Iraq intelligence 'not very substantial' says Prescott

Source - BBC News

 

Lord Prescott: "I felt a little bit nervous about the conclusions...of pretty limited intelligence"

 

The intelligence on Iraq's weapons threat was not "very substantial", former deputy prime minister Lord Prescott has said.

 

He told the Iraq inquiry he was "nervous" about the intelligence being presented in 2002 - some of which he said was based on "tittle-tattle".

 

However, he said he did not have the knowledge to challenge the assessments.

 

Nevertheless, he defended the military action taken as "legal" and said he would take the same decision again.

 

Lord Prescott, deputy prime minister between 1997 and 2007, is the last senior former Labour minister to be giving evidence to the Chilcot inquiry into the war.

 

The inquiry is looking at the UK's role in the build-up to the war and the handling of its aftermath, and is expected to publish its report around the end of the year.

 

 

However, he told the inquiry that MPs had backed the action and that "democratic accountability had been satisfied".

 

While former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith had a "difficult decision" to make before deciding the war was legal, he said he accepted the judgement that military action was justified on basis of existing UN disarmament resolutions.

 

While it was "fashionable" to criticise Tony Blair for taking the UK to war, he said the former prime minister had "agonised" over the death of every British soldier.

 

In his opening statement, he expressed his "deepest sympathies" to the relatives of the 179 British service personnel killed in Iraq.

 

Lord Prescott, the final witness in the current round of public hearings, said he attended 23 out of 28 Cabinet meetings which discussed UK policy towards Iraq as well as holding a number of private meetings with Mr Blair.

 

Intelligence doubts

 

Asked about the intelligence shown to ministers about Iraq in 2002, Mr Prescott said had "no evidence" it was wrong but admitted he was a "little bit nervous about the conclusions on what I seemed to think was pretty limited intelligence".

 

"When I kept reading them, I kept thinking to myself, 'is this intelligence?", he said.

 

Describing it as "basically what you have heard somewhere and what somebody else has told somebody", he suggested the conclusions drawn on the back of it "were a little ahead" of the evidence.

 

"So I got the feeling it wasn't very substantial," he said.

 

With hindsight, he said recommendations made by the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) "were frankly wrong and built too much on a little information".

 

"That was my impression at the time but, you know, I just thought 'well this is the intelligence document, this is what you have'.

 

"It seems robust but not enough to justify to that. Certainly what they do in intelligence is a bit of tittle-tattle here and a bit more information there."

 

However, he said he was certain that Saddam Hussein presented a real threat to regional security as he had attacked both Kuwait and Iran in recent years.

 

'Maintaining unity'

 

He said the UK's "priority" was to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis and suggested it was a "real achievement" for Tony Blair to persuade the US to try and get UN support for action against Iraq.

 

But he said US policy towards Iraq had been one of regime change since the Clinton presidency and the Bush administration did not want to be "diverted" from this course by diplomatic negotiations.

 

From conversations with former US Vice President Dick Cheney - who he described as a "hard-liner" - he said he got the impression Iraq was "unfinished business".

 

He described UK-led efforts to get a second UN resolution in early 2003 specifically authorising military action as "absolutely critical".

 

Asked about Cabinet discussions in the run-up to the war, he said he saw his job to "maintain unity" over the issue, suggesting that Labour was haunted by internal splits in the party in the 1970s and 1980s.

 

"There was a desire to maintain unity. Iraq could have split it if the Cabinet had said no, no no."

 

Ministers had to decide whether "to stay in or get out" and with the exception of Robin Cook and Clare Short - who both ultimately resigned - he said his colleagues had clearly reconciled any reservations they may have had.

 

Lord Prescott's appearance was the final scheduled public hearing, but inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot said witnesses could be recalled in the autumn if the committee felt the need to clear up "conflicts or gaps in the evidence".

 

Sir John also said his five-member panel planned to visit Iraq in the autumn to hear "Iraqi perspectives" and see first-hand the consequences of British troops' six-year presence in the country.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So, Iraq intelligence not really that good eh...? And in other news - A bear sh!t in the woods and the Pope declared he was indeed a Catholic....

 

Yes, John, you had "doubts" that the intelligence was just a BIT cack, but not the actual guts to act on it..... You still voted for the war didn't you...?

 

Seems pretty obvious to me, and reading between the lines, we were just gonna go with what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld decided no matter what.. The Yanks wanted this war, and our Govt at that time was too weak-willed to say "No" to them. Hell, even the ARMY weren't all that keen to go in given what one of the top brass said a couple of days back to Chilcott...

 

Shame they didn't look to history and saw how Harold Wilson handled the question of committing British troops to Vietnam.. Wilson paid lip service to keep Lyndon Johnson and the Hawks in Washington happy, but consistently refused to commit our troops to Vietnam.... Blair and Co could have learned from that, but didn't...

 

Frankly, this is weasel words coming from John tbh, they knew it was wrong, that things just didn't add up, but concocted a lot of bullsh"t to feed the public, and just did what they were told by Washington... This is not what I voted in a LABOUR govt to do in 1997....

So, Iraq intelligence not really that good eh...? And in other news - A bear sh!t in the woods and the Pope declared he was indeed a Catholic....

 

Yes, John, you had "doubts" that the intelligence was just a BIT cack, but not the actual guts to act on it..... You still voted for the war didn't you...?

 

Seems pretty obvious to me, and reading between the lines, we were just gonna go with what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld decided no matter what.. The Yanks wanted this war, and our Govt at that time was too weak-willed to say "No" to them. Hell, even the ARMY weren't all that keen to go in given what one of the top brass said a couple of days back to Chilcott...

 

Shame they didn't look to history and saw how Harold Wilson handled the question of committing British troops to Vietnam.. Wilson paid lip service to keep Lyndon Johnson and the Hawks in Washington happy, but consistently refused to commit our troops to Vietnam.... Blair and Co could have learned from that, but didn't...

 

Frankly, this is weasel words coming from John tbh, they knew it was wrong, that things just didn't add up, but concocted a lot of bullsh"t to feed the public, and just did what they were told by Washington... This is not what I voted in a LABOUR govt to do in 1997....

 

I'll never understand why the UK was too weak-willed considering Germany, France and generally the entire world save a handful of countries had no qualms about standing up to Bush & co. Blair gave Bush the shred of legitimacy he needed to call the effort a "coalition." I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest the whole thing may not have happened without the UK's support.

I'll never understand why the UK was too weak-willed considering Germany, France and generally the entire world save a handful of countries had no qualms about standing up to Bush & co. Blair gave Bush the shred of legitimacy he needed to call the effort a "coalition." I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest the whole thing may not have happened without the UK's support.

 

Naaah, Cheney and Rumsfeld would still have gone in, their determination was bloody-minded, and they always had seen Saddam as "unfinished business". They were part of this think tank called "Project For A New American Century" during the Clinton years, and already this group had it in mind to invade Iraq, 9/11 gave the excuse they needed... TBH, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it ever came out that Cheney and Rumsfeld (but not Bush, he would be too stupid to trust with something like this..) knew that 9/11 was going to happen and just let it, let 3000 Americans die so they could justify a war....

 

They were absolutely right to go in to Iraq. Doesn't matter whether it was false intelligence or fabricated intelligence or not. Saddam was an evil man and dangerous to the immediate region and the wider world. Maybe Bush should have just said "yes we're going in to get rid of Saddam" and gone ahead. After all no-one could have stopped him. Pity France and others hadn't the guts to join with us and America. :rolleyes: Don't forget Scott when you're calling Labour, that the Tories would have done exactly the same as Blair did. What's done is done now. Saddam's gone and that has to be a good thing.

Edited July 31, 201014 yr by Common Sense

They were absolutely right to go in to Iraq. Doesn't matter whether it was false intelligence or fabricated intelligence or not. Saddam was an evil man and dangerous to the immediate region and the wider world. Maybe Bush should have just said "yes we're going in to get rid of Saddam" and gone ahead. After all no-one could have stopped him. Pity France and others hadn't the guts to join with us and America. :rolleyes: Don't forget Scott when you're calling Labour, that the Tories would have done exactly the same as Blair did. What's done is done now. Saddam's gone and that has to be a good thing.

Except they weren't going in to get rid of Saddam, they were going in to effectively privatise Iraq and leave it open for multinations to rape...

They were absolutely right to go in to Iraq. Doesn't matter whether it was false intelligence or fabricated intelligence or not. Saddam was an evil man and dangerous to the immediate region and the wider world. Maybe Bush should have just said "yes we're going in to get rid of Saddam" and gone ahead. After all no-one could have stopped him. Pity France and others hadn't the guts to join with us and America. :rolleyes: Don't forget Scott when you're calling Labour, that the Tories would have done exactly the same as Blair did. What's done is done now. Saddam's gone and that has to be a good thing.

 

 

It wasn't about getting rid of Saddam, it was supposedly about WMDs... And why should British servicemen put their lives on the line so the fukkin' Americans can have cheap oil....? Labour and Tory are a bunch of cowardly scum in not standing up to Bush, simple as, and this is the way it's been since the 80s when Thatcher had her tongue firmly up Reagan's rear end... I voted for a BRITISH Govt, not to be part of the bloody United States of America.... Frankly, I'd rather we were part of a Federal Europe than be up Amerca's arse....

 

Lots of "dangerous people" in the world mate, but we dont invade THEIR countries... Howabout Mugabe for example..? Naaah, no oil there, so the Yanks aint interested in that one, are they...? <_<

Except they weren't going in to get rid of Saddam, they were going in to effectively privatise Iraq and leave it open for multinations to rape...

 

In a nutshell... Over $200 billion of Iraqi oil money spirited away by US multinationals.... And they have the cheek to get all moralistic about the actions of BP..... Hilarious I call it...

Prescott is the worst type of hypocrite, if he had any honour like Robin Cook had he would have resigned and spoken out against the war and how there was no case for it but no he kept his mouth shut, accepted his ministerial jags, massive salary, grace and favour mansion and fancy title and turned a blind eye to everything, pathetic spineless man

Prescott is the worst type of hypocrite, if he had any honour like Robin Cook had he would have resigned and spoken out against the war and how there was no case for it but no he kept his mouth shut, accepted his ministerial jags, massive salary, grace and favour mansion and fancy title and turned a blind eye to everything, pathetic spineless man

 

A higher percentage of Tory MPs voted in favour of the Iraq war than Labour MPs. Just throwing that one out there. :)

A higher percentage of Tory MPs voted in favour of the Iraq war than Labour MPs. Just throwing that one out there. :)

 

Maybe so but they did so based on the information given to them by Blair and Bush, had the real truth come out at the time the result would be very different.

 

Maybe so but they did so based on the information given to them by Blair and Bush, had the real truth come out at the time the result would be very different.

 

Oh please, you don't think they seriously believed it do you. They, like almost everyone else in this country (including 140 Labour MPs), knew full well that there almost certainly were no WMDs - they just chose to gloss over that fact due to the business opportunities that would arise from it and their perverted sense of thinking we should assist the US in their "world policing". The fact is that, had the Tories voted against, we would not have joined the war.

Oh please, you don't think they seriously believed it do you. They, like almost everyone else in this country (including 140 Labour MPs), knew full well that there almost certainly were no WMDs - they just chose to gloss over that fact due to the business opportunities that would arise from it and their perverted sense of thinking we should assist the US in their "world policing". The fact is that, had the Tories voted against, we would not have joined the war.

 

I don't know any MP's so can't speak for them or their motives for voting for it but for even a brief time I was suckered into believing it when it was talked about missiles being able to target us in 45 mins etc but being the cynic and conspiracy theorist that I am that didn't last long but a lot of people believed it including I am sure whole swathes of MP's

A higher percentage of Tory MPs voted in favour of the Iraq war than Labour MPs. Just throwing that one out there. :)

My MP is still speaking out against it :o One of the reason's i'll vote him in again even though the LibDems are baking cakes made out of rainbows with the conservatives. :puke:

 

 

 

Iraq drove a huge wedge between the UK and the very powerful FrancoGerman bloc in the EU. This horrid war not only left us vulnerable to terrorist attacks [London and Glasgow, the later on the day i was in Glasgow :mellow:] but harmed our relations with the European Union. Who are vital for our economy. Without them we'd be so far beyond f***ed.

I don't know any MP's so can't speak for them or their motives for voting for it but for even a brief time I was suckered into believing it when it was talked about missiles being able to target us in 45 mins etc but being the cynic and conspiracy theorist that I am that didn't last long but a lot of people believed it including I am sure whole swathes of MP's

 

Well, I know for a fact that William Hague has said he'd still vote for it, and had no regrets, and I dont think Cameron has done exactly that much to speak out against it either.. In fact when Nick Clegg got up on the despatch box a few weeks back and said to the Labour shadow spokesperson that Iraq was a lie, he was slapped down by the Tory hierarchy, none of whom exactly came rushing to his support even though they had the golden opportunity now that they're in power to right the wrongs of the Iraq war and maybe even score some points and some influence in the Middle East, but instead, you get Cameron acting like a gushing teenage cheerleader with Obama and saying we were "junior partners" during WW2 in 1940 and offending just about every single person who'd fought or died to defend us against Hitler...

 

Naaaah, they're just as big a bunch of spineless cowards as Two Jags, probably even more so when you add in Cameron's gushing, sycophantic and woefully historically innaccurate verbal diarrhea, which was merely an attempt to curry favour with Obama.... <_<