Hutton Report: Dyke Quits

[ntluser]

Originally Posted by Iago

There is a diffrence between lieing and being wrong

With a government that has lied about so much, how can you tell the difference?

If this had been a one-off incident then I might agree with you but there have been repeated and continuous attempts by this government to deceive the people.

You've also got to bear in mind that when you are committing your country to a war in which people may die ( and indeed have) you cannot afford to be wrong because you can't resurrect the dead.

Further, the government never admitted that it got it wrong. If it had there would have been resignations from ministers and the PM but there weren't any.

It was just a callous plot to oust Sadaam Hussein no matter what.

Originally Posted by ntluser

With a government that has lied about so much, how can you tell the difference?

If this had been a one-off incident then I might agree with you but there have been repeated and continuous attempts by this government to deceive the people.

You've also got to bear in mind that when you are committing your country to a war in which people may die ( and indeed have) you cannot afford to be wrong because you can't resurrect the dead.

Further, the government never admitted that it got it wrong. If it had there would have been resignations from ministers and the PM but there weren't any.

It was just a callous plot to oust Sadaam Hussein no matter what.

So??You really think the man should remain in power?
Personally I don't give a stuff about whether you think the war was right or not.The issue we are talking about was who did lie about the dossier?Not whether the war was a good idea.Stop trying to drag the topic

Incog.

[Iago]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Good point though for some such a fine distinction and attempt at impartiality will be discounted.

Incog

Its not a fine distiction for example say you woke up one moring and on the TV it says everywhere is covered with snow (although its not) and a mate phones you up and asks what the weather is and you say "its snowing outside" you are wrong not lieing.

If however instead on the TV teeling you you get your arse outta bed in the first place and look outside and see its not snowing and you say "its snowing outside" you are lieing

Simply put, You are lieing if you know something to be untrue you are wrong if you say something thinking it is right

[Iago]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

So??You really think the man should remain in power?
Personally I don't give a stuff about whether you think the war was right or not.The issue we are talking about was who did lie about the dossier?Not whether the war was a good idea.Stop trying to drag the topic

Incog.

I agree, Also the BBC gilligan lie was not the same as the war claims as they where wrong not lieing! In which case you cannot expect the PM to resign as all the evidance pointed towards Iraq having WMD. Remember Saddam was putting out rumors that he did have WMD!

[Nor]

Originally Posted by ntluser

With a government that has lied about so much, how can you tell the difference?

If this had been a one-off incident then I might agree with you but there have been repeated and continuous attempts by this government to deceive the people.

You've also got to bear in mind that when you are committing your country to a war in which people may die ( and indeed have) you cannot afford to be wrong because you can't resurrect the dead.

Further, the government never admitted that it got it wrong. If it had there would have been resignations from ministers and the PM but there weren't any.

It was just a callous plot to oust Sadaam Hussein no matter what.

Thats flawed logic. Thats like saying because someone has burgled a house before we'll dispense with the facts of this case and just send him to jail.

Anyway, I'm not actually sure what other things Blair has lied about ? Can you give me some examples of this lying ? I had to laugh at all the polls asking whether people believed the government or the BBC when it came to telling the truth. I was surprised it was as high as 18%. I bet the day Tony Blair took office in 1997 you'd probably get the same results from the poll. Nobody believes the government, its the done thing.

The only thing I'm a little unsure about with Tony Blair when it comes to lying is when he said he had nothing to do with the releasing of Dr Kellys name and it seems he was at a few meetings when it was discussed. That doesn't seem right to me, but I'd need to hear all the info before making up my mind for definate.

With regards to the PM and MPs having to resign if they get it wrong, why exactly ? They should all resign because they believed their intelligence advisors when they said Iraq had WMD and were a threat ? The intelligence communities all round the world believed Iraq had WMD and were a threat. Kay, the guy who people quote saying there is no WMD now, he said we all believed he had them at the time. So if you are going to quote him saying there is none now you have to accept it when he says Saddam actively encouraged people to believe he had WMD. I just can't fathom why you think the government lied by saying Iraq had WMD when all the inteligence advisors were telling him they did. Surely to ignore intelligence reports would have been a far worse thing to do ? It was the easy option for Blair to not goto war, its just about ended him politically by doing it, don't you think he did it because he genuinely thought Iraq posed a threat ?

[ntluser]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

So??You really think the man should remain in power?
Personally I don't give a stuff about whether you think the war was right or not.The issue we are talking about was who did lie about the dossier?Not whether the war was a good idea.Stop trying to drag the topic

Incog.

I was responding to Iago's point about the difference between lying and being wrong.

As I said in one of my earlier posts, if the information in the dossier about Sadaam's capability to launch an attack using weapons of mass destruction within the 45 minute limit was correct and Hutton has confirmed that British Intelligence say that they did give that information, why hasn't the head of British Intelligence been hauled over the coals for supplying information that was plainly out of date and which had not been verified on the ground.That's the information we used to go to war with Iraq.

I accept that Blair may have been unaware of that when he reported that in Parliament but then Greg Dyke was unaware of the flakiness of Gilligan's report. Both made the same mistake of not checking, but Blair's had greater consequences and he didn't resign.

