Talk:September Dossier

Untitled

Is this page outdated as it does not refer to information re resignation of lawyer from attourney general's office, nor pre-dossier cabinet memo leaked this year denying existence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)

correction, I take back the bit about Huttons finding. Hutton found that Gilligan had made an allegation without substantiating evidence. He was correct in this. He declined to consider the broader issue of whether the allegation was in fact true, only that as presented it was unfounded.Sandpiper 23:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, the page isn't outdated. Elizabeth Wilmshurst's resignation was over a different issue and the Downing Street memo did not in any case deny the existence of WMD - it actually shows that the cabinet and advisers strongly believed that Iraq had WMD. I would also direct you to Neutral Point of View, one of the fundamental policies of Wikipedia. David | Talk 12:39, 18 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)

It isn't just my opinion that the Downing Street memo demonstrates that the people at the meeting believed Iraq had WMD. Halfway through the memo it asks, in the context of military action to depose Saddam having begun: "For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one ..." etc - detailed questions on the effect of actual weaponised WMD use. Frankly anyone who has read the memo and doesn't accept that those present believed that Iraq possessed actual WMD is either completely thick or being deliberately obtuse.

Your analysis of the reasons given at the time for the war is ahistorical. It was never contended by the UK government that Iraq constituted an imminent threat, not in the dossier nor in any other place. In fact the dossier was deliberately toned down to make it not appear that this was claimed - as shown in evidence to the Hutton Inquiry. I can produce a cite if it would help you. David | Talk 22:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have read the memo, repeatedly. The section you are describing is talking about military contingencies. It is the proper task of military commanders to plan for all contingencies, however unlikely they may be. Especially if the result of a low probability event could be very serious.

Doesn't say that it's an unlikely contingency. It's the first one mentioned. The prominence of it indicates that it was considered extremely seriously, and if you have ever met soldiers who participated in the liberation of Iraq (as I have) they will tell you that their preparation for defending themselves from biological or chemical attack were very serious. David | Talk 11:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, it does not say it is an unlikely contingency, nor does it say that it is likely. It is indeed the first one mentioned. But this is a list of questions raised about the existing American plans, shown to the UK military. It is obviously not something which is explained in the plan, or they would not be asking questions about it. If it is not explained in the plan, then I must assume that the plan only covers what the Americans considered the most likely contingencies, and this was not one of them.

I would also hope that the UK military took the threat of chemical weapons seriously. Not doing so would frankly be military incompetence if there was the remotest chance that such weapons might be used. I would also assume that this must be normal procedure in modern warfare. On what occasion did you meet these soldiers?Sandpiper 12:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The intelligence briefing was that sadam might have WMD. The CDS (chief of defense staff?) reported that british military officers were asking questions about the American battle plan, 'for instance what if..'. They had questioned what would happen if sadam used WMD. This does not in fact say anything about what the CDS believed. It might even suggest that the American plan made no mention of the possibility of Sadam using WMD. Which would raise the further question of why the Americans had discounted or overlooked it. Anyway, this merely states that British military were considering the plans and had raised questions about possible problems. It does not say they believed in the certainty or even lilelihood of WMD or their use.

And to think anti-war activists accuse the government of distorting the meaning of words! I ask you, look at the plain english meaning of a memo which was meant to remain private. David | Talk 11:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is not plain english, it is quite complex. It contains a lot of someone said that someone said about somethings. I did look at its meaning and it is as I stated. The CDS reports that 'military' have raised questions about what would happen if WDM were used.Sandpiper 12:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The memo continues, but is quite terse. It is not entirely clear which 'you' suggested the possibility of WMD being used on kuwait. It is not clear whether the 'or on israel' attributed to the defense secretary is a belief, or a question, or a reminder of a comment already made by someone else. It might be the CDS had suggested possible use of WMD against other states as something which needed consideration or a contingency plan, or that the defense secretary was suggesting and questioning the possibility. This still does not demonstrate that either party believed it was likely. Read the memo more carefully.

I thought that the legal justification given for this war was imminent threat to the uk. Do I take it that you believe there was no imminent threat? Further, you are saying this was never proposed as justification for the war? If not, then the issue of imminent threat and what ministers believed about it is central to any description of the events. I would be interested in relevant references.

You are wrong. At no stage did the government state that Iraq was an imminent threat to the UK. It quite deliberately did not say that: Hutton reference CAB/11/0053 is an email sent by Jonathan Powell (Chief of Staff to Prime Minister) on September 17 which says "In the penultimate para you need to make it clear Saddam could not attack us at the moment" (emphasis in original). CAB/11/0069 is another email later that day also from Jonathan Powell which said in terms "We will need to make it clear in launching the document that we do not claim that we have evidence that he (ie Saddam Hussein) is an imminent threat." Alastair Campbell's reply in CAB/11/0077 is that the case is in the foreword to the document which does not claim any threat to the UK.

which point am I wrong about? I am afraid that I am right, that the UK government plainly did allow this to be believed, whether they said it outright or not. I would also strongly hope that at least someone in government was trying to tone down misleading claims. I was hoping for a more immediately accesible reference than one to the entire Hutton report? My recollection of the Hutton report is that there was a documented re-drafting war going on over exact wording. The published dossier was most certainly not the definitive and unabridged opinion of the security services.

This is rather getting away from the encyclopeadic point of view, but do you believe that Sadam was in any way an imminent threat to this country?

Sandpiper 12:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's really quite clear. Do you have any cite at all for anything said by the government which claims an imminent threat? David | Talk 11:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be sufficient to cite any number of newspaper stories which gave the impression that this was what the document said. The intent of the document was to alter public opinion, and this was accomplished. It is a matter of record that this happened.

Your comment about the dossier being toned down so as not to suggest imminent threat rather defies history. Whatever was written in it, it was publicised as saying that an imminent threat existed. Either it was comprehensively misunderstood, or it did indeed give this impression. No attempts were made by government to retract it. There is a whole paragraph in the dossier article listing the enquiry finding that gilligan had been wrong to impute the 45 minute claim contained in the dossier to the government. Are you suggesting Hutton was wrong to consider the 45 minute claim because it was not really in the dossier?Sandpiper 10:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're being the Winston Smith about this, going back to change history and comprehensively misunderstanding the dossier. The dossier does not even imply an imminent threat. In fact the dossier on the 45 minute claim is absolutely accurate: it says that "intelligence indicates that the Iraqi military are able to deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so". This was correct: intelligence had so indicated. David | Talk 11:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

has it? Which? The evidence now seems to be that no WMD existed, never mind the issue of how fast they might be used. It was not clear that this referred to 'battlefield' weapons, hence a good deal of fuss at the time. Several people seem to have apologised for excessive claims in this document. 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)

this user David, as you say, a Labour Party member, councillor, has distorted history on many pages related to the Labour party, it's government and members. He tricks, lies, confuses, insults and bullies. He is a part of their propaganda machine. Let the record show it.92.24.105.192 (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Saddam deceived?

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)

This page may interest you: WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War. ~ smb 11:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting. Maproom (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Bolstering support

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)

Danish intelligence

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)