British Evidence on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction Was Thin

[cal04]

British Evidence on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction Was Thin, Author of Critical Report Says

Intelligence indicating Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons was "very thin," the author of a critical report on the British government's case for war in Iraq said Tuesday. In his first public comments since publishing the results of his inquiry in July, Lord Butler said the weakness of a government dossier on the threat posed by Iraq had "come home to roost" as no such weapons had been found.

Butler told the House of Lords that he and his inquiry team had not doubted that Prime Minister Tony Blair had acted in "good faith in concluding that Saddam Hussein had concealed stocks of chemical and biological weapons." He pointed out that most other countries and former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix shared that view.

But, repeating criticism leveled in his report, Butler said the government's Smptember 2002 dossier "did not make clear that the intelligence underlying those conclusions was very thin."
"How grave a fault that was in the context of the lead up to the war is a matter on which people will and should reach their own conclusions," Butler added.

"But we regard it as a serious weakness, a weakness which subsequently came home to roost as the conclusion about deployable stocks of chemical and biological weapons have turned out to be wrong." Butler's inquiry concluded in July thav British intelligence on Iraqi WMD was flawed, but said the government had not deliberately deceived anyone as it built a case for toppling Saddam. It said the dossier prepared by Blair's government on the Iraqi threat pushed the government case to the limits of available intelligence and left out vital caveats.
The report found that Britain relied on just five main informers of varying reliability in Saddam's Iraq; few agents had detailed knowledge of weapons programs; and the Secret Intelligence Service's ability to scrutinize information had suffered from budget cuts.
Butler also criticized the informal nature of Blair's government, in which key discussions are often held in his private office without anyone taking formal minutes.

Iraq continues to pose problems for Blair.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBUDYPJUYD.html

[LynnTheDem]

1. Welllll....

considering that in FACT Iraq hasn't had ANY "WMD" since 1994, Britain's "evidence" would HAVE to be "thin".

It's called "logic"; something Tony the bLiar never was too good on (and forget bushCartel & the rightwingnuttery!)

And NO actually, Hans Blix DID NOT think Iraq had "concealed stocks", and Hans Blix repeatedly tried to get that point across...and NO actually, most other nations DID NOT think Iraq had "concealed stocks". Which is exactly why 160 out of 191 nations in the world said NO to the Iraq invasion and why NOT ONE NATION in the entire world had a population that was pro-invasion.

Or does Lord Butler think the entire world, except bushCartel, American rightwingnuts and Tony the Bliar, are all "Saddam loyalists"?

[whistle]

2. Ding dong!

...my, my, my. Now that the intelligence on both sides of the Atlantic are beginning to agree, how long will it be before the majority of voters begin to see? I hope by November 2nd.

[LynnTheDem]

4. Too bad this was dropped down the Memory Hole in the USA

Coz it was very widely read in the rest of the world and tens of thousands of people would still be alive today;

Arms Control Today June 2000
The Case for Iraq's Qualitative Disarmament

"Given the comprehensive nature of the monitoring regime put in place by UNSCOM, which included a strict export-import control regime, it was possible as early as 1997 to determine that, from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq had been disarmed. Iraq no longer possessed any meaningful quantities of chemical or biological agent, if it possessed any at all, and the industrial means to produce these agents had either been eliminated or were subject to stringent monitoring."

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2000_06/iraqjun.asp

And of course Rumsfeld admitted the US had had no fresh intelligence prior to 1998 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before going to war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,995042,00.html

The bipartisan Senate House Intelligence Committee report backs Rummy up on that;

"Most of the information was collected before 1998, when U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq because the United States had made it clear it was about to strike the country", the two members noted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A19528-2003Sep29¬Found=true

And of course the IAEA said flat out that Iraq had NO NUKES PERIOD.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0%2C2763%2C882074%2C00.html

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had "not been able to build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years".

America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box". Ie, the sanctions were working.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/28/iraq/main575469.shtml

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0107/29/le.00.html

Seven Months Before 9/11, CIA Director George Tenet, testified before Congress that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States or to other countries in the Middle East and that they had no new evidence Iraq had or was acquiring WMD

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LEO306F.html

And of course if bush hadn't KICKED OUT the weapons inspectors before they were allowed to finish their work, we wouldn't have needed any invasion at all.

[LynnTheDem]

3. And...

How is leaving out caveats NOT "deliberately deceiving" people?

The vast majority of Brits regard Butler's report as a total whitewash; seems Butler's trying now to gain back some reputation. Too little, too late, betcha.