Comments on: Too sexy

By: John Kozak

John Kozak — Sun, 01 Feb 2004 12:47:58 +0000

One of the few things that seems underdiscussed about Hutton is the framing of the whole thing – the Hutton Enquiry was in place of an inquest, and given significantly lesser inquistorial powers than an inquest would have had.

By: Bob

Bob — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:57:59 +0000

Hi Antoni, “What is Raymond saying? that the NBC equipment they have is enough to make such weapons irrelevant to the result of the battle. Conventional weapons are much more effective.” But in Britain, Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction”, with the real and present threat they posed, was the principal justification for the war in March last year. Hence, the notorious dossier of September 2002 with its claim that such weapons could be used within “45 minutes” – here: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2002/09/24/dossier.pdf In due course, that dossier and the political speeches it under-pinned set in train the series of events which led to the death of Dr David Kelly and the consequential Hutton Inquiry.

By: Antoni Jaume

Antoni Jaume — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 15:22:05 +0000

Bob, // “Chemical and biological weapons are simply not a threat to american/british troops and the NBC equipment issued to these troops was more than adequate.” If, as you say, Iraqi biological and chemical weapons were not a threat to Coalition Force troops then how come US forces were reported as wearing their chemical suits in battle in Iraq? // What is Raymond saying? that the NBC equipment they have is enough to make such weapons irrelevant to the result of the battle. Conventional weapons are much more effective. DSW

By: Bob

Bob — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:48:17 +0000

Raymond, “Chemical and biological weapons are simply not a threat to american/british troops and the NBC equipment issued to these troops was more than adequate.” If, as you say, Iraqi biological and chemical weapons were not a threat to Coalition Force troops then how come US forces were reported as wearing their chemical suits in battle in Iraq? “US troops pushed to within 50km of the Iraqi capital today, officials said, and some were wearing their chemical suits.” – from: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/02/1048962818179.html “Missiles landed near U.S. troops, one of them falling near the men of A Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment. They were eating lunch when they heard the missile land in the desert before they actually heard the locomotive-like roar of the rocket flying through the air. The men swiftly put on their masks and their protective suits, then waited in the desert heat for about 20 minutes before the all-clear crackled over the radio.” – from: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81625,00.html

By: Bob

Bob — Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:01:16 +0000

Laundry time. I have been refreshing my recollection of some of the most telling of the voluminous documentation at the Hutton Inquiry into the circumstances concerning the death of Dr David Kelly. The now notorious dossier of September 2002 on Iraq’s WMD was launched on the world by Blair with a speech in the Commons on 24 september. Only seven days before that launch, Jonathan Powell (Blair’s chief of staff) minuted John Scarlett (of the Secret Intelligence Service and chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee): ” . . First the document does nothing to demonstrate a threat, let lone an imminent threat from Saddam. In other words it shows he has the means but it does not demonstrate he has the motive to attack his neighbours let alone the west. We will need to make clear in launching the document that we do not claim that we have the evidence that he is an imminent threat . . ” – from: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2003/08/19/powell_no_threat.pdf The Hutton Report and previously Blair both claim that “ownership” of the September dossier lay with the Joint Intelligence Committee. However, this note of a meeting in John Scarlett’s office plainly states that ownership lay with No 10 – at: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2003/09/04/cab_27_0002.pdf This letter of 8 July 2003 in confidence to the Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence makes clear the reservations about the September dossier held by a senior member of the Defence Intelligence staff: “Your records will show that as [blanked out] and probably the most senior and experienced intelligence community official working on ‘WMD,’ I was so concerned about the manner in which the intelligence assessments for which I had some responsibilty were being presented in the dossier of 24 September 2002, that I was moved to write formally to your predecessor, Tony Cragg, recording and explaining my reservations.” – from: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2003/08/21/fac_defence_report.pdf The text of the September 2002 dossier, with the claim, signed out by Blair, that WMD could be used within “45 minutes”, can be retrieved here: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2002/09/24/dossier.pdf

By: Steve Carr

Steve Carr — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:21:05 +0000

Robin, with all due respect, if the weapons didn’t exist, I don’t know how David Kelly could have been certain that they couldn’t have been made ready in 45 minutes. (Are we saying that no missiles can be made ready to launch in 45 minutes? Somehow I doubt that’s the case.) In any case, I hardly think that Andrew Gilligan would have been any less quick to accuse the government of wilful deception if the claim was that it would take the Iraqis 90 minutes. If you honestly believe that the media has under-reported the absence of evidence for WMD, then you’ve been spending too much time reading Media Lens.

