After months of deliberation, a parliamentary committee was finally launched here in Australia to investigate the possible intelligence failures relating to Iraqs phantom WMDs (finally bringing Howard under similar scrutiny to that plaguing Blair and Bush). This is what it found:

quote:

The case made by the Howard Government for war against Iraq was not fully supported by advice from its own intelligence agencies, a parliamentary committee has found. In a report released yesterday, the Government-dominated committee found that prewar presentations by Prime Minister John Howard and his ministers were more strongly worded than most of the judgements by Australian intelligence experts on the risk posed by Iraq and its alleged weapons of mass destruction. The Government's claim that Iraq possessed WMD in large quantities and posed a grave and unacceptable threat to the region and the world was "not the picture that emerges from an examination of all the assessments provided to the committee by Australia's two analytical agencies", the report said.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2...8117364883.html

Australia had two intelligence agencies involved in supplying evidence about Iraq's weapons stockpile to the Howard government: the Office of National Assessment (the ONA) and the Defence Intelligence Organisation (the DIO). Prior to Septemeber 13, both agencies were fairly subdued in their assessment of the risk posed by potential Iraq's WMDs. After September 13, however (when the Bush administration starting beating the drums of war) the ONA started to beef-up the threat they perceived was posed by Iraq (from above article):

quote:

Until September 2002, both the ONA and the Defence Intelligence Organisation had submitted relatively moderate assessments of the threat posed by Iraq. On September 13, the ONA prepared a more robust stance for the use of ministers, said committee chairman and former Liberal minister David Jull. "It appeared that ONA, particularly after September 13, was more ready to extrapolate a threatening scenario from historical experience, more ready to accept the new and mostly untested intelligence," Mr Jull said. He said the inquiry accepted ONA assurances that it was not under political pressure, but said he had been unable to find out why the ONA suddenly changed its assessments. The report said the change was so sudden that it appeared the ONA "at least unconsciously" may have been responding to "policy running strong".

And from here:

quote:

A question that needs answering is why did the ONA suddenly step up its assessment of the threat posed by Saddam on September 13, 2002, after the US made public its expectation that Australia would join in any pre-emptive strike? Although no evidence of political pressure was found, the report says: "It is so sudden a change in judgement that it appears ONA, at least subconsciously, might have been responding to 'policy running strong'."

So Howard was given faulty evidence, no doubt about that. Nonetheless, questions must still be asked about why Howard exaggerated (without "sexing-up" apparently) the findings made by the ONA and the DIO and why he ignored and excluded evidence provided by these two organisations as well as US and British intelligence agencies that "played down the threat posed by Iraq (taken from above two articles and here):

quote:

But the report also raises several questions about how and why the Government got it so wrong - questions that may not be answered by the limited independent inquiry the Prime Minister has agreed to establish. And the key finding of the report is irrefutable. Mr Howard's case for war was that Iraq possessed WMD in large quantities and posed a grave and unacceptable threat to the region and the world, especially if he passed his weapons to terrorist groups. He pressed it repeatedly, with no qualifications. But the report found that this was "not the picture that emerges from an examination of all the assessments provided by... Australia's two analytical agencies", the Office of National Assessments and the Defence Intelligence Organisation. Whether you call it sexing up, exaggerating or maximising, it is clear that Howard overstated the threat posed by Iraq and that he was wrong. Neither of the two Australian agencies thought Saddam Hussein possessed anything more than "small stocks" of WMD, yet the Government's presentations suggested "large arsenals and stockpiles". Neither agency considered Iraq posed a "grave and immediate" threat, yet this was a key justification for the war. [...] "The case made by the Government was that Iraq possessed WMD in large quantities and posed a grave and unacceptable threat to the region and the world, particularly as there was a danger that Iraq's WMD might be passed to terrorist organisations," the committee found. "This is not the picture that emerges from an examination of all the assessments provided to the committee by Australia's two analytical agencies," the committee reported. [...] The report states that the DIO assessed there was no evidence that Iraq had resumed production of chemical or biological weapons in the lead-up to the war. Mr Jull said that although the ONA checked the content of Mr Howard's speeches, it did not examine the accuracy of claims about Iraq made by overseas agencies. Asked if Iraq's WMD posed a "real and unacceptable threat", DIO chief Frank Lewincamp told the committee "it was not a judgement that DIO would have made". The committee's report said some of the reports from the US and Britain used by the Government had major uncertainties removed so the "omissions and changes constituted an exaggeration of available intelligence".

Yet in fairness to Howard:

quote:

However, it said the Howard Government statements were "more moderate and more measured" than those of the United States and British governments.

Which begs the question, just how exaggerated and inaccurate were the statements provided US and UK governments?

If anyone cares, the entire 163 page report (which details what we knew about Iraqs WMD "stockpiles" and where the intelligence and governmental reports went wrong) can be accessed here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committ.../fullreport.pdf

Thoughts?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

didn't CIA say that iraq was no threat in the beginning too?

Hopefully Latham will take full advantage of this. It really is pretty damning, hell, the committee members openly admitted that they watered the findings down so it wouldn't look like a whitewash.

On a side note, what do you (Renegade, or any other Australians) think of Howard's chances of re-election later this year?

Latham looks like he might have the goods at the moment, although Beazly was in a similar position last time around, right up until those pesky refugees 'threw their children overboard'.

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

From what I've read, Latham doesn't want to make this an election issue (Howard will benefit if national security becomes a dominant issue again). Latham's going to be concentrating on on social issues - health care, welfare, education etc. - where he's likely to be seen as more "in touch" with the Aussie public than Howard is.

