Blair, Hoon et al didn't lie. They honestly believed the dossier.

[Jackonicko]

So Lord Hutton has decided that Blair, Hoon et al didn't lie. They honestly believed the dossier. They believed that Saddam had WMD ready for use within 45 minutes. Let's not get into the issue of an establishment ex-lawyer appointing another one to get him off the hook.

Instead, was I alone in hearing Air Marshal Sir John Walker (former Chief of Defence Intelligence and former Chairman of the JIC) pointing out on the Today programme that such fielded weapons should have been detectable via various intelligence sources, with lots of collateral sources, and that the fact that it came from a single source made it highly suspect. He pointed out the lack of evidence for weapons of mass destruction - or even for chemical mortar rounds ("which unless technology has changed a lot would have a job reaching Cyprus..."). He criticised the way in which the dossier's language was changed for political effect (pointing out that 'may be' is very different to 'is') and expressed clear concern about the unparallelled way in which JIC reports were used to 'sell' the war to the public.

So if Blair and Hoon did believe the Dossier, and specifically the 45 minute claim, should we not be censuring them for their poor judgement and stupidity?

And while Gilligan's claim that the Government knew the evidence it was holding up was untrue may have been inaccurate, his contention that the dossier was changed for political affect, and that it's contents were suspect have turned out to be entirely accurate. I can't help feeling that the wrong people have been forced to resign.

[RobinXe]

Perhaps I have a less than complete understanding of the facts, however, I cant help but agree completely with Jackonicko!

I believe that no matter how cleverly Tony B. Liar has spun each and every question on his competance, there have been far too many questions, and as such we should be graced with a less ineffectual leader.

[Letsby Avenue]

Rule number one – Don’t have an inquiry until you know what the outcome will be…:O

[tony draper]

Something puzzles me, Saddam still had airworthy Mig 23's did he not?, he had used airdropped chemical weapons on his enemies in the past had he not ?,how long does it take to rack a couple of chemical munitions to a Flogger?, 45 minutes it does not seem a unreasonable assumption to me.

[FEBA]

Jacko
I whole heartedly agree with you and I suspect the rest of the nation does as well.
Hutton's findings are curious in that he did not consider his remit to cover the issue of the existance of WMD. That being the case, if he did not concern himself with WMD then he could only have paid lip service to the 45 minute deployment claim. Also how is it that the government has come out of this whiter than white inspite of the fact that they plagerised a PhD thesis from an American student (and not very well) to bolster the PM's eagerness to take the country to war (probably to save face having given Bush assurances that GB would follow USA into war).
Now, and as a result of Hutton's one sided findings, the BBC's editors now reside in Westminster, a bigger blow to democracy you could not get.
WMD cannot be found it's possible that it never existed. The Americans have reluctantly concluded this. I believe that the government did manipulate the text in order to win the commons vote, in that regard Gilligan was right.
I hope this is not over yet and that Martin Bell gets Dyke's old job and then maybe the supercillious smug grin can be wiped off the faces of Blair, Hoon and Campbell.

Hutton report (http://news1.thdo.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/03/hutton_inquiry/documents/pdf/hutton_inquiry.pdf)

US admits Iraq intelligence wrong (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3443627.stm)

[GrantT]

I suspect the rest of the nation does as well.

I don't. :rolleyes:

Hutton's findings are curious in that he did not consider his remit to cover the issue of the existance of WMD

What is curious about a Judge doing the job he was told to do and that was to investigate who was responsible for the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Also how is it that the government has come out of this whiter than white inspite of the fact that they plagerised a PhD thesis from an American student

What has that got to do with the Hutton report? Answer, nothing.

I believe that the government did manipulate the text in order to win the commons vote, in that regard Gilligan was right.

Clearly a well respected law Lord didn't think the same :rolleyes:.

Shame some people can't accept the truth.

[cyclic_fondler]

Wasn't it the Labour party that made Judge Hutton into a Lord but I guess that that wouldn't have any bearing on the outcome of the inquiry :)

[NURSE]

Not sure but how many law lord reports have criticised the government of the day?

