Butler Report - Live Updates

[Vanhalen 0]

Well, he still wont resign, which is amazing really, but lets all wait for round 3 on Thursday, when the two elections take place

Key intelligence used to justify war with Iraq has now been shown to be unreliable, the Butler Report says.

The 196 page report says MI6 did not check its sources well enough, and sometimes relied on third hand reports.

 

It also says the 2002 dossier should not have included the claim Iraq could use WMD within 45 minutes without explaining what that meant.

 

Tony Blair told MPs he "accepted" the findings and that Iraq did not have WMD stockpiles when the war started.

 

'Outer limits'

 

Mr Blair said he took "full responsibility" for any mistakes made, saying that they were in "good faith".

 

But Conservative leader Michael Howard said the "question he must ask himself is - does he have any credibility left?"

 

Lord Butler's main findings were:

 

 

The 45 minutes claim was "unsubstantiated" and limitations of intelligence were not "made sufficiently clear" in September 2002 dossier

 

Intelligence was pushed to "outer limits and beyond" and concludes there may have been deliberate distortion by politicians

 

JIC chairman John Scarlett should still take up post of MI6 chief

 

Since the war key claims based on intelligence from agents in Iraq, including claims the Iraqis had recently produced biological agents, had had to be withdrawn because they were "unreliable"

 

Mr Blair told MPs he accepted mistakes had been made but added: "I cannot honestly say I believe getting rid of Saddam was a mistake at all. Iraq, the region, the wider world is a better and safer place without Saddam."

 

The report said Tony Blair's statement to MPs, on the day the September 2002 dossier was published, may have reinforced the impression that there was "firmer and fuller intelligence".

 

In response Mr Blair said: "No one lied, no one made up intelligence. No one inserted things into the dossier against the advice of the intelligence services."

 

But he said he accepted "full personal responsibility for the way the issue was presented and therefore any errors that were made".

 

He said the decision to commit British troops was the "hardest he had ever made".

 

But he had became convinced after the 11 September attacks that a stand had to be taken against rogue states with WMD and "the place to make that stand was Iraq".

 

With "hindsight", Mr Blair told MPs, the case against Saddam Hussein would probably have been made in a different way, with separate reports from the JIC and the government, but the end result would have been the same.

 

'Not clear enough'

 

Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said the remit of the Butler inquiry had made it impossible for it to deal with the most important issue of the political judgment that informed the decision to go to war.

 

Former cabinet minister Robin Cook, who resigned over the war, said "the unavoidable conclusion of the content of the Butler report (is) that we committed British troops to action on the basis of false intelligence, overheated analysis and unreliable sources".

 

Mr Blair said the UN inspectors could not have gone back into Iraq without the troops being there.

 

He highlighted the "clear intention" that Saddam wanted to rebuild his arsenal, as outlined in Lord Butler's report.

 

The Butler report says intelligence agencies and ministers should have re-assessed the information as it become increasingly clear that UN Inspectors were not finding any WMD in the months immediately before the war.

 

But the inquiry concludes there was some evidence of "deliberate distortion" of intelligence by politicians and Lord Butler told reporters the prime minister "acted in good faith".

 

"It would have been very foolish thing indeed for him to have put something in the dossier which he knew or believed to be untrue, when the consequences of the war was going to establish the truth pretty soon."

 

But he said it was a "serious failing" that the dossier did not contain warnings and caveats about intelligence known to the JIC.

 

"More weight was placed on the intelligence than it could bear," Lord Butler said, and he criticised the government for publicly stating the JIC had "ownership" of the dossier, lending it more credibility than it might otherwise have had.

 

The Butler Report also criticised the "informality" of decision-making in No 10, with oral presentations relied on which made it impossible for Cabinet ministers to have advance notice of issues to be discussed.

 

Speaking at a news conference, Lord Butler agreed his committee had been less critical than other inquiries, for example in the US, but he insisted that they had criticised some of the procedures for assessing intelligence.

 

On the 45 minute claim, Lord Butler told reporters it had been an "uncharacteristically poor piece of assessment."

 

He said his inquiry had looked at whether the claim had been spun by the government but he decided it had not to a large degree. It had been seized on by the media because it was new and striking, he added.

 

Lord Butler was asked by No 10 to look at the accuracy of Britain's pre-war intelligence after the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

 

The report follows a US Senate inquiry severely criticising American intelligence agencies for the quality of their pre-war information.

