Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]
The plot thickens.
    #1881149 -

Expert: BBC Misled U.K. on Iraq Dossier
Thu Sep 4,11:16 AM ET

By JANE WARDELL, Associated Press Writer

LONDON - A British Broadcasting Corp. reporter ? and not a top government weapons adviser ? was the one who suggested during an interview that a top aide of Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) was behind an exaggeration of the threat posed by Iraq (news - web sites), an arms expert said Thursday.


That testimony by Olivia Bosch contradicted statements by the BBC's Andrew Gilligan, who said adviser David Kelly suggested the name of key Blair aide Alastair Campbell without prompting.


Bosch, testifying at an inquiry into Kelly's apparent suicide, said Kelly told her during a phone conversation that Gilligan played a "name game" with him when they met.


"He said he was taken aback by the way Andrew Gilligan tried to elicit information from him," Bosch said. "He said he had never experienced it in the way that Gilligan had tried to do so, by a 'name game.'


"The first name he (Gilligan) mentioned, and very quickly, was Campbell," Bosch told the inquiry, which is headed by senior appeals judge Lord Hutton.


Kelly said he felt obliged to give Gilligan some form of answer, so he said "maybe," she testified.


Gilligan told a different story in a piece for the Mail on Sunday on June 6: "I asked him how this transformation happened. The answer was a single word: 'Campbell.'"


Campbell, Blair's communications chief, will resign in a few weeks for what he said were personal reasons.


Gilligan interviewed Kelly, a former U.N. weapons inspector, about which government official was responsible for including in a government dossier a claim that Iraq could deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes.


Kelly, a 59-year-old microbiologist, apparently committed suicide after being identified by Defense Ministry bosses as a possible source of a BBC report that Blair's office inserted the 45-minute claim into a September dossier against the wishes of intelligence officials. The government and intelligence chiefs deny that.


Bosch, also a former U.N. weapons inspector, said she met Kelly at a conference last year while working at a defense think tank. She said they subsequently spoke two or three times a week by phone and corresponded frequently by e-mail.


Hutton is investigating events leading up to the death of Kelly, whose body was found July 18 in woodland near his rural home. His left wrist had been slashed, and a government pathologist concluded he died from loss of blood.


Previous testimony at the inquiry has shown that Kelly was skeptical about the government's evaluation of the threat posed by Iraqi weapons.


On Thursday, Tom Mangold, a friend of Kelly and a journalist, testified that he spoke to Kelly about the Gilligan report and Kelly believed the 45-minute claim was "risible."


"We occasionally gossiped on the phone and on this occasion we gossiped about the 45-minute claim because I thought it sounded risible to me and I wondered what he thought about it," Mangold said. "He thought it was risible, too.


"He did not feel that weapons would be deployed or activated within 45 minutes."


Following the morning hearing, Hutton adjourned the inquiry until Sept. 15 while he analyzed evidence from past weeks and considered which witnesses to recall.


Link




--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The plot thickens. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1881626 -

Well well well, looks like that shoots hole in someone's theory.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The plot thickens. [Re: ]
    #1881633 -

Funny how often that happens.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The plot thickens. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1881711 -

Do you think the claims made in the dossier were true? Regardless of who was responsible for the information contained within it.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The plot thickens. [Re: GazzBut]
    #1881861 -

GazzBut said:
Do you think the claims made in the dossier were true? Regardless of who was responsible for the information contained within it.


I think some of those involved in writing it believed it was true.

I've seen so many claims on both sides that at this point I don't know. Perhaps when the "intelligence" was gathered it was. Perhaps the info came from one of those bogus defectors I heard about.

Call it a character flaw if you'd like but until the time it's proven that the info (or any info) was proven to be deliberately falsified (or so obviously BS that it can't be believed), I give the benefit of the doubt to it being true.

I'm an optimist. What can I say?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The plot thickens. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1881963 -

Usually in politics it is the dead guy who is blamed, so this is definitely strange.. what is that called again, when they do that? Learned it in history, just can't seem to remember..
Peace.


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you
:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The plot thickens. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1885922 -

More...

British Probe Finds No Iraq Exaggerations
Fri Sep 5, 4:32 AM ET

By JANE WARDELL, Associated Press Writer

LONDON - A British inquiry has so far failed to turn up evidence that Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites)'s government intentionally exaggerated claims in an intelligence dossier on Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s weapons with information it probably knew was wrong.


