Skip to main content

La guerra que no cesa

Un amigo me aseguraba ayer que el informe Hutton admitía que la afirmación de que Irak podía utilizar armas de destrucción masiva en 45 mínutos fue introducida en el informe oficial de inteligencia por el gabinete de Blair a sabiendas de que era mentira.

Me pareció literalmente increíble. Tuve que reconocer que no había leido el informe Hutton pero la idea que yo tenía, por la prensa, era completamente la contraria.

Diga lo que diga el informe Hutton mucha gente asume que el gobierno de Blair mintió.

Pensé, si mañana me leo el informe (y hoy he leido las conclusiones de Hutton abajo referenciadas) y no veo en él lo que me están ahora diciendo es que vivimos en mundos distintos…hoy aunque me alegra ver que no admite que el gobierno mintiese, como muchos no cesan de repetir, me apena que izquierdas y derechas, pros y contras, yins y yans, no puedan entenderse porque no viven ni en el mismo mundo.

La guerra que no cesa es las mentiras, la de no saber quien dice la verdad, la de la manipulación, de la que no me siento libre...ni hablando con un amigo sobre un punto concreto parece posible ponerse de acuerdo.

Enlaces:
Lines to take
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/cab/cab_4_0014.pdf

Statement by Lord Hutton:

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/rulings/statement280104.htm
48. then state my conclusions on the first group of issues relating to the preparation of the dossier as follows:
"(1) The dossier was prepared and drafted by a small team of the assessment staff of the JIC. Mr Scarlett, the Chairman of the JIC, had the overall responsibility for the drafting of the dossier. The dossier, which included the 45 minutes claim, was issued by the Government on 24 September 2002 with the full approval of the JIC. [In addition to Mr Scarlett, the Chairman, the other members of that Committee were the heads of the three intelligence agencies, the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), the Security Service and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator in the Cabinet Office, the Chief of Defence Intelligence, the Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence, together with senior officials from the major policy departments of the Government.]
(2) The 45 minutes claim was based on a report which was received by the SIS from a source which that Service regarded as reliable. Therefore, whether or not at some time in the future the report on which the 45 minutes claim was based is shown to be unreliable, the allegation reported by Mr Gilligan on 29 May 2003 that the Government probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong before the Government decided to put it in the dossier was an allegation which was unfounded.
(3) The allegation was also unfounded that the reason why the 45 minutes claim was not in the original draft of the dossier was because it only came from one source and the intelligence agencies did not really believe it was necessarily true. The reason why the 45 minutes claim did not appear in draft assessments or draft dossiers until 5 September 2002 was because the intelligence report on which it was based was not received by the SIS until 29 August 2002 and the JIC assessment staff did not have time to insert it in a draft until the draft of the assessment of 5 September 2002.
(4) The true position in relation to the attitude of "the Intelligence Services" to the 45 minutes claim being inserted in the dossier was that the concerns expressed by Dr Jones were considered by higher echelons in the Intelligence Services and were not acted upon, and the JIC, the most senior body in the Intelligence Services charged with the assessment of intelligence, approved the wording in the dossier. Moreover, the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons section of the Defence Intelligence Staff, headed by Dr Jones, did not argue that the intelligence relating to the 45 minutes claim should not have been included in the dossier but they did suggest that the wording in which the claim was stated in the dossier was too strong and that instead of the dossier stating "we judge" that "Iraq has:- military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, including against its own Shia population. Some of these weapons are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them", the wording should state "intelligence suggests".
(5) Mr Campbell made it clear to Mr Scarlett on behalf of the Prime Minister that 10 Downing Street wanted the dossier to be worded to make as strong a case as possible in relation to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's WMD, and 10 Downing Street made written suggestions to Mr Scarlett as to changes in the wording of the draft dossier which would strengthen it. But Mr Campbell recognised, and told Mr Scarlett that 10 Downing Street recognised, that nothing should be stated in the dossier with which the intelligence community were not entirely happy.
(6) Mr Scarlett accepted some of the drafting suggestions made to him by 10 Downing Street but he only accepted those suggestions which were consistent with the intelligence known to the JIC and he rejected those suggestions which were not consistent with such intelligence and the dossier issued by the Government was approved by the JIC.
(7) As the dossier was one to be presented to, and read by, Parliament and the public, and was not an intelligence assessment to be considered only by the Government, I do not consider that it was improper for Mr Scarlett and the JIC to take into account suggestions as to drafting made by 10 Downing Street and to adopt those suggestions if they were consistent with the intelligence available to the JIC. However I consider that the possibility cannot be completely ruled out that the desire of the Prime Minister to have a dossier which, whilst consistent with the available intelligence, was as strong as possible in relation to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's WMD, may have subconsciously influenced Mr Scarlett and the other members of the JIC to make the wording of the dossier somewhat stronger than it would have been if it had been contained in a normal JIC assessment. Although this possibility cannot be completely ruled out, I am satisfied that Mr Scarlett, the other members of the JIC, and the members of the assessment staff engaged in the drafting of the dossier were concerned to ensure that the contents of the dossier were consistent with the intelligence available to the JIC.
(8) The term "sexed-up" is a slang expression, the meaning of which lacks clarity in the context of the discussion of the dossier. It is capable of two different meanings. It could mean that the dossier was embellished with items of intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable to make the case against Saddam Hussein stronger, or it could mean that whilst the intelligence contained in the dossier was believed to be reliable, the dossier was drafted in such a way as to make the case against Saddam Hussein as strong as the intelligence contained in it permitted. If the term is used in this latter sense, then because of the drafting suggestions made by 10 Downing Street for the purpose of making a strong case against Saddam Hussein, it could be said that the Government "sexed-up" the dossier. However in the context of the broadcasts in which the "sexing-up" allegation was reported, and having regard to the other allegations reported in those broadcasts I consider that the allegation was unfounded as it would have been understood by those who heard the broadcasts to mean that the dossier had been embellished with intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable, which was not the case."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Nuevo artículo en RPS