By: robin green

robin green — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:13:12 +0000

Oh yes, and the Iraqi exile group that was allegedly the source of the 45 minute claim fessed up that it was made-up bollocks. Do the “liberal media” report that in the context of the Hutton Inquiry? Of course not, as any regular reader of Media Lens could explain.

By: robin green

robin green — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:09:31 +0000

Steve Carr – What’s been consistently under-reported here is that David Kelly was quite clear that the 45 minute timeframe was pure fiction. There was little doubt in his mind that, for very practical reasons, the weapons could not be readied in 45 minutes.

By: Conrad Barwa

Conrad Barwa — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:30:37 +0000

Tim – Fair point, I think you capture what I was trying to say effectively. I was amused to hear a prof tell one of his graduate students, after hearing his outline for a conference that it was good but he need a “ a title that sounded more sexy” to lure people in to attend the segment. So I guess advertising execs aren’t the only ones who have been prone to use this kind of terminology.

By: Raymond

Raymond — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 21:50:17 +0000

Bob- Chemical and biological weapons are simply not a threat to american/british troops and the NBC equipment issued to these troops was more than adequate. Chem/Bio weapons are a threat to civilians, that’s what this is all about. The war is long over with, this nitpicking sends a message of weakness to those that wish to destroy us.

By: Bernard

Bernard — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 21:46:33 +0000

John, thank you for your response, but you must admit that saying the Nidal/Atta/Iraqi Intelligence story is “pretty much discredited” is not quite the same as proving there is nothing to it. (And that still leaves the Feith Memo and at least 50 other possible points of connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, so I’d say that speculation about such linkage—of which, I must say, I’m rather agnostic—is valid.) As to the point “that the pols put the thumbscrews on the intelligence people”, well, that is really nothing more than your own interpretation, isn’t it? It might even qualify as a statement “something close to recklessness”, inasmuch as David Kay has stated that he encountered no evidence to support such an assertion. As you yourself suggest, one should take care not to engage in the “making of allegations, not caring whether they [are] true or false.”

By: John Smith

John Smith — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:22:32 +0000

Bernard, that Con Coughlin Mohamed Atta story is pretty much discredited. Just like his story on the source of the 45 minute intelligence – who is now in hiding! The WMD story seems to be that the pols put the thumbscrews on the intelligence people; who bent over backwards to come up with product; on which basis the pols sold the story to the public. At every stage, a blind eye was turned to the possibility of error, in order to boost the justifications for war to the maximum. The pols are guilty, on the evidence now available, of something close to recklessness: that is, of making allegations not caring whether they were true or false; or, at least, taking every trouble to avoid raising questions that might lead to their being shown to be false. And all this, for the purpose of justifying an pre-emptive invasion. (Which was supposed to be justified by the breach of UN Security Council resolutions. Remember them?) The essential accusation against the pols is not that of lying – telling particular untruths deliberately – but of utmost bad faith is operating a system designed to produce intelligence, whether sound or not, favourable to war, and to diffuse responsibility for that intelligence away from themselves.

By: GMT

GMT — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:48:19 +0000

I like big butts and I cannot lie. OK, I don’t like ‘em that big … but I wasn’t lying! To preserve the Union, it is therefore clear that we invade Bootiestan!

By: Steve Carr

Steve Carr — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:38:58 +0000

as an aside, and I’ve been meaning to ask this for a while: what does IIRC mean?

By: Steve Carr

Steve Carr — Fri, 30 Jan 2004 17:37:19 +0000

dsquared— does this mean you think the German BND —head of which, August Hanning, quoted in The New Yorker in 2002 saying, “It is our estimate that Iraq will have an atomic bomb within three years”—and Jacques Chirac (quote above) were lying? More substantively, according to your argument, we should have known before 1991 that Saddam was very close to having an operational nuclear bomb. But we didn’t. Doesn’t that imply that our satellite imaging is perhaps less foolproof as an intelligence-gathering tool than Wanniski suggests?