But the judicial inquiry, which concluded its first four weeks Thursday, has raised questions about the way the Ministry of Defense treated a weapons adviser who became the focus of a bitter feud between the government and the British Broadcasting Corp. over a news report.


The inquiry was called to investigate the apparent suicide of weapons adviser David Kelly, 59, who was found with his wrist slashed in July after he was identified as a possible source of the BBC story and was called to testify before two parliamentary committees.


Emotional accounts by Kelly's relatives and friends indicated that the widely respected scientist and former U.N. weapons inspector was deeply disturbed by the way he was treated by his bosses and thrust into the public spotlight.


Testimony from a host of intelligence officials, government aides and journalists indicated that Kelly was not alone in his skepticism of a claim that Iraq (news - web sites) could deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes. The claim was part of Blair's justification for sending troops to Iraq.


The BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, had said his source accused Blair's powerful communications director, Alastair Campbell, of forcing the 45-minute claim into the dossier over the objections of the security services. Kelly had denied making that accusation.


John Scarlett, chairman of Britain's secretive Joint Intelligence Committee, denied that his government knowingly exaggerated the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, saying that the 45-minute claim was based on the best intelligence information that Britain had at the time. Scarlett also said that the dossier was drafted under his command, not Campbell's.


The inquiry ? led by senior judge Lord Hutton ? and the failure of the U.S.-led coalition to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the war, have hurt public confidence in Blair and his government, according to recent polls in Britain.


On Wednesday, Blair's government moved to revamp the media operation that helped sweep him to power six years ago but which has increasingly burdened him with a damaging reputation for spin.


In an effort to bolster public trust eroded by the Iraq war, the government said it was considering televising its daily news conferences and lifting the customary veil of anonymity around its media advisers. Blair also announced that Campbell would step down.


On Thursday, after 15 days of testimony, including hundreds of pages of private government and BBC documents, Hutton adjourned the inquiry until Sept. 15 to allow him to consider which witnesses should be recalled and what evidence should be focused upon.


Days after Kelly's death, Blair denied that he had authorized the leaking of Kelly's name to the media. But he told the inquiry last week that he accepted full responsibility for the decision by his officials to name Kelly.


Some intelligence officials have said they believed aspects of the dossier were exaggerated, but they did not appear to play top roles in the drafting of the document.


Brian Jones, who until recently headed a section of the Defense Intelligence Staff, told the inquiry that he took the unusual step of writing to his superiors to express his staff's concern that "our reservations about the dossier were not going to be reflected in the final version."


Jones said some of his staff felt that the dossier was "over-egging certain assessments."



Link


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The plot thickens. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1887397 -

Amusingly the title of this article says

British Probe Finds No Iraq Exaggerations

and the last line says

Jones said some of his staff felt that the dossier was "over-egging certain assessments."


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The plot thickens. [Re: Xlea321]
    #1887817 -

Let's see... could the title mean the official finding of the probe was that the doc wasn't fudged, but the last line indicates that some felt it could have been?

The only amusing thing is that you were unable to realize that on your own. Or have you never heard of a majority / minority view?

Really Alpo.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The plot thickens. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1887980 -

Let's see... could the title mean the official finding of the probe was that the doc wasn't fudged, but the last line indicates that some felt it could have been?

No, it couldn't possibly mean that because the official probe is nowhere near finished and has made no official findings.



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The plot thickens. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1887991 -

Quote:
Allies of Mr Blair still hope he will not be recalled but are increasingly anxious about evidence at the inquiry that has raised questions on his precise involvement in the naming strategy and the Government's claim that Iraq could deploy chemical and biological weapons in 45 minutes.

If recalled, Mr Blair is likely to be further questioned about apparent discrepancies between his statement days after Dr Kelly's death and what has been said at the inquiry.

On an official flight from Shanghai to Hong Kong on 22 July, the Prime Minister "categorically" denied he had "authorised the leaking of the name of Dr Kelly". But at the inquiry, Mr Blair was forced to admit his central role in the process that led to Dr Kelly's name being confirmed to the media. He held four meetings over two days in his Downing Street study at which the "naming strategy" was agreed.