Hoy se ha colgado en www.rondpointschuman.eu un artículo mío: LA SEGURIDAD ENERGÉTICA EN EUROPA: OBJETIVO MOSCU. Escrito con prisas, como casi todo lo que logro acabar... trato al menos de dar algunos datos significativos, que conviene manejar, y alguna idea propia...aunque, ya como dice el refrán "todo lo que no es tradición es plagio". Resumen: El 1 de Enero de 2006 Europa se levantó helada al ver como Gazprom, el monopolio estatal ruso del gas natural, cerraba la llave de su suministro a Ucrania, afectando también al suministro de varios países miembros de la UE. Una combinación de altos precios de la energía y agudos conflictos sobre el acceso a los recursos energéticos, como el de Ucrania o en America Latina durante el 2006, han elevado la cuestión de la seguridad del suministro energético de la UE varios enteros en la agenda de la 25; publicándose en marzo de 2006 el Libro Verde de la Comisión Europea sobre este tema. El nivel de seguridad energética que la UE precisa,

Petróleo hasta 2030

Hace años The Economist certificó el final del petróleo barato, y Rodrigo Rato desde el FMI se puntó a la advertencia de que debíamos acostumbrarnos a un crudo por encima de los USD 100/barril y finalmente en febrero de 2008 vimos como el precio del barril de crudo superaba esta barrera y alcanzaba cotas históricas de USD 143/barril. Entonces las explicaciones eran más que convincentes: el consumo de las potencias emergentes, China e India fundamentalmente, habían puesto la presión sobre la oferta, encareciendose los costes de suministro por lo que el precio parecía crecer sin techo. Pero 2008 acabó revelandonos el techo, y poco después el suelo, del precio del petróleo. El techo para el precio de una materia prima es aquel en el que el consumo se hunde y prescinde, ya sea mediante un sustituto o sencillamente ahorrando, de este bien. Es lo que se denomina calentamiento excesivo de la economía, un precio del petróleo tan alto, que se dispara la inflación, la inflación dispara los tipo

La democracia iliberal y sus aduladores

Autor y amigo: Francesco de Nigris. filósofo, discipulo de Julían Marías. Francesco me dejó su artículo a leer y yo metí impunemente tijera para despersonalizarlo un poco y ver si cabía en RPS...pero, tal vez como vaticinaba Francesco al final del artículo, se ha preferido pasar de publicarlo...ya veremos....me han dicho, y dicho bien, que es abstracto. Es muy curioso Francesco, produce cierto rechazo la abstracción, por bien que esté escrita y argumentada, se prefiere algo concreto aunque mal redactado. Así que hago aquí vendetta, también de mi propia autocensura y publico el artículo de Franceso integro...con mi pequeña introducción. Para el autor, el encumbramiento de la mediocridad está detrás de la crisis de valores en Occidente. Aunque cada individuo lleva sobre sus hombros la responsabilidad de su propio camino, el autor señala como la clase política y los medios de comunicación están lapidando su autoridad y permitiendo niveles de democracia muy por debajo de los alcanzables.