You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Down Under
Australia Accused of Distorting Iraq Info
2003-08-22
A former senior intelligence analyst Friday accused Prime Minister John Howard’s government of exaggerating the threat posed by Iraq to justify sending Australian troops to war.
Ho-hum. Someone’s been taking lessons from the UK parliamentary ’inquires’.
And the U.S. This seems to be the favored tack of the global anti-war/anti-Globalization coalition...
The claim came on the first day of a Senate inquiry into the intelligence used by Howard to justify sending 2,000 troops to fight alongside U.S. and British troops in Iraq and mirrored the problems facing President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Yep. Quite a coincidence...
Andrew Wilkie, who quit as a senior intelligence analyst in March to protest the government’s support for war in Iraq, told the Senate that information passed to the government had been distorted for political purposes. ``The material was going straight from ONA to the prime minister’s office and the exaggeration was occurring in there, or the dishonesty was occurring somewhere in there,’’ Wilkie told the inquiry. The ONA, or Office of National Assessments, is an elite agency which evaluates intelligence from all Australian and allied agencies to advise the prime minister. Asked if he was accusing Howard’s office of ``sexing up’’ intelligence - a phrase seized on by British tabloids - Wilkie replied, ``Yes, it was sexed up.’’ Both Bush and Blair have come under similar charges.
We saw how it turned out in the UK — not only did Blair not sex it up, the BBC got caught trying to claim it so.
In the United States, several former intelligence officials said that even as the Bush administration concluded Iraq was reviving its nuclear weapons program, key signs — such as scientific data of weapons work and evidence of research by Iraq’s nuclear experts — were missing.
Yeah, how dare Bush accept less than 100% guarenteed proof before taking action?
Blair’s government has been under sustained fire over accusations it ``sexed up’’ intelligence reports to justify going to war. In a speech to Parliament before fighting broke out in Iraq, Howard justified the war saying intelligence sources showed Baghdad had weapons of mass destruction and could give them to terrorists. Experts scouring Iraq have so far failed to find such weapons, leading opposition lawmakers to use their control of the parliament’s upper house, the Senate, to demand an inquiry into Howard’s claims.
There’s the key graf: this is just a political hassle. Move along, folks.
Howard said Friday the assessment made of Iraq’s weapons capacity was justified ``at the time.’’ ``We didn’t ask that the intelligence material be distorted,’’ he said in a radio interview.
In fact, Howard had not only Aussie intel, but also French, Russian, German, US and UK intel, plus all the reports from the UN inspectors from before 1998 and from Blixie. Each and every one of them said that Saddam was dirty. The anti-war nuts now blame Howard for relying on all that.
Posted by:Steve White

#6  Yeah, that sounds like our liberals.
Posted by: Charles   2003-8-22 3:52:26 PM  

#5  In the United States, several former intelligence officials said that even as the Bush administration concluded Iraq was reviving its nuclear weapons program, key signs - such as scientific data of weapons work and evidence of research by Iraq’s nuclear experts - were missing.

Actually, plans and a prototype gas centrifuge was buried in back yards. See the post yesterday about the standard "Cleaner" services provided by the Cold-war Era Soviets to their clients to ensure nothing gets found (or traced back to them).

Liberals are so detatched from reality that they won't concede that there are difficulties in knowing 100% about anything, and so indulge in monday morning quarterbacking using 20-20 hindsight. They're very selective with their compassion, not bothering to extend it to people who have to make very hard decisions based on limited information gathered under conditions that the Liberals themselves made very hostile. They demand 100% certainty, then work like busy beavers to throw up barriers and conditions to ensure that 100% certainty cannot be obtained.
Posted by: Ptah   2003-8-22 12:24:07 PM  

#4  I'm actually wondering what took them so long to use the BBC "I'm gonna sex you up" tactics against Howard. That, or they're starting to run low on ammo and are nursing what's left.
Posted by: Raj   2003-8-22 11:28:06 AM  

#3  Now how can the media be influential if nobody listens to what they say? If you keep sounding like a lunatic, people are going to start thinking you are a lunatic, and stop listening.
Posted by: Ben   2003-8-22 5:21:15 AM  

#2  Now how is the media supposed to be influential if they don't do what the Left says?
Posted by: Charles   2003-8-22 2:08:00 AM  

#1  Amazing. The pictures of happy Iraqis beating Saddam Statues with the soles of their shoes silenced these nutters for all of 5 minutes. It's now attack attack attack on all fronts yet again.

When is Howard et al going to use the media to go on the offensive for once? Crush these cretins into the humiliation they deserve. Launch a parliamentary inquiry into why Greens Senator Bob Brown told an OUTRIGHT LIE when he said 500,000 Iraqi children would die in a US invasion... etc etc.

Launch a senate inquiry into why the Left supported a human-rights-abusing dictator over a democratic ally.
Posted by: Anon1   2003-8-22 1:06:13 AM  

00:00