[Muppet Leader]

Snifffff Sniffffff Sniffffff.

I can smell something rather strange.

Methinks the aroma from Westminster, resembles Bovine digestive waste residue ?

:suspect:

[Biggus]

At the end of the day the BBC, rightly or wrongly, backed their man, while the MOD threw their's to the wolves. I know who I would rather work for.

Now, what was the theme of that new RAF TV advert again? Oh yes, an organisation that cares for its members! JOKE!!!!

GrantT. You are entitled to your opinion, but I think a lot of people will disagree with you. It is the totally one sided nature of Huttons findings that most people find surprising/suspect etc. Yes the BBC made many errors, but the government have come out whiter than white. Lord Hutton has made his 'judgement' based on the evidence. But most of that evidence was given in open court and reported for all to hear, and make their own 'judgement'. Things such as Geoff Hoon saying he had nothing to do with the policy of releasing Kellys name, despite Alistair Campbells diary showing he was at the meeting where the descision was made, seem to have been ignored by Hutton. As were further disparities between ministers and civil servants testimony. 10 Downing street and Geoff Hoon made deliberate attempts to blacken Kellys name before the enquiry results came out, and paint him as the villian. It appears to me that most of the politicians involved were more interested in saving their own reputations/jobs than anything else. I can't imagine that thousands of MOD workers would come out onto the streets with 'WE LOVE YOU GEOFF' posters if Hoon had been 'forced' to resign!!

Nuff said!!

Edited for poor spelling.

[Archimedes]

In those circumstances, I suspect the posters would say something on the lines of:

'DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOUR @R5E ON THE WAY OUT, GEOFF'

I've not read all of the report yet, but Lord Hutton does appear to have made some very generous interpretations of the evidence presented before him (particularly the 'naming policy' incidents).

It's barely worth noting that in the past, the criticism levelled against the MoD would have been enough to guarantee that the minister offered his resignation.

[FEBA]

Grant T
What is curious about a Judge doing the job he was told to do and that was to investigate who was responsible for the death of Dr. David Kelly.

As they say in the duplicity business QED mate

Have a nice weekend
FEBA

[A Civilian]

I made up my mind about this government this time last year and this new whitewash has reinforced that belief completely :yuk:

[steamchicken]

So - it was quite all right for Government to state that Iraq had wmds on 45 minutes' readiness without any proof because they believed their source was reliable, but utterly wrong for the BBC to broadcast a report that they couldn't prove but was based on a source they believed to be reliable?

And is it only me who thought we were innocent until proven guilty? Hutton stated that he could not rule on what Kelly actually said to Gilligan - but he was satisfied he didn't confirm the story. That sounds awfully like a presumption of guilt to me.

[FEBA]

BBC Security correspondent:

In Washington this week there was a damning testimony on western intelligence by the man who has been leading the hunt for Iraq's weapons.


No WMDs have been found in Iraq

Former senior US weapons inspector David Kay told the US Senate Armed Services Committee the original intelligence that Saddam had banned stockpiles was inaccurate.

"It turns out we were all wrong, probably, in my judgement, and that is most disturbing," he said.

Mr Kay's admission is certainly a great embarrassment to both the US and British Governments.

This is, after all, the man who has spent the last few months leading the coalition's search for those banned weapons and is almost uniquely positioned to know the true status of the hunt.

Britain's intelligence service, the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), still maintain that most of the information that went into the Iraq dossier of Sept 2002 was correct at the time, including the claim that Saddam had actual WMD.

It should be noted that this was a view shared by many countries at the time, including some of those that opposed the war such as France and Germany, a fact that was pointed out this week by David Kay himself.

But "we probably all got it wrong," he said.

Baffled

The failure to find Saddam's alleged stocks of banned weapons has baffled every major intelligence agency. They nearly all thought he had them, including MI6.

Professor Anthony Glees is the director of the Brunel Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies says that British intelligence were clearly not getting things right.

