Wilkie: Howard knew reasons for war: "The book, which has been vetted by the Attorney-General's Department and had some details censored on national security grounds, also states that:

* Australian agencies gathered intelligence on the US Administration and reported that allegations of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorists were not the main reasons it wanted to invade Iraq.

* The Opposition was deliberately misled during briefings by intelligence agencies in the lead-up to the war, with facts undermining the Government's position omitted.

* The Government knowingly presented false intelligence to the public that exaggerated the threat that Saddam Hussein posed."

""Mr Howard and Alexander Downer knew exactly why the US was going to war and that terrorism and WMD was not the most important part of the reason," Mr Wilkie said. The US wanted to gain control of oil reserves, reinforce its global power ascendancy, respond to domestic political considerations after the September 11 attacks and influence the shape of the Middle East, he said. Confidential US Administration information was obtained from sources and contacts, then communicated back to Australia in diplomatic cables, he said.

"By late 2002, the ONA had determined that the US had already decided to invade Iraq, the book states. Repeated claims by the Howard Government that its WMD case against Iraq accurately reflected the views of national intelligence agencies were "plainly wrong", Mr Wilkie said. In 2002, the ONA knew that evidence that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear program with uranium purchases from Africa was false. The agency also knew that any WMD capacity held by Iraq was limited and there was no hard evidence to show Saddam was "weaponising"."

These high level revelations only confirm what was pretty obvious to any observer throughout the buildup to war. Perhaps the most striking thing about them however is that despite the ammunition they provide, the oppositioin will not go on the attack but continues to be on the defensive about 'supporting the alliance.' One wonders whether Latham is making an error in his softly-softly approach.

Wilkie: Howard knew reasons for war: "The book, which has been vetted by the Attorney-General's Department and had some details censored on national security grounds, also states that:

* Australian agencies gathered intelligence on the US Administration and reported that allegations of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorists were not the main reasons it wanted to invade Iraq.

* The Opposition was deliberately misled during briefings by intelligence agencies in the lead-up to the war, with facts undermining the Government's position omitted.

* The Government knowingly presented false intelligence to the public that exaggerated the threat that Saddam Hussein posed."

""Mr Howard and Alexander Downer knew exactly why the US was going to war and that terrorism and WMD was not the most important part of the reason," Mr Wilkie said. The US wanted to gain control of oil reserves, reinforce its global power ascendancy, respond to domestic political considerations after the September 11 attacks and influence the shape of the Middle East, he said. Confidential US Administration information was obtained from sources and contacts, then communicated back to Australia in diplomatic cables, he said.

"By late 2002, the ONA had determined that the US had already decided to invade Iraq, the book states. Repeated claims by the Howard Government that its WMD case against Iraq accurately reflected the views of national intelligence agencies were "plainly wrong", Mr Wilkie said. In 2002, the ONA knew that evidence that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear program with uranium purchases from Africa was false. The agency also knew that any WMD capacity held by Iraq was limited and there was no hard evidence to show Saddam was "weaponising"."

These high level revelations only confirm what was pretty obvious to any observer throughout the buildup to war. Perhaps the most striking thing about them however is that despite the ammunition they provide, the oppositioin will not go on the attack but continues to be on the defensive about 'supporting the alliance.' One wonders whether Latham is making an error in his softly-softly approach.