(11 am. – promoted by ek hornbeck)
You apparently also go to War with the leaders you have!!
You’ll see what I mean, below.
This is some of what happened on day ten of the Inquiry with a few reports and commentary coming out because of the Inquiry.
The family of the murdered British aid worker Margaret Hassan said that they have been “betrayed” by the official inquiry into the Iraq war after it spent just three minutes yesterday discussing her kidnapping.
“We came to find out the truth, even though we were skeptical, because we were told this would not be a cover-up. We have been betrayed.
“The authorities did not do one thing to help her when she was kidnapped and they are now doing nothing to find out why. As for Ken Bigley, it was almost as if he didn’t matter at all. He was an innocent man who was murdered for no reason.”
The criticism follows allegations last week that Gordon Brown was engineering a new cover-up of the Iraq war by handing Whitehall departments the right to block the inquiry from releasing secret documents about the war.
Mrs Hassan, 59, known as the Mother Teresa of Baghdad for her work with the poor, had lived in Iraq for 30 years and was the country director for the aid agency CARE International when she was kidnapped in October 2004. She was killed the following month but her remains have still not been recovered.
Mr Bigley, 62, a civil engineer from Liverpool, was kidnapped in Baghdad in September 2004 and held captive for four weeks before his murder. A video of his beheading was later released…>>>>>
Senior British officials questioned in wide-ranging inquiry on Britain’s role in Iraq war
Witnesses in the second week of Britain’s wide ranging inquiry into the Iraq war have revealed differences between the United States and Britain in the days running up to the war. The head of Britain’s military say he was only given authority to plan for the war at a late stage.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s top political advisor in 2002 was David Manning. He told the Inquiry panel here in London Friday that Mr. Blair made a decision in the spring of 2002 that Britain would stand by America. “He expected to be with the United States until the end,” Manning said. “But this would only be possible if the United Nations were the channel to get to the end.”
Manning says Mr. Blair began to ask for military options in June 2002, nine months before the war got underway…>>>>>
The Iraq Inquiry
Sky News: See how the Inquiry is unfolding on the Sky News Timeline
Was Iraqi cabbie the source of the dodgy dossier?
MP’s report claims ‘intelligence’ on Saddam’s WMDs came from back of a taxi
Dodgy dossier: The controversial Government report that stated a case for war
Gossip from an Iraqi taxi driver was a key source for Tony Blair’s ‘dodgy dossier’.
A report by a respected MP claims that the unlikely secret agent was one of MI6’s top sources when it was building a case to justify the invasion.
He provided the information that Saddam Hussein could fire chemical weapons at British targets within 45 minutes.
Intelligence from the cab driver allegedly bolstered the suggestion that weapons of mass destruction could be fired at British targets in Cyprus – a central plank of the dodgy dossier.
Mr Holloway’s report says that analysts at the Secret Intelligence Service quickly decided the cab driver’s information about missiles was ‘verifiably’ false and warned that the agent was not reliable.
But a carefully-worded footnote in an MI6 report was apparently brushed aside by Downing Street officials when the dodgy dossier was put together in September 2002.
Sir John Scarlett, the former MI6 chief who was chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee before the war, is expected to be quizzed about the dossier when he gives evidence to the Chilcot committee today – though he is not expected to go into details about MI6 sources in public…>>>>>
Well isn’t it a true fact that if one wants to know what’s really going on damn the expensive technology toys, Ask A Cabby!
British intelligence officials did not intend to mislead anyone by releasing documents in 2002 claiming Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, Britain’s former spy chief said Tuesday.
John Scarlett, chair of the joint intelligence committee during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and later head of Britain’s, Secret Intelligence Service (known as MI6), was testifying before an ongoing inquiry into the U.K.’s role in the invasion.
He told the inquiry he was not pressured into exaggerating information that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that could be deployed in under an hour, according to the Guardian newspaper.
Earlier Tuesday, a British opposition MP released a reporting suggesting British intelligence acquired that particular information from “an émigré taxi driver on the Iraqi-Jordanian border” and that it was unreliable.
After the dossier was published on Sept. 24, 2002, several British newspapers included the claim in their stories. London’s Evening Standard headline read: “45 minutes from attack” while the Sun carried the headline: “Brits 45 mins from doom.”
Britain joined the invasion of Iraq six months later.