"What British intelligence was telling the government was clearly not properly accurate? WMD, for example, have not been found. And if intelligence is to be used to formulate policy in the future then policy-makers have to be entirely confident that the intelligence is totally accurate," he said.

The official view at the Secret Intelligence Service is that most of the intelligence that went into the Iraq dossier will eventually be proved correct.

But that includes the assessment that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction just before the war.

Since those weapons have still not been found there is likely to be growing pressure for an investigation into whether the intelligence service gave the government accurate information.

Difficult task

Under Saddam's dictatorship intelligence gathering was extremely difficult, as shown by the poverty of real intelligence that came out while he was in power.

In a totalitarian regime intelligence agencies need human spies on the ground and defectors, but they also need to be scrupulous in assessing the accuarcy of whats being told to them.


The decision to go to war is under scrutiny from all sides

If the intelligence agencies were to undergo some sort of internal evaluation of their work from Iraq, they will want it to be kept as far out of the public eye as possible.

The natural candidate for carrying out such a review in the UK would be the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) headed by Anne Taylor MP.

The work of the intelligence agencies may have had more public attention than normal with the debate raging about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the reason for going to war in the first place.

The intelligence agenices are there to serve the government of the day, and they have almost no contact with the public.

If the government and the overseeing body, in Britain's case, the ISC are satisfied they are doing a good job that is likely to be more important to them than maintaining any kind of public image.

[Muppet Leader]

The bunny and the snake,

Once upon a time in a nice little forest, there lived an orphaned
Bunny rabbit and an orphaned snake. By a surprising coincidence, both were blind from birth.

One day, the bunny was hopping through the forest, and the snake was
Slithering through the forest, when the bunny tripped over the snake
and fell down. This, of course, knocked the snake about quite a bit.
"Oh, my," said the bunny, "I'm terribly sorry. I didn't mean to hurt
you.
I've been blind since birth, so I can't see where I'm going. In fact,
Since I'm also an orphan, I don't even know what I am."
"It's quite OK," replied the snake. "Actually, my story is much the
same as yours. I, too, have been blind since birth, and also never knew my mother.
Tell you what, maybe I could slither all over you, and work out what
You are, so at least you'll have that going for you."
"Oh, that would be wonderful,” replied the bunny. So the snake
slithered all over the bunny, and said, "Well, you're covered with soft fur, you have really long ears, your nose twitches, and you have a soft cottony tail.
I’d say that you must be a bunny rabbit."
"Oh, thank you! Thank you," cried the bunny, in obvious excitement.
The bunny suggested to the snake, "Maybe I could feel you all over with my paw, and help you the same way that you've helped me."
So the bunny felt the snake all over, and remarked, "Well, you're
Smooth and slippery, and you have a forked tongue, no backbone, and no balls.
I'd say you must be Alistair Campbell".

[soddim]

Jacko has hit the truth of the matter and John Walker's opinions expressed yesterday on Radio 4 are very relevant. To lay emphasis on an uncorroborated 45 minute capability that could easily have been verified was at least naive.

John Walker's other telling point for the future related to the need for better and more accurate intelligence assessments in the future - with our new defence policy it might not be a bad idea to get the facts right next time.

We should also consider how narrow Hutton's terms of reference were, how they were determined and how he was selected to be the man to do the job. There is no credit here either.

This slippery prime minister and his henchmen should now be subject to a full enquiry regarding the most important issue: did they lead us into war prematurely, with lack of care and with misleading evidence in support of their case.

[Maple 01]

I think it's great that the BBC reports on the shortcomings of the BBC - and I expect some of you out there can't see there's a conflict of interests there. The media close ranks and call Hutton a 'Whitewash', and refuse to see the conflict of interests. As my boss used to say 'turkeys don’t vote for Christmas'.

