Wasn't the dossier ostensibly passed on by the JIC which overseas SIS, the Security Service, GCHQ and DIS. What do you even mean by "refuse to endorse" - is there some part of the document where the directors of the other departments have stated "GCHQ endorses this message..."? Where is your evidence for this refusal? And might I also ask what are the "endorsements" from the other services?
You've basically added in a meaningless/ambiguous claim and then you've passed on some story about why a tweet was deleted when in reality you have no idea why it happened.
Intelligence provided at the time by MI6 had relied heavily on sources who were subsequently found to lack credibility. Important parts of that evidence, which went into the dossier, was not shown to DIS (Defence Intelligence Staff) whose analysts were experts on WMD and could have pointed out the flaws in the supposed intelligence.
“The SIS report should have been shown to relevant experts in the DIS who could have advised their senior managers and assessment staff” said the report. “Expert officials in the DIS questioned the certainty with which some of the judgments in the dossier were expressed.”
The JIC’s starting basis was to totally ignore the possibility that Iraq may not actually have any WMDs. “At no stage was the hypothesis that Iraq might not have chemical. Biological or nuclear weapons or programmes identified and examined by the JIC… Iraq’s statements that it had no weapons or programmes were dismissed as further evidence of a strategy of denial.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-justify-iraq-war-inquiry-finds-a7122481.html
Questioning the certainty of some judgments rather implies refusal to endorse them. Even if you wish to quibble about that particular point, those three paragraphs alone are damning and make my general point.
I never claimed I knew why the tweet was deleted. I shared an account from Craig Murray who claims he has been informed why it did. It's interesting information, given all this "evidence" (from Bellingcat) does not have either the government's or the MET's official seal of approval (yet), and that it could be considered as possible Russian disinformation fed to Bellingcat. I think it might upset some people, whenever someone points out that the government and MET are not displaying the same faith in Bellingcat's assertions that they hope the public will embrace. It doesn't look good. It looks hypocritical and propaganda-like: you believe it, we won't say we do.
In other news though the BBC have traveled to the home town of the GRU Colonel and spoken to a people who recognised him.
We keep getting more and more evidence of Russia's involvement and each time your position seems to be to want to believe some alternative narrative based on very little other than the fact it goes against the prevailing view.
One woman recognised him. There was a man in the town who said he studied with Peshiga and said it wasn't Boshirov. Others in the town didn't recognize the man/men photos at all. So who is right? And was anyone "planted" by the Russian state, to feed the Boshirov is Chepiga angle? Etc. Not saying that's what happened, but such are the issues with the extent of the "evidence" at present. Again, let's see the government and the MET put their signatures to this and say they agree with Bellingcat. If they aren't willing to, why should I or anyone else?
I'm not sure what the prevailing view is, or isn't. And if by that you mean numbers of people who believe the official narrative, and whether UK or world-wide. Or just those taking part in the discussion in this forum. Or something else entirely. Not terribly important to me anyway.
The men may or may not be GRU. My issue is with the presumption that this has been proven, when it hasn't. And also that if they do turn out to be GRU, with the presumption that they were assassins and not in Salisbury for another purpose they do not wish to disclose. Skripal's personal CCTV and MI5/6 CCTV surveillance of Skripal's home would show exactly what if anything happened but we are not being shown it. It is inconceivable to me there wasn't any but in any case nobody in authority has yet explained its absence. Viktoria Skripal claims Sergei had CCTV, for what it's worth. How she'd know, I have no idea. But to wheel out "track record" and "motive" re: Russia so quickly, and not have any CCTV installed in/around the home of a double-agent, beggars belief. In lieu of an official explanation we are left with weak attempts to answer by members of the public: cost-cutting, etc. You don't let someone like Sergei unmonitored. Even if you don't want to pay for his safety, you care about knowing what he's up to, who's visiting him, his comings and goings, etc. And if I were Sergei, I'd have my own private CCTV system in addition.
