The Butler Report
 

the butler report has been released, makes for some interesting reading...

here are the main points of the report surrounding the intelligence that the government recieved...

• The 45 minutes claim was "unsubstantiated"
• No individuals were to blame for failures
• Intelligence had been pushed to the "outer limits but not beyond"
• There was no deliberate distortion of intelligence by politicians
• Limits of intelligence not "made sufficiently clear" in September 2002 dossier

the basis of the report showed that the government did not attempt to mislead or indeed 'sexup' any aspects of the dossier but relied on the intelligence services namely MI6 to provide as much information as possible using intelligence photographs.

mr butler also mentioned that we did not have 'many of our own sources' on the ground in Iraq and there was a heavy reliance on defectors or intelligence gatherers who mislead intelligence officials of what was happening on the ground.

the JIC which helped assemble the document was also mentioned.

mr butler mentions no one is to blame for the faliures of intelligence as people (namely tony blair) acted in good faith.

report in full:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp..._04_butler.pdf

chapters 1-4

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp..._chaps1to4.pdf

chapters 5-6

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp..._chaps5to6.pdf

conclusions

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp...tler_concs.pdf

annexes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp...butler_ann.pdf

source: BBC news

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3890961.stm

Re: The Butler Report
 

What i thought all along. I have always belived that Blair was wrong but did not lie

Re: The Butler Report
 

In summary then - we got it completely wrong but no one is to blame.

How typically British.

Re: The Butler Report
 

I really do hope that this will bring to an end all the witch hunts etc, that have been going on around this for the last year!!

Re: The Butler Report
 

how will it ?

no one is to blame ?

how can someone come to that conclusion ? , if i told you something which is false does that make it no ones fault ?

:confused:

Re: The Butler Report
 

From what i have read and heard (no i haven't read it all) the failure was due to the lack of information we had abt the state of things in Iraq this led to people making presumtions (typo??!?) abt the WMD ie relying on sources whcih had a vested intrest in Saddam being kicked out.

It is very hard to get reliable info abt a country which is ruled my someone like Saddam, this is why we have such trouble getting info abt North Korea. You have to go with what you have to hand and use it to make intelligent concluesions from. I am glad that no-one is being made a scapegoat of on this.

Kronas why does someone always have to be to blame?!?

Re: The Butler Report
 

the report says 'clarity' is a problem, when tony blair said 'saddam is a threat to this country i believe he has weapons of mass destruction' when making such a statement i suggest you back that up with factual evidence, not trying to interpret something 'out of nothing' the inspectors could not find anything, neither has anyone else, apart from uranium, empty missile shells, sure he invaded Iran etc the fact is when you invade a country because you believe its a threat to you you should have evidence, clearly, and forcefully, presented to the public.

Re: The Butler Report
 

Politains have to relie on stuff given to them by agencies such as MI6 and have to trust the info in them is as good as it gets so i fail to see how Tony Blair is to blame?!?

Re: The Butler Report
 

wel he could have gone in to it, he was one of the better people to be in a position to question them, such asking for 'hard evidence' to suggest he had anything, instead he relied on hear say....

Re: The Butler Report
 

It is not presented as hear say though is it? I dont think he is to blame. I agree with scooby on this one. The point is that if the media keep saying he is a liar then it will stick in peoples minds but there is no proof that he did lie and till then we should see himas innocent.

I like the way we have rights saying innocent until proven gulity and people (on here to) defend this right but it doesnt seem to apply to politicans.

Goverment is based on events and not even the leader can see whats coming

Re: The Butler Report
 

There is an established policy that if an MP misleads the House, either deliberately or with the best intentions, at the very least that politician is expected to issue a frank apology to the House. Playing Devil's Advocate (highly contrary to my personal beliefs), if Blair did use the information as honestly as he could at the time, he still misled the house and there should be an apology. I have seen no evidence of any genuine contrition on the part of Blair.

Re: The Butler Report
 

If he apologys it would be taken as a admission that he lied not that he got it wrong

Re: The Butler Report
 

Tony Blair stood in the House of Commons and told this country, that Saddam could project Chemical and Biological weapons in 45 minutes. Senior members of the JIC, on Panarama (shown on Sunday night I think) point blank refuted that assertation. They said that at no time did they report Saddam had any such capability.

