quote:

Originally posted by occrider And why is that so hard to fathom? The CIA and western intelligence services have a historical record of underestimating the nuclear capabilities and weapons of mass destruction development programs of many countries for much of the latter part of the 20th century. The Soviet testing of the atomic bomb in 1949, the Chinese nuclear development program in 1964, most notably the Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapons program which COMPLETELY caught western intellligence experts off guard in the 90's, the development of nuclear fuel rods by N. Korea right under our very noses during Clinton's term, and the extent of the Libyan and Iranian wmd programs due to pakistani assistance as gleaned by information provided by Quadafi. All of these were critical intelligence failures that the CIA should have known about yet didn't. And why did these developments catch the west off guard? They were covert programs that did not draw much attention. Iraq was the exact opposite ... Huessein made no pretenses of disguising his ambition for these programs, it drew the attention of all intelligence analysts, and it drew the most speculation not of what was discovered or found during inspections but what hadn't been found. Specifically, the speculation stemmed from wmds we knew he had prior to the first gulf war and what was unaccounted for by inspections following the first war. Furthermore, the weapons dossier they sent to the UN was by no means an accurate account of their wmd programs and contained so many holes that it was regarded by most nations as a complete joke. There was no evidence gleaned by Russian, French, or German intelligence services to indicate definitively that there were no wmds and their respective governments all thought that Iraq possessed them. So the intelligence was faulty and inaccurate, that fact cannot be denied. The Americans had it wrong, the brits had it wrong, the Germans, Russians, French, etc., everyone had it wrong. That shouldn't be the issue that is in dispute. What should be called into question are the US and Britain's brash decision to go to war on intelligence that may or may not have been entirely accurate or properly accounted for. More time should have been spent on verifying the veracity of all these accounts.

With regards to historical shortcomings of American and British intelligence agencies, I agree with you. However, what I had in mind when I wrote that was here we have Iraq, a country that previously had considerable interaction with the U.S. and other western suppliers of bio-chemicals and the relative technologies. Here is a country that was previously a major American ally and trade partner, a country whos war with Iran was closely monitored and documented, and then a nation that American forces personally got involved with in Gulf War I. Years and years of sanctions, inspections, surveillance followed. Surely, after all this time you would think that they would get SOMETHING right? Perhaps finding some WMDs but not as much as they thought. But to go in on one end of the spectrum and come out on the other? Raises an eyebrow to say the least.

India and Pakistan are different as that area was never a major flashpoint for the U.S. Apart from the fact that India was a Soviet "ally", there was never really a need for the C.I.A. to keep tabs on events there, up until Bin Laden ofcourse.

And another note, its harder to track nucleaur programs because countries tend to develop their own covert operations. With the case of Iraq its no secret that they had considerable imports of bio-chemicals and the related technologies in the 80s.

Back to the topic at hand, the Hutton report, I can't quite figure out whether you were pro-Hutton or anti-Hutton (quite clearly pro-Hutton does not necessarily mean anti-BBC depending on what you think can be learnt from the report).

Don't think the BBC is "going quietly into that goodnight". The public thinks the British gov't is full of shit, and the BBC is comin' back swinging, as they fucking should:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3448549.stm

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/hutt...1136464,00.html

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inte...1136314,00.html

And my favorite:

quote:

