BBC: Blair confirms Iraq WMD inquiry (3 February, 2004, 10:58 GMT)

[IndianaGreen]

This confirms all of the recent speculation in the British press, as late as last night, that Blair was going to do this. Blair made it official today.

Blair confirms Iraq WMD inquiry

There will be an independent inquiry into the intelligence which led Britain to war over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Tony Blair has told MPs.

Mr Blair said there were issues over how intelligence was gathered and used by government. He said details would be given later by the foreign secretary.

But he stressed the government had been cleared of "sexing up" its dossier about Iraq's weapons.

"The issue of good faith was determined by the Hutton inquiry," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3453305.stm

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. We know what to expect this time

"Furious horse trading is going on behind the scenes with the Liberal Democrats, who insist the inquiry should examine the political judgements on going to war, not just whether the intelligence was right.

Mr Blair said he wanted consensus, but argued: "We can't end up having an inquiry into whether the war was right or wrong. That is something that we have got to decide. We are the politicians."

He added: "Believe me, it will not satisfy those who were opposed to the original decision." "

He's signposting the whitewash before the inquiry has begun. To him, consensus is everyone else agreeing with him.

[IndianaGreen]

2. Blair can only save himself by saving Bush

and the reverse is also true. We can expect Blair's inquiry end up as a whitewash, just like Lord Hutton's report.

[T_i_B]

3. Blair confirms Iraq probe No. 4

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=487353

The Prime Minister today confirmed he wanted an all-party inquiry into intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - but admitted no agreement had yet been reached with the Tories and the Liberal Democrats.

Tony Blair told MPs he wanted Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to announce the form of the inquiry team to the Commons later today.

But he conceded to the parliamentary Liaison Committee: "I think we need the agreement finally of the parties before we can be sure we have got the agreement of all the committees."

He said he hoped the details could be announced by Mr Straw this afternoon. Leaks in today's newspapers said Mr Blair wanted former Cabinet Secretary Sir Robin Butler - now Lord Butler - to lead the inquiry.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Blair and Bush are joined at the hips

If one sinks, the other will surely follows.

[k-robjoe]

5. hearsay

"It has been pointed out that it is inconsistent for Hutton to be happy with Blair's reliance on one uncorroborated source for the 45 minute claim, when he comes down on the BBC like a ton of bricks when Gilligan relied on one uncorroborated source in his reporting. But it is much worse than that. As sources go, there could not possibly be a better one than Kelly, an acknowledged expert reporting on what he'd actually seen of the process of preparing the dossier. The 45 minute claim came in suspiciously almost at the last minute (more on that later), was from an unknown source in Iraq whose credibility could not be judged, and, to top it all off, was based on hearsay (i. e., the source was someone reporting on what someone else in Iraq had said). It could not conceivably have been a worse source, and it was Kelly's realization of this that led to much of his anger. But it is even worse that that. We know, from the testimony of John Scarlett, that the intelligence agencies were completely aware that the 45 minute claim referred to battlefield weapons which could not possibly have been an 'imminent' threat to any British interests (...). In other words, we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the intelligence preparers of the dossier knew that the 45 minute claim could not be used to justify an attack on Iraq based on an imminent threat, and that therefore the key point in Blair's dossier was a lie."
http://xymphora.blogspot.com ( February 01 )

"Is it me, or is the world crazy, when an inquiry can criticise the BBC for broadcasting one assertion based on a single source for which there is no tablets-of-stone proof, yet not criticise a Government for taking the country to war on the basis of one assertion from a single source which has been demonstrably proved to be false?"

[Snappy]

6. Arrogance of Power

People in power assume that the masses are ignorant and stupid. They cater to that core.

[T_i_B]

8. Are we all mad, or is it Hutton?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,1136400,00.html

While Campbell gloated and Ministers tried to draw lines under the affair, a rumble of anger spread through the public because the average citizen has grasped several important facts since last summer:

1. Forget weapons of mass destruction - barely a rack of stink bombs has been found in Iraq.

2. Dr David Kelly died because he was treated shabbily after speculating how and why faulty intelligence led us to war.

3. Despite all its errors and incompetence, the BBC has done more than most to ventilate the political use of intelligence prior to the invasion.

