Confirmed: UK sexed up WMDs

MrYogi

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2003
2,680
0
0
LONDON: The British government has confirmed that MI6 had organised Operation Mass Appeal, a campaign to plant stories in the media about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

The revelation will create embarrassing questions for Tony Blair in the run-up to the publication of the report by Lord Hutton into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly , the government weapons expert.

A senior official admitted that MI6 had been at the heart of a campaign launched in the late 1990s to spread information about Saddam's development of nerve agents and other weapons, but denied that it had planted misinformation.

"There were things about Saddam's regime and his weapons that the public needed to know," said the official.

The admission followed claims by Scott Ritter, a former US marine who led 14 inspection missions in Iraq, who said that MI6 had recruited him in 1997 to help with the propaganda effort.

He described meetings where the senior officer and at least two other MI6 staff had discussed ways to manipulate intelligence material.

"The aim was to convince the public that Iraq was a far greater threat than it actually was," Ritter said last week.

He said there was evidence that MI6 continued to use similar propaganda tactics up to the invasion of Iraq earlier this year.


"Stories ran in the media about secret underground facilities in Iraq and ongoing programmes to produce weapons of mass destruction," said Ritter.

"They were sourced to western intelligence and all of them were garbage." Kelly, himself a former United Nations weapons inspector and colleague of Ritter, might also have been used by MI6 to pass information to journalists.

"Kelly was a known and government-approved conduit with the media," said Ritter.



Text
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Ritter lost his credibility a long time ago. It's only a matter of time before he's dealt with. But not before he makes some retractions.

EDIT: call me when you have a credible source. Isn't this the same paper that said we captured bin Laden?
 

MrYogi

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2003
2,680
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Ritter lost his credibility a long time ago. It's only a matter of time before he's dealt with. But not before he makes some retractions.

EDIT: call me when you have a credible source. Isn't this the same paper that said we captured bin Laden?

so, you still think that Iraq has WMD's? :D lol
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
He described meetings where the senior officer and at least two other MI6 staff had discussed ways to manipulate intelligence material.

"The aim was to convince the public that Iraq was a far greater threat than it actually was," Ritter said last week.

I wonder what evidence Ritter will produce to support these allegations.
 

MrYogi

Platinum Member
Mar 15, 2003
2,680
0
0
Originally posted by: Czar
when are the next elections in brittain?

Blairs' party has already lost lot of council and assembly elections. he is going down the drain :)
 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: Dari

It's only a matter of time before he's dealt with.
What does that mean? Are you going to take him out back and teach him what it means to be a real american or somthing?

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Dari
Ritter lost his credibility a long time ago. It's only a matter of time before he's dealt with. But not before he makes some retractions.

EDIT: call me when you have a credible source. Isn't this the same paper that said we captured bin Laden?
Lost his credibility with whom? Who says?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,858
6,394
126
The only ones losing credibility are Blair and Bush. Ritter, Chirac, and others were right. Unless, of course, one is willing to march into the Pits of Hell with their Imperious leader leading the way to a flawed victory. March on then, if you must.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Dari
Ritter lost his credibility a long time ago. It's only a matter of time before he's dealt with. But not before he makes some retractions.

EDIT: call me when you have a credible source. Isn't this the same paper that said we captured bin Laden?
Lost his credibility with whom? Who says?

The guy is an attention whore. I'm sure you'd figure that out by now.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Dari
Ritter lost his credibility a long time ago. It's only a matter of time before he's dealt with. But not before he makes some retractions.

EDIT: call me when you have a credible source. Isn't this the same paper that said we captured bin Laden?
Lost his credibility with whom? Who says?

The guy is an attention whore. I'm sure you'd figure that out by now.

If you mean fighting tooth and nail for what he knew to be true as a ground inspector, no WMD's, and proven to be disipite all the lies and reasurances to the contrary by the war party I'd say we need more "attention whores" as you call them. I think it's more of an "accurate information debunking the PNAC coconspiriters in thier lies whore." Or just a feeling truthsayer and patriot.

 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Dari
Ritter lost his credibility a long time ago. It's only a matter of time before he's dealt with. But not before he makes some retractions.

EDIT: call me when you have a credible source. Isn't this the same paper that said we captured bin Laden?
Lost his credibility with whom? Who says?

The guy is an attention whore. I'm sure you'd figure that out by now.

If you mean fighting tooth and nail for what he knew to be true as a ground inspector, no WMD's, and proven to be disipite all the lies and reasurances to the contrary by the war party I'd say we need more "attention whores" as you call them. I think it's more of an "accurate information debunking the PNAC coconspiriters in thier lies whore." Or just a feeling truthsayer and patriot.

Since when did neo-conservatives infilterate British Intelligence and offered Ritter to be part of a grand conspirational plan to debunk America in 2003 after Bush comes to power in order to declare war on innocent Iraq? Please answer that.

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Dari
Ritter lost his credibility a long time ago. It's only a matter of time before he's dealt with. But not before he makes some retractions.

EDIT: call me when you have a credible source. Isn't this the same paper that said we captured bin Laden?
Lost his credibility with whom? Who says?

The guy is an attention whore. I'm sure you'd figure that out by now.

