The worst Iraq spin yet

[jimi]

Re: See what I mean

Even stranger, who took Palestine away from the the indiginent population, principally due to terrorism & US pressure .. will we perpetuate the folly?

 

[Jacket]

Re: A PhD Student.....

Which, if you try and contain your natural rudeness for long enough to actually read my post, was what I was asking. Not being gullible enough to take everything I read in the 'Sun' as gospel, and having been told by someone who's actually read the document released by No.10 that the newspapers were distorting the facts, I was asking if anyone on this forum has actually read it, and can give us an insight.

So if you've read the document, please feel free to enlighten us. Otherwise, go and insult someone else.

 

[jimi]

Re: A PhD Student.....

I'm not a Sun reader unlike yourself and whilst I have not read the document I have read and heard enough comment from people to judge that this was at best uncredited plagiarism and most likely deception. I did in fact hear an interview with the author .. so stick that in yer pipe!

 

[Jacket]

Re: A PhD Student.....

So that'll be a 'no', then?

 

[jimi]

Re: A PhD Student.....

A) I have not read the document myself

B) I feel that I have gleaned sufficient facts to make a judgement.

Perhaps you should go and read it yourself if tht's how you feel because anything you get back from this forum will be exactly the same as you'll get from any other form of media ie 3rd party comment

 

[Jacket]

Re: A PhD Student.....

Sorry, I was only making what seemed to me a perfectly reasonable enquiry. As you say, anything gleaned here will be second hand, but as no-one here's trying to make a living selling a paper, I thought that their response may possibly be less biased than what you read or see on TV. However, having witnessed your ridiculous over-reaction when someone happens to question your point of view, I now doubt that.

An earlier thread questioned whether we should discuss non-sailing matters on this forum. The general concensus was yes. However, it seems to be more a case of we can talk about anything we want, provided we agree with the handful of hotheads who apparently want to try and control this forum.

So I for not agreeing with your point of view. How stupid of me.

 

[jimi]

Re: A PhD Student.....

Over reaction doubt it .. just a short hand way of saying "Oh come on be sensible!"

Have a look at
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42276-2003Feb7.html>Washington Post</A>


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by jimi on 10/02/2003 11:45 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Jacket]

Re: A PhD Student.....

>just a short hand way of saying "Oh come on be sensible!"

Which translates as 'anyone who doesn't think what I think is mad'? Anyway, "Oh come on be sensible!" isn't much longer, and infinately politer.

Having read the washington post article, to my mind it just backs up what I thought before. Taking quotes from the article:

>his office copied material from three academic papers

Well, yes, that's what academic papers are for. Why ignore information produced by people who are the experts in the field of interest?

>reported that sections of something the government had presented as a >compendium of its own material, including sensitive spy data, were actually >taken from publicly available academic papers.

So the report was only put forward as including some spy data, whereas some papers claim that the government put it forwards as being totally comprised of intelligence data. Also, just because some information is publicly available doesn't make it wrong or worthless.

>The 19-page dossier, entitled "Iraq -- Its Infrastructure of Concealment, >Deception and Intimidation," was based on "a number of sources, including >intelligence material," its introduction says.

So it's admitting to using non-intelligence material.

>Rangwala told the Reuters news agency he calculated that 11 of the dossier's 19 >pages were "taken wholesale from academic papers."

So approximately half and half. Seems fair enough to me. Presumably if the document had been written entirely by inteligence agents, people would be happy. But the fact that part of it was written by people who probably know more about the history and social background of Iraq than do the intelligence agents isn't good enough?

As far as I can see, the only real problem is that the source of some of the material wasn't included in the references section, which it should have been. However, to me this just seems to be another cock-up by the government PR office (something we should be used to by now) rather than a valid reason for dismissing the document as worthless.

I'm not saying that I think war in Iraq would be good, or that I support the government. However, I can't help feeling that this document is a small matter that has been blown out of all proportion by newspapers inorder to sell more, and by blairs opponents in an attempt to discretit him.

