http://www.historycommons.org The Center for Grassroots Oversight aims to provide the public with a means to collaborate on investigations at the grassroots level. en-us http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a10140445minclaimerror#a10140445minclaimerror http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a10140445minclaimerror#a10140445minclaimerror British Prime Minister Tony Blair formally admits that he was wrong to have claimed that Saddam Hussein could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of giving the order (see and ). Blair's Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, reveals that MI6, the British intelligence agency, has formally withdrawn the claim, as well as other intelligence concerning Iraq's ability to produce biological weapons. The claim has been heavily refuted for well over a year (see and ). Straw refuses to say that it was a mistake to overthrow the Saddam government, saying instead that "deciding to give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt would have required a huge leap of faith. ... I do not accept, even with hindsight, that we were wrong to act as we did." He notes that other governments, most notably the US government, were also convinced that Saddam had an array of WMD which could have been quickly deployed against targets in the region. Conservative MP Gary Streeter says the Blair administration owes the nation a "full apology": "Not an apology for the intelligence but an apology for the way that the intelligence was conveyed by the government to the country." Liberal Democrat Party leader Charles Kennedy accuses Blair of "avoiding answering" questions about the absence of Iraqi WMD. Liberal Democrat deputy leader Menzies Campbell says: "The withdrawal of the 45-minute claim drives a horse and cart through government credibility. ... The building blocks of the government's case for military action are crumbling before our eyes." blackmax 2009-11-19T08:33:21-08:00 http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a08160345minshearsay#a08160345minshearsay http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a08160345minshearsay#a08160345minshearsay A previously unrevealed document shows that British Prime Minister Tony Blair's claim that Iraq could strike a target with weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to deploy was based on hearsay information. The claim had already been shown to be the product of an unreliable Iraqi defector from Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress , but an internal Foreign Service document released by the Hutton inquiry undercuts the original claim even further. British and US officials had stated that the 45-minute claim came from an Iraqi officer high in Saddam Hussein's command structure; the document shows, however, that it came from an informant who passed it on to British intelligence agency MI6. The Guardian writes, "[T]he foundation for the government's claim was ... a single anonymous uncorroborated source quoting another single anonymous uncorroborated source." Liberal Democrat Menzies Campbell says: "This is classic hearsay. It provides an even thinner justification to go to war. If this is true, neither the prime minister nor the government have been entirely forthcoming." blackmax 2009-11-19T08:32:42-08:00 http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a092402blairdossierspeech#a092402blairdossierspeech http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a092402blairdossierspeech#a092402blairdossierspeech British Prime Minister Tony Blair gives a speech to Parliament concurrent with the just-released dossier on Iraqi WMD . Blair combines fact--such as Iraq's lengthy defiance and deception of UN weapons inspections since the 1991 Gulf War, the possible existence of tons of chemical and biological weapons material left unaccounted for in 1998, and the attempts by Iraq to subvert the UN's Food for Oil program--with speculation that Saddam Hussein's "chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons program is not an historic leftover from 1998. ... His WMD program is active, detailed, and growing. The policy of containment is not working. The WMD program is not shut down. It is up and running." Blair calls the dossier "extensive, detailed, and authoritative," and says that according to intelligence data used to compile it: "Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. ... Saddam has continued to produce them ... he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shi'a population, and ... he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability." Only the "45-minute" strike capability is not sourced from the dossier . Blair makes a number of patently false allegations about Iraq's nuclear weapons, including the disputed aluminum tubes claim and the tale about Iraq attempting to purchase uranium from Niger . "[W]e know Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa, though we do not know whether he has been successful," Blair says. He tells the assembled lawmakers: "There will be some who dismiss all this. Intelligence is not always right. For some of this material there may be innocent explanations. There will be others who say, rightly, that, for example, on present going, it could be several years before he acquires a usable nuclear weapon. Though, if he were able to purchase fissile