45-minute claim on Iraq was hearsay (UK)

[phoebe]

Tony Blair's headline-grabbing claim that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to do so was based on hearsay information, the Guardian has learned.

The revelation that the controversial claim is even weaker than ministers and officials have been saying will embarrass No 10, already reeling after the first week of the Hutton inquiry into the death of weapons expert David Kelly.

It came as the Hutton inquiry announced that Alastair Campbell, Downing Street's communications chief, will testify on Tuesday. Underlining the danger of the inquiry for the government, Lord Hutton has called virtually every member of the prime minister's inner circle.
snip

The revelation that the 45 minute claim is second hand is contained in an internal Foreign Office document released by the Hutton inquiry. It had been thought the basis for the claim came from an Iraqi officer high in Saddam Hussein's command structure. In fact it came through an informant, who passed it on to MI6

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1020033,00.html
more

[NNN0LHI]

1. The Chimp used the 45 minute story too n/t

[indictrichardperle]

4. "from an informer"

like Challabi ? the OSP horse shit peddler ?

My gawd, when are they going to put Poodle on trial ?

[TacticalPeek]

13. Trial, impeachment and other deserved ends

for the poodle and chimp, as well as their malevolent menagerie, will probably not come to them for their cold-hearted lies and deception leading to an unnecessary war. At least, not initially. That original crime would have to be charged as treason, usurpation of power, malfeasance, perhaps fraud, etc., all of which would require political motions that are now not much in the air, although the poodle might be in a growing "situation" in this regard.

Rather, I think, the fuse to their doom will be lit by the usual suspect: the coverup. The poodle is in this pickle more because of attempts to cover his tracks. This attempt to cover and spin led to the Kelly matter, which led to the Hutton inquiry, which is leading to bad times at No 10.

In Watergate, Nixon faced certain impeachment (and conviction in the Senate) not from accusations that he ordered or had foreknowledge of the Watergate burglary. On the contrary, even his prosecutors thought he did not, since they believed there was no evidence indicating he did. Only in the last several weeks, based on statements of Jeb Macgruder, and re-analysis of relevant Nixon WH tapes is it now generally accepted that he approved the burglary beforehand.

The thing that caught his tit in the wringer was the coverup; specifically, misusing the CIA and FBI in that effort. Coverup offenses are generally less subsumable in political inertia and drift, and manifest themselves as perjury, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, etc. The helpers around the principals are dragged through hot coals, maybe give a little evidence. The main players are forced to lie and stonewall. At the point they are reduced to the claim "I am not a crook", you know the jig is up, and only time separates them from oblivion.

The abomination that runs our government, Cheney, and his boy-idiot emperor are already shuffling out onto the plank above the sharks. The outing of Amb Wilson's wife is a noose already around the necks of "senior White House officials". I believe there are many similar violations, though yet to surface, especially in the area of security violations. A rogue intel (and action) operation cannot avoid transgressing boundaries that were made even stronger after Nixon, and IranContra. When this rotten fruit is squeezed, these worms will squirm.

[jamesinca]

2. But will this make it across the big pond is my question

They pratically quoted the British as proof for this war. They presented a very unified front to this thing. Will they go down as a unified front? Bush is still considered a great war time leader according to the polls. That news needs to be picked up here in the U.S., on the front page, as the lead story on the nightly news etc. If the repugs and undecideds are hit with the truth about the Bush lies everynight they may wake up. At some point the hard right will call it a conspiracy and the rest will pull away from them or not vote.

[phoebe]

3. shameless kick - this is V.important news

:kick:

[Capt_Nemo]

5. Just look at this lying sack of shit:

On June 4, Tony Blair told the House of Commons: "It was alleged that the source for the 45 minute claim was an Iraqi defector of dubious reliability. He was not an Iraqi defector and he was an established and reliable source."

And what about the zenith of hipocrisy:
Mr Campbell told the foreign affairs select committee: "I find it incredible ... that people can report based on one single anonymous uncorroborated source."

And I love Guardian's comment:
In fact, the foundation for the government's claim was even shakier, according to the document: a single anonymous uncorroborated source quoting another single anonymous uncorroborated source.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

6. HUGE

I can't wait to see how this plays out in the U.K. Any U.K. DU'ers with some insights? I'd love to hear them!

[IndianaGreen]

7. Let me take a guess: Was the source Ahmed Chalabi?

In fact, the foundation for the government's claim was even shakier, according to the document: a single anonymous uncorroborated source quoting another single anonymous uncorroborated source.

This story has the stench of Ahmed Chalabi all over it. Chalabi was exposed by Howard Kurtz as the primary source for WMD stories that Judith Miller wrote for the NY Times.

Chalabi is Rumsfeld's man in Baghdad!

Published on Wednesday, July 2, 2003 by Editor and Publisher
Still Miller Time: 'NY Times' Circles the Wagons
Paper Criticized for Iraq WMD Coverage
by William E. Jackson, Jr.

In the latest major development, Howard Kurtz on June 25 reported in The Washington Post: "Judith Miller played a highly unusual role in an Army unit assigned to search for dangerous Iraqi weapons," according to U.S. military officials, "prompting criticism that the unit was turned into a 'rogue operation.'"

Officers told Kurtz that Miller acted as a middleman between the Army unit with which she was embedded and opposition leader Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. She already had been quoted by Kurtz (on May 26) as having privately asserted that Chalabi "provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD" to the Times; and that her mobile exploration team was "using Chalabi's network for its own WMD work."

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0703-02.htm

[phoebe]

8. another shameless kick

:kick:

[AP]

9. Isn't most intelligence hearsay?

Hearsay is a legal term. It's a statement presented in court as proof of the matter contained in the statement, but the person who made the statement isn't before the court. Or, in shorthand, and in a non-legal context, it's second hand information. There are millions of reasons why second hand information may still be reliable, or, at least, why you wouldn't want to discount it out of hand. For example, if the only people who have first hand knowledge of the information would NEVER talk directly to a spy, and that spy heard from a housekeeper who overheard his employer on the phone talking about the matter, you might still believe the statement, even though it would be hearsay if the housekeeper testified in court about the statement and the housekeeper's testimony was meand to prove that what he overheard was true.

Calling the 45 minute claim 'hearsay' says almost nothing at all of value in evaluating the question whether Tony Blair did something really bad politically speaking.

[Sideways]

10. AP are you reading comic books again?

The ole housekeeper anaology? :wtf: Are you in love with Tony Blair?

[Capt_Nemo]

14. short answer:

yes he is.

[trapper914]

15. It just seems...

...one would want something a bit more substantial when sending England's sons to die in the desert.

[slack]

11. i don't believe it was a suicide

but i'am curious if Campell resigns or not. the 45min are a joke, but i thought everbody knows that.

[stevedeshazer]

12. Astounding

Not what actually happened (most of us knew that already.)

What is astounding is the contrast between the free British press and the corporate-controlled press in the United States. Blunt, no qualifiers, stated as fact.

How refreshing!

Meanwhile, back in the U.S., Arnold Schwarzenegger's bikini wax technique is scrutinized, Bushco campaign contributors gear up for a new windfall in energy prices, * is at the pig ranch, and where the hell is Invisible Dick? AND his energy papers?