Face it, if Hutton had found against the government he'd still be a 'High grade well thought-of individual', but because the answer wasn't what the cynics and sceptics wanted/hoped for he's just another crony

Perhaps those of us that had access to the info that was kicking around before GW2 should be asked to comment on the Int we were working off (not the specifics) rather that listening to the journos gob off about something they know ******-all about. How can some hack who has never seen the inside of an Int cell consider himself/herself better suited, armed with hindsight, to judge the Int world? Perhaps IntOs should be asked to investigate journalism standards in the UK press?

I'd be happy to write a few words about defeatism and political agendas in the BBC 1982-2004. The bastar*s were noticeably upset that we didn't take more casualties than we did and were forever looking for the negative angle to any story - even to the point of plain making things up - Gilligan was just the most blatant example, and when challenged the BBC just showed it's arrogance in refusing to believe its reporters could possibly be wrong

Tony, for all his failings, had to go in the Int available like the rest of us.

And for anyone hoping to use Hutton to beat the government, if you're unhappy with the results of GW2 has only to start a petition to put Saddam back in power


-Nick

[soddim]

Maple 1

How can some hack who has never seen the inside of an Int cell consider himself/herself better suited, armed with hindsight, to judge the Int world?

So would you consider John Walker to be better suited than you?

[Biggus]

Maple 01

I don't know what specific int was available, nor do I wish too. However, just from reading Tom Clancy novels I could guess at least two possible sources, Human Int and satellite photos.

With regard to Human Int, it is probably quite easy for a defector to work out what sort of information his 'bebriefers' are looking for, and provide them with it, even without going into specifics, just talk about lots of heavily guarded convoys moving at night which he was ordered not to discuss, etc, etc. The more a defector tells his debriefers what they want to hear the more valuable he is to them and the better treatment he receives.

As for satellite photos. Satellite pass times are easily predictable. It should be quiet easy to set up a 'show for the cameras'. Just get a convoy of lorries to drive into a base at satellite pass time, with a heavy escort and decontamination vehicles present. The lorries could be full of sand, but the guy examining the photos will think differently!

The point is, western intelligence agencies have all looked at the data assuming Saddam had something to hide. What if he didn't, but was, for reasons of his own, trying to make the world still think he actually had WMD? It would be fairly easy I think to provide some evidence for people who were eager to find it.

Why would Saddam want people to think he had WMD when he didn't? Well for that you have to get inside his head, and to do that you need to drop your western preconceptions. To look big in the region perhaps, to keep his own people in check, to make Iran think twice before any actions it might undertake? Who knows, but it might well turn out to be the case.


The point is, if we are going to war on the basis of intelligence it has to be 100% certain, and I don't think this was (although I don't work in Intelligence).

As to the arguement, "would you rather Saddam was still in power?", no I wouldn't, but that isn't the point. Tony Blair sold us on going to war on the basis of the existence and possible use of WMD. If as a nation we are instead going to rid the world of all evil tryants then I had better start packing my bags for a trip to Zimbabwe!!!!!!!!!!

[tony draper]

Agree 100% Maple, the BBC's reporting during the Iraq conflict bordered on treasonable, I feel not one iota of sympathy for that dammed organisation.
Political parties in Government have a agenda, thats what they do, if we do not like that particular agenda, we can get rid of them, the news media specificly the BBC is not supposed to have a agenda,but that is exactly what they do have, and its time they were given a good arse kicking, its time they got back to informing us, not trying to mold our opinion.
It is dangerous when a organisation like the BBC thinks it can become the opposition, just because the official opposition is ineffectual.

[Maple 01]

So would you consider John Walker to be better suited than you?

Better suited for what?

In a recent poll the BBC had a 60% credibility rating down from 97% pre war, I'd say that was a problem.....The reporter made a big deal about ‘the majority of those questioned supporting the BBC’ until the guy he was interviewing mentioned the 97% figure.

As Tony said

BBC is not supposed to have a agenda,

As for

just from reading Tom Clancy novels

I suggest that's a higher level of research than that carried out buy many journos, remember ‘the Might of the Republican Guard’ © BBC 1991? Remember ‘Quagmire’ © the entire western media 2003, remember ‘Invincible Argentina’© BBC 1982

The point is, western intelligence agencies have all looked at the data assuming Saddam had something to hide. What if he didn't, but was, for reasons of his own, trying to make the world still think he actually had WMD? It would be fairly easy I think to provide some evidence for people who were eager to find it.

