Intelligence chief's bombshell: 'We WERE overruled on Blair dossier'

[T_i_B]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=487557

The intelligence official whose revelations stunned the Hutton inquiry has suggested that not a single defence intelligence expert backed Tony Blair's most contentious claims on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

As Mr Blair set up an inquiry yesterday into intelligence failures before the war, Brian Jones, the former leading expert on WMD in the Ministry of Defence, declared that Downing Street's dossier, a key plank in convincing the public of the case for war, was "misleading" on Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological capability. Writing in today's Independent, Dr Jones, who was head of the nuclear, chemical and biological branch of the Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) until he retired last year, reveals that the experts failed in their efforts to have their views reflected.

Dr Jones was the man whose decision to give evidence electrified the Hutton inquiry as he disclosed that he had formally complained about the dossier. The Government attempted to dismiss his complaints as part of the normal process of "debate" within the DIS and claimed that other sections of the intelligence community were better qualified to assess the 45-minute and chemical production claims.

But today Dr Jones makes clear that he was not alone and declares that the whole of the Defence Intelligence Staff, Britain's best qualified analysts on WMD, agreed that the claims should have been "carefully caveated". Furthermore, the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), which allowed the contentious claims to go into the dossier, lacked the expertise to make a competent judgement on them.

[lcordero]

1. How is Galloway doing? I haven't heard anything about him

in the news lately.

[MSchreader]

3. Go to Google and search for...

"Respect Unity Coalition". You'll see what he's doing.

Martin

[xxqqqzme]

2. well, well...

the plot thickens!

[T_i_B]

4. Top story on BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3456973.stm

A former senior official at the Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) has again expressed his concerns over the dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Dr Jones was the former head of the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons section of the defence intelligence staff - a military assessment service inside the Ministry of Defence - but is now retired. He blamed the heads of the intelligence agencies for "over-ruling" them - despite the fact that his staff were, in his opinion, the "foremost group of analysts in the west" on chemical and biological weapons intelligence.

It would be a "travesty" if they were now blamed for any intelligence failings with regard to Iraq's WMD.

He said that if - as he had been told - there was other, top secret, intelligence which would have removed his reservations, that should now be made public.

[ozymandius]

7. Now the Hutton report looks like a tattered rag.

Is this report, like the authoritative "dossier", still be bandied about as the gold standard on the PM's deliberative process?

Now that we have Dr. Jones' out-of-pocket claims that the intelligence community was subordinated by a dated plagiarized thesis, could Hutton become the subject of an inquiry himself?

[T_i_B]

8. The Hutton report was great for Blair

Until everyone else read it and started to notice a large number of problems with it. From then on it's been downhill all the way for Blair WMD wise as vast swathes of the population suspect foul play on his part.

[burrowowl]

5. Here is hoping a stink so big is raised in the UK

that it blows over to the other side of the Atlantic, i.e., D.C. and Bu$h comes off smelling like putrified sewage in a humid Texas summer.

[bobthedrummer]

15. The Brits are sending that message loud and clear

we need to listen and speak out HERE too.

[xchrom]

6. while i'm glad

that slowly some light of truth begins to come out -- it's bitter when i think of those who lost their lives for blair's and bush's holy war.
after all millions world wide were in the streets before the war saying stop -- did they listen?
i hope the lessons learned here hit those responsible very hard.

[T_i_B]

9. More

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-988941,00.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/04/uwmd.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/02/04/ixportaltop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=237809

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1140665,00.html

[nolabels]

17. Did anyone read that one from the Guardian?

This little excerpt seems to tell a lot of things, the last sentence especially

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1140665,00.html
(snip)
He said: "When they take it upon themselves to overrule experienced experts they should be very sure of their ground and, if a decision to do so is based on additional sensitive intelligence unknown to the experts, it must be incontrovertible."

Dr Jones said that he and his DIS colleague had taken the rare step of setting out their concerns in writing because they feared they would be blamed if no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

Dr Jones's article is likely to raise fresh concerns that Mr Scarlett became too close to the Downing Street "magic circle" around the prime minister and his then communications director, Alastair Campbell.

Although Lord Hutton cleared No 10 of improper interference in the production of the dossier, he acknowledged that Mr Scarlett and other intelligence officials may have been "subconsciously" influenced by Mr Blair's call for the dossier to be as strong as possible.
(snip)

[GCP]

10. Here's hoping someone over here will have the guts to do the same thing

Jones is retired, he probably thinks he has nothing to lose (as long as he doen't go flying in small planes).
We need our own Jones to come out and say the same thing.
This information was available on the internet to anyone who was paying attention. The media is as much to blame as the lizards in charge, they could have questioned the whole concoction of lies just like we did.

[nolabels]

13. This seems confusing to me

Wasn't a lot of the evidence about WMD put forward by the US based on the evidence that UK intelligence had put forward. Everybody knows they were basing it all on False and made up evidence. But all of these spooks loyal to and working on the Neo-con side wanted to use the Brits because it would be less susceptible to public scrutiny because of their legal structure. It seems this thing that is happening would blow the lid off of that. They seem to be trying to put this under the rug, just like *'s AWOL Status.