 

[pkb]

Re: See what I mean

Has he lied? I'm not sure. The facts in the paper, whatever their source, are probably verifiable and fairly accurate so he hasn't strictly lied to us. But what I find, offensive, is that a so-called dossier on the Iraq regime which one would have thought represented the distilled knowledge of the Foreign Office, Mod and the Secret Services was actually cobbled together by a bunch of pr people and their secretary. The Labour Government is often credited with having a superb pr machine but frankly I find it hard to uncover the evidence. This latest episode is so inept and amateurish as to beggar belief.

Peter

 

[jimi]

Re: A PhD Student.....

Think the pot's blacker than the kettle here...

My interpretation of the whole fiasco was that the dossier was passed off initially as intelligence led and it now transpires that in reality it is intelligence had nothing to do with it . So the pros & cons of whether the dossier is good or bad is irrelevant to the original motion. IE Can we or our US friends believe anything TB says?

 

[Jacket]

Re: A PhD Student.....

Except the introduction clearly states that its not all intelligence data. And I'm sure the press, the opposition etc all had copies of the report, so could read this themselves.

And how can you claim that 'intelligence had nothing to do with it' there's still 7 pages of the report that aren't produced by accademics? If these pages weren't based on intelligence reports, but some other source, I'm sure the press would have jumped on this fact as well- I'm sure it would be good for another few thousand sales.

 

[jimi]

Re: A PhD Student.....

Another quote from the article .. and attributed

Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies

The incident also opened a rare window on what seems to be a dispute about Iraq between the prime minister's office and British intelligence services. The spy agencies have been much more cautious than Blair in their assessment of Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction and links with the al Qaeda terror network.
The dossier "was clearly prepared by someone in Downing Street and it's obviously part of the prime minister's propaganda campaign," said Heyman. "The intelligence services were not involved -- I've had two people phoning me today to say, 'Look, we had nothing to with it.'


Contrast with
Prime Minister's foreword to the Iraq evidence document

The document published today is based, in large part, on the work of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC). The JIC is at the heart of the British intelligence machinery. It is chaired by the Cabinet Office and made up of the heads of the UK's three Intelligence and Security Agencies, the Chief of Defence Intelligence, and senior officials from key government departments. For over 60 years the JIC has provided regular assessments to successive Prime Ministers and senior colleagues on a wide range of foreign policy and international security issues.

Its work, like the material it analyses, is largely secret. It is unprecedented for the Government to publish this kind of document. But in light of the debate about Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), I wanted to share with the British public the reasons why I believe this issue to be a current and serious threat to the UK national interest.



<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by jimi on 10/02/2003 12:38 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Observer]

WAKE UP! WAKE UP!

It beggars belief that so many in this country, unhappily represented in this forum, have been unable to grasp what it is that the US, the UK and other like-minded governments are seeking to achieve.

The facts are simple:

1. It is entirely reasonable to believe, in fact likely, that Saddam possesses, may develop, or wishes to develop, weapons which pose a significant threat to regional and possibly global peace.

2. He has used some such weapons in the past and there is no reason to believe he would not do so again.

3. He is in breach (open defiance) of numerous UN security council resolutions requiring (inter alia) independently verifiable disarmament.

To repeat: THE UN HAS REQUIRED THAT HE MUST BE DISARMED. If the resolutions of the UN Security Council on global security issues are to have any meaning, the UN has to be willing to enforce them. Or it becomes irrelevant.

The following is taken from Jack Straw's speech to the UN on 5 February.

<<This is a moment of choice for Saddam and for the Iraqi regime. But it is also a moment of choice for this institution, the United Nations. The UN's pre-war predecessor, the League of Nations, had the same fine ideals as the UN. But the League failed because it could not create actions from its words; it could not back diplomacy with the credible threat and where necessary the use of force; so small evils went unchecked, tyrants became emboldened, then greater evils were unleashed. At each stage good men said wait; the evil is not big enough to challenge: then before their eyes, the evil became too big to challenge. We had slipped slowly down a slope, never noticing how far we had gone until it was too late. We owe it to our history as well as to our future not to make the same mistake again.>>

Saddam has the choice.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Re: WAKE UP! WAKE UP!

China has invaded Tibet. It has WMDs. Shouldn't we attack them as well?

Or maybe not, they'd probably win. Oh, and they don't have as many proven oil reserves.