As for Sadaam, lots of people including myself accept that Iraq is better off without him. If Blair had said to Parliament and to the UN we are going to invade Iraq for humanitarian reasons,that would be one matter. To invade on the grounds that he was a threat and going to use weapons of mass destruction but not find any is another.

The issue in all this really is whether or not you believe Blair. Given all the other things that have happened under this government, I don't. On the other hand, you appear to. Guess we'll just have to agree to differ.

[Nor]

Originally Posted by ntluser

I accept that Blair may have been unaware of that when he reported that in Parliament but then Greg Dyke was unaware of the flakiness of Gilligan's report. Both made the same mistake of not checking, but Blair's had greater consequences and he didn't resign.

How exactly would you suggest Blair checks ? Gets dropped into Iraq by parachute ? When it comes to matters like this intelligence reports are what you base your decisions on. If it turns out it was flawed intelligence I think an enquiry would be a good idea. However, considering just about every other intelligence service in the world believed the same thing I can see why it was believed to be credible intelligence that Iraq had WMD.

Go Nor go,go Nor go.

I'll leave it to you as I'm just getting tetchy everytime I come here.

I hate the way everyone has tried to widen the Hutton report beyond what it was supposed to do.

We should be discussing exactly who did lie,if anyone lied and if more than one lie was uttered who uttered it.Was anything learned and will it be likely that the BBC will get back to being the organisation it should be.

Impartial news reporting might be a start.

[ntluser]

Originally Posted by Nor

How exactly would you suggest Blair checks ? Gets dropped into Iraq by parachute ? When it comes to matters like this intelligence reports are what you base your decisions on. If it turns out it was flawed intelligence I think an enquiry would be a good idea. However, considering just about every other intelligence service in the world believed the same thing I can see why it was believed to be credible intelligence that Iraq had WMD.

Blair could have asked for field reports from agents, surveillance photographs etc. and could have asked how current the information was. If he did this and was lied to by the Head of British Intelligence, why hasn't the head of the intelligence service been sacked? After all it is the agency that defends the security of the nation.

The Americans believed that there were weapons of mass destruction because their intelligence was based on what our intelligence service told them. The moment they found out about the uncertainty of the information supplied by British Intelligence, the Americans began to slowly distance themselves from the British Government.

Where are the current reports of the agents who were working in Iraq? My guess is that there aren't any. Nobody bothered to verify on the ground that the weapons existed. They just assumed he still had them from 1991.That is no way to run an Intelligence service.

[Nor]

Originally Posted by ntluser

Blair could have asked for field reports from agents, surveillance photographs etc. and could have asked how current the information was. If he did this and was lied to by the Head of British Intelligence, why hasn't the head of the intelligence service been sacked? After all it is the agency that defends the security of the nation.

The Americans believed that there were weapons of mass destruction because their intelligence was based on what our intelligence service told them. The moment they found out about the uncertainty of the information supplied by British Intelligence, the Americans began to slowly distance themselves from the British Government.

Where are the current reports of the agents who were working in Iraq? My guess is that there aren't any. Nobody bothered to verify on the ground that the weapons existed. They just assumed he still had them from 1991.That is no way to run an Intelligence service.

You been reading the ladybird book of intelligence gathering again ? Anyway, had enough, we'll never agree and I ain't up for a debate about how it could all have been done and dusted if Blair had thought to ask the people on the ground. Bet he's kicking himself he never thought of that.

[ntluser]

Originally Posted by Nor

You been reading the ladybird book of intelligence gathering again ? Anyway, had enough, we'll never agree and I ain't up for a debate about how it could all have been done and dusted if Blair had thought to ask the people on the ground. Bet he's kicking himself he never thought of that.

As I said earlier, it all depends what you believe and I respect your right to believe in Blair and my right not to. It's nothing personal.

But I agree, it's possible that when he thinks things over that he might conclude that things could have been done better and if they had been maybe David Kelly would still be alive, but we'll never really know and in a sense there's no point arguing about it because in the end we'll never have the true facts.

[downquark1]

There was never a war or no-war situation, there were UN weapon inspectors etc. Bush and Blair took the gamble to hurry it along (God knows why) and they were wrong (or the intelligence was wrong, or Saddam Hussain tricked them into invading his own country whichever you want to believe).

Fact is they rushed it when there was no need AND were wrong.

[downquark1]

More Fox news opinions:
(Sorry, I just find these so funny)

Talking Points
My Word

[Iago]

Originally Posted by ntluser

As I said earlier, it all depends what you believe and I respect your right to believe in Blair and my right not to. It's nothing personal.

But I agree, it's possible that when he thinks things over that he might conclude that things could have been done better and if they had been maybe David Kelly would still be alive, but we'll never really know and in a sense there's no point arguing about it because in the end we'll never have the true facts.

Do you think blair is a super PM? He has to belive the m16 of matters like this. Also spys do not drop into the PMS Office to hand him a copy of there report do they? this is not james bond.

He may be wrong buthe wasnt lieing?

What does he have to gain bygoing to war and losing populaty if he knew they had no weapons? Make sure your views on blair make sense before accussing him of stuff

[Nor]

Fox is just soooo bad. The BBC reported on itself as the story with more impartiality than Fox have ever shown.