So if I said '' In 45 minutes I'm gonna come round you're house and crap on you're front garden'', but didnt do it, and had no ability to get from Belfast to where ever you live in 45 minutes. Then I'm a liar. So how in the name of all that is holy, is Tony Blais statement really any different???????

Tony may have honestly believed what he was saying, but the whole time George and Tony where talking war. The Chief UN Inspector (Hans Blicks I believe), was saying '' we cant find any evidence to suggest Iraq has any serious amount of Chemical or Biological weapons''. Did Tony and George give them the time to look further...... NO. George and Tony pushed Saddam into a corner, and he did what they knew he would do. So they got the war they wanted, and in time George will get the oil the American oil companies wanted.

Re: The Butler Report
 

First of all you use quotes and opinion in that so that is not proof although it sounds right. I dont think he lied and i think he thought he was right

Re: The Butler Report
 

It is the tradition of the House that you apologise no matter how you ended up misleading the house, regardless of whether it was a deliberate deception or an honest mistake. He does not have the option not to apologise in case it is is taken as an admission.

Re: The Butler Report
 

He does and he has ;)

I think his statement he read today is as close as we are going to get, to him admitting he was wrong or apologising for misleading the house. Tradition is not always a good thing :)

Re: The Butler Report
 

What ever this is media and government nothing is clear cut you cannot just follow tradition. The torys will waste no time in attacking him if he did that and such

Different matters, different times....tradition in government is stupid as nothing is ever the same

Re: The Butler Report
 

That is simply not an excuse, if he wants to lead the government he must follow the rules. He is not required to give something that approaches an apology, he is required to give an apology, nothing less.

It is not simply the case that he was wrong, his incorrect statements will have influenced the voting of other MPs in the house. It makes a mockery of democracy if the PM can stand there influencing the course of a parliamentary vote with inaccurate information and then not be held accountable for the outcome.

And they aren`t going to attack him if he doesn`t follow the correct protocol? Blair could actually regain some respect from voters if he was to display some proper humility and issue a proper apology. To arrogantly stand there, spewing forth more spin to justify his position is not going to do any good whatsoever.

I watched the coverage on the news today, I did not see a man demonstrating humility in the face of having been proved wrong, I saw a smarmy little weasel who attempted to defend the indefensible, despite already having done a stich-up job on the inquiry in order to limit its scope.

I sincerely hope that this is going to be the issue that forces him out of office. However, it is a pity that if he does go a decent Labour politician like Robin Cook is unlikely to get the job.

Re: The Butler Report
 

Holy Crap, Jack Straw told John Show, in an interview earlier today ''That the Intelligence on WMD was not the reason for going to war''. If I remember right, Tony Blair's case for war was the Intelligence on Iraqi WMD. :wtf: Spin, Spin, Spin, Spin, Spin.

What a bunch of two faced lying *******s.

Re: The Butler Report
 

So hes been against the war from the start. You do not get your facts from the enemies of the war.

I dont know what the point of all this inquiries are if the government is cleared everyone refuses to believe it anyway

Re: The Butler Report
 

Jack Straw against the war. :erm: :confused:

You sure you're not thinking of Robin Cook mate. Who was the foreign secretary before combat operations started, and resigned in opposition to the war. AFAIR, Jack Straw has always stood shoulder to shoulder with Tony the Liar on the reasons for the war.

Whats the point of enquiries into the war. Well, the first enquiry into the doctors death (cant mind his name), cleared the government of any complicity in his scuicide. Adding that they could find no evidence that the Intelligence had been sexed up. Not Lord Butlers report reveales that important, and relevant caveats (sp) which where part of the JIC reports dissipeared in th e copy that Tony Blair reported as *the Facts* to parliment. The statement that the Iraqi's could deploy chemical and biological weapons in 20 - 45 minutes, was qualified in the original JIC report to ''Battlefield Weapons'', namely artillery and rockets. Not to weapons delivery systems such as Scud's.

So two reports, at two different times, report two different things. Both clear Tony Blair and the number 10 spin machine of any wrong doing.

There's and old saying mate.....

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck..... Then its a duck.

In this case, if two inquiries look like a whitewash.................

