|
|
| (25 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | == did you mean... ==
| |
| | | | |
| − | In this section: MacShane and Muslims you state: "In the same article, he misrepresents the statement which had caused the outrage by publishing the altered version of the speech, which was changed as a result of the furore." Hmmm... did he republish the original?? If he altered it to due to pressure, I suspect that you mean that he reverted to the original...
| |
| − | [[User:Paul|Paulo]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==IISS==
| |
| − | you say:
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :To salvage its credibility, the IISS, unlike the British Government, claimed that it made mistakes in its dossier about the extent of the Iraqi threat, and commissioned an independent assessment by [[Rolf Ekeus]], a former head of United Nations arms inspectors in Iraq.Samore and Chipman later claimed that their dossier had caveats about Iraq's supposed WMD arsenal, while the Government insisted on removing such caveats from intelligence assessments - leading to "sexing up" accusations.<ref> Kim Sengupta, [http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/IISS-Iraq-Occupation26may04.htm Iraq Occupation Made World Less Safe, Pro-War Institute Says Studies ], ''The Independent'', May 26, 2004
| |
| − | </ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | But is what they say about the caveats true? If so, does this undermine the previous popint about their original report? Can you explain or include the evidence?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | --[[User:David|David]] 09:05, 13 September 2007 (BST)
| |
