Australian Foreign Minister Suppresses letter on WMD

[Elias]

A DAMNING six-page letter on the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was suppressed by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, according to a former senior diplomat.
Dr John Gee, a world-renowned expert on chemical weapons, worked with the US-led weapons hunt, the Iraq Survey Group, after the war and wrote the critical letter when he decided to resign.
In it he warned the Australian Government the hunt was "fundamentally flawed" and that there was "a distinct reluctance on the part of many here and in Washington to face the facts" that Iraq had no WMD.


http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/letter-suppressed-by-downer/2006/08/30/1156816968014.html

My guess is that Alexander Downer will pretend he was unaware of this intelligence and that Prime Minister John Howard will also state the same, and add that our foreign minister is doing a great job.

[ditch]

I would think that Downer's dismissal of this report was due to Australia trying too hard to agree with the US policy on Iraq, thus making it impossible for any difference of opinion with US policy to get a fair hearing. This WMD bullshit term was dreamt up in order to sell the invasion of Iraq as being necessary. We support the US so we supported the bullshit of the day.

That is clear now, IMO. Back then, to disagree with the line that Saddam was hiding all these nasties was simply not in vogue.

[Copzilla]

I think the both of you are ignoring a whole awful lot of intel to the contrary. Whether Saddam Hussein did or did not have WMDs wasn't the whole story. Saddam led a campaign of misinformation where the only logical conclusion was that he DID have WMDs. A few detractors to the contrary, the fact that this misinformation campaign led almost everyone to universally accept at that time that Saddam did have WMDs was the downfall of his regime.

I'm not surprised at all that someone said he did not have WMDs. That doesn't mean the report was suppressed, it doesn't mean it was hidden, it may simply mean that it was read and decided at the time that the evidence FOR outweighed the evidence AGAINST.

The evidence of WMDs in Iraq was compelling. It wasn't complete, it wasn't assured, but it was highly suspected and highly compelling. Hindsight by Bush haters sure is clear, isn't it?

After all, I can write up some BS right now that says Iran isn't enriching uranium for weapons, send it off to the President, and if it turns out that is true, I'll be a freaking genius, and whine about how my report was suppressed. I might as well... Not much to lose.

[ShinyTop]

There has been much published and referred to on this site that shows numerous people in intelligence positions said there was no WMD. To this poster the only thing undecided was whether Bush lied or just directed than nothing be told him that contradicted his desired path.

[Steve]

Yet the whole time, Saddam was loudly proclaiming he had them and was ready to use them. He was convincing enough that the UN voted to authorize force unless he could prove otherwise. Prove. Not lay doubts, but prove.

There was intel supporting and intel against and the whole time a madman was yammering away at how he'd like nothing better to do than use nuclear weapons.

Sounds a lot like Iran and North Korea, actually.......

Anyway, I'm having a hard time figuring out the point this Gee fellow is making.

He was on the team searching for weapons after the war. He says that search was "flawed". Then he seems to blame the flawed search on some inarticulated inablity to consider that Iraq didn't have weapons, before the war?

Is there some new point he's trying to make?

[ShinyTop]

I agree, Steve, in that anything relating to the finding of something that has been admitted is not there is a little confusing.

[Steve]

By the way, I don't think he lied, I think he refused to consider evidence to the contrary.

[ditch]

The evidence of WMDs in Iraq was compelling. It wasn't complete, it wasn't assured, but it was highly suspected and highly compelling. Hindsight by Bush haters sure is clear, isn't it?

.

Downer has beed accused of ignoring evidence indicating perhaps no WMD. Regardless of one's opinions as to whether there was or there wasn't WMD, ignoring ANY evidence is irresponsible.

Loving or hating Bush is irrelevant.

[Copzilla]

Being accused of something isn't being something, is it?

There was evidence presented on both sides of the table. Simply saying "They're accused of ignoring it" is such a non-indictment, as to be laughable on two fronts - 1) They're accused, and 2) of ignoring, as if they didn't read it, refused to even look at it.

I'm pretty sure they looked at it.

