Britain won't reveal source

[dArKeR]

London - Britain cannot tell the United States how it knew that Iraq tried to get uranium from Niger because the information originated from a third country, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said on Monday, without identifying the country.

His statement seemed likely to add to an embarrassing rift between London and Washington - allies in the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein - over the way intelligence was used in the run-up to the conflict.

The issue is liable to cloud talks in Washington on Thursday when British Prime Minister Tony Blair - en route to East Asia - sees US President George W Bush and makes a special address to Congress.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1387356,00.html

http://www.geocities.com/darkerxdarker

[UpInArms]

1. can't reveal that which will vanish in the light of day

this lie can only flourish in the dark.

Expose the lies and the liars.

Demand a full and open investigation - call, write, fax, email your congressional reps (especially the pubs) every day - until they can't stand the heat - I don't care how much their offices try to ignore you - do it anyway.

[Nottingham]

2. Oh I bet the country was Saudia Arabia or Kuwait! I BETCHA!

Would that be hillarious!! :bounce:

[Nottingham]

3. Or better than that ALIENs from MARS!

they sent the report!

:bounce:

[CWebster]

9. Israel.

.

[lanlady]

4. what a load of bull!

Over the past few decades, the English-speaking countries have built a powerful, multi-billion $$$ surveillance/spying network for the express purpose of sharing intel. It is centered at NSA HQ in Ft Meade but extends to all the Anglo nations including New Zealand.

Obviously Messrs. Blair and Bush think we're all stupid!

[salin]

14. The approach is telling, though, isn't it.

In some ways they are between a rock and a hard place. More so in the UK than here.

They can share the intel - and watch it go through the same scrutiny (and given their decision not to do so - have it likely be shown as knowably false as well). To do so would be to have to weather yet another storm - and given their shakey credibility it could fell Blair.

Or

They can try to play the "we know more because we are privvy to intel that you are not privvy to, and we can't share it with you for security reasons" card. Who knows this could actually be true. But the risk here is as great as the risk above, given the lack of credibility they currently have due to the previous storms. To do this means they will continue to have the public speculation and attacks on their decisions and credibility, and the scorn of critics and the public who have just seen how deceptive the public case of the "immenent threat" was who are now being asked to believe the decievers about this other "more reliable" intel information. This tactic leaves the "death of a thousand cuts" process that is going on to continue. It, too, could likely fell Blair.

The thing is - IF they have more reliable information, isn't that what they would have shared in their top "secure" briefings? Wouldn't folks who were privvy to those briefings, who HAVE spoken out about those briefings, be able to verify that "yes, other information was provided" - even if they did not disclose it due to security reasons? Given the absense of anyone claiming this from either side of the Ocean, it is pretty easy to presume that it simply is more subterfuge.

Why is this telling? Two dangerous courses to take. Neither likely to be succesful. Appears to be a very orchestrated (suddenly Condi, Donny are saying the same thing at the same time) and desperate move.

[Beetwasher]

5. Super Duper Double Top Secret Information!

It's so secret that WE don't even know what it is! It can save our asses, but we can't show it because it's too top secret! But trust us, this secret information, which we can't show anyone, not even ourselves, totally exonerates everyone! Trust us!

[T_i_B]

16. "Trust me I'm Tony!"

Blair still seems to be trying to persuade us simply to take his word for it that it's true. Sadly we cannot do so. "new" labour is built first and foremost on spin and decit and the longer Blair goes on the more people will wake up to this. Blair's all-style-no-substance approach worked wonders when he was first elected Labour leader then PM but now "new" labour is no longer new and Blair seem to have past his sell by date.

[qb]

6. It was reportedly an Italian summary of the forged documents.

I can't find the link, but I read last week that the U.S. pointed the British towards Italian "intelligence" that was nothing more that a summary of the forged documents that substituted "Africa" for "Niger" to make it look like separate intelligence.

It's all part of the same shell game.

[Neutrino]

7. British and American Intelligence agencies worked closer

on Iraq than any two Intelligence Agencies in History. That being
the case, if British Intelligence hid info from American Intelligence,
then the British never truly were allies. That Great Britain continues
to refuse to reveal the source, even covertly, means that Great Britain
is STILL a false ally.

[CWebster]

8. Intelligence can't be credible

if it can't be verifiable.

[yowzayowzayowza]

10. If this evidence really...

exists and is credible, would MI5/6 be all over the poodles a$$???

[TeeYiYi]

11. Won't? . . . or CAN'T?! Same shit, different day. .........n/t

TYY

[TahitiNut]

12. Laundering Lies: A Primer

Step 1 - Set up a disinformation operation in the US called the OSP.
Step 2 - Find an allied disinformation operation; Sharon's skunk works (a "shadow Mossad") will do.
Step 3 - Harvest hoaxes (from the INC is OK) and send (redacted) copies to Sharon's "shadow Mossad" -- with instructions to relay to British Intel but with 'nondisclosure' limits.
Step 4 - Make reference to British Intel's 'opinion' (based on hoax).

Dessert - Filter more disinformation through Berlusconi's intel operations.

[Star]

13. Tell ya what, I'll trade ya

You give me the Gitmo prisoners, I'll give you the source.

[qb]

15. This scandal is developing in another "Latest" thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=13029&mesg_id=13029&page=

[peterh]

17. It’s really the U.S. via Judith Miller via Chalabi….

But all parties are too fucking embarrassed to admit their stupidity, so they’re holding firm.

[BeFree]

18. Reminds me of crabs at the beach...

Crabs scurrying around on a beach. One pops out of a hole for a second depositing a piece of something, then scurrying back into the hole before they can be examined.

Life's a beach....right?

CRABS: Certain Republicans Amongst Bush's Servants.

America's got a bad case of CRABS, eh?