BBC dossier reveals fury at Hutton 'flaws' · QC outlines Dyke battle plan · Hutton verdict 'wrong in law' · Spy chief revealed WMD doubt Kamal Ahmed, political editor Sunday February 1, 2004 The Observer The war between the BBC and the Government was re-ignited last night after a series of leaked documents revealed growing insistence within the corporation that there are fundamental flaws in Lord Hutton's report. A confidential briefing document taking to task key findings by the Ulster judge reveals that executives throughout the BBC believe that the inquiry report was blatantly one-sided and took little account of the corporation's evidence. As Tony Blair prepares to 'give some ground' on the issue of weapons of mass destruction at an appearance before a parliamentary committee of inquiry on Tuesday, the fresh evidence reveals that far from letting it drop, many senior executives want to continue the battle. A second leaked document prepared by the BBC for Hutton also reveals crucial details of why executives stood by its controversial Today report, detailing a lunch between the head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, and Kevin Marsh, the editor of the Today programme. In a witness statement prepared by Marsh and BBC legal representatives, it is claimed that Dearlove suggested that 'hard evidence of WMD in Iraq would never be found'. Blair is likely to admit that although he believed the intelligence at the time, he agrees that there is a 'growing need' for 'an explanation' of why WMD have not been found. The BBC briefing document once again backs large parts of the controversial reports by Andrew Gilligan, claiming that the Government 'sexed up' intelligence to make a stronger case for war against Saddam Hussein. The report goes on to question Alastair Campbell's evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. It says that his evidence on amendments to the September 2002 Iraq weapons dossier was 'inconsistent' with what he told the inquiry. Friends of Campbell say the BBC should accept the Hutton findings and move on. 'He was cleared by the Intelligence and Security Committee, he was cleared by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and he was cleared by Hutton,' said one. 'What more do people want?' The report, entitled Freedom of Speech and obtained by The Observer, says Hutton was 'wrong in law' and ignored key evidence critical of the Government. It reveals that the carefully nuanced statements by Gavyn Davies, the BBC chairman, who resigned last week, and Greg Dyke, the director-general, only scratch the surface of simmering anger in the corporation. Far from drawing a line under the controversy, as has been suggested by Richard Ryder, acting BBC chairman, the document is expected to form the spine of a trenchant defence of the corporation by Dyke, in the next week. Senior executives say they support the document which throws light on how the 'BBC really feels'. Writing in today's Observer, Melvyn Bragg, one of Dyke's closest friends, who has been in constant contact with him over the past week, said that the 'rudderless governors' had panicked in accepting his resignation. Dyke has told friends he believes the BBC was 'stitched up' by Hutton and that its journalists were not given a fair hearing. The governors reacted like 'startled rabbits caught in the headlights'. Bragg said: 'While the rest of the country was trying to weigh up the wholly unanticipated bombshell of the Hutton report, the rudderless BBC governors had panicked. They wanted to make an ill-judged sacrifice of the man by far the best able to get the BBC through its crisis.' The report was drawn up on advice from Andrew Caldecott, the barrister hired by the BBC to present its case to the inquiry. It says Hutton's statement that 'accusations of fact impugning the integrity of others should not be made by the media' is 'wrong in law'. 'As a general and unqualified proposition, this extract is wrong as a matter of law,' the report says. 'That is not to say that the BBC defends those parts of its reports in which it inaccurately reported Dr Kelly. 'However insofar as Dr Kelly was accurately reported - which in large measure he was - the BBC was entitled to broadcast them whether or not the BBC had itself managed conclusively to verify what he had said. 'Andrew Gilligan did repeatedly make clear that his story was derived from what his source said. BBC coverage throughout carried balancing government denials.' The submission will anger Downing Street, which has said it wants to draw a line under the issue. Much of the document raises issues the Government says have been dealt with by Hutton. The document says 'the language of the [September 2002] dossier did go or may well have gone too far'. It also asks why Hutton 'excludes from his remit' whether the infamous '45-minutes claim' was referring to battlefield weapons or missiles. 'The BBC believes this issue is fundamental to any full examination of both Dr Kelly's concerns and the public interest issues,' it says. Marsh is also said by friends to be angered by allegations that editorial control of the Today programme, where Gilligan first made the claims, was defective. Marsh was not called to give evidence to Hutton. 'How can he face criticism when he has not been able to put his case?' said one BBC executive. Marsh, who is unlikely to resign after receiving supporting statements from his senior managers, did prepare a witness statement for the inquiry in case he was called. In it he details a rigorous system of control which Gilligan had to go through before his report was broadcast. He has admitted that although Gilligan made an error in his first unscripted report on the Today programme, later reports, which went through the editorial process, were correct. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/poli...1136292,00.html

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by razmataz With regards to historical shortcomings of American and British intelligence agencies, I agree with you. However, what I had in mind when I wrote that was here we have Iraq, a country that previously had considerable interaction with the U.S. and other western suppliers of bio-chemicals and the relative technologies. Here is a country that was previously a major American ally and trade partner, a country whos war with Iran was closely monitored and documented, and then a nation that American forces personally got involved with in Gulf War I. Years and years of sanctions, inspections, surveillance followed. Surely, after all this time you would think that they would get SOMETHING right? Perhaps finding some WMDs but not as much as they thought. But to go in on one end of the spectrum and come out on the other? Raises an eyebrow to say the least.