If you mean fighting tooth and nail for what he knew to be true as a ground inspector, no WMD's, and proven to be disipite all the lies and reasurances to the contrary by the war party I'd say we need more "attention whores" as you call them. I think it's more of an "accurate information debunking the PNAC coconspiriters in thier lies whore." Or just a feeling truthsayer and patriot.

Since when did neo-conservatives infilterate British Intelligence and offered Ritter to be part of a grand conspirational plan to debunk America in 2003 after Bush comes to power in order to declare war on innocent Iraq? Please answer that.


I don't understand the question. Please rephrase.

And I guess I'm obliged to state no such thing as innocent iraq in an effort to debunk you're implied sympathiser routine. You'll see, if you look, I supported the war based on the lies I was told, predicted it would take 2 weeks in an easy march to bagdad and generally believed in the humaniatarian goals spouted for liberals/feelers consumption. I could even be convinced it was a good thing to have the oil.. Thats right.. better us than a murderous thug. Since such time I've rethunk, lies have evolved, Traitors in the WH reveal CIA agents, order 39 in Iraq was passed showing the carpetbagging venture for what it was, we have no desire for an actual democracy etc etc etc. rehash infititum.

..scott and hans been quite accurate in thier WMDs position before the war.. and scott even proven more accurate with his dismal predictions of gurilla warfare and general distaste for Americans which would follow. I'd say he's credible compared to Bush. If the killings continue we'll loose the war too just like he predicted.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Dari
Ritter lost his credibility a long time ago. It's only a matter of time before he's dealt with. But not before he makes some retractions.

EDIT: call me when you have a credible source. Isn't this the same paper that said we captured bin Laden?
Lost his credibility with whom? Who says?

The guy is an attention whore. I'm sure you'd figure that out by now.

If you mean fighting tooth and nail for what he knew to be true as a ground inspector, no WMD's, and proven to be disipite all the lies and reasurances to the contrary by the war party I'd say we need more "attention whores" as you call them. I think it's more of an "accurate information debunking the PNAC coconspiriters in thier lies whore." Or just a feeling truthsayer and patriot.

Since when did neo-conservatives infilterate British Intelligence and offered Ritter to be part of a grand conspirational plan to debunk America in 2003 after Bush comes to power in order to declare war on innocent Iraq? Please answer that.


I don't understand the question. Please rephrase.

And I guess I'm obliged to state no such thing as innocent iraq in an effort to debunk you're implied sympathiser routine. You'll see, if you look, I supported the war based on the lies I was told, predicted it would take 2 weeks in an easy march to bagdad and generally believed in the humaniatarian goals spouted for liberals/feelers consumption. I could even be convinced it was a good thing to have the oil.. Thats right.. better us than a murderous thug. Since such time I've rethunk, lies have evolved, Traitors in the WH reveal CIA agents, order 39 in Iraq was passed showing the carpetbagging venture for what it was, we have no desire for an actual democracy etc etc etc. rehash infititum.

..scott and hans been quite accurate in thier WMDs position before the war.. and scott even proven more accurate with his dismal predictions of gurilla warfare and general distaste for Americans which would follow. I'd say he's credible compared to Bush. If the killings continue we'll loose the war too just like he predicted.


Ritter made obvious assumptions. Hell, everyone did. No one said creating democracy in iraq was going to take a year. No one said maintaining the peace would be easy. And please state the lies you've heard.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Dari
Ritter lost his credibility a long time ago. It's only a matter of time before he's dealt with. But not before he makes some retractions.

EDIT: call me when you have a credible source. Isn't this the same paper that said we captured bin Laden?
Lost his credibility with whom? Who says?
The guy is an attention whore. I'm sure you'd figure that out by now.

And? So? Point?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91

They seem more of a stretch of the truth than outright lies. But then again, these are politicians.

Among all these accusation, you seem to be forgetting the Iraqi intransigence that led to the war. In truth, I will admit that the Bush Administration was overly eager to correct this intransigence, but it was only a matter of time before Iraq had to be taken to task for all the (16) Article VII UN resolutions that she broke. No way was she going to get away with anything. After 12 years, punishment was long overdue for breaking international laws.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Dari:

Why are you arguing this? Didn't you previously state that Iraq was a threat to the U.S. but it had nothing to do with WMD? In other words, haven't you been completely irrational, if not delusional, in your understanding of this issue? :)

Ho-hum....

-Robert
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
Dari, you are an astonishing person. You said,

". . . You seem to be forgetting the Iraqi intransigence that led to the war."

"In truth, I will admit that the Bush Administration was overly eager to correct this intransigence, but it was only a matter of time before Iraq had to be taken to task for all the (16) Article VII UN resolutions that she broke." laws."

1. It is the first sentence that I find astonishing. It's like a drunk saying, "I wouldn't have punched you out if you hadn't been standing there." Then you admit that perhaps Bush was a little premature.
2. Who knows what would have happened if reason and law had prevailed instead of U.S. will?
3. If violating UN resolutions was sufficient cause for war, Israel would be speaking Arabic now.
4. Can you offer us some explanation of why the Bush Administration isn't willing to take up arms against some of the other intransigence in the world, say, for example, North Korea?