Do I think Howard will be re-elected? Pretty difficult to tell at the moment. Remember, even if it's been going on for a while, Latham's still in a honeymoon period: he's been treading carefully and has done or said nothing likely to cause a stir in the media. On the other hand, coming closer to election time he's going to need to be a bit stronger with his policy definition, and it remains to be seen how the public (and his own party) will react to his stance on welfare reform (all this stuff about "Social Capital" strikes me as pretty Howard-esque), education (which Howard has already used as a "wedge" issue with the shit he said about State schools) and health-care (which the Howard government have pre-empted by proposing an increase in Medicare funding similar to that likely to be proposed by Labour). So yeah, there's a long way to go, but if he can keep this momentum going (and if Howard continues to come across as the heartless, archaic incumbent that he is) then he's probably favourite already.

Looking forward to it though. If everything goes to plan, we could be rid of Howard and Bush in the space of a few weeks.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew didn't CIA say that iraq was no threat in the beginning too?

YES.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade From what I've read, Latham doesn't want to make this an election issue (Howard will benefit if national security becomes a dominant issue again). Latham's going to be concentrating on on social issues - health care, welfare, education etc. - where he's likely to be seen as more "in touch" with the Aussie public than Howard is. Do I think Howard will be re-elected? Pretty difficult to tell at the moment. Remember, even if it's been going on for a while, Latham's still in a honeymoon period: he's been treading carefully and has done or said nothing likely to cause a stir in the media. On the other hand, coming closer to election time he's going to need to be a bit stronger with his policy definition, and it remains to be seen how the public (and his own party) will react to his stance on welfare reform (all this stuff about "Social Capital" strikes me as pretty Howard-esque), education (which Howard has already used as a "wedge" issue with the shit he said about State schools) and health-care (which the Howard government have pre-empted by proposing an increase in Medicare funding similar to that likely to be proposed by Labour). So yeah, there's a long way to go, but if he can keep this momentum going (and if Howard continues to come across as the heartless, archaic incumbent that he is) then he's probably favourite already. Looking forward to it though. If everything goes to plan, we could be rid of Howard and Bush in the space of a few weeks.

There was an article in the Age a few weeks back that basically quoted a few Labour strategists saying that they weren't planning to make it an issue. Personally I think that's a mistake, as they could easily point out just how many Iraqis were killed by the coalition forces, IMO that would be extremely effective when played back with Howard asserting that 'Saddam was a very bad man'. I agree that Labour will invariably try to steer the agenda towards domestic issues, just look at what Howard was able to do to Beazly when he ran fear/security based campaigns. The second time around I think that Beazly would have won if he hadn't played 'me too!' with regards to the coalition's immigration policy.

I have seen most people mention his supposed 'honeymoon period' a fair bit, but to be honest I'm not sure if I agree with it's existence. He's been riding high for a fair time now, and he has brought up some controversial policies. The parenting classes point was something that I consider pretty controversial myself, it even got A Current Affair to roll out Stan Zemanic (sp) to advocate the return of corporal punishment into schools. Just how long can a honeymoon period last? I think that Howard might be done for myself, there was a segment on the ABC (I think it might have been Lateline or the 7:30 report) that analysed the way in which he behaved in the media. In short, he's starting to drop the odd 'Mate' & 'Fair Dinkum'. Methinks someone has an image problem.

Seriously though, I think Latham's age (And Howard's age, for that matter) could become an issue. If Labour can successfully paint Howard as grossly out of touch, then the Liberals might be in deep trouble. Howard's use of education as a wedge issue was a major topic around here, the whole family are either school principals, ex school inspectors, or education researchers (PhD included) with over inflated egos.

Johnnie's 'values' rubbish really winds me up to be honest, the man has no problem killing off a couple of thousand Iraqis, then has the nerve to lecture underpaid and under resourced public schools as being devoid of values, and somehow inadequate. If anything, public schools are still hostage to Evangelist Christians. I vividly remember attending a 'religion' class at primary school, which was basically a converting session for the local Baptist church. We were informed that the bible was literally true, that the LORD loved us all, but not the atheists & Muslims. Why the bullshit hasn't been stamped out of public schools is beyond me. I have no issue with a 'comparative religion & philosophy' class in which the beliefs of Judaism, Christianity, Secular Humanism/Atheism/Agnosticism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism and so forth are objectively explained and analysed, but Christianity conversion classes cannot, and should not be tolerated. Public schools aren't 'values neutral', at best, they teach Christian values, at worst, they're convert conveyor belts.

I lost all respect for Howard's 'values' diatribes when he appointed Hollingworth as our GG. Surely common sense would dictate that you don't appoint a prominent Bishop as (well, as a representative of) the head of state? Aside from that, there's also Jeffery's assertion that "Jesus was the greatest man who ever lived" & "Public schools need more religion (read: Christianity). Hrhr.

But yeah, (As you can no doubt see) I'm looking forward to it as well.

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

it can't be made into an election issue, no servicemen or women have died in iraq. therefore, labor cant get any tearjerking swing voters.

the decision to goto war has been very good for aus, ties with US and UK have become incredibly strong and we havent had any loss of life/equipment.

the intelligence issue is of no real concern, everything is far too 'he said she said', there isnt any real drama because we havent had any loss of life, i dont really think the public actually gives a shit. as far as we see it, its america's problem and not ours, we gave a helping hand and came out unscathed.

i think labor are maybe running their election a little too early, which is why latham has been experiencing slight increases of popularity (most popular opposition leader of recent times isnt exactly a major achievement). imo howard and his team are just getting ready behind the scenes to launch themselves later on when it gets closer to business. lets face it, the general public is stupid and only have a short term memory, they wont remember much of this current period come the end of the year when its time to vote.

___________________
c o n : f u s e d