You have commented 375 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Britain
Blair: I have secret proof of weapons
2003-06-01
Prime Minister Tony Blair last night insisted he had secret proof that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq in his strongest signal yet that coalition forces believe they may have begun to uncover leads to Iraq's alleged deadly arms cache.
Dear God, Tony, don't screw this up.
Stung by claims that the Government exaggerated the threat from Saddam, Blair said he was waiting to publish a 'complete picture' of both intelligence gained before the war and 'what we've actually found'.
Is he going to pull a GWB?
Asked if he knew things he could not yet reveal, he said: 'I certainly do know some of the stuff that has been already accumulated as a result of interviews and others... which is not yet public, but what we are going to do is assemble that evidence and present it properly.' His words, in an interview with Sky TV, came as Downing Street moved to halt damaging leaks over its handling of the evidence by heaping praise on the intelligence services. 'The Prime Minister hugely values the work of the intelligence agencies,' his spokesman said in St Petersburg, where heads of state were celebrating the Russian city's tercententary, yesterday.
British and U.S. intelligence at the collection and analysis stages is beyond good. If it's tasked, and it's there, they'll find it, perhaps in outline, often in detail. The weak point often comes with the use to which the finished product is put. If the guys who receive the reports don't believe them, factual reports can be discounted or reinterpreted. The higher the level of comsumer, the more likely politix is to enter into the interpretation. At the analysis level, the questions are who, what, when, where, and how. At the consumer level the "why" enters into it...
The pointed comment followed a week of furious rows over whether the intelligence dossier on Iraq published by the Government last September was 'sexed up' to convince a sceptical public that they were in danger from Saddam. It will fuel speculation that private assurances have been given to the intelligence community that they will not be left to carry the can over the failure to find WMD after a week of briefing against senior Blair officials by intelligence officials over the alleged ramping up of intelligence.
I don't think Tony would screw the Intel boys over. I hope not.
Labour backbenchers, increasingly convinced they were unwilling to listen to the truth misled, are unlikely to be impressed by Blair's argument that they must trust in proof they cannot see. According to intelligence sources the new leads have been provided by Iraqi scientists and a member of the State Security Organisation who are currently being debriefed by MI6 and the CIA. This follows a week in which Government and intelligence sources appear to have changed their story on the likelihood of finding WMD on an almost daily basis. One source claimed mid-week that British intelligence suggested Saddam had destroyed his WMD even before UN inspectors visited Iraq, a version of events that had changed by yesterday morning to the claim that chemical weapons may actually have been deployed in the field and then destroyed as American troops advanced. Yesterday the US announced that another 1,400 experts will join the hunt for banned weapons - a signal that Washington has accepted the political significance of the issue.
We always knew it was important.
In Britain it is thought that Ministers want eventually to publish a checklist of claims made before the war alongside subsequent discoveries which they believe vindicate the warnings. So far the only publicly announced discovery has been that of two trailers thought to have been part of a mobile laboratory system. Blair said in his interview that claims that the existence of WMD was 'a great big fib got out by the security services' would be proved wrong. He said he had 'absolutely no knowledge' of an alleged meeting between the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw and his US counterpart Colin Powell, in a New York hotel to discuss concerns over whether the evidence on WMD would be strong enough. Leaked transcripts suggested Straw had warned the issue could 'explode in our faces'.
That could be an entirely innocent meeting (if it happened). I would think Straw and Powell would demand to see all the data and would review it with a skeptical eye. After all, they have to defend it.
The Foreign Office insisted the two men had not met on the date given in February.
Should be simple enough to check the calendars.
Downing Street has been hampered in its argument by repeated suggestions from the Bush administration that WMD may never be found. Paul Wolfowitz, deputy to the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, suggested last week that WMD were a bureaucratic pretext to start a war.
No, he didn't, and you can read the full transcript of what he said here. Wolfie pointed out all three reasons why we went into Iraq, but of course the pundits seized on only one and took it out of context.
Blair told Sky that WMD were the basis in law for taking military action - but 'that's not the same as saying it's a bureaucratic pretext'.
Exactly.
Posted by:Steve White

#8  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Raptor   2003-06-03 08:24:56  

#7  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-06-02 08:00:13  

#6  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Ray   2003-06-01 23:02:46  

#5  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Michael   2003-06-01 21:17:22  

#4  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Not Mike Moore   2003-06-01 12:18:24  

#3  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Dave D.   2003-06-01 10:14:03  

#2  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Frank G   2003-06-01 07:32:08  

#1  comments); ?>werwer
Posted by: Raptor   2003-06-01 06:52:26  

00:00