Re: The Butler Report
 

sorry about the robin cook mistake there........:)

Look you can get away with claiming that the first inquiry was a whitewash but not two. The fact could be that if they were cleared then they are innocent. There is no evidance of misuse from the goverment and no evidance that this reports where a white wash

People have got to stop this, Two reports both cleared the goverment, You cannot keep claiming whitewash everytime you do not get a answer you dont like. Again polticans should be covered by the same rights as the rest of and thats the right to innocent until proven gulity and rights about whats printed about them. If blair accused a member of the public of lying there would be outrage! yet people are allowed to do this all the time towards him

Re: The Butler Report
 

Ah, but you have overlooked that the first report cleared the government of 'sexing up' the intelligence. Now if you drop some of the quallifications that go with the intelligence, change some of the wording. Bingo, you can make any argument look good enough to convince the House to go to war.

With the latest report, Lord Butler points out that removing the 'qualifications' from the text of the JIC report, and some of the wording (possibley becomes Saddam has), then the message becomes enfatic. Someone, somewhere doctored the JIC report, gave it to the Primeminister, and lo and behold we're at war with Iraq. The fact the Lord Butler wouldnt or couldnt name names, but wimped out for a 'collective' responsibility smacks of a whitewash.

Dont forget the the Director general, and the Director of news of the BBC resigned over the findings of the original report. I sincerly doubt anyone will fall on their swords at number 10.

Re: The Butler Report
 

I really really disagree with the events at the BBC from the hutton fallout. Terrible Terrible reason to resign which was over one word in one report which was later changed.

COmpare that to fox news who use a much stronger wording and even accuss the BBC of lying (when they didnt) and make attacks on the french

Re: The Butler Report
 

i always knew the BBC was in the right, they were even after the hutton report went out....

greg dyke should NOT have left...

Re: The Butler Report
 

They where not in the 'right' as it where. But they didnt do anything bad either it was just that report a 6 in the moring where AG said that the goverment proberly knew instead of May have knew. One word.

Re: The Butler Report
 

still there is no clear indication if it was the governments fault, intelligence said some things, they doubted that Iraq had WMD they even pointed out that the inspectors did not find anything, yet tony said yes Iraq is hiding WMD..........plot thickens eh ?

Re: The Butler Report
 

No, Saddam had already defied the UN on a huge number of times. The inspectors had not been allowed proper access which was part of the first agreement. And the intellence said there were weapons. Remember that it was found out saddam himself was spreading rumors about him having weapons.

Re: The Butler Report
 

the inspectors were not allowed proper access i agree, intelligence agencies from the quotes i saw on the BBC reports showed officials 'doubting' Iraq had WMD they neither confirmed or denyed but put 'reservations' on whether he had anything seen as the weapons inspectors aka hans blitz were so conviced he did not have anything.

Re: The Butler Report
 

When Geroge Bush took office back in 2001, Colin Powell, Condalisa Rice, and may other's went on the record saying Saddam Hussain had little or no chemiacl or Biological weapons capability left. The two years later, the intelligence agencies of the the Us and Gb suddenly report Iraq has shed-loads ods of the same weapons systems. So where did they come from? This at a time when Iraq couldnt even replace the lost equipment from the first Gulf War. Lies, lies and more lies.

Re: The Butler Report
 

Is that a Freudian slip in the typo of the weapon inspector's name? :)

Re: The Butler Report
 

I would agree with that, but whilst no-one may have been to 'blame' someone has to be accountable. Surely as Prime Minister the buck must stop with him. If there was any doubt whatsoever - which there was - then it was up to the PM to make a difficult decision.

Greg Dyke wasn't to blame for the 'innacuracies' of the BBC's reporting, but the buck stopped with him and he did the honourable thing (despite it being a huge loss to the Beeb), and resigned.

What annoys me today is that I had to listen to Blair saying that invading Iraq was the right thing to do anyway. I know that a lot of people think it was, but a lot of people think otherwise, and having to endure Blair trying to justify himself for the upteenth time just rubs salt into the wounds of the latter.

Re: The Butler Report
 

yep, i still maintain he should have done more to extract information out of intelligence. instead of going in thinking that it was all 'concrete'

yes! :erm:

Re: The Butler Report
 

Stop using the BBC as an example nothing should have happened there. I like how biased the sun, the times and to a small extent sky news was though. SOMEONE seemed to be telling them to rub salt in the bbc wounds...


Blair has to be servered but those people and the buck should stop with the head of JIC.

Re: The Butler Report
 

Well, the buck stops with nobody, it was a 'collective' failure. Bull*****.