The Prime Minister might also be asked about his previous denial of reports that intelligence staff were worried about the 45-minute claim. He told the Commons in June: "The allegation that the 45-minute claim provoked disquiet among the intelligence community is ... completely and totally untrue." On Thursday, two intelligence officers said they had expressed concerns over the claim.




http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=440755


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The plot thickens. [Re: Xlea321]
    #1888013 -

Im still failing to see the point of this thread and even the Inquiry. Blair is safe he hasn't done anything wrong, the BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, who fabricated a story from what Dr Kelly had told him should be held accountable. Or even Dr Kelly himself.


--------------------
The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The plot thickens. [Re: st0nedphucker]
    #1890718 -

st0nedphucker said:
Im still failing to see the point of this thread and even the Inquiry. Blair is safe he hasn't done anything wrong, the BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan, who fabricated a story from what Dr Kelly had told him should be held accountable. Or even Dr Kelly himself.


Yeah, except fabricate the existence of WMD's to support a war. Why are the UK media focussing on the David Kelly when the most important issue that should be discussed at the moment is that not only could Iraq not set up their WMD's in 45 minutes, but that they didn't exist in the first place. Read anything that Scott Ritter, a former member of UNSCOM, has written about it. UNSCOM reported that after the Gulf war 95% of Iraq's weapon capabilities were destroyed. Considering the sanctions that were placed on Iraq it would have been extremely difficult (bordering on impossible) for Iraq to build factories in order to make WMD's whether chemical or biological. the sort of place where you build a WMD isn't going to be something you can just throw a sheet over to hide, they're going to be very detectable through radar and any other surveillance that has gone on since then (you know, a lot of heat and gases are emitted from these things). Even if they did possess some from the previous war, most of the chemicals that were claimed to be in Hussein's possession would have passed their 'shelf-date'. And with the little weapons they had, and absolutely no motivation to attack Britain and America (considering that if they had attacked first they would have been fucked even by the UN), they weren't a threat at all. So basically both Bush and Blair fabricated a war. I'm not claiming to know the reasons why, whether it was for oil or not isn't the point. They both lied to their countries and I think that is the most important issue right now.

UH


--------------------
They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference - Bill Hicks

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The plot thickens. [Re: unlikelyhero]
    #1890726 -

Quote:
I'm an optimist. What can I say?


your optimism seems limited to instances in which it supports your point of view.  Just an observation :smile:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The plot thickens. [Re: DoctorJ]
    #1890801 -

Not a very good observation though, as it's incorrect.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The plot thickens. [Re: unlikelyhero]
    #1891041 -

unlikelyhero said:
Read anything that Scott Ritter, a former member of UNSCOM, has written about it.


people stopped trusting what ritter says a few months ago.

unlikelyhero said:
UNSCOM reported that after the Gulf war 95% of Iraq's weapon capabilities were destroyed.


the deal was 100% there no reason he couldnt have destroyed them all. And an ample portion of that 95% was never documented making the claim worthless.

unlikelyhero said:
Considering the sanctions that were placed on Iraq it would have been extremely difficult (bordering on impossible) for Iraq to build factories in order to make WMD's whether chemical or biological.


i dont know where you get your info on wmd but they dont require brain surgery. As Bear has said to be a chemist all one needs is a guide and cooking skills. One would be very very suprised at what i could make by myself in my garage.

unlikelyhero said:
the sort of place where you build a WMD isn't going to be something you can just throw a sheet over to hide, they're going to be very detectable through radar and any other surveillance that has gone on since then (you know, a lot of heat and gases are emitted from these things).


factories that were thought to be harmless could have been easily converted into small labs hidden within the building. And if the iraqi's got word the un was on their way one of those mysterious cr crash pileups would occur on route.

unlikelyhero said:
Even if they did possess some from the previous war, most of the chemicals that were claimed to be in Hussein's possession would have passed their 'shelf-date'.


where do people get this idea that most wmd have a short shelf life. We arnt taking about a ham sandwhich here. Most chemicals and even some bio agents have shelf-lifes of hundreads of years without begining to decay.

unlikelyhero said:
And with the little weapons they had, and absolutely no motivation to attack Britain and America (considering that if they had attacked first they would have been fucked even by the UN), they weren't a threat at all.


