By GottaLaff
This is what showed up in my e-mail alerts today:
We need an thorough investigation of our own:
Demonstrators wearing blood-smeared masks of the former British and U.S. leaders stage a protest at the start of an official inquiry into Britain's involvement in the Iraq war. [...]Demonstrators also held banners saying "No more whitewash" - alluding to fears that the inquiry will not be fair.
By GottaLaff
Is anyone surprised? .... Anyone....? ::crickets:: Who will be the first one to finally prosecute?
Secret Whitehall emails released yesterday provide damning new evidence that the notorious dossier making the case for invading Iraq was "sexed up".They disclose that the intelligence services were skeptical over the "iffy drafting" of government claims that Saddam Hussein could mount a missile strike on his neighbours within 45 minutes of ordering an attack.
Officials privately mocked assertions that the Iraqi president was covertly trying to develop a nuclear capability and wisecracked that perhaps he had recruited "Dr Frankenstein" to his supposed crack team of nuclear scientists.
So much for that mushroom cloud. What was that you were saying again, Ari?
At the risk of repeating myself, what more does it take? Now that Bush and Blair are out of office, and troops are coming home, more evidence is being revealed. What excuse can anyone come up with to justify avoiding a full investigation, not just some white-washy commission?The release of a series of confidential memos and emails, following a protracted Freedom of Information battle, reignited the controversy over accusations that Tony Blair's government "spun" Britain into war.
Last night both the Tories and the Liberal Democrats renewed their demands for a full public inquiry into the decision to join the US-led invasion of Iraq.
The 45-minute claim – presented to MPs in a notorious dossier on 24 September 2002, six months before military action began – was central to the Blair government's justification for war.
But a memo sent 13 days earlier by Desmond Bowen, head of the Cabinet Office defence secretariat, to John Scarlett, who was head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, suggested he had grave reservations over the threat. [...]
Another memo, dated 16 September 2002, from an unnamed official, also suggests exaggerated claims were being included in the about-to-be-published report. [...]Last night William Hague, the shadow Foreign Secretary, said: "This is the latest in a steady stream of damaging revelations about the events leading up to the Iraq war. These minutes shed interesting light on the process by which the caveats in the Joint Intelligence Committee's original assessment of Iraq's WMD programmes were stripped out of the dossier that was presented to Parliament and the British people." [...]
The emails: How 'sexing-up' was achieved:
11 September 2002 Desmond Bowen: "The question we have to have in the back of our mind is: 'Why now?' I think we have moved away from promoting the ideas that we are in imminent danger of attack and intend to act in pre-emptive self-defence... In looking at the WMD sections, you will clearly want to be as firm and authoritative as you can be. You will clearly need to judge the extent to which you need to hedge your judgements with, for example, 'it is almost certain' and similar caveats."
11 September 2002 Mark Sedwill: "I would expand the history of weapons inspections. It is an interesting story and would give the media a better feel for the difficulties they faced and the persistence of the Iraqi obstruction... We need a very simple table somewhere... This should be brief enough to get on to the Sky wall – ie no more than five bullets."
16 September 2002 Unnamed official (thought to be intelligence agent): "I note that the paper suggests that Saddam's biotech efforts have gone much further than we ever feared. Page 4 Bullet 4: '[Iraq] has assembled specialists to work on its nuclear programme' – Dr Frankenstein I presume? Sorry. It's getting late... We have suggested moderating the same language in much the same way on drafts from the dim and distant past without success. Feel free to try again!... Lots of 'ranges' close together – iffy drafting."
By GottaLaff
The Senate Ethics Committee has opened a preliminary inquiry into Sen. Roland Burris’s (D-Ill.) conflicting testimony on the circumstances surrounding his appointment while Senate Democrats and Republicans take a wait-and-see approach to the potential impact on the 2010 election. [...]
“We know the Republicans are salivating, but I’m not sure they should be,” said the Democratic source. “This is far from the ‘Apocalypse of the Illinois Senate seat.’ “
A senior GOP aide dismissed that as “pure spin,” noting that Burris stridently insisted on being seated and has resisted any efforts to remove him ever since. And as investigations become possible at the state and federal levels, the aide said Burris will inevitably become more weakened.
“He’s not going anywhere, at least voluntarily, and any investigation won’t happen overnight,” said the GOP aide. “You can’t just remove a U.S. senator like they impeached the governor. This will take a while, and if anything, the Democratic infighting will further the divide over him. Look at what happened the first time he tried to enter the Senate.”
But several Democrats have expressed interest in the seat, even before news of Burris’ conflicting testimony on his contact with Blagojevich emerged. [...]
Two prominent Republicans are also weighing getting into the race. [...]
But first Burris will have to deal with potential state and federal investigations.
.jpg)