Scarlett told the inquiry that WMD in this document did not refer to ballistic missiles and that the matter “would not have been lost in translation” if they had used the term “munitions” rather than “weapons.”…>>>>>
Sir John Scarlett giving evidence to the Chilcot inquiry into the war in Iraq today. Photograph: PA
Sir John Scarlett’s evidence at the Chilcot inquiry must mean Tony Blair can no longer hide behind the intelligence services
Former spy chief Sir John Scarlett hung Tony Blair out to dry this afternoon. He drove a mobile weapons lab through Blair’s longstanding excuse on Iraq – that his false claim that intelligence had “established beyond doubt” that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was cleared by the intelligence experts. What they seem to have said at the time was that if Blair wanted to make such an assertion, he should not pin it on them. Now Scarlett has – very late in the day – said the same.
In the short time they gave themselves, the Iraq inquiry committee made a pretty good job of putting Scarlett on the spot about the September 2002 Iraq dossier. They asked him some tough questions. He dodged some of them, claimed a faulty memory from time to time, but he said enough to put the blame on Blair…>>>>>
The UK knew Iraq had dismantled its long-range missile before the war, an intelligence chief has told an official inquiry into the invasion.
Sir John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee when the conflict began, said Iraq had taken apart a weapon capable of reaching Israel by 2003.
A weapon with that reach could have posed a threat to British military bases in Cyprus.
To reassemble it would have taken one or two days, he told the public hearing.
Britain believed Iraq had dismantled its chemical and biological weapons in the run-up to the 2003 invasion but thought it was possible they could be reassembled, the former head of the country’s Joint Intelligence Committee said Tuesday.
John Scarlett, who chaired the committee from 2001 to 2004 before moving to MI6, Britain’s foreign intelligence agency, told a panel of inquiry that it had long been believed that Iraq had been dismantling weapons in order to conceal them.
On March 7, 2003, Scarlett said an intelligence report revealed that “Iraq had no missiles which could reach Israel and none which could carry germ or biological weapons. The leadership had ordered the dismantlement of the missiles known as al-Hussein … to avoid discovery, and they thought they could be quickly reassembled.”…>>>>>
A top intelligence adviser warned Tony Blair to expect “serious disorder”, revenge attacks and a potentially hostile reception from Iraqis in the event of military action to topple Saddam Hussein, the Iraq inquiry heard on Tuesday.
Sir John Scarlett, former chairman of the joint intelligence committee, said he delivered a “blunt” assessment of the political aftermath of regime change less than three months before the outbreak of war.
Yet in spite of these concerns, other senior Whitehall officials revealed on Tuesday that there were no detailed preparations to administer southern Iraq before the UK embarked on the five-year task…>>>>>
Tony Blair received two secret intelligence reports saying that Saddam Hussein did not have working weapons of mass destruction just days before ordering the invasion of Iraq.
Sir John Scarlett, the former chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, told the official inquiry into the war today that the Prime Minister did not respond to the reports, which had crucial military significance.
He also distanced himself from Mr Blair’s claim six months before the invasion that “intelligence had established beyond doubt” that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD)….>>>>>
I published my submissions to the Hutton and Butler hearings in a spirit of openness that I feel is lacking in the Chilcot inquiry
I have published all my witness submissions to the Hutton inquiry and Butler review on the Iraq Inquiry Digest website to add to public understanding of the two issues on which I feel best qualified to comment: weapons of mass destruction and intelligence analysis. These are complicated matters, and there is a risk that the Chilcot inquiry will miss significant facts.
So far the inquiry has provided precious little documentary evidence as background to its hearings. It is not clear whether this is the inquiry’s decision or a consequence of the protocols imposed by the government. However, the result is that there is uncertainty about the sources the inquiry is using and the assumptions it may be making about their evidence…>>>>>
And the following has been rising up as these testimonies have gone into this second week, especially being called for another investigation the last couple of days.
The fact that Britain is once again investigating its role in the Iraq blunder is praiseworthy.
The previous Hutton and Butler inquiries were disappointing to put it mildly. Perhaps because they were undertaken at a time when the British establishment was still on the defensive and when preserving the reputation of the prime minister took precedence over exhuming the truth. Or, alternatively, because they took place when British troops were still in theater when damaging revelations could have seriously affected morale and/or relations with Britain’s Washington ally…>>>>>