The reason we keep going on about Iraq is that there hasn't been a proper inquiry yet - the Hutton and Butler inquiries are the equivalent of the England cricket captain being allowed to select the Australian pace attack in next year's Ashes ('I'll have the chap with no arms and the old geezer in the wheelchair, please').

Both inquiries have inconsistent conclusions, which I'll look up later (the Butler one is fresh in my mind, the Hutton one isn't).

I think Blair lied, and I think I can prove it. Never mind that he should be apologising for misleading the house (the tradition that Damien objects to is the tradition of democratic accountability - I think that's worth preserving to be honest), here's where he had to have knowingly told an untruth.

It comes down to what Jonathan Powell and Blair wrote at the time and what Blair said in TV interviews.

In September 2002 Powell emailed that the dossier "does not demonstrate he (Saddam Hussein) has the motive to attack his neighbours, let alone the West" and "We will need to make it clear in launching the document that we do not claim that we have evidence that he is an imminent threat". This was six days after Blair had first read the dossier. 'We' in this context means the No. 10 public relations machine.

Blair wrote in the foreword to the dossier "I wanted to share with the British public the reasons why I believe this issue to be a current and serious threat to the UK national interest.". The foreword was first written the day before Powell's email and five days after Blair first read the dossier.

Thus Blair claimed in public that Saddam was a current and serious threat despite his office saying *simultaneously* in private that the same dossier didn't prove that he was an imminent threat.

You can argue over the exact meaning of the words 'current' and 'imminent', as Jack Straw tried to do last night with the words 'present' and 'current'. I suggest that they are so alike in meaning as to make Blair a liar in this example.

In addition the original draft of the dossier the day before Blair read it said:
""Iraq continues to have the capability to produce chemical and biological weapons, and has probably already done so.""

Yet Blair's foreword written six days later said:
"What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons"

How can he believe it 'established beyond doubt' when the dossier said he has 'probably' produced weapons?

At the end of May last year Blair said in a TV broadcast regarding the search for WMDs:

""I certainly do know some of the stuff that has already been accumulated as a result of interviews . . . What we are going to do is assemble that evidence and present it properly to people,""

Where's the evidence and the proper presentation?

In the same interview:

"The two trailers that we've already discovered, our intelligence agencies, the American intelligence agencies believe that they are part of a mobile biological weapons production facility. There is no doubt at all that that is part of a weapons of mass destruction program that was continuing for a significant period of time."

No doubt at all?

"Two lorry trailers loaded with laboratory equipment were found in Iraq shortly after Saddam's regime fell. Coalition experts concluded the equipment had been used for making hydrogen for weather balloons."

Scary, those weather balloons. I bet they could launch them within 45 minutes and they could reach Cyprus given the right wind.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/speec...798049,00.html
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/llb030825.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...698571,00.html
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s869561.htm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus...258610,00.html

Re: The Butler Report
 

I`m surprised the government haven`t tried to argue that they were trying to turn the weather balloons into Rover from The Prisoner.

Re: The Butler Report
 

Not only are the two intrinsically linked, but you can also draw the fact that the two situations had public inquiries and reports published. I agree, the outcome was not a good one, but based on the findings of the Hutton Inquiry (cough, whitewash) Gavyn and Greg resigned. They were accountable, but they were not to blame.

The problem now is that we can look at these two reports and see that there is contradictory information. For example Andrew Gilligan was found to have got his story about the government going to war on unsafe inteligence. But now Butler finds that the inteligence was not beyond doubt. So how on earth could Hutton publish such findings before Butler produced his?

Surely this mitigates Gilligan, Dyke and Davies? Will they be re-instated? Of course not!


Sorry to go back to Gilligan again but with his investigation he found the intel was dubious. If a journalist on the outside can find this out then Blair can too. If the Head of JIC took the decision to go to war then I would agree with you, but it wasn't, it was Blair. He took the decision, the buck stops there.

The problem Blair has now is that he has personally lost a lot of face with an wful lot of people. Many who trusted him before now will not believe a word he says, and two separate inquiries (and a third on the way) that totally disconnect the Government and Blair from any responsibility or blame are seen (rightly or wrongly) as whitewshes.

The real problem Labour has now is whether they will be re-elected next year with Blair at the healm. The same goes for Bush, although his problem is little more urgent becuse it's in November.

Re: The Butler Report
 

Or blame Saddam for Roswell...! :D