No one was saying Iraq would declare war on us and deploy troops in america or launch missles in america. They posed a threat which if an attack occured the time would be their choice which could have been soon for all the administration knew.

unlikelyhero said:
So basically both Bush and Blair fabricated a war. I'm not claiming to know the reasons why, whether it was for oil or not isn't the point. They both lied to their countries and I think that is the most important issue right now.


So you think the war was for only one reason. Do some actual research and find out for yourself how many reasons there were. And as ive shown i have found no lie. Saying "we believe" means it is not for certain so how can it be a lie.

"i believe" you are a douche bag. I'm not saying its the truth im just providing my reasonable guess. (by the way i dont really mean that i was just making a separate point)


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The plot thickens. [Re: d33p]
    #1893250 -

Why did people stop trusting Ritter? I get the feeling that the previous weapons inspectors would know exactly what they did when you consider the shite that Colin Powell was using as examples for Iraq's WMD factories - oh, look, this COULD be where they're making WMD's. Well, I've got news for you, the loss of innocent lives and bombing campaigns that the coalition employed were based ona whim. And only the most barbaric, uncivilized societies would go to war on a fucking whim. Look at the state that country is in now - who the hell thought forced democracy works? War has totally ripped it apart and it seems thery were expecting it to be a lot easier than they've found it to be. Unfortunately, I never heard any concrete evidence that they did have WMD's and since they still haven't found them I sincerely doubt they did in the first place.
Where did I say the war was only for one reason? I think I said clearly that I didn't know what the ulterior motives for it were because I don't totally buy into the whole 'oil' argument. I mean, I know what Bush and Blair said their reasons were but how can you trust a puppet to industry and a brown-noser?
I just wish you pro-war people could make a coherent argument without having to offend people during it. It's called a debate - why do you have to cheapen your argument by doing something so childish, it just sounds that your last resort is to try to offend me just because your argument isn't strong enough. But if you want people to view you pro-war guys as stuck-up, arrogant, closed-minded fuckwits - well done, you've acheived that most successfully.

UH


--------------------
They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference - Bill Hicks

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The plot thickens. [Re: unlikelyhero]
    #1893252 -

What do you deem to be offensive?


--------------------
The punishment which the wise suffer, who refuse to take part in government, is to live under the government of worse men.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The plot thickens. [Re: unlikelyhero]
    #1893262 -

he had sex with children.

and took money from iraqis.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The plot thickens. [Re: st0nedphucker]
    #1893296 -

st0nedphucker said:
What do you deem to be offensive?


'"i believe" you are a douche bag. I'm not saying its the truth im just providing my reasonable guess. (by the way i dont really mean that i was just making a separate point)'

It's not that it offends me, I just think it cheapens your argument - get the list dig in and everyone will think you're soooo witty! One thing I love about this board is the variety of views on it but the whole 'cheap dig' thing just makes people sound desperate when they're in an argument. It's like when you argue with someone in person and they get to the point where they can't come back at you anymore so they resort to violence.

UH


--------------------
They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference - Bill Hicks

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Pet Food Plot Thickens GabbaDj 404 4 04/12/07 01:56 PM
by Diploid
* old article on Bush's pre-war intelligence phi1618 1,872 17 11/18/05 04:54 PM
by zappaisgod
* Liquid Bomb Terror Plot is a 'Fiction' Underscoring Police Failures StroFun 1,467 13 09/20/06 08:30 AM
by ZippoZ
* Greenland's ice cap thickens afoaf 771 11 10/24/05 03:43 PM
by zappaisgod
* Bush details Bin Laden Iraq plot elbisivni 769 8 05/27/07 04:16 PM
by fireworks_god
* Hugo Chavez has tape of CIA plotting Venezuala Coup SquattingMarmot 926 4 09/21/03 07:47 PM
by afoaf
* bush seeks political gains from foiled plot...
( 1 2 all )		 Annapurna1 3,353 20 08/14/06 01:53 PM
by quiver
* Hizbollah had a mole in US Intelligence.
( 1 2 all )		 The_Red_Crayon 2,492 20 11/19/07 01:23 PM
by afoaf

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
1,456 topic views. 1 members, 3 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.