News Australia accused of lying about Iraq

[Adam]

A group of more than 40 former Australian diplomats and defence chiefs has accused Prime Minister John Howard's government of deceiving the Australian people about the reasons for invading Iraq.

The open letter on Sunday echoed similar statements issued earlier in the year by retired US and British officials, making Australia the latest of the pro-war allies to face criticism from its own former diplomats.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7608FF24-9C52-40FA-A793-5E007EB3E14A.htm

Well, it's not really new. We had military and intelligence people quitting even before the invasion, over the lies from our government.

 

[Gokul43201]

Wait a minute...if your story was all lies, and your story's the same as our story, then our story...

 

[JohnDubYa]

This story is a big bag of nothing. So not everyone in Australia supports the decision to invade Iraq, especially FORMER diplomats (who may have been appointed by Hawke or Keating). Actually, weren't ALL of those named apponted by a Prime Minister of the opposing party? Not sure.

"Howard has repeatedly denied misleading the public about the invasion, saying intelligence at the time indicated Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

That's right. Intelligence DID say that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, so how could Howard be accused of lying?

 

[Adam]

No, intelligence didn't say that. John Howard did.

And as for support, remember, Howard is our first ever Prime Minister to receive a vote of no confidence.

 

[Hurkyl]

No, intelligence didn't say that. John Howard did.

What is your source for that?

 

[Adam]

We had an inquiry here called the Flood Report (1), into Australian intelligence regarding the attack on Iraq. Much like all those inquiries in the USA and UK, it found nobody responsible, but blamed a vague collection of errors among a vague range of intelligence services. However, John Howard has repeated time and again on the news things along the lines of:

• The idea that Saddam Hussein doesn't have weapons of mass destruction is ludicrous.
• Anyone who doesn't believe Saddam Hussein has WMDs is just being silly.
• The entire world knows Saddam has WMDs.

It's his style. He comments about ideas and beliefs, and uses attacks of ridicule on anything against the party line. He never mentions actual facts, never mentions the findings of reports, never commits any name, date, location, et cetera (2). Then later on he can safely say that he never said anything definite. Howard never supplied the Australian people with a shred of evidence to support his assertions. This is why several of our top intelligence people an ddiplomats quit working for him. Our intelligence agencies never really had anything to work with, because there was nothing to work with. Yet Howard simply dodges blame by saying "No, our intelligence agencies are ok, they did nothing wrong", without even mentioning the problem that he, not them, is the one needing investigation. He does all this quite a lot. Anyone who knows his record will know this (Tampa, anyone?). And again, this is why he was given a vote of no confidence by our government.

But apart from the complete lack of evidence and all those dead people, Australia got a nifty new trade deal with the USA, so it's all fine, right?

1) http://www.pmc.gov.au/intelligence_inquiry/index.htm

2) http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/08/1065292604414.html?oneclick=true
http://www.cp.org/english/online/full/iraq/040722/7072208AU.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3172505.stm

PS: Do you have any source suggesting that Australian intelligence sources were the basis for all the things Howard said?

 

[Hurkyl]

Do you have any source suggesting that Australian intelligence sources were the basis for all the things Howard said?

Well, the news article you linked in the first post does. John even quoted it for you, and I'll do so again:

"Howard has repeatedly denied misleading the public about the invasion, saying intelligence at the time indicated Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

One link you just posted does to.

"The Australian parliamentary inquiry is examining the intelligence used by Prime Minister John Howard to justify sending more than 2,000 Australian troops to Iraq." -BBC

The other two links in category (2) don't suggest Howard was making statements that weren't based on intelligence reports.

I don't plan on reading throug the entire 1.46 MB intelligence inquiry to find any statements suggesting Howard's statements were not based on intelligence reports that I suspect are not there... if my suspicions are incorrect, maybe you could tell me where I should look?


And what's with the ad hominem garbage?

 

[kat]

The U.S. has had an inquiry into the intelligence regarding the attack on Iraq?

 

[Adam]

Well, the news article you linked in the first post does. John even quoted it for you, and I'll do so again:

"Howard has repeatedly denied misleading the public about the invasion, saying intelligence at the time indicated Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

That's, once again, Howard making a vague statement. Not anything credible. Do you have anything other than the man who is under scrutiny vaguely implying something vague about a vague group of assets?

"The Australian parliamentary inquiry is examining the intelligence used by Prime Minister John Howard to justify sending more than 2,000 Australian troops to Iraq." -BBC

And as I said recently, it will find nobody in particular to blame, just some vague generalisations. Maybe someone inconsequential will have to fall on their sword or be sacrified. But this quote doesn't show any intelligence support for Howard either.

