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction; he is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.

CONDOLEEZA RICE: (subtitle "July 2001") We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

so when between 2001 and 2003 did sadam get these weapons and convince the world he had them? He didn't, bush wanted to start his war, blair said bush needed UN support thus the UN weapons inspectors were sent in (who's head inspector always maintained that they probably wouldn't find anything) as the search went on and it looked less likely that the wmd were going to be found, bush sent the army in to find them, except that story changed, they became liberators of iraq freeing them from dictatorship, the only country that backed the claims of wmd was the british, and as the US and UK have now both found out these assumptions of sadam being dangerous was based on very poor intelligence collecting.

[edit on 14-7-2004 by frontieruk]

This is entry level freshman material. The first thing taught in Art of Lying and Deception is RULE #1.

RULE #1 stipulates that if and when caught in a lie cover it up and obfuscate with ever more entangling lies. Soon, everyone 'll be so flustered they won't know what or who to believe. And that's Just where you want 'em.

You have to ask yourself the question, who gains from this, and it sure does look like they all do, Blair is not held accountable for taking the country into war (not in my name) on intelligence that has been Sexed up. But the two men that stood in front of us all and said time and time again that this war was a just war, are in fact still able to stand, it was nothing other than a downright lie and they knew it was.

You would also have to wonder about the impartiality of this report; Lord Butler of Brockwell was head of the home civil service from 1988 to 1998, serving as Cabinet Secretary under Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair, and has seen to have been in support of Blair�s Government in the past.

The Future is Bright, The future is ZRG!

People I give you the new world order, a new world for a new type of Government, we now see the birth of the all spinning, all winning, zero responsibility Government.

Originally posted by frontieruk
so when between 2001 and 2003 did sadam get these weapons and convince the world he had them? He didn't, bush wanted to start his war, blair said bush needed UN support thus the UN weapons inspectors were sent in (who's head inspector always maintained that they probably wouldn't find anything) as the search went on and it looked less likely that the wmd were going to be found, bush sent the army in to find them, except that story changed, they became liberators of iraq freeing them from dictatorship, the only country that backed the claims of wmd was the british, and as the US and UK have now both found out these assumptions of sadam being dangerous was based on very poor intelligence collecting.

[edit on 14-7-2004 by frontieruk]

I also guess that democrats were lying in 1998 when they were saying, along with Clinton that Saddam had wmd.





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)

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...

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...

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



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.

[edit on 14-7-2004 by Muaddib]