This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is this page outdated as it does not refer to information re resignation of lawyer from attourney general's office, nor pre-dossier cabinet memo leaked this year denying existence of WMD? These two demonstrated that UK government had need to hype WMD and very little justification.
Mr Gilligan accepted that he was wrong to state the PM did something, because in fact Gilligan had no or insufficient evidence of this. That was the enquiry finding. However the additional evidence produced since would rather suggest an entirely different outcome to the enquiry Sandpiper 16:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It may be your opinion that the memo demonstrates that cabinet and advisers believed in WMD, but it is my opinion from reading the same document that it demonstrates grave cabinet doubts about WMD and certainly about the threat they posed. It specifically states the attourney generals opinion that any information known to him did not justify war, and the security officials view that 'Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.'
Elizabeth Wilmshurst resigned because she could not agree to the change in the attourney generals opinion, i.e. change away from the opinion he expressed in the memo, that war could not be justified. He had stated that war could not be justified on the grounds of immediate threat to this country. Which brings us to the imminent threat expressed in this dossier. In essence, as of the date of the memo the attourney general was convinced that no credible threat existed, and no one present at the meeting (defence secretary, foreign secretary, PM) convinced him otherwise. Indeed they expressed doubt. Sandpiper 22:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sandpiper 12:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am not going back to change history. History is what happened and is reported in the newspapers day to day. But it frequently happens that years later people discover that what was believed at the time was incorrect. Facts come to light which entirely change the interpretation given to events at the time. So it is history that people believed the dossier claimed an imminent threat to Britain, or that people were unsure whether it was claiming this or not. It was the responsibility of government not to mislead, or if they felt obliged to mislead then to explain why they had done this once they were caught out.
Does anyone else have a view apart from a labour party member who is a labour councillor and former adviser to two labour MPs? Any informed Conservatives or Lib Dems? Sandpiper 12:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A theory which I find intriguing:
Maybe Saddam Husein never had any WMD, but he believed he had. If his minister of munitions (or whatever the post was called) had been ordered to create WMD, but had failed to do so, he might have realised that he would risk his life by admitting his failure; and so he assured Saddam Husein that the WMD existed and were ready for use. If Saddam Husein believed the WMD were real, we can't blame the US or UK security services for believing it too.
I think this theory once featured in a BBC program, I can't give a citation. I guess it shouldn't be mentioned in the article, while there is no evidence for it. Maproom ( talk) 11:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
In the introduction, we have the following statement. "The paper was part of a campaign by the government to bolster public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq." Whilst there may be an argument that this was the case, the leader of the government at the time, Tony Blair, sets out clearly in his memoirs that at no point until several weeks before Iraq was actually invaded was it a certainty that Iraq would be invaded - there were constant efforts, principally made through the UN, to resolve the situation diplomatically, which in September 2002 still gave a significant amount of hope. This statement makes it sound as if the government was running a campaign to encourage the public to support an invasion of Iraq, which misrepresents their intentions. I have revised this statement to "The paper was part of an ongoing investigation by the government into weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which ultimately led to its invasion in 2003." Unnachamois ( talk) 07:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Bolstering support for an illegal war?
"The paper was part of a campaign by the government to bolster public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq". Since this first statement is a reasonable account of what happened, what convincing reasons are there to change or tone it down? For might not the revised statement be termed, sexing down? 88.107.48.240 ( talk) 00:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
P.S: Or might the statement be changed to read: The paper was part of a ridiculous and tasteless fairy story - conjured up by the government to bolster public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq"?
88.107.48.240 ( talk) 00:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The Danish intelligence considered the 45 minute claim impossible. They also asked, what do they mean by "45 minutes"? 45 minutes to launch an order? 45 minutes to have airplanes in the air? If the Danish intelligence thought the 45-minute claim was hogwash, how likely is it that any other intelligence bureau believed it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 ( talk) 14:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is this page outdated as it does not refer to information re resignation of lawyer from attourney general's office, nor pre-dossier cabinet memo leaked this year denying existence of WMD? These two demonstrated that UK government had need to hype WMD and very little justification.
Mr Gilligan accepted that he was wrong to state the PM did something, because in fact Gilligan had no or insufficient evidence of this. That was the enquiry finding. However the additional evidence produced since would rather suggest an entirely different outcome to the enquiry Sandpiper 16:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It may be your opinion that the memo demonstrates that cabinet and advisers believed in WMD, but it is my opinion from reading the same document that it demonstrates grave cabinet doubts about WMD and certainly about the threat they posed. It specifically states the attourney generals opinion that any information known to him did not justify war, and the security officials view that 'Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.'
Elizabeth Wilmshurst resigned because she could not agree to the change in the attourney generals opinion, i.e. change away from the opinion he expressed in the memo, that war could not be justified. He had stated that war could not be justified on the grounds of immediate threat to this country. Which brings us to the imminent threat expressed in this dossier. In essence, as of the date of the memo the attourney general was convinced that no credible threat existed, and no one present at the meeting (defence secretary, foreign secretary, PM) convinced him otherwise. Indeed they expressed doubt. Sandpiper 22:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Sandpiper 12:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am not going back to change history. History is what happened and is reported in the newspapers day to day. But it frequently happens that years later people discover that what was believed at the time was incorrect. Facts come to light which entirely change the interpretation given to events at the time. So it is history that people believed the dossier claimed an imminent threat to Britain, or that people were unsure whether it was claiming this or not. It was the responsibility of government not to mislead, or if they felt obliged to mislead then to explain why they had done this once they were caught out.
Does anyone else have a view apart from a labour party member who is a labour councillor and former adviser to two labour MPs? Any informed Conservatives or Lib Dems? Sandpiper 12:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A theory which I find intriguing:
Maybe Saddam Husein never had any WMD, but he believed he had. If his minister of munitions (or whatever the post was called) had been ordered to create WMD, but had failed to do so, he might have realised that he would risk his life by admitting his failure; and so he assured Saddam Husein that the WMD existed and were ready for use. If Saddam Husein believed the WMD were real, we can't blame the US or UK security services for believing it too.
I think this theory once featured in a BBC program, I can't give a citation. I guess it shouldn't be mentioned in the article, while there is no evidence for it. Maproom ( talk) 11:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
In the introduction, we have the following statement. "The paper was part of a campaign by the government to bolster public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq." Whilst there may be an argument that this was the case, the leader of the government at the time, Tony Blair, sets out clearly in his memoirs that at no point until several weeks before Iraq was actually invaded was it a certainty that Iraq would be invaded - there were constant efforts, principally made through the UN, to resolve the situation diplomatically, which in September 2002 still gave a significant amount of hope. This statement makes it sound as if the government was running a campaign to encourage the public to support an invasion of Iraq, which misrepresents their intentions. I have revised this statement to "The paper was part of an ongoing investigation by the government into weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which ultimately led to its invasion in 2003." Unnachamois ( talk) 07:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Bolstering support for an illegal war?
"The paper was part of a campaign by the government to bolster public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq". Since this first statement is a reasonable account of what happened, what convincing reasons are there to change or tone it down? For might not the revised statement be termed, sexing down? 88.107.48.240 ( talk) 00:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
P.S: Or might the statement be changed to read: The paper was part of a ridiculous and tasteless fairy story - conjured up by the government to bolster public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq"?
88.107.48.240 ( talk) 00:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The Danish intelligence considered the 45 minute claim impossible. They also asked, what do they mean by "45 minutes"? 45 minutes to launch an order? 45 minutes to have airplanes in the air? If the Danish intelligence thought the 45-minute claim was hogwash, how likely is it that any other intelligence bureau believed it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 ( talk) 14:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)