Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Australia accused of lying about Iraq

  1. Aug 8, 2004 #1
    Well, it's not really new. We had military and intelligence people quitting even before the invasion, over the lies from our government.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 8, 2004 #2

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Wait a minute...if your story was all lies, and your story's the same as our story, then our story...:eek:
     
  4. Aug 8, 2004 #3
    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?
     
  5. Aug 8, 2004 #4
    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.
     
  6. Aug 8, 2004 #5

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What is your source for that?
     
  7. Aug 8, 2004 #6
    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?
     
  8. Aug 8, 2004 #7

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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? :wink:
     
  9. Aug 8, 2004 #8

    kat

    User Avatar

    The U.S. has had an inquiry into the intelligence regarding the attack on Iraq?
     
  10. Aug 8, 2004 #9
    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?

    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.

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

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

    I have special rights to make all the ad hominems I want against John Howard.
     
  11. Aug 8, 2004 #10
    I believe it is/was the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence doing a report about it.
     
  12. Aug 8, 2004 #11

    kat

    User Avatar

    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..
     
  13. Aug 8, 2004 #12

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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


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


    I asked if you had a source for your statement "No, intelligence didn't say that. John Howard did.". This does not quality.
     
  14. Aug 9, 2004 #13
    Innocent untill proven guilty...
     
  15. Aug 9, 2004 #14
    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 :)
     
  16. Aug 9, 2004 #15
  17. Aug 9, 2004 #16
    From John Howard:
     
  18. Aug 10, 2004 #17
    So wheres he lying...
     
  19. Aug 11, 2004 #18
    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.
     
  20. Aug 11, 2004 #19
    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?
     
  21. Aug 11, 2004 #20
    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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Australia accused of lying about Iraq
  1. What to do about Iraq (Replies: 426)

Loading...