 

In January Lord Hutton's inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly cleared the government of inserting material it "probably knew to be wrong" against the wishes of the intelligence community in its dossier on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

[Guest INXS]

Another whitewash then really...:sigh:

[Zorin Industries 0]

I'd say this was a lot more impartial than the Hutton inquiry, I agree with more that Lord Butler says than Hutton did anyway

[Guest INXS]

Both the US and UK are trying the same excuse; they were handed bad information, and nobody is to blame. But that claim is based on the assumption that the entire US and Uk governments, with huge staffs and millions in resources, could not discover what bloggers armed with a few PCs and funded on spare change all knew; that the claims of Iraqi WMDs were lies. The US and UK governments' excuse amounts to admitting that bloggers are smarter than Tony Blair, smarter than Bush (no big deal there, I grant you), smarter than MI5, smarter than CIA, smarter than FBI (again, no big deal there), smarter than the Pentagon, smarter than every single human being drawing a government paycheck in both countries.

Do you really believe that?

 

Because it is down to that choice. Either the US and UK governments lied to get us all into a war and are lying to save their own asses now, or they are all collectively dumber than your average internet blogger, who got to the truth faster and without charging taxes for it or needing to torture anyone.

 

Take your pick.

[Guest MikeSC]

Wow, so we should just believe EVERYTHING bloggers put down as being true?

 

Man, things could get much more fun around here now.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

Heh..not EVERYTHING, obviously.

 

The point is, is that there were many people pointing out that it wasn't likely that Iraq had WMD - from weapon inspectors to the blogger.

[Guest MikeSC]

Heh..not EVERYTHING, obviously.

 

The point is, is that there were many people pointing out that it wasn't likely that Iraq had WMD - from weapon inspectors to the blogger.

The only inspector who said that was Hans Blix, who I wouldn't trust to find his own ass with two hands.

 

And, again, if you want to use bloggers' theories as proof of anything, you're going to seem foolish.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

Of course i'm not using Bloggers theories...ONCE AGAIN..I was pointing out that many people, from inspectors to the man on the street, were not convinced regarding WMD. And they were correct.

 

What don't you trust Hans Blix? How about the American inspection team that came up with nothing too? Do you not trust them either?

 

Do you still believe that Saddam has WMD?

[Guest MikeSC]

Of course i'm not using Bloggers theories...ONCE AGAIN..I was pointing out that many people, from inspectors to the man on the street, were not convinced regarding WMD. And they were correct.

 

What don't you trust Hans Blix? How about the American inspection team that came up with nothing too? Do you not trust them either?

 

Do you still believe that Saddam has WMD?

Hans is a crony to the UN. He'd say ANYTHING to keep himself hired.

 

And, again, you're trying to validate your point by mentioning bloggers. If bloggers are WORTH serving as validation here, then that opens up a can o' worms.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

I'm mentioning bloggers as an example that MANY people were sceptical. Bloggers, writers, columnists, people..many weren't convinced, especially as there was no definite proof. And again, they were proven correct.

 

Your statement that Hans Blix is a "crony to the UN and would do anything to keep himself hired" is absurd. Hans Blix is a man of integrity, a professional. US inspectors didn't find anything either, I guess they just wanted to keep their jobs? And you say that the left come up with whacky conspiracy theories...

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm mentioning bloggers as an example that MANY people were sceptical. Bloggers, writers, columnists, people..many weren't convinced, especially as there was no definite proof. And again, they were proven correct.

 

Your statement that Hans Blix is a "crony to the UN and would do anything to keep himself hired" is absurd. Hans Blix is a man of integrity, a professional. US inspectors didn't find anything either, I guess they just wanted to keep their jobs? And you say that the left come up with whacky conspiracy theories...

Bloggers post insane theories all of the time. You know, the whole "A stopped watch is right twice a day" thing.

 

Hans Blix is a man of inte...damn, I almost managed to type that without laughing.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

Why isn't he a man of intergrity then? He can't find what isn't there!!!

 

Yes, Bloggers do post crazy theories all the time..:sigh: I'm unwilling to explain yet again, for the fourth time WHY I used the example of Bloggers.

 

Turns out they weren't insane theories though doesn't it?

[Guest MikeSC]

Why isn't he a man of intergrity then? He can't find what isn't there!!!

 

Yes, Bloggers do post crazy theories all the time..:sigh: I'm unwilling to explain yet again, for the fourth time WHY I used the example of Bloggers.

 

Turns out they weren't insane theories though doesn't it?

Hans Blix, again, couldn't find his own ass with two hands. He said, on 1/27/03, that Iraq was NOT COMPLYING.

 

The world just got cold feet when we stood up and said we're taking care of the problem.

 

Apparently, you're unfamiliar with the term "A Stopped watch is correct twice a day"

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

I am unfamiliar with that term actually. Can you put it into laymans terms?

 

They had allowed Inspectors in and gave them access to anywhere they wanted what more compliance was needed? I'm unaware as to which context Blix said that. Saddam could hardly hand over his weapons stash when he DIDNT HAVE ANY. Did you follow the war? Iraq had around 6 tanks and each army unit had to toss a coin to see who got the rifle.