The part that seems confusing is why do these various intelligence agencies get the benefit of saying they were separate from each other, when there are many statements in public and published record stating that they were working together closely on this matter of WMD in Iraq

Is my recollections, or have they done a 180, thinking people would forget?

[JohnyCanuck]

18. He probably thinks he has nothing to lose

(as long as he doen't go flying in small planes).or go for long walks in the woods.

[Briar]

11. Unbelievable response from Bliar

According to the BBC, his official spokesman has just said that Hutton looked at Jones' evidence and dismissed it as irrelevant. Hutton, the PM insists, exonerated him of any charge which might be brought of lying. Jones is stupid, he says, to demand to see the evidence on which the intelligence assessments were based. They are still very, very secret.

Yeah...and they'll stay that way. Bliar knows what is good for him.

[Tansy_Gold]

12. So secret, in fact. . . . . .

. . . . that NO ONE CAN SEE THEM.

No one at all. Not even with the highest security clearance. Not even the people who are supposed to see such top secret things and analyze them and make recommendations upon that analysis.

So secret that they had to be destroyed immediately so they didn't fall into the wrong hands.

So secret that we can't even tell you what might have been in them.

Geez, this is starting to sound like a script from "Get Smart" or something.

Tansy Gold, looking for her shoe phone.

[okieinpain]

14. how about so secret even blair couldn't see them, or be told

what was in the report. now that's secret.

[nolabels]

16. Bush Names Maxwell Smart as CIA Spokesman

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/001068.html

Bush Names Maxwell Smart as CIA Spokesman
(2003-07-20) -- In an effort to regain credibility, U.S. President George Bush today named Maxwell Smart as spokesman for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Mr. Smart, best known for his work as a CONTROL agent in the 1960s, jumped right into the job, holding an impromptu news conference.

Journalists immediately launched into questions about U.S. reliance on uncorroborated information from foreign intelligence agencies in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

Here's a partial transcript from the brief news conference...

Reporter: "Mr. Smart how can you defend the administration's claim that Saddam could launch weapons of mass destruction in as little as 45 minutes, when such weapons have not even been found in Iraq?"
Mr. Smart: "Missed it by that much."

Reporter: "First, the administration said the war was about WMD, now the focus is on the liberation of the Iraqi people, isn't it true that there was no good reason to invade Iraq?"
(snip)

P.S.Had to take that time out for Max

[T_i_B]

19. Kick

:kick:

[doubleplusgood]

20. kick

n/t

[nolabels]

21. Much like * , Blair is trying to repair his credibility before the cycle..

of all the information has come out. Most guilty parties try this ploy because of the anxiety they experience, they have that proverbial problem of leaning too far forward on their skies. It is a good thing power hungry people like Murdock Or Corporations like Viacom are stupid enough to think they could help them out, pedaling propaganda out to the masses. They must really believe others don't know how it works.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1141114,00.html
Blair's trial by ordeal hasn't slaked his appetite for power

Post-Hutton, the prime minister's moral authority is in tatters

Jackie Ashley
Thursday February 5, 2004
The Guardian

(snip, near bottom)
The row over the war in Iraq, and the Hutton inquiry that followed it, is not a storm in a teacup. It is a climate-change inundation, flooding familiar features and tearing up trees. After it, the landscape looks different. What all the thinking ministers are trying to do is work out how to survive there.

For it feels as if Labour in general, and the prime minister in particular, has suffered a radical loss of authority. One minister asks: if Blair has been cleared of everything by Hutton and is still portrayed as a liar and a fraud, what does he do next? The prime minister has tried everything the establishment rulebook suggests to help recover his moral authority - a law lord, a cabinet secretary, a sackload of privy councillors, cross-examination by MPs. He's thrown himself at lobby journalists in press conferences, submitted to Paxman and radio phone-ins, revealed more evidence about the workings of No 10 than any predecessor. In the Middle Ages they called it trial by ordeal. And none of it has worked.

He could just go. Maybe he will. In Westminster coffee-bars the usual rumours about a deal with Brown and departure in the summer, or the autumn at the latest, can be picked up easily enough. But there's nothing new in that, and in public Blair gives no sign of a loss of appetite for power. So we have to work on the assumption that he wants to hang on for a third victory.

There are two options. There is "Blair-plus" - yet more Blair on our screens and yet more Blair radicalism for the government. The raft of "blue skies" thinking revealed by the Guardian earlier this week shows us the world of Blair-plus: charges for motorway lanes, charges for hospital "extras", charges perhaps, one day, for schooling too. But it's more than policy. Blair-plus also suggests that despite the tuition fees vote, the prime minister will continue to challenge his party and rule as a presidential figure, surrounded by advisers. He says he won't, but he will. I give him the credit for not being able to change his spots. He may have told the parliamentary Labour party that he intends to consult more, but few expect him to change his personality. Blair the relaxed colleague and parliamentarian leader is a fantasy. The dangers are obvious. They are discussed every week on these pages.
(snip)