materiel illegally, it would only be a year or two. But let me put it at its simplest: on this 11-year history; with this man, Saddam; with this accumulated, detailed intelligence available; with what we know and what we can reasonably speculate: would the world be wise to leave the present situation undisturbed; to say, despite 14 separate UN demands on this issue, all of which Saddam is in breach of, we should do nothing; to conclude that we should trust not to the good faith of the UN weapons inspectors but to the good faith of the current Iraqi regime?" After all of this buildup, Blair says that he is not necessarily calling for military action against Iraq, but "the case for ensuring Iraqi disarmament ... is overwhelming." He then makes the case for regime change, citing the need for a new leader "who can bring Iraq back into the international community where it belongs, not languishing as a pariah. Someone who can make the country rich and successful, not impoverished by Saddam's personal greed. Someone who can lead a government more representative of the country as a whole, while maintaining absolutely Iraq's territorial integrity. We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Liberated from Saddam, they could make Iraq prosperous and a force for good in the Middle East. So the ending of regime would be the cause of regret for no one other than Saddam." Blair says, "our purpose is disarmament," not military action, but it is hard to conceive how the regime change he advocates could be effected without military action. Two years later, Blair will admit that the claim is erroneous . blackmax 2009-11-19T08:31:17-08:00 http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a09101102scarlettsraft1#a09101102scarlettsraft1 http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a09101102scarlettsraft1#a09101102scarlettsraft1 The first draft of the British intelligence dossier entitled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction" is circulated. The principal author is John Scarlett, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), and therefore the report comes to be known as the "Scarlett dossier." Scarlett had considerable input from intelligence officials and Downing Street officials, including communications director Alastair Campbell, who will later insist he gave nothing more than "presentational" advice and did not pressure Scarlett to "sex up" the dossier. (Campbell's claim will be challenged when evidence is later produced that shows senior press official John Williams helped Scarlett write the dossier--see .) Section 6 of the first draft states flatly that "Uranium to be used in the production of suitable fissile material has been purchased from Africa." The context of the section makes it clear that the reference is not to uranium purchased by Iraq from Niger in 1982 and later sealed and monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It is clear that the reference is to the supposed uranium deal from 1999-2000. That deal was clearly never made, and allegations to the contrary were based upon fabricated documents. Fabricated evidence or not, the dossier states that not only was Iraq seeking uranium, but that uranium "has been purchased." Eight pages later, the dossier claims that "there is compelling evidence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa," a significant language shift--from flat certainty to an assertion of "compelling evidence." And in the executive summary, Scarlett writes that "recent intelligence ... indicates" Iraq "has purchased large quantities of uranium ore, despite having no civil nuclear programme that would require it." The document's claims fluctuate from one section to the next. The final version will be released later in the month, and include the same vagaries of language . blackmax 2009-11-19T08:30:39-08:00 http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0902diauranium#a0902diauranium http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0902diauranium#a0902diauranium The Defense Intelligence Agency releases an intelligence assessment entitled "Iraq's Reemerging Nuclear Program" that claims, "Iraq has been vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" for the production of nuclear weapons. The DIA is referring to the tale of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal , as well as purported dealings with Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The assessment says that "DIA cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources." blackmax 2009-11-19T05:54:38-08:00 http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a080509atfprotest#a080509atfprotest http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a080509atfprotest#a080509atfprotest Grover Norquist, the highly influential leader of the conservative activist group Americans for Tax Reform, acknowledges that his group, along with Americans for Prosperity and the National Conservative Union among others, has encouraged its members to attend town hall meetings to protest health care reform proposals . Norquist also admits that his organization provides talking points, suggested questions to ask, and slogans to chant at the meetings. However, he says his group does not endorse the raucous, sometimes riotous discussions that are taking place. "The more civilly you ask the question, the more powerful it