Then it's his own stupid fault isn't it? Don't play with the big boys etc

The point is, if we are going to war on the basis of intelligence it has to be 100% certain, and I don't think this was (although I don't work in Intelligence).

Then shock-horror newsflash, Int is NEVER 100% You go with the best information you have. I seem to recall the Int for Nazi Germany's 'final solution' wasn't 100% until the first camp was over-run - perhaps we should have given Adolf the benefit of the doubt? The Int for the Falklands pre-invasion period was ignored because it wasn't 100% so we did nothing and look how that turned out

"would you rather Saddam was still in power?", no I wouldn't, but that isn't the point.

It's exactly the point, we're supposed to be 'A force for world good' is the world better off without him or not? It's a YES/NO question

If as a nation we are instead going to rid the world of all evil tryants then I had better start packing my bags for a trip to Zimbabwe!!!!!!!!!!

And I wouldn't have the sligest problem with liberating the people of Zim either.


Regards

-Nick

Newsflash
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3446391.stm

Embittered caught-out hack resigns

[Jackonicko]

He's worth ten of you, Nick........

and what he said is still substantially correct. The only point that's been seriously disputed is whether Tony knew that the dossier was wrong when he was pushing it at us. Hutton didn't cross examine the bastard but took his word on trust.

It may be fair to be suspicious about the trustworthiness of some journos, but Gilligan's a good egg, who's very pro Forces, and even the bad ones are more trustworthy than Tony and his gang of amoral lying rogues. Moreover it's not just the media who have xcriticised Hutton as a whitewash - senior officers, people from the int community and almost any independent minded person with a brain have expressed similar doubts.

And if Blair did believe the 45 minute claim he should resign on the basis of incompetence and stupidity.

[Maple 01]

He's worth ten of you, Nick........

Oh look, a Journo at it again, we've never met but you know me better than myself...did I mention the arrogance of the press?

and even the bad ones are more trustworthy than Tony and his gang of amoral lying rogues.

Better yet, another journo with an agenda.

people from the Int community

Can’t be the same community I inhabit then can it? I mean, having doubts about the quality of some of the sources used obviously supports the argument that the government lied in your world?

and almost any independent minded person with a brain have expressed similar doubts.

So anyone that doesn’t see it your way is unthinking and brainless? ...Did I mention the arrogance of the press?

and what he said is still substantially correct.

So why does Hutton say

*Andrew Gilligan's report that Downing Street "probably knew" the 45-minute claim in its Iraq dossier was wrong was a grave allegation and attacked the integrity of the government and the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC)

*Whether or not that source was subsequently shown to be unreliable, the central allegation made by Andrew Gilligan in his BBC report was unfounded

What part of 'wrong' don't you understand? Even

**Mr Gilligan conceded some of his story was wrong, and apologised for it.

Is it the fact that a section of the news media has finally been made acountable for its 'mistakes' that you find Hutton do offensive?

(*Huton quoted on BBC website)
(** BBC website)

[Tartan Giant]

Jackonicko You will like this, from a friend of mine!

Cheers

TG

----- Original Message -----
From: Greg Lance Watkins
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 5:59 PM
Subject: Government Vindicates Itself


Hi,

May I personally congratulate Tiny Blur and his dysfunctional clique of zealots and their spin doctors, as they have been totally vindicated in their Hutton Report.

May I congratulate The Government for getting away with drawing up the terms of reference for the report on such a narrow and prescribed basis that their selected Government employee, paid by the Government was able to totally exonerate his employers the Government within the narrow terms of reference his employers gave him for criticism.

The report does absolutely NOTHING to exonerate Tiny Blur and his sordid claque of having lied to Parliament and the peoples of Britain to dupe them into war.

