Lib Dem Leadership Contest

So was Daisy McAndrew the source to the ITV News Exclusive?
Adam Boulton said something along the line of "She used to work for the lib dems, then moved into the media" but he didn't name her.

My mother suggests ITV News forced him to quit.

Iraq's "weapons"

“Iraq has chemical and biological weapons” and that, “Saddam has continued to produce them”. - Prime Minister's Iraq statement to Parliament (24th September 2002)

According to Dunedin, an "imbecile's" point of view - In examining the post-conflict situation in Iraq the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and was in the process of producing more looks ridiculous. Leaks from the Iraq Survey Group suggest that after 6 months they have found no evidence of any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Dr. Hans Blix, the former head of the United Nations inspection team, has recently stated that he believes that Saddam Hussein destroyed what weapons he had ten years ago. He said, “the more time that has passed, the more I think it is unlikely that anything will be found.”[iv] The lack of evidence of weapons of mass destruction has created a problem for the Prime Minister, as they were the foundation of his decision to go to war. Therefore the war was based on a lie and the Prime Minister is aware of this. On the 4th September this year, he spoke of finding weapons programmes in Iraq rather than actual weapons. “ I have got no doubt at all…that they will find evidence that those programmes were continuing”. The justification for war now appears feeble and unconvincing.

Iraq could deploy chemical and biological weapons in 45 minutes.

“he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes” Prime Minister's Iraq statement to Parliament (24th September 2002)

According to Dunedin, an "imbecile's" point of view - The 45 minutes claim is an obvious lie, which has caused deep embarrassment to the government. It generated problems when it was included in the September dossier because as Andy McSmith of The Independent on Sunday points out, “it was arresting detail that the public had not seen before.” However, the claim led to charges from the BBC that the government ‘sexed up’ the document in order to convince the British people that war was necessary. The unfortunate death of Dr. David Kelly and the Hutton Inquiry into his apparent suicide has shed some new light into the 45 minutes claim and revealed discrepancies between the government and the intelligence services over the compilation of the dossier. In his evidence to the Hutton Inquiry, Dr. Brian Jones, the retired branch head of the defence intelligence analysis staff alleged that the Iraqi military capacity had not been correctly represented in the dossier. According to Dr. Jones, there was a difference between the type of weaponry commonly referred to as weapons of mass destruction and the chemical and biological weapons detailed in the document which the government claimed could be launched in 45 minutes.

Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from Niger in Africa in order to produce a nuclear warhead.

“In addition, we know Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa”’ - Prime Minister's Iraq statement to Parliament (24th September 2002)

According to Dunedin, an "imbecile's" point of view - The British government asserted that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy nuclear material from an African nation, as part of the Iraqi dictator’s attempts to develop nuclear weapons. This is false. The country in question, Niger, produces just over 8% of the world’s uranium but its mines are operated by a French consortium, and any transaction would have had to take place with the knowledge and permission of the French. This would not have been allowed to happen. Using the British intelligence reports about Niger, President Bush included the claim in his State of the Union address, saying: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”[vi] The Bush administration has since said the Niger claim should not have been included in the speech in January as it fell short of the standard that is necessary for Presidential speeches.

Source Ban The Bomb

---------------------

Yeah, Dunedin, claiming that Blair lied about WMD is the "ultimate argument of the imbelice".

Just like claiming education standards aren't dumbing down.

Nice work, Dunedin. You don't work for the mainstream media do you? You know, where these legitimate arguments were rarely, if ever, aired? Good work, son.

U.S., U.K. Waged War on Iraq Because of Oil, Blair Adviser Says

London, May 1 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and U.K. went to war against Iraq because of the Middle East country's oil reserves, an adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair said.

Sir Jonathan Porritt, head of the Sustainable Development Commission, which advises Blair's government on ecological issues, said the prospect of winning access to Iraqi oil was ``a very large factor'' in the allies' decision to attack Iraq in March.

