Policy running strong
From the recent report (pdf) by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD:
5.16. Therefore, the case made by the government was that Iraq possessed WMD in large quantities and posed a grave and unacceptable threat to the region and the world, particularly as there was a danger that Iraq’s WMD might be passed to terrorist organisations.
5.17. This is not the picture that emerges from an examination of all the assessments provided to the Committee by Australia’s two analytical agencies.
In other words, the Government exaggerated the evidence in order to build a stronger case for war.
Elsewhere, the report suggests that around the time of the Government’s first speech in support of war, the language used in ONA’s assessments suddenly became stronger. The report does not come to a conclusion as to why the language changed, but notes that “[i]t is so sudden a change in judgement that it appears ONA, at least unconsciously, might have been responding to ‘policy running strong’”. It furthermore points out that “a fine distinction might often be made between being relevant to the policy issues of concern to the Government’ and catering to the policy concerns of the Government.”
This is of serious concern. First, the ONA may have altered its assessments to fit in with Government policy. Then, the Government presents to the people an even more threatening picture than was justified by the intelligence. On the other hand, the report notes that the language used in Australia was not as strong as that used in Britain or the US.
No wonder they’ve called for another inquiry.