There is absolutely no doubt that Tiny Blur lied in September 2002 when he claimed there was certain proven intelligence that Hussein of Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction, which he could use internationally within 45 minutes.

There is absolutely NO DOUBT that Tiny Blur’s team, further LIED, in February of 2003 on their web site where they published a dishonest dossier of intelligence and sold this ‘bill of goods’ as British intelligence to President Bush of America and his Secretary of State Colin Powell who, fully authorised by his President, used the dishonest Dossier as the main plank of argument and primary written evidence to justify what, by virtue of Tiny Blur & Jack Straw’s gross lies, was ipso facto an illegal and immoral war against Iraq.


Let us not over complicate these considerations but merely address the irrefutable FACT that Blair lied – now all that must be considered is did Tiny Blur lie wilfully or did he lie unwittingly? There is no other consideration required as it is an established and proven FACT that Blair lied!



Now we must consider IF Blair lied wittingly then he should be dismissed his office and put on trial for his treason. If however Blair’s lies were unwitting then he should be dismissed his office and put on trial for his culpable and criminal incompetence and lack of duty of care in office.



A measure of the extent of the lies, or for that matter the incompetence, can be shown: in that I, a provincial book dealer and retailer, shortly after the infamous lies of September 2002 contacted a front bench member of the House of Commons and brought to their attention the fact that Blair had lied.
I made the point that it was an established fact, established by the UN weapons inspectorate, that Hussein of Iraq was not in command or control of any proven Weapons of Mass Destruction and that it was a widely held belief, by informed individuals and agencies, that Iraq had had NO WMDs at its disposal since shortly after the first Gulf War and at latest 1999.



Further I brought to the attention of the party concerned that no evidence had EVER been led nor any suspicion voiced, that Iraq had ICBMs nor had they tested ICBMs nor had they purchased or experimented in research terms with propellants for ICBMs. Thus the dishonest statement of Blair’s that Hussein had WMDs he could deliver in 45 minutes was a lie – whether witting or unwitting.



One is forced to be concerned when an individual, such as myself, can almost instantly spot that a so called ‘British intelligence dossier’ on the web site of Downing Street and thus in the name of the Prime Minister and British Government is a fake and can then, with two associates, establish its source as being a 12 year old thesis by a student on an American web site and supply the URL, source and provenance of dishonesty to John Snow of Channel 4 News, Kirsty Wark of Newsnight and then the BBC Today Programme, as I did.



One is left with a couple of troubling conclusions – first: were the Prime Minister’s lies intentional with intent or not; second: if the lies were not intentional how could a man of such criminal incompetence have gained such power; third: what is the point of the accused being permitted to define the parameters of an inquiry into their dishonesty and then permitting the accused to select a given government employee and then expect to have a report produced that might just criticise the government which drew up the guidelines and parameters, selected the government employee to judge the case and called for the outcome.



Finally one has to consider the BBC – from my understanding of the BBC report on the Today Programme it would seem that at worst Andrew Gilligan was guilty of sexing up dry factual news as received from a respected source to present as palpable news for a general audience. I believe that I am correct in saying NOWHERE in the government report as presented by Hutton did it state that Gilligan lied. Further one must consider the fact that Gavin Davis, when appointed was seen as a Blairite toady a very wealth man who had amassed a great deal of personal Capital yet espoused New Labour and was a friend of both Gordon Brown AND The Blairs. Next one must appreciate that the BBC was further debased by the placement of a Labour Party donor in the person of Greg Dyke and thirdly the Labour staffer Andrew Marr was placed in News services of the BBC.



Perhaps the greatest lessons to be learned are the BBC should have greater independence from the Government than to be forced to accept placements; second that no selected but unelected individual should be permitted to status within Government achieved by Alastaire Campbell ever again; thirdly that there must be a stronger opposition worthy of the £4,000,000 a year they are paid, to act as a check on a runaway executive; fourthly that JIS intelligence must be of better calibre, fifthly that the JIS should not permit ANY rewrite of intelligence for political reasons; sixthