MI6 Believed that Iran and Syria were Larger Threats than Iraq

[tnitsuj]

MI6 believed Saddam lesser threat than Iran, Syria
Douglas Davis Jul. 6, 2003

The head of Britain's MI6 military intelligence service believed that Syria and Iran posed a greater threat than the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, according to reports here at the weekend.

The intelligence chief, Sir Richard Dearlove, is said to have told a senior BBC executive that, on an analysis of the danger from weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, Iraq was not viewed by the intelligence services as the primary threat.

But according to the Sunday newspaper, The Observer, when asked whether Iran and Syria posed a greater threat, Dearlove "appeared to consent."

The report comes amid mounting tension over BBC allegations that Prime Minister Tony Blair's closest aide, Alastair Campbell, had "sexed up" a dossier, massaging and manipulating intelligence information on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in order to enhance the case for war against Iraq.

The BBC is standing by its story, reported by defense and diplomatic correspondent Andrew Gilligan, despite denials by Blair, Foreign Minister Jack Straw and the head of the Joint Intelligence Committee.

A parliamentary select committee, which has heard evidence on the affair, is scheduled to present its findings on Monday.

Just hours before the governors of the BBC were due to meet on Sunday night to consider its response to the ongoing crisis, Blair upped the ante by declaring that the charge against him was the gravest he had ever faced as prime minister.

In a weekend interview, he said "the idea that I or anyone else in my position would start altering intelligence evidence or saying to the intelligence services, 'I am going to insert this,' is absurd.

"There couldn't be a more serious charge?that I ordered our troops into conflict on the basis of intelligence evidence that I falsified.

"You could not make a more serious charge against a prime minister. The charge happens to be wrong."

Perhaps anticipating the finding of the parliamentary committee on Monday, he added: "I think everyone now accepts that that charge is wrong."From the Jerusalem Post

 

[LunarRay]

"There couldn't be a more serious charge?that I ordered our troops into conflict on the basis of intelligence evidence that I falsified."

Or any variation on that theme... I'd agree... well... almost! I can think of others... like launching an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation and killing civilian non combatants... or first strike us of Nuclear Weapons Preemptively... Probably others that I'm not thinking about...

Carmina Burina blaring in my ears..

 

[Trezza]

If it turns out that the docs were falsified then who's fault is it. Was it the leaders bush/blair for not researching enough or the intelligence agencies for "sexing up" documents.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Trezza
If it turns out that the docs were falsified then who's fault is it. Was it the leaders bush/blair for not researching enough or the intelligence agencies for "sexing up" documents.

I think I've heard enough "leaked" or "informed source" information to allow me to suggest the "Intel" did not speak to the issue of WMD in quite the same manner as the BB's and their hot air brigade spoke to it.... Of course.. Plausible Denial is always available to them.... and the old... stand by... "I'm in charge... but, " Point to the good... what or where ever that is and defer the WMD issue.. till they are found or when they find someone who knows where they are buried...

 

[Tates]

If it is true that Syria & Iran pose a greater threat, then having an operating base bordering between the two has it's merits