``I don't think the war would have happened if Iraq didn't have the second-largest oil reserves in the world,'' Porritt said in a Sky News television interview.

Opponents of the war, including some members of Blair's Labour Party, have said that the conflict was aimed at securing Iraqi reserves to benefit Western economies and oil companies. U.S. and U.K. leaders have repeatedly rejected that, saying the war began because Iraq held illegal weapons and threatened other countries.

Bloomberg

Is Sir Johathan Porritt an imbecile, Dunedin?

Well I personally don't buy any of the "Blair is a liar" stuff, to be honest, but I most certainly think it is fair to say that the only reason Kennedy has made any significant gains throughout his leadership is for his stance on the war. I am surprised he has lasted so long, to be honest - to consider yourself a successful and popular leader, despite maintaining 3rd place in 2 elections, is laughable. I'm sure he's a lovely bloke, but as a political leader he has been a failure.

Did ITV BREAK into normal programming to break Kennedys resigination

Yes they used the old itvnc breaking news strap

They used the old ITVNC breaking news strap on the left with a two-line text graphic on the right.

It began with an ITV News Report image. Shame Leyla got cut-off at the end.

In that case you clearly have difficulty understanding fact from fiction.

"All New Johnnyboy"- I love the way you take that "ban the bomb" site as gospel.

Let's look at the basic facts.

Saddam Hussein had WMD in the 1980s and 1990s.

How do we know?

Well 1) He used them against his own people 2) He used them against the Iranians 3) The UN inspectors found them and destroyed SOME of them.

You can't deny any of this as FACT.

The UN were forced out of Iraq by the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein, contravening UN security council resolutions. At this point it is widely believed that some of these weapons still existed albeit in reduced numbers.

Now let's look at the ASSUMPTIONS that "ban the bomb" and Hans Blix (who is unsurprisingly a bit pissed off that the US/UK got a bit fed up of his wild-goose chase style search for WMD that could easily have been moved about between sites between scheduled (as they had to be under Hussein) inspections- if you don't believe this I suggest you watch a Panorama from just before the war in which a reporter was taken to a huge factory (suspected WMD factory) and shown two ladies washing a box of mushrooms in an enormous room- the Iraqi authorities said this was a "mushroom farm"....did you believe them?):

Anyway- these assumptions:

Saddam Hussein, a brutal dictator that had previously used WMD to quell uprisings and in a war with his neighbours, voluntarily decided to follow the UN resolutions and destroyed his remaining WMD

Furthermore, having done this he then kicked UN inspectors out of the country, despite apparently having no more WMD for them to find anyway

You honestly believe this?
The UN-loving Hussein suddenly decides to unilaterally destroy his WMD?

That's the ultimate assumption of the imbecile and the assumption ANYONE who says "there never were WMD in Iraq" makes.

So let's look at slightly more plausible theories shall we:
1) They are there and we haven't found them- to be honest we're talking about things the size of a shoe-box in a country the size of France.

2) They were smuggled out of Iraq into e.g. Syria. This is the one that I find particularly worrying, which is why I find it even more repulsive that lefties such as yourself perpetuate this theory that the weapons "never existed" and follow the assumptions I have stated above

To be honest I think I've addressed your "ban the bomb" site's viewpoint and blinkered outlook, but just to briefly mention your other points:

45 minute claim- I have my doubts about government pressure as well, but in the end, the intelligence agencies approved that dossier...you don't lie if you are misinformed. Frankly if as I suspect the weapons still exist somewhere, they could be used that quickly, but probably not against the UK.

The Niger point- I'll just knock this on the head using the "ban the bomb" quote:



This would be the same French who have now been shown to have been breaking UN resolutions throughout the 1990s by dealing in oil with Iraq- I believe this largely explains Chirac's anti-war line. You have to accept the French government has a wierd system that is corrupt to core, in which apparently lowly ministers have been able to make remarkably important decisions on French policy.