PS - handzup all those who think that Iraq poses a direct threat to Western nations.

 

[Bergman]

Re: A PhD Student.....

Do you worship at his feet?

Surely if there was enough current intelligence information available to support going to war there would have been no need to use 12 year old stuff

No-one goes to war on the basis of 12 year old material.

Blair's statement is clearly worded to lead people to believe that it is sourced from up to date intelligence sources, and equally clearly that is not the case.

I call that deception

Like much of what the man says, he is a purveyor of terminological inexactitudes.

 

[Observer]

Re: WAKE UP! WAKE UP!

Still not grasped it.

This is about Saddam's Iraq - not about China, or North Korea, Angola, Saudi Arabia, or any other regime which by widely accepted standards are "unpleasant or repressive" or anything else.

It's not about whether Saddam poses an IMMEDIATE threat to the West, or even to neighbouring countries. It's about what may happen in the future if action is not taken now.

It's not ONLY about oil, athough that may be a factor. If it was ONLY about oil, the use of force to disarm Saddam would not be justified, and I am sure would not be threatened. Whether oil is a component or not, the requirement to comply with the UN Security Council resolutions must still stand, and be enforced, and be seen to be enforced. Otherwise, apart from the Iraq threat itself, what prevents any of the other "unpleasant" regimes from doing exactly as Saddam has done for the last 10 years - persistently ignore, defy and flout the will of the UN, safe in the knowledge that the UN will not summon up the will to enforce its will.

Saddam has the choice - COMPLY (with the UN resolutions for verified disarmament) or be FORCED TO COMPLY.

 

[Jacket]

Re: A PhD Student.....

Not sure who's feet you're asking if I'm worshiping, but the answer's likely to be no, unless its Kim Holman, John Alden or Brunnel (Yes, I know I'm strange).

I really can't see whats wrong with using some 12 year old information- its effectively Saddam we're going to war with, and he's been around for a lot more than 12 years. Its not as if he's only just started developing chemical and Biological wepons. He's been doing it for at least 20ish years, and so the background information to the current position is fairly vital.

Old informations only useless if not supported by recent information. In this case it seems to be. The other two academic papers quoted are relatively recent, and I'd imagine the intelligence data is.

Most wars aren't just about events that have happened recently. Both world wars were brewing for decades- for example the causes of WWII started with WWI, 20 years earlier. The Argentinians have been claiming the Falklands as there own since time began. Surely a complicated political situations like Iraq can only be properly understood if you look at them from the beginning. And given that the beginning was well before the last Gulf war, 12 year old data is still relevent.

 

[Observer]

The facts are not correct..

and you have been taken in by the Washington Post's spin.

The foreword from which you quote <<The document published today is based, in large part, on the work of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) ......>> was the foreword to the "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction" paper, published last September.

The paper published 3 February, which is directly or indirectly the subject of many of the above posts, does not contain a foreword by Tony Blair or anybody else.

I have read both. The latter reads as though it contains academic information and it is no surprise to find that the sources were, to some extent, academic. It is to a large extent a summary of the extensive Iraqi internal security apparatus and not necessarily invalidated at all by the fact that some of it was written 12 years ago.

I don't think it adds much to the case although, assuming it is accurate, it does provide an enlightening view of the scale of the security apparatus Saddam has constructed - most of which, one feels, has no justification except to maintain Saddam's ruthless repression and grip on power.

 

[Observer]

Re: A PhD Student.....

See my response to Jimi's post below. The information was not presented as up to date "intelligence".

 

[jimi]

Re: The facts are not correct..

Forgive me. I believe the facts as stated by the Washington Post are accurate but I was foolish enough to believe that the No 10 Iraq Dossier to be the current one, Nevertheless whilst I have inadvertently misled you I have not deliberately done so with the intent of convincing you that we need to join the putative thief of Baghdad in his Arabian adventure for oil. Glad to see the brakes are getting applied.

It does'nrt change the key point of this thread which is that Blair has lied to us, and has done over a number of matters. Take even his commitment on asylum seekers. Rules, goalposts and pitch are in flux ..

Certainly in my eyes he's lost all credibility.