The other two links in category (2) don't suggest Howard was making statements that weren't based on intelligence reports.

They support the idea that the whole move to war was baseless.

I don't plan on reading throug the entire 1.46 MB intelligence inquiry to find any statements suggesting Howard's statements were not based on intelligence reports that I suspect are not there... if my suspicions are incorrect, maybe you could tell me where I should look?

You should read more. Be informed. Be aware of what you discuss.

And what's with the ad hominem garbage?

I have special rights to make all the ad hominems I want against John Howard.

 

[Adam]

The U.S. has had an inquiry into the intelligence regarding the attack on Iraq?

I believe it is/was the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence doing a report about it.

 

[kat]

There was no inquiry, I believe they may be doing an internal "review" but that is not quite the same as and external inquiry. I don't think you can lump any as yet, as far as I know...I could be wrong, unreported internal reviews by the senate committee..that would have been in charge of overseeing it in the first place..someone correct me if I'm wrong..

 

[Hurkyl]

That's, once again, Howard making a vague statement. Not anything credible. Do you have anything other than the man who is under scrutiny vaguely implying something vague about a vague group of assets?

I asked if you had a source for your statement "No, intelligence didn't say that. John Howard did.". This does not quality.

And as I said recently, it will find nobody in particular to blame, just some vague generalisations. Maybe someone inconsequential will have to fall on their sword or be sacrified. But this quote doesn't show any intelligence support for Howard either.

I asked if you had a source for your statement "No, intelligence didn't say that. John Howard did.". This does not quality.

They support the idea that the whole move to war was baseless.

I asked if you had a source for your statement "No, intelligence didn't say that. John Howard did.". This does not quality.

 

[studentx]

Innocent until proven guilty...

 

[Jikx]

Not for the head of our govenment.. Howard went to war on the basis of nothing.. let me repeat that again, WE WENT TO WAR FOR NOTHING. But please do vote for him.. its not that serious :)

 

[Adam]

Hurkyl, all you have to do is read a little.
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/speech79.html

 

[Adam]

From John Howard:

"We believed on the basis of the intelligence advice we had at the time that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

"I might point out to my critics that at the time of the military operation there was near unanimous agreement around the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

 

[studentx]

So wheres he lying...

 

[Jikx]

lying.. nothing to do with it. He went to war on very weak evidence. Thats the issue. The war has achieved nothing except death all around. That's also the issue.

 

[JohnDubYa]

The war has achieved nothing? The fall of a brutal dictator is nothing? What about the potential of democracy coming to the Iraqi people? That is nothing?

 

[Pyrovus]

Yeah, democracy for the Iraqi people will be a great thing - assuming of course, that there are any Iraqis left alive at the end of this debacle to enjoy it. And the creation of a new haven for terrorists in Iraq is also a fantastic achievement. Still perhaps this is part of the Bush regime's master strategy - they haven't had much luck catching terrorists, so now that there's a whole lot more terrorists, it'll be far easier to catch them.

 

[Hurkyl]

lying.. nothing to do with it. He went to war on very weak evidence. Thats the issue. The war has achieved nothing except death all around. That's also the issue.

You did notice that the title of this thread is about lying, and Adam has accused John Howard of lying, and most of the thread has been about getting Adam to retract or support his accusation, didn't you?

 

[Adam]

Did you notice the complete lack of people being able to understand what they have read? Or am I assuming too much in thinking people have gone to the effort of reading?

 

[HallsofIvy]

I can read enough to notice that you have still not pointed out where you believe the "lie" is.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Yeah, democracy for the Iraqi people will be a great thing - assuming of course, that there are any Iraqis left alive at the end of this debacle to enjoy it.

How many Iraqis have been dying since the War ended? Compare that to the numerous murders and human rights violations that occurred every day when Saddam was in power.

It appears that the Bush haters refuse to acknowledge just how grotesque Saddam's regime really was. You should read some history about some of his tactics, and then realize that he is no longer in power. Thanks to George W., justice will be served to Saddam and his cronies.

And the creation of a new haven for terrorists in Iraq is also a fantastic achievement.

As long as they have no state sponsorship, they are of little threat to this country.

 

[arildno]

JohnDubYa:
If GWB&TB had actually gone to war on Iraq in order to remove a despot, rather than
cooking up a bare-faced lie about weapons and terrorist links, I would whole-heartedly have supported their efforts (not that my support means a lot ).
What I can't stand, is hypocrisy and lies, and there was absolutely no evidence for the existence of these weapons and links at the time when war was declared (please go back and review comments in the media from people not from the "loony left" (a group whose opinions in general should be ignored)).

Truth should matter, in particular in democracies; TB&GWB have sullied one of the best ideals we have. Shame on them.