is," he says. "Nobody says go and scream. That's the least effective thing you can do." But a former Republican aide notes, "If you are going to town-hall, you understand the potential pitfalls." blackmax 2009-11-18T06:31:43-08:00 http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a080509texasgop#a080509texasgop http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a080509texasgop#a080509texasgop Though Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Michael Steele says that the Republican Party has no ties to, or involvement with, the recent spate of raucous and near-riotous protests against health care reform (see, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and ), the Web site of the Republican Party of Texas features a front page celebration of the recent disruption at a town hall hosted by Texas Democrat Lloyd Doggett . A photo of Doggett on the site links to a YouTube video of protesters screaming and shouting at him, hosted on the Texas Republican Party's official YouTube account, txgoptv. The video concludesd with the words, "Produced by the Republican Party of Texas," and features a legal disclaimer that proclaims the video was paid for the by the Republican Party of Texas. blackmax 2009-11-18T06:31:06-08:00 http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a073109disruptiontown#a073109disruptiontown http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a073109disruptiontown#a073109disruptiontown The Internet news site Politico reports on the quickly escalating confrontations occurring at "town hall" meetings held around the country, featuring conservative protesters agitating against the White House's health care reform proposals . Reporter Alex Isenstadt writes: "Screaming constituents, protesters dragged out by the cops, congressmen fearful for their safety--welcome to the new town hall-style meeting, the once-staid forum that is rapidly turning into a house of horrors for members of Congress." The meetings, held by Democratic House members attempting to discuss the health care proposals with their constituents, have quickly devolved into confrontational events disrupted by shouting, cursing protesters waving signs and shouting down speakers, often before they can begin speaking. After one such meeting , House member Tim Bishop (D-NY) says he will not hold more town halls until late August. "I had felt they would be pointless," he says. "There is no point in meeting with my constituents and [to] listen to them and have them listen to you if what is basically an unruly mob prevents you from having an intelligent conversation." He adds: "I have no problem with someone disagreeing with positions I hold. But I also believe no one is served if you can't talk through differences." Other Democrats such as Bruce Braley (D-IA), Allen Boyd (D-FL), and Thomas Perriello (D-VA) have experienced similar incidents at their own town hall meetings. Isenstadt characterizes the meetings as plagued by "boiling anger and rising incivility." Braley explains the heated protests by saying, "I think it's just the fact that we are dealing with some of the most important public policy issues in a generation." Bishop notes: "I think in general what is going on is we are tackling issues that have been ignored for a long time, and I think that is disruptive to a lot of people. We are trying, one by one, to deal with a set of issues that can't be ignored, and I think that's unsettling to a lot of people." Dan Maffei (D-NY), whose July 12 meeting at a Syracuse middle school was disrupted, says he is considering other options to avoid the confrontations. "I think you've got to communicate through a variety of different ways," he says. "You should do the telephone town hall meetings. You should do the town hall meetings. You should do the smaller group meetings. It's important to do things in a variety of ways, so you don't have one mode of communication. You're going to have people of varying views, and in this case, you've got the two extremes who were the most vocal." Russ Carnahan (D-MO) says he enjoys the town hall meetings, and will not let disruptions stop him from holding them. Perriello agrees. "I enjoy it, and people have a chance to speak their mind," he says. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), has planned countermethods for the spate of meetings to be held during the August recess. According to sources familiar with the meetings Van Hollen has held, Van Hollen advised his fellow Democrats to "Go on offense. Stay on the offense. It's really important that your constituents hear directly from you. You shouldn't let a day go by [that] your constituents don't hear from you." Van Hollen's Republican counterpart, Pete Sessions (R-TX), who chairs the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), says the protests will continue. "We've seen Russ Carnahan, we've seen Tim Bishop, we've seen some other people face some very different crowds back home," he says. "The days of you having a town hall meeting where maybe 15 or 20 of your friends show up--they're over. You've now got real people who are showing up--and that's going to be a factor." Asked if the Republicans would use the confrontations against Democrats, Sessions says, "Wait till next year." Democrats warn that Republicans will likely face a backlash in public opinion if the public perceives the party as being