 

Damn that Hans Blix, it's all his fault..if only he did his job and found WMD we wouldn't be looking dumb now. The pesky UN, always meddling...

[Guest MikeSC]

I am unfamiliar with that term actually. Can you put it into laymans terms?

Basically, anybody can get lucky and be correct on rare occasion. Think about it --- a stopped watch will be correct twice a day --- doesn't mean it's a good timepiece.

They had allowed Inspectors in and gave them access to anywhere they wanted what more compliance was needed?

OK, Iraq did THIS? Gave inspectors access to "anywhere they wanted"?

 

You aren't actually saying this, are you?

 

Did the BBC tell you this?

I'm unaware as to which context Blix said that.

His 1/27/03 report TO THE UNITED NATIONS. I'm sure he's changed his views since then, but that's only because he's a drooling idiot.

Saddam could hardly hand over his weapons stash when he DIDNT HAVE ANY.

Funny, he blocked access to tons of sites, threw up roadblocks everywhere, threw them out at one point.

 

Yup, NOTHING suspicious there.

Did you follow the war? Iraq had around 6 tanks and each army unit had to toss a coin to see who got the rifle.

Not quite. We just have a vastly superior military.

Damn that Hans Blix, it's all his fault..if only he did his job and found WMD we wouldn't be looking dumb now. The pesky UN, always meddling...

Your lack of knowledge here is staggering.

-=Mike

[Guest INXS]

So the people claiming that there wasn't sufficient evidence of WMD just "got lucky"? Jesus Christ, you get worse.

 

I never heard anything about roadblocks or blocking access to sites- perhaps that happened in previous years but certainly not in the run up to the war.

 

You can't bash the BBC - they are the most credible and independent news source in the world. I can tell that you watch too much FOX news though.

 

With my last paragraph I was taking the piss.

[Guest MikeSC]

So the people claiming that there wasn't sufficient evidence of WMD just "got lucky"? Jesus Christ, you get worse.

No, it means they are likely wrong. I know, the POSSIBILITY that WMD were smuggled out during the long delay is COMPLETELY impossible and all...

I never heard anything about roadblocks or blocking access to sites- perhaps that happened in previous years but certainly not in the run up to the war.

Then you are living in a world of perpetual blissful ignorance. The roadblocks, "off limit sites", and the like were numerous and QUITE well-known.

 

I'd hope that the BBC would've covered that over the years --- but I wouldn't be shocked if they missed that.

You can't bash the BBC - they are the most credible and independent news source in the world. I can tell that you watch too much FOX news though.

I can EASILY bash the BBC. Notice how I've been doing it for a while? They are EVERY BIT AS BAD AS FOX. Just because you AGREE with their spin doesn't make the spin true.

With my last paragraph I was taking the piss.

Thanks for sharing.

-=Mike

[Zorin Industries 0]

I can EASILY bash the BBC. Notice how I've been doing it for a while? They are EVERY BIT AS BAD AS FOX. Just because you AGREE with their spin doesn't make the spin true.

Mind if I ask how you formed your'e opinion on this Mike?

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Those assholes cover international news. Fuckballs.

[Guest MikeSC]

I can EASILY bash the BBC. Notice how I've been doing it for a while? They are EVERY BIT AS BAD AS FOX. Just because you AGREE with their spin doesn't make the spin true.

Mind if I ask how you formed your'e opinion on this Mike?

Do you think I'm completely oblivious to what BBC reports? It's hard to avoid it. When I was in high school, my teachers infored me that THEY are a better source for news than anybody out there, easily outpacing the NY Times.

 

Those days have since passed.

-=Mike

[Zorin Industries 0]

Sorry, i'm still not seeing it. Is it just because of the reporting of the war in Iraq. Yes, it was somewhat critical, but it is news, not propaganda. I would say the BBC is still one of the best broadcasters out there, and a vast majority of the British public would agree with me.

[Guest MikeSC]

Sorry, i'm still not seeing it. Is it just because of the reporting of the war in Iraq. Yes, it was somewhat critical, but it is news, not propaganda. I would say the BBC is still one of the best broadcasters out there, and a vast majority of the British public would agree with me.

And that's good for the British public. More Americans like Fox News than the other cable news outlets. Does that make Fox impartial?

-=Mike

[Zorin Industries 0]

I can only talk from my own experience of watching the BBC, and to me it does feel as though they try to be impartial. They are certainly a lot better than the vast majority of the British print media, which dosen't even try to hide its bias. I can't speak with any real auhority on Fox, as I have only seen it briefly, but what I have seen reminded of those papers