 

[JohnDubYa]

If GWB&TB had actually gone to war on Iraq in order to remove a despot, ...

That wasn't the point. A previous poster said that the War in Iraq accomplished NOTHING. Consider the context of the discussion, will you please?

 

[arildno]

OK, sorry about that..

 

[JohnDubYa]

Okay, it's coo, it's coo.

 

[arildno]

What's a coo?
(Sounds like what a mum says to a crying 3-year old..)

 

[JohnDubYa]

Ghetto slang for "cool."

 

[Adam]

"We believed on the basis of the intelligence advice we had at the time that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Intelligence available to the entire world (such as the IAEA's report) cleared Iraq of the baseless accusations.

"I might point out to my critics that at the time of the military operation there was near unanimous agreement around the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

There was no such unanimous agreement around the world.

 

[studentx]

Intelligence available to the entire world (such as the IAEA's report) cleared Iraq of the baseless accusations.

Could you show me this intelligence dating from before the war, that proves Saddam had no WMD?

There was no such unanimous agreement around the world.

Cant you read at all? He says "NEAR unanimous", not unanimous. Why was half the middle east wearing gas masks when the war began? Plz provide proof that the majority of this planet believed Saddam had no WMD.

 

[Hurkyl]

Why was half the middle east wearing gas masks when the war began?

I haven't heard this; you have a reference?

 

[russ_watters]

People tend to forget that the purpose of the UN inspectors' 12 year mission was to find and destroy the CNB weapons that were known to exist after the 1991 Gulf War. The problem/question faced by the inspectors was where have the weapons gone? Their existence in 1991 was not in question - heck, he used the chemical weapons on a number of occasions prior to 1991.

Fast forward to 2002 - the UN gave Iraq the chance to show documentation on what happened to these weapons. Iraq provided a 12,000 page document that didn't say anything. Based on this and the attitude toward the inspectors for those 12 years, it was logical to assume that the weapons were being hidden.

So, where did they go? Were they destroyed? Not likely - destruction leaves evidence, and why would Iraq want to hide their compliance with UN demands? Moved? Good possbility - there were some rumors (unsubstantiated) that some were moved to Syra. Some could have gotten to Iran as well.

Though I don't consider the question essential to justifying the war, the question of where the weapons went is nevertheless an important one.

 

[Adam]

Russ, chemical agents have a limited shelf life.

 

[JohnDubYa]

As I understand it from reading the Web, Sarin is not made and then stored. Usually the mixing of the two necessary chemicals is done shortly before the sarin is released as a weapon, or during the release. Both chemicals are more stable than sarin. One is perfectly stable.

How does the roadside bomb containing sarin fit into this discussion?

 

[selfAdjoint]

As I understand it from reading the Web, Sarin is not made and then stored. Usually the mixing of the two necessary chemicals is done shortly before the sarin is released as a weapon, or during the release. Both chemicals are more stable than sarin. One is perfectly stable.

If this is so, then it explains why no WMD were ever found in Iraq. After all, poison gas was the only mass weapon he was demonstrated to have, whatever wannabe projects he initiated. And if you can't keep the best poison gas, there wouldn't be anything stored.

 

[JohnDubYa]

True, but the main point is that poison gas would be readily available when needed. So when someone says that a country is stockpiling sarin, that is not entirely accurate -- rather the country is stockpiling the agents necessary to create the gas.

Keep in mind that factories are not required to make sarin from its constituents. A simple mixing is all that is necessary. In fact, the mixing of sarin takes place inside the artillery shell during flight. So the shelf-life of sarin is completely meaningless.

 

[Adam]

Russ, chemical agents have a limited shelf life.

Apparently I need to repeat.

 

[Hurkyl]

Apparently I need to repeat.

No, you need to elaborate.

 

[JohnDubYa]

For those that don't quite understand my argument, I thought of a fairly relevant analogy.

Epoxy is formed by taking two different chemicals and mixing them together. The reason the glue isn't pre-mixed is obvious: The shelf-life of epoxy is measured in mere minutes (the glue would harden inside the tube). The shelf life of the two constituent chemicals is measured in months or years.

So if you are wanting to find out if a hardware store stocks epoxy, you don't look for epoxy itself, you look for the individual tubes containing its constituent chemicals.

This is why the shelf-life of sarin is IRRELEVANT. Sarin is typicaly not made and then stored, just like epoxy is not mixed then stored. Instead the constituent chemicals are mixed during the release of the weapon, just like epoxy is mixed shortly before application.

This issue is one reason why Scott Ritter cannot be trusted. He should have known that his statements about the shelf life of sarin were completely irrelevant and misleading. He made them anyway, and I think we know why.