At the heart of the process is a mysterious lack of logic. On the one hand Hutton spent weeks listening to evidence about the preparation of the Government's case against Saddam in the September dossier, but when it came to writing his report he rejected the need to address the issue of the dossier's truth. 'A question of such wide import ... is not one which falls within my terms of reference.'

[papau]

7. US/Brit Intel/political traffic wasn't in Hutton review , won't be reviewed

in this probe.

Blair said that the intel data - Brit only - could be reviewed - after liaison with the US - whatever that means


but that the decision of how to review that data was a political decision not subject to view at other than the voting booth.

The good news is that under Brit law they must report back in August - after 6 months - so whatever does come out will be before the election.

I wonder if the US to Brit and Brit to US Intel/political traffic will be reviewed by our select group - anyone want to bet against it not being reviewed - but this time with no explanation as to why not?

[GetBackWorldsRespect]

9. Send them to The Hague where they belong

Bush and Bliar said they had proofs for WMD. However, no WMD can be found. So, was it proofs they had or just faked like the documents concerning the uranium deal in Niger about which UN officials said they were so easily revealed as forgeries that Powell must have known?
If any manager relied on wrong documents and made such an important decision based on lies he would be fired.
They went to the war against the will of the United Nations, breaking international law. They used cluster bombs on civilians, a crime against humanity. Lies to the Security Council, breaking international law and crimes against humanity, and Bush, Bliar, Aznar, Berlusconi and Howard are still in power? I cannot believe it.

[T_i_B]

10. Lib Dems shun WMD intelligence inquiry

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=487353

The Liberal Democrat spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said his party was unwilling to take part in the inquiry because the remit fixed by Mr Straw was too narrow and excluded consideration of the use the Government made of intelligence.

Sir Menzies said that the reception of last week's Hutton report showed that "an inquiry which excluded politicians from scrutiny is unlikely to command public confidence".

[ConcernedCanuk]

11. I am "sorta" glad that an inquiry has been initiated in Britain

.
.

BUT

I think many are as skeptical of these "inquiries" as I am.

There is but ONE body that should be doing these Inquiries in my opinion

and that is the United Nations

GeeDubya's "commission" of appointed "investigators" is such an obvious sham that I am amazed that he even went that route

And why these "investigations" :shrug: Bush and Blair are murderers

A war / invasion was launched against a nation that was NOT at war with anyone

And all this pre-emptive stuff is baloney

In most countries you cannot arrest, let alone attack (or kill) a person, unless they have actually DONE something, or you can at least prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that they INTEND to (called conspiracy)

Bush and Blair have committed murder thousands of times over on innocent Iraqi people - I'm afraid I see it as being that simple.

If one takes this pre-emptive doctrine to the limit and one is indeed entitled to attack a nation because they "seem" like a threat

Then alot of the world would be justified in attacking the USA, because they have MILLIONS of TONS of WMD's and have already attacked and murdered innocent people in sovereign nations that were not at war. (don't give me that "collateral damage" crap, those were PEOPLE)

I am sure those branded as terrorists see it that way -

So "terror" attacks against Americans and American sympathizers will not disappear until the USA changes it's attitude.

The United Nations was created for a reason, to PREVENT unilateral sh*t like the Iraqi invasion/slaughter.

enuf,

ya got my gist

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

12. Don't expect any great shakes from the inquiry

over here.

As its solely looking into the pre-war intelligence, I wouldn't be suprised if all but the title remain classified (it's a British tradition!). Heck, I live in a country where even a photo of the head of Mi6 is considered 'top-secret'!

Good on the Lib Dems for calling it as it is. My only real hope is that the "blame the spooks" approach will lead to a string of leaks from spies pissed off about being dumped on.

I think Richard Norton-Taylor hit the nail on the head with this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1137550,00.html

[ConcernedCanuk]

13. I don't - these are " Get MY ass outta the fire" efforts

.
.

and the Heaadline says it all pretty much

Blame the masters, not the servants

enuf of passing the buck already !