Certainly one would expect something to turn up, however, the limitations pressed upon the weapons inspectors did little but fuel the fire of speculation. I'm certain we all remembered the numerous prohibitions on the access weapons inspectors had to palaces and various locations, the foreknowledge of the Iraqi military of where weapons inspectors were going before they got there, and ultimately the length of time until weapons inspectors finally got unfettered access. It would be no stretch of the imagination to assume that there was ample time to move weapons from sites the inspectors were likened to go. At this time it was probably thought that Iraq was finished developing all the weapons it needed (and perhaps using those infamous mobile weapons labs heh) and had them all stockpiled somewhere. So I would say that it was still likely that everyone guessed that they had weapons, and that was always the assumption. There was never any travelling from one end of the spectrum to the other ... the mentality always resided on that one end of the spectrum as evidenced by congressional hearings during Clinton's term concerning the lack of progress by UMVAC with regards to unaccounted for weapons.

quote:

India and Pakistan are different as that area was never a major flashpoint for the U.S. Apart from the fact that India was a Soviet "ally", there was never really a need for the C.I.A. to keep tabs on events there, up until Bin Laden ofcourse. And another note, its harder to track nucleaur programs because countries tend to develop their own covert operations. With the case of Iraq its no secret that they had considerable imports of bio-chemicals and the related technologies in the 80s.

Despite the fact that they were never really areas of true concern, one could make the argument that a new nation acheiving the status of a nuclear power is of prime concern to the CIA (and the IAEA) no matter where that country is. But I think you are somewhat underscoring my point. On the one hand we have two countries seemingly without nuclear ambitions, test these weapons completely under the nose of all these intelligence services. On the other hand, we have this country actively and knowingly seeking this technology, yes we have all these inspections, but with all these loopholes, what our we missing? Thus I think the intelligence gathering on Iraq was fundamentally flawed in that speculation and conjecture was based not only on the knowns, but what wasn't found that should have been there.

quote:

Back to the topic at hand, the Hutton report, I can't quite figure out whether you were pro-Hutton or anti-Hutton (quite clearly pro-Hutton does not necessarily mean anti-BBC depending on what you think can be learnt from the report).

Well first of all, I love the bbc. Nine times out of 10 I use them as a source. However, that doesn't mean that I don't think they are infallible, and I agree with some of the findings of the Hutton report. I think the bbc is ironically guilty of the same thing the government is. They went with a single source without properly verifying it. Now if only there were an investigation into the competance of a government that would rely upon flawed/unverified intelligence ...

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well first of all, I love the bbc. Nine times out of 10 I use them as a source. However, that doesn't mean that I don't think they are infallible, and I agree with some of the findings of the Hutton report. I think the bbc is ironically guilty of the same thing the government is. They went with a single source without properly verifying it. Now if only there were an investigation into the competance of a government that would rely upon flawed/unverified intelligence ...

I agree with you here. The worst part of this whole affair is that if Andrew Gilligan had accurately reported what Dr. Kelly had told him in the first place, (essentially that while the Government hadn’t prefabricated anything, they had put things forward in a way which would seem more substantial to people with out expertise in the area) the BBC would be in the clear. I think that it’s a shame the beeb acted as they did, however I can fully understand why they did. Though they should have covered their bases, by checking things out before they took tier position.

Today an Inquiry was announced that would look into just that thing. An effort by the government to smooth over voters and regain some credibility, or genuine concern into the intelligence that was presented? Hmmm...

Iraq WMD inquiry details unveiled (BBC News UK - Tuesday, 3 February, 2004)