Sir Richard Dearlove, Former MI6 Chief, Threatens To Expose Iraq War Details By Huffington Post | 07/22/2013 12:54 pm EDT Excerpts: The former head of Britain's intelligence agency has threatened to expose new details about the state of affairs leading up to the Iraq war. Sir Richard Dearlove, who helmed the MI6 from 1999 to 2004, told the UK's Mail On Sunday that he has spent the last year writing "a record of events surrounding the invasion of Iraq from my then professional perspective." Dearlove told the Mail that he has been planning to leave his account as a record for scholars, but may reveal the details sooner if he doesn't agree with the findings of Britain's Chilcot Inquiry, which is investigating the country's role in the lead-up to the Iraq War: 'My intention is that this should be a resource available to scholars, but after my decease (may be sooner depending on what Chilcot publishes). I have no intention, however, of violating my vows of official secrecy by publishing any memoir.' Dearlove, now Master at Pembroke College, Cambridge University, has taken a sabbatical from academic life to work on this account, and is said to be "extremely aggrieved" that Prime Minister Tony Blair and his chief spokesman Alastair Campbell overstated the possibility that Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons could jeopardize British troops in Cyprus, according to the Mail. A security source told the Mail on Sunday that the account is "Sir Richard's time-bomb." Dearlove is perhaps best known in the United States for denying MI6 involvement in the 1997 death of Princess Diana. One Brit weighed in on Twitter, referring to Dearlove as "our own Snowden" while another wondered if Dearlove would be found "dead in a forest with minor cuts on his wrists." Dearlove left the intelligence agency in 2004, earlier then expected, though a spokesman at the time denied that he was leaving over differences with ministers over the handling of the Iraq War. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/22/richard-dearlove_n_3635208.html ...... IMO: Sir Richard Dearlove is intent on whistle-blowing the British involvement in Iraq and if he divulges all he knows, his life will certainly be in danger as he came to America to check on how far then President Bush was willing to go in Iraq. His primary purpose was to find out how much information America had on the purported WMDs in Iraq. On June 26, 2002- In a meeting with Tony Blair, senior British Official Sir Richard Dearlove, head of M16 British Intellignce, reports what he found during recent Washington talks at the highest levels of CIA, White House and other quarters. Dearlove said: Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam thru military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD, but intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. (from former NSC staffer Roger Morris' book The Source Beyond Rove.) The information to be divulged will certainly be harmful to Tony Blair and his administration, GW Bush, Cheney, and members of our CIA, Congress and any individual that helped GW Bush get us into such a disastrous war on lies. Sir Richard Dearlove is a thoroughly experienced and credible worker for the M16 and his words will be believed and would possibly bring in the Bush Administrations treasonous actions in bringing over 10 disastrous years of violent war for America under false pretenses because he wanted the vast oil resources in Iraq.
...... You should care! The Iraq War was a source of many American deaths, many Iraqi deaths, and it destroyed the integrity and leadership of America in the world. If Dearlove decides to talk, he will cause alot of problems for the people that caused the Iraq War...trust me, it will come to rest right at our door. England only followed in our footsteps...and Dearlove informed Blair in 2002 of the fictitious WMDs and America's weaving a decision to wage an invasion based on lies.
Everybody on the planet knows the Iraq war was illegal and a farce. I don't know what more this guy can add to the conversation. We were all told very clearly there were WMDs and that is why we must act. Well there were known. Illegal war based on a clumsily crafted lie. Case closed.
Which is a total lie. 17 UN resolutions and the last one had wording in specific to miliatry action with non compliance. Language in Resolution 1441 recalled that the use of "all means necessary" was still authorized and in effect from Resolution 678, and therefore maintained that if Iraq failed to comply with the "one final chance to comply" provision of Resolution 1441, then military action would be the result. http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000875 Why liberals continue to lie about this is beyond rational thought.
...... When there were so many deaths and casualties in this manufactured Iraq invasion, when the miscreants are still walking free, both Britain and America should bring it into the World Court and have it thoroughly investigated and all the guilty brought to justice. If they aren't penalized for their actions, every British and American death in the Iraq War was in vain.
That's right Agent. Ignore the 17 UN resolutions and their wording. Its easier than facing the truth.