too closly aligned with tea party activists or other radical-right protesters. Former DCCC political director Brian Smoot says: "It's a risk that they align themselves with such a small minority in the party. They risk alienating moderates." blackmax 2009-11-18T06:30:15-08:00 http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a072709lewingroup#a072709lewingroup http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a072709lewingroup#a072709lewingroup The Republican National Committee plans to spend a million dollars in August on television ads opposing health care reform. One of the key elements of the ad campaign is a study released today by the Lewin Group that finds 119 million Americans would lose the coverage they currently have under the Obama administration's health care reform proposal. MSNBC's progressive talk show host Rachel Maddow airs video clips of Senators John Barrasso (R-WY) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Representatives John Boehner (R-OH), Tom Price (R-GA), Paul Ryan (R-WI), and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) all citing the Lewin study as evidence that health care reform is bad for Americans. The Lewin Group is a subsidiary of United Health Group, a health insurance provider. United Health operates a subsidiary called Ingenix, which in turn operates a consulting firm, the Lewin Group. Maddow notes that Republicans call the Lewin Group "nonpartisan and independent" when in fact it is a branch of a health care insurer. In January 2009, United Health agreed to pay $400 million to the State of New York after being charged with defrauding customers--manipulating data in order to shift medical expenses onto consumers. Former Vermont governor and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, himself a doctor, says the issue is "not ... about Democrats versus Republicans. This is about the health insurance agency versus the American people." blackmax 2009-11-18T06:29:32-08:00 http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a072309boehnereuthanasia#a072309boehnereuthanasia http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a072309boehnereuthanasia#a072309boehnereuthanasia House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) issue a statement that warns the Obama administration's health care reform proposal would provide for "government-encouraged euthanasia" of senior citizens. Boehner and McCotter's statement reads: "Section 1233 of the House-drafted legislation [HR 3200, the most recent version of the reform proposal] encourages health care providers to provide their Medicare patients with counseling on 'the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration' and other end of life treatments, and may place seniors in situations where they feel pressured to sign end of life directives they would not otherwise sign. This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia if enacted into law. At a minimum this legislative language deserves a full and open public debate--the sort of debate that is impossible to have under the politically-driven deadlines Democratic leaders have arbitrarily set for enactment of a health care bill." Boehner and McCotter also state that the reform bill would encourage state-assisted suicide: "With three states having legalized physician-assisted suicide, this provision could create a slippery slope for a more permissive environment for euthanasia, mercy-killing, and physician-assisted suicide because it does not clearly exclude counseling about the supposed benefits of killing oneself. Health care reform that fails to protect the sanctity and dignity of all human life is not reform at all." The next day, McCotter will add: "This is very dangerous. We, in Michigan, have already fought back in attempted assisted suicide several years ago. And yet you see that the people who support this are trying to use this bill to advance this agenda." The statement is quickly challenged by Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), who with Representative Charles Boustany (R-LA) introduced a separate bill that would provide for end-of-life consultations for senior citizens. Both bills propose nothing more than having Medicare pay for such consultations, if the patients or the patients' families desire them. "I cannot tell you how disappointed I was to see this type of reaction to a carefully crafted piece of legislation we have been working on for more than six months that is bipartisan and that speaks to the needs of American families," Blumenauer says. "The American public, especially our senior citizens, deserve our best efforts to meet their needs--not treat them like political footballs." A Boustany spokesman says the congressman stands behind the measure he co-authored, but says it should include language stating that taxpayer money would not be used to counsel patients on physician-assisted suicide. Two states--Oregon and Washington--allow physician-assisted suicide in certain situations, and the Montana Supreme Court is considering a lower-court ruling that found physician-assisted suicide to be a right under Montana's Constitution. Liberal media watchdog organization Media Matters calls the statement's analysis "repulsive." The characterization of the bill by Boehner and McCotter will be disproven by a St. Petersburg Times analysis . blackmax 2009-11-18T06:29:05-08:00