The Butler Report

[Graham F]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

It is the tradition of the House that you apologise no matter how you ended up misleading the house, regardless of whether it was a deliberate deception or an honest mistake. He does not have the option not to apologise in case it is is taken as an admission.

He does and he has

I think his statement he read today is as close as we are going to get, to him admitting he was wrong or apologising for misleading the house. Tradition is not always a good thing

Originally Posted by dr wadd

It is the tradition of the House that you apologise no matter how you ended up misleading the house, regardless of whether it was a deliberate deception or an honest mistake. He does not have the option not to apologise in case it is is taken as an admission.

What ever this is media and government nothing is clear cut you cannot just follow tradition. The torys will waste no time in attacking him if he did that and such

Different matters, different times....tradition in government is stupid as nothing is ever the same

Originally Posted by Scooby

He does and he has

I think his statement he read today is as close as we are going to get, to him admitting he was wrong or apologising for misleading the house. Tradition is not always a good thing

That is simply not an excuse, if he wants to lead the government he must follow the rules. He is not required to give something that approaches an apology, he is required to give an apology, nothing less.

It is not simply the case that he was wrong, his incorrect statements will have influenced the voting of other MPs in the house. It makes a mockery of democracy if the PM can stand there influencing the course of a parliamentary vote with inaccurate information and then not be held accountable for the outcome.

Originally Posted by Damien

What ever this is media and government nothing is clear cut you cannot just follow tradition. The torys will waste no time in attacking him if he did that and such

Different matters, different times....tradition in government is stupid as nothing is ever the same

And they aren`t going to attack him if he doesn`t follow the correct protocol? Blair could actually regain some respect from voters if he was to display some proper humility and issue a proper apology. To arrogantly stand there, spewing forth more spin to justify his position is not going to do any good whatsoever.

I watched the coverage on the news today, I did not see a man demonstrating humility in the face of having been proved wrong, I saw a smarmy little weasel who attempted to defend the indefensible, despite already having done a stich-up job on the inquiry in order to limit its scope.

I sincerely hope that this is going to be the issue that forces him out of office. However, it is a pity that if he does go a decent Labour politician like Robin Cook is unlikely to get the job.

Holy Crap, Jack Straw told John Show, in an interview earlier today ''That the Intelligence on WMD was not the reason for going to war''. If I remember right, Tony Blair's case for war was the Intelligence on Iraqi WMD. Spin, Spin, Spin, Spin, Spin.

What a bunch of two faced lying *******s.

So hes been against the war from the start. You do not get your facts from the enemies of the war.

I dont know what the point of all this inquiries are if the government is cleared everyone refuses to believe it anyway

Originally Posted by Damien

So hes been against the war from the start. You do not get your facts from the enemies of the war.

I dont know what the point of all this inquiries are if the government is cleared everyone refuses to believe it anyway

Jack Straw against the war.

You sure you're not thinking of Robin Cook mate. Who was the foreign secretary before combat operations started, and resigned in opposition to the war. AFAIR, Jack Straw has always stood shoulder to shoulder with Tony the Liar on the reasons for the war.

Whats the point of enquiries into the war. Well, the first enquiry into the doctors death (cant mind his name), cleared the government of any complicity in his scuicide. Adding that they could find no evidence that the Intelligence had been sexed up. Not Lord Butlers report reveales that important, and relevant caveats (sp) which where part of the JIC reports dissipeared in th e copy that Tony Blair reported as *the Facts* to parliment. The statement that the Iraqi's could deploy chemical and biological weapons in 20 - 45 minutes, was qualified in the original JIC report to ''Battlefield Weapons'', namely artillery and rockets. Not to weapons delivery systems such as Scud's.

So two reports, at two different times, report two different things. Both clear Tony Blair and the number 10 spin machine of any wrong doing.

There's and old saying mate.....

If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck..... Then its a duck.

In this case, if two inquiries look like a whitewash.................

sorry about the robin cook mistake there........

Look you can get away with claiming that the first inquiry was a whitewash but not two. The fact could be that if they were cleared then they are innocent. There is no evidance of misuse from the goverment and no evidance that this reports where a white wash

People have got to stop this, Two reports both cleared the goverment, You cannot keep claiming whitewash everytime you do not get a answer you dont like. Again polticans should be covered by the same rights as the rest of and thats the right to innocent until proven gulity and rights about whats printed about them. If blair accused a member of the public of lying there would be outrage! yet people are allowed to do this all the time towards him

Ah, but you have overlooked that the first report cleared the government of 'sexing up' the intelligence. Now if you drop some of the quallifications that go with the intelligence, change some of the wording. Bingo, you can make any argument look good enough to convince the House to go to war.

With the latest report, Lord Butler points out that removing the 'qualifications' from the text of the JIC report, and some of the wording (possibley becomes Saddam has), then the message becomes enfatic. Someone, somewhere doctored the JIC report, gave it to the Primeminister, and lo and behold we're at war with Iraq. The fact the Lord Butler wouldnt or couldnt name names, but wimped out for a 'collective' responsibility smacks of a whitewash.

Dont forget the the Director general, and the Director of news of the BBC resigned over the findings of the original report. I sincerly doubt anyone will fall on their swords at number 10.

I really really disagree with the events at the BBC from the hutton fallout. Terrible Terrible reason to resign which was over one word in one report which was later changed.

COmpare that to fox news who use a much stronger wording and even accuss the BBC of lying (when they didnt) and make attacks on the french

[kronas]

i always knew the BBC was in the right, they were even after the hutton report went out....

greg dyke should NOT have left...

They where not in the 'right' as it where. But they didnt do anything bad either it was just that report a 6 in the moring where AG said that the goverment proberly knew instead of May have knew. One word.

[kronas]

Originally Posted by Damien

They where not in the 'right' as it where. But they didnt do anything bad either it was just that report a 6 in the moring where AG said that the goverment proberly knew instead of May have knew. One word.

still there is no clear indication if it was the governments fault, intelligence said some things, they doubted that Iraq had WMD they even pointed out that the inspectors did not find anything, yet tony said yes Iraq is hiding WMD..........plot thickens eh ?

No, Saddam had already defied the UN on a huge number of times. The inspectors had not been allowed proper access which was part of the first agreement. And the intellence said there were weapons. Remember that it was found out saddam himself was spreading rumors about him having weapons.

[kronas]

Originally Posted by Damien

No, Saddam had already defied the UN on a huge number of times. The inspectors had not been allowed proper access which was part of the first agreement. And the intellence said there were weapons. Remember that it was found out saddam himself was spreading rumors about him having weapons.

the inspectors were not allowed proper access i agree, intelligence agencies from the quotes i saw on the BBC reports showed officials 'doubting' Iraq had WMD they neither confirmed or denyed but put 'reservations' on whether he had anything seen as the weapons inspectors aka hans blitz were so conviced he did not have anything.

When Geroge Bush took office back in 2001, Colin Powell, Condalisa Rice, and may other's went on the record saying Saddam Hussain had little or no chemiacl or Biological weapons capability left. The two years later, the intelligence agencies of the the Us and Gb suddenly report Iraq has shed-loads ods of the same weapons systems. So where did they come from? This at a time when Iraq couldnt even replace the lost equipment from the first Gulf War. Lies, lies and more lies.