Oil- right the big one that people who can't think for themselves tend to use. Firstly, all oil revenues are going to the Iraqi authority controlled by UN- this was guaranteed before going to war. Before the war, oil output from Iraq was controlled by the UN anyway- admittedly by then corrupt UN officials. Which do you prefer?

The US have pumped in over $10bn in reconstruction money (you can argue dodgy contracts to US companies here, but the thought of France crying foul that they don't get these contracts having taken no burden of cost for the war is sickening)....a quarter of this has been spent of security alone.

This hasn't been a money making or oil-grabbing procedure for the US.....it's been a very expensive operation. They were never going to stabilise oil supplies in the middle east (the first gulf war told them this)- to be honest it's a very weak argument and exactly the kind I would expect a publicity seeking advisor to make.


So- I suggest you stop listening to ridiculous flawed groups such as "ban the bomb" (was the title not enough for you?) and start thinking for yourself.

Sorry to intervene here, but why write a non-tv related essay regarding Iraq in a Charles Kennedy Resignation topic?

I hate to do this, because at MediaSpy I'd declare this to be off-topic and send it off to the relevant forum...

Nevertheless, the debate is here and now.

I simply can't accept the view that governments around the world conspired to lie to their people to go to war in Iraq. And this is not a conspiracy, by the way, between the US, the UK, Australia, and other members of the Coalition of the Willing. It would have been a conspiracy with France, Germany and Russia as well - all countries who believed Saddam had WMD.

The debate in 2002/03 was never about whether Saddam had WMD or not. The verdict was unanimous. It was conventional wisdom that Saddam had WMD. Now, as it seems to have turned out, that was wrong. But it's what virtually everyone thought at the time. I don't know a single person who said, "No - that's wrong. Iraq has no WMD." Yes, there were claims that some stuff had been exaggerated - "sexed up" as the phrase was later coined. No one however was trying to argue that Saddam had no WMD. No one was arguing that Iraq was completely harmless, and would never cause any trouble. The debate was based around one simple question - given Saddam's non-compliance, what do we do?

To me, it's entirely disingenuous for the anti-war mob to claim it was all a great lie when even countries who were opposed to the war would have had to have been part of that lie. Russia, to take an example, passed on intelligence to the US saying that Saddam's regime had been planning attacks on the US in a similar way to Al-Qaeda's September 11 strikes. So clearly, even non-COW countries saw Iraq as some sort of threat - they just didn't see the need to go to war over it.

The only logical conclusion that one can reach when looking at the events as they actually happened, and not through the warped perspective of time that some seem to have, is that these countries, these governments, genuinely believed Saddam had WMD and posed a threat. That belief was predicated on faulty intelligence - a global intelligence breakdown. That shouldn't absolve the governments responsible - a lot of the blame has to go on the Americans and the CIA because of the CIA's reluctance to pass on raw intelligence to allies, instead opting to pass on the processed information, with the leading conclusion that Saddam had WMD. Intelligence agencies around the globe operated off the core assumption that Saddam wasn't fully disarmed by UN weapons inspectors, and that he therefore still had WMD. In fact, as it turns out, UNSCOM appears to have done a far better job than anyone had actually thought. Intelligence agencies however should have taken a more critical look at the information, and should have been more willing to discard those sorts of assumptions that led them to make the faulty assessments that they did. Indeed, it wasn't until Hans Blix came along that anyone started to do that - prior to him, even UN weapons inspectors (at least when they were allowed in) operated on the assumption that Iraq did have WMD, and it was their job to find them and disarm them. Blix came along with the attitude that Iraq was hiding something , but he just didn't know what. If the intelligence agencies had operated on a similar basis, we could have, of course, ended up with an entirely different situation.

In the end though, I don't think anyone can lie if they believe to be true what they're saying. Governments should have a reasonable assumption that the intelligence they're receiving is sound and accurate, in order for them to make good decisions. They're reliant on intelligence agencies, and if those agencies aren't doing their jobs properly, then it stands to reason that that will affect the quality of the decisions made by governments.