There's a big difference between ignoring and disagreeing. And there was a lot of disagreement on the topic. Fact is that nobody knew, and for some very valid reasons - the disinformation campaign of Saddam's regime. Or are you forgetting about all the inspectors being thrown out time and again? Are you ignoring that?

Again, hindsight is 20/20.

Iran is not making any atomic weapons.

(someday I'll be a genius, and all you bastards are ignoring me)

[ShinyTop]

The Pentagon was running its own disinformation campaign as has been posted before. A member of the team so charged with ignoring evidence that showed no WMD and making sure that any news story showed support for the idea of WMD in Iraq was LTC Karen Kwiatkowski.

I am not going to post any links as we can all Google her name. Those who want to truly look into it will check out her story. Those who will not entertain such a thought will dismiss all discussion out right and/or dismiss all links.

My interpretation was that she was an honorable officer with an honorably career who ended up being ill served by a dishonorable administration.

Your mileage may vary. :)

[ravital]

My guess is that Alexander Downer will pretend he was unaware of this intelligence and that Prime Minister John Howard will also state the same, and add that our foreign minister is doing a great job.

Evs

[ditch]

Being accused of something isn't being something, is it?

There was evidence presented on both sides of the table. Simply saying "They're accused of ignoring it" is such a non-indictment, as to be laughable on two fronts - 1) They're accused, and 2) of ignoring, as if they didn't read it, refused to even look at it.

I'm pretty sure they looked at it.

There's a big difference between ignoring and disagreeing. And there was a lot of disagreement on the topic. Fact is that nobody knew, and for some very valid reasons - the disinformation campaign of Saddam's regime. Or are you forgetting about all the inspectors being thrown out time and again? Are you ignoring that?

Again, hindsight is 20/20.

Iran is not making any atomic weapons.

(someday I'll be a genius, and all you bastards are ignoring me)

Agree..hindsight is 20/20. Loving or hating Bush....still nothing to do with it.

If this thread spreads to anything other than Downers actions re Gee's report then we are back discussing the whole WMD/Iraq issue once again. Interesting topic, but not related to the particular issue Elais opened with.

This Dr Gee is claiming to having been told "by people in the know whose opinions he trusts", or words very close to that, that Downer suppressed the circulation of his report.

THE Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, has confirmed for the first time that he was personally told by a senior Australian weapons inspector that the US-led weapons hunt in postwar Iraq was seriously flawed.
But he denies suppressing a damning six-page letter by the inspector, John Gee, who resigned from the Iraq Survey Group in March 2004.


SMH story. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/weapons-downer-admits-being-told/2006/08/31/1156817034562.html)

Gee may be simply suffering from sour grapes because he hasn't been given a medal for his work yet. I don't know. But Downer's actions have been questioned lately re seeking out information favourable to the govt policy on stem cell research. Gee's claims are of a similar nature and are making Downer's rejection of Gee's claims that little bit harder.

What may or may not have happened in the Pentagon and who may or may not have said what to who in the US govt. is, like I said, an interesting topic for discussion if you want to go there. This topic regarding Downer is a new one however, so worthy of a separate thread IMO. I'm lost as to whyGee's claim has only just raised its head.

At the end of the day, as they say, this will most likley be a storm in a teacup.

Yes, Iran is making atomic weapons. That is the pragmatic approach to take when dealing with them. If that too turns out to be BS, then at least our respective arses were covered by not being dismissive of that which is difficult to prove. I'm with you on that one.

[Steve]

I'm still puzzled as to what, precisely, is Gee's point?

The search for WMD after the war could have only two outcomes:

A. They're found and the entire war is immediately justified.
B. They're not found and the whole thing was based upon poor foreign intelligence.

It seems to me that the U.S. and its allies had very powerful motivation in conducting a thorough search for WMD in Iraq and absolutely no incentive at all to be cursory about the whole thing. So, what is Gee's contention? Is he claiming that WMD might actually be there but the search was so screwed up that we missed them? Proof, please! Or is he claiming that a screwed-up search failed to find something that didn't exist in the first place?

I agree, this is sour grapes of the egomaniacal variety.

[ditch]

I saw Gee interviewed on TV last night. A wheelchair bound man, he had a manner that was somewhat puzzling. I don't know. I'm trying to understand where he's coming from too.