Vote - Will Tony Blair be the Prime Minister in a months time? - Page 4

Xaccers · 28-01-2004, 01:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by scastle

The sad thing is that Tony has won the Student Fees. As somebody stated earlier, the Government probably have a stooge set up to take the flake for the Kelly affair.

My bet is hoon.
He's been kept on for that sole purpose.

downquark1 · 28-01-2004, 14:24

Well
BBC: -10
Tony B: 134343242879

Julian · 28-01-2004, 14:48

Hmmmm I guess we will have to rely on act of God or something like that then.

Iago · 28-01-2004, 16:23

The goverment has been cleared and the BBC and Kelly him-self where to blame and I agree

29-01-2004, 02:16

Well the Hutton report has demonstrated quite nicely that it's fine to have an independant referee, but when one side can pick the ground, the game, the rules *and* decide what the referee can or cannot see, however impartial the referee may be, the process itself is more than a little questionable.

Nor · 29-01-2004, 02:26

Gilligan lied, Kelly lied, govt didn't.

kronas · 29-01-2004, 02:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nor

Gilligan lied, Kelly lied, govt didn't.

the government acted on what intelligence told them.................

kelly had reservations about the WMD, in that he was right.........

as it stands there are no WMD.

Xaccers · 29-01-2004, 02:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nor

Gilligan lied, Kelly lied, govt didn't.

gov didn't with regards to the very narrow remit of the hutton report.
Although he did say that he couldn't rule out the posibility that because of TB's views on going to war, the dossier could have been sexed up, but without TB himself actually asking for it to be done.

29-01-2004, 02:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nor

Gilligan lied, Kelly lied, govt didn't.

A masterly summing up of an extremely narrow look at a very broad issue...

downquark1 · 29-01-2004, 08:29

Here's the interpretation from our friends across the pond
More fox news opinion

Nor · 29-01-2004, 14:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

A masterly summing up of an extremely narrow look at a very broad issue...

Broaden the issue then and tell me where the government lied ?

Nor · 29-01-2004, 14:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

Here's the interpretation from our friends across the pond
More fox news opinion

Yeah pretty scandalous that.

Julian · 29-01-2004, 14:58

So now Greg Dyke has resigned as well.

I wonder if the whitew... report had read the other way, would Bliar and his next in command have resigned? The answer is of course NO. They would have hung out some civil servant to take the blame to save their own worthless skins.

By not allowing the hutton report to consider the *cough* reasons *cough* for going to war the governments position was assured IMO.

Nor · 29-01-2004, 15:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

A masterly summing up of an extremely narrow look at a very broad issue...

Anyway.... just thinking about what you said again. This issue was about the BBC saying the government lied about inclusions in the dossier. That they probably knew things weren't true but put them in the dossier anyway to sex it up (aswell as events which lead to Kellys death). I agree its narrow, but what you seem to be saying is that its apparantly okay for the BBC to lie and sex up its own stories because deep down what they are saying is right, that the government are liars. Hardly impartial journalism is it to lie yourself to try and prove the government are liars.

The BBC are the only news organisation who govern themselves, but despite it being obvious that they lied and sexed up their own story people still say its a whitewash and believe what they say, I guess because it confirms their own prejudices.

I like to think I'm pretty objective. If Tony Blair lied (or has lied and we don't know about it) I'll be the first to vote against him and the first to critisise him on here. But, being objective, I cannot see where he has lied to us. I'm coming round to the realisation that there are no WMD in Iraq. But... the intelligence said there was. The US intel, the British intel, the French intel, the German intel all thought there was WMD and WMD programs in Iraq. Blix thought there was WMD in Iraq. Saddam insisted he destroyed his stockpiles and programs but wouldn't show UNSCOM where he destroyed it or any evidence that he had destroyed it. He broke 16 our of 17 UN chapter 7 resolutions over 12 years, so I think its a fair assessment that Iraq had WMD programs. If it turns out to be wrong, whenever we know for certain there is none, then (although I'd say we probably have to do already) we really need to look at the worlds intelligence services as there is clearly something lacking and we need to perhaps be more measured in the future about using intelligence like this but the fact is, to go to war on the basis of wrong intelligence doesn't make Tony Blair a liar. To know the intelligence was wrong and Iraq were no thread and still goto war does, but when every other country believed Iraq had WMD aswell (even the ones who didn't want to goto war), I find it unlikely that Tony Blair secretly knew they had none but just wanted a war anyway.

Everyone keeps saying hes lying, explain to me what he lied about ? I'm willing to change my mind on Tony Blair if someone can show how he's lied to us all over Iraq and sent our soldiers to their deaths when he knew there was absolutely no reason to.

downquark1 · 29-01-2004, 15:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nor

. Blix thought there was WMD in Iraq.

no he didn't:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3323633.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3160602.stm