Former Prime Minister John Howard is embarrassed that he took Australia to Iraq on the basis of inac - Polidicks

[t]http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5759126-3x2-940x627.jpg[/t] [QUOTE]So much of the Islamic State operation comes out of what's occurring in Syria and to suggest that it's purely or predominately a result of what happened in Iraq in 2003 is a false reading of history.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Former prime minister John Howard says he was "embarrassed" intelligence he used to take Australia to war in Iraq was inaccurate and denies it was a "deliberate deception". In an interview broadcast on the Seven Network, Mr Howard said he and the then National Security Committee of Cabinet in 2003 sent Australian troops into Iraq because they believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to the West. [B]"I was struck by the force of the language used in the American national intelligence assessment late in November 2002," he said. "It brought together all the American intelligence and paragraph after paragraph, they said, we judge Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."[/B] [B]However, he said as evidence emerged that there were no weapons of mass destruction, he sought to explain the government's decision. "I felt embarrassed, I did, I couldn't believe it, because I had genuinely believed it," he told interviewer Janet Albrechtsen. "So, I felt embarrassed and I did my best to explain ... that it wasn't a deliberate deception.[/B] "It may have been an erroneous conclusion based on the available information but it wasn't made up." Mr Howard also chided his successor as prime minister, Kevin Rudd, who he said initially supported the intelligence findings before later to accusing him of "going to war on a lie". "Kevin Rudd made a speech saying that it was an empirical fact that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, he later on said that I had taken the country to war based on a lie, despite the fact he said it was an empirical fact, never one to understate things," he said. Mr Howard denied the conflict - led by United States and Britain - sowed the seeds for the formation of militant group Islamic State (IS), which has since seized control of large swathes of Iraq and Syria. "If you're seeking to locate the responsibility specifically to the 2003 invasion, let me put it to you that Syria was not involved in any outside military operation, but more than 200,000 have died in the Syrian civil war," he said. "And so much of the Islamic State operation comes out of what's occurring in Syria and to suggest that it's purely or predominately a result of what happened in Iraq in 2003 is a false reading of history." US president Barack Obama last month launched strikes against IS targets in Iraq and has foreshadowed the formation of a multi-national coalition to "destroy" the brutal Sunni militant group. Australia has supported US efforts by delivering humanitarian and military aid to Iraqis under siege by IS fighters and sent fighter jets and about 600 troops, including special forces soldiers, to the Middle East to prepare for possible deployment in coming weeks. Authorities last week said they had uncovered a plot by IS-linked operatives to abduct and execute a "random member of the public" from the Sydney streets.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-21/howard-embarrassed-by-intelligence-that-iraq-had-wmds/5759132[/URL] I honestly think Howard wasn't that bad of a PM

Don't forget Curveball and the Germans.

[QUOTE]"Kevin Rudd made a speech saying that it was an empirical fact that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, he later on said that I had taken the country to war based on a lie, despite the fact he said it was an empirical fact, never one to understate things," he said.[/QUOTE] Gotta love politics

[QUOTE=Tasm;46039979]Gotta love politics[/QUOTE] He talked about krudd in the interview and then said Julia Gilard had no authority

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;46044373]and then said Julia Gilard had no authority[/QUOTE] That's an understatement.

Mark Latham had right the right intentions to leave and not be involved with Iraq. Until he lost the election because of a handshake.

Bush isn't american

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;46039800]I honestly think Howard wasn't that bad of a PM[/QUOTE] I thought he was slimy when in power, but as with all politicians it's a lot easier to relate to or understand his decisions now that he's retired and.. speaking honestly? [editline]22nd September 2014[/editline] He's not that bad of a PM compared to Abbott I guess.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;46045329]Bush isn't american[/QUOTE] :tinfoil:

I can't honestly reflect on John Howard as Prime Minister because I only really saw him when he was the leader of Australia when I was really young and I didn't really get politics, so I always thought the opposition leaders (Kim Beazley, Mark Latham) were the bad guys and John Howard was the good guy. Then when I was a bit older I got more into politics with the 2007 election and by then he was pretty damn power hungry. And then later on I learned more about the Tampa Affair (as well as the later Work Choices, NT intervention and massive wasteful spending during the mining boom) and it seems to me the reality was he was pretty much a dick but he wasn't a bad leader in terms of managing unity and politics within his own party (until the end there). Sympathising with him for being embarrassed about committing Australia to war in Iraq on the back of a dodgy report? That's not cool. Embarrassed isn't the emotion you get when your actions assist in the deaths of thousands of civilians. I will trust him when he says he was convinced the report was accurate... but he's embarrassed it wasn't? Try a bit of shame, disgust and regret for the lives lost, that might make his situation sympathetic.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;46045329]Bush isn't american[/QUOTE] you're right he's a reptilian shapeshifter

[QUOTE=gerbe1;46045639]I can't honestly reflect on John Howard as Prime Minister because I only really saw him when he was the leader of Australia when I was really young and I didn't really get politics, so I always thought the opposition leaders (Kim Beazley, Mark Latham) were the bad guys and John Howard was the good guy. Then when I was a bit older I got more into politics with the 2007 election and by then he was pretty damn power hungry. And then later on I learned more about the Tampa Affair (as well as the later Work Choices, NT intervention and massive wasteful spending during the mining boom) and it seems to me the reality was he was pretty much a dick but he wasn't a bad leader in terms of managing unity and politics within his own party (until the end there). Sympathising with him for being embarrassed about committing Australia to war in Iraq on the back of a dodgy report? That's not cool. Embarrassed isn't the emotion you get when your actions assist in the deaths of thousands of civilians. I will trust him when he says he was convinced the report was accurate... but he's embarrassed it wasn't? Try a bit of shame, disgust and regret for the lives lost, that might make his situation sympathetic.[/QUOTE] He's embarrassed for getting troops scrambled to fight an inaccurate war. Yeah Saddam was evil and needed to be brought down but on the basis of inaccurate intelligence suggesting he had WMD's would be seen as embarrassing. I'm sure he regrets it to, it was a big moment in his political career amongst other things

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;46045788]He's embarrassed for getting troops scrambled to fight an inaccurate war. Yeah Saddam was evil and needed to be brought down but on the basis of inaccurate intelligence suggesting he had WMD's would be seen as embarrassing. I'm sure he regrets it to, it was a big moment in his political career amongst other things[/QUOTE] Yeah and I am saying that his emotion should not be focused on him sending the troops there misguidedly but that he participated in the murders of thousands of innocent people. And then I am saying that emotion should be more than embarrassment. If I am to sympathise with him in this situation. [editline]22nd September 2014[/editline] Summary of a summary: I'm not gunna sympathise with a guy who has his priorities at "embarrassed about misguided war" and not "horrified that I participated in the government sanctioned murder of thousands" [editline]22nd September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=fruxodaily;46045788]He's embarrassed for getting troops scrambled to fight an inaccurate war. Yeah Saddam was evil and needed to be brought down but on the basis of inaccurate intelligence suggesting he had WMD's would be seen as embarrassing. I'm sure he regrets it to, it was a big moment in his political career amongst other things[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.theage.com.au/comment/howard-still-has-no-regrets-over-iraq-invasion-20130318-2gb0b.html[/url] Oh, and no, he doesn't regret it at all.

No one was misled. (check the polish PM's quote right before the eve of the war, he basically says "FUCK YEAH OIL FOR POLAND") All the integral foreign partners received state department memos explicitly outlining why and what was expected in Iraq during the initial operation, and WMD were about 10th on the list of things ot get done in Iraq, and number one was "get them oilfields online and commoditized naow" [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbey4hPlrX0[/media] The source may be liberal, but the declassified documents are very much real, and every CoW nation had them, including Australia.

[QUOTE=Hamsterjuice;46045761]you're right he's a reptilian shapeshifter[/QUOTE] snip that before he eats my family