..... "Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security..." Ask Condaleeza Rice, she set up everything for the U.N. proceedings. "In March 5 of 2002 Wilson goes to Niger for 10 days to investigate any purchase of uranium or anything else, and finds no evidence. Returns to give his oral report, and a further report by the CIA for Cheney. In defacto acceptance of this finding, the Washington agencies, including Rice and her staff make no further effort to investigate the matter in Niger, or anywhere else." On August 2002 VP Cheney says: "now we know Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons" In September of 2002, Rice was telling the CIA about Hussein possessing WMD, a scare tactic which places her in a pivotal role in the administration's actions On September 2002 Rice is asked in a CNN interview what evidence she has of Iraq nuclear weapons and she answers: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." On January 23, 2003 nytimes op-ed entitled "Why We Know Iraq is Lying" Rice refers prominently to "Iraq's efforts to get uranium from abroad." On January 28, 2003 Bush states in his SOTU that: "The British Goverment has learned that Hussein recently sought'significant quantities' of uranium from Africa." On March 17, 2003 In a statement cleared by Rice, Bush repeats that "Iraq continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." On March 19, 2003 Bush orders the invasion of Iraq. On March 21,2003Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D. W Va) writes FBI Director Walter Mueller and asks for an investigation. He says: "There is a possibility that the Niger documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq." *From book by Roger Morris. former NSC staffer entitled: 'The Source Beyond Rove' ..... The above gives factual evidence of the lies perpetrated by the Bush Administration to get us into a war for their own purposes, not the lies they told us for scare tactics. They should all be in jail for life for what they did to the American people and the millions of young men and women, both Iraqis and Americans, who died because of these lies. That they are still walking around free is an insult to the American people.
..... That is what I mean when I say 'there is a huge elephant turd in every American living room.' It will remain there until the truth comes out and justice is done. Simple as that!
You can't ingore the UN resolutions I mentioned Agent. Nor the threat of military action if not complied.
Obtain Iraq's vast oil resources? Can you actually explain what you mean by that? And when I say explain, I mean actually point to actual evidence that the US seized Iraq's oil. If the goal had been to seize Iraq's oil, then there certainly was no way the Iraqis could have done anything about it. Where do you get your information? I think you make it up as it totally contradicts all the readily available historic and current information on global oil production and where that production is sent.
Are you sure that it wasn't America who followed Britain's footsteps into war ? That's what Saddam Hussein believed. -> http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/ You'll notice that Saddam blamed British intellegence and he also told the FBI he was also started to believe he still had WMD's. You are aware that the Iraq war was probably the most politically correct wars America has ever fought and American casualties were so low more comparable to the Philippine Insurrection where 4,000 American soldiers, Marines and sailors died. Are you aware that during the Clinton administration that 7,500 Americans were killed while on active duty. -> www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf As for Sir Richard Dearlove, is this just more of Huffington Post huffing again ? British classified information or sensitive information under British law is kept secret for 100 years before it is released. Just starting this year sensitive and classified information on W W l is just starting to be released. The British government is very concerned that between 2014 - 2017 that embarrassing information will be released on WW l. Is America going to discover that we fought on the wrong side during the Great War and followed Great Britain's footsteps into war ?
The RIght is so funny. All you can hear from them about the UN is how it is a pointless organization that should be ignored, is a waste of money, is controlled by commies, etc.... Until it has a proclamation (done at USA insistence) that the Rghties like. Then, suddenly, the Righties say we MUST do the UN's will!
Of course the USA did not go to war to get Iraq's vast oil resources for itself or its citizens! The USA went to war with american citizen's tax money and troops lives in Iraq to get its vast oil resources for the MULTINATIONAL OIL COMPANIES, who pull the puppet strings in Washington. And we did. The Iraqi citizens get a small cut, mostly going personally to the very top utterly-corrupt US puppet leaders we left there. And so it goes, again and again, as it has for well more than 100 years. Marine General Smedley Butler in 1935 after nuumerous decorations and successes in foreign wars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
The UN did NOT force us to invade. The ONLY hurry was Bush's own need to capitalize on the 911 frenzy. The UN would have been happy it we had taken We did that all on our lonesome. HEre is the UN's statement in 2004 on the matter of invading Iraq: The USA conducted strenuous campaigns, heavily using threats from oil companies and international finance, to coerce the ironically named "Coalition of the Willing" to support an invasion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_War Along with spectacular lies:
You quote wiki. I quote the actual resolution for the second time since you obviously didn't read it. Language in Resolution 1441 recalled that the use of "all means necessary" was still authorized and in effect from Resolution 678, and therefore maintained that if Iraq failed to comply with the "one final chance to comply" provision of Resolution 1441, then military action would be the result. http://usiraq.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000875 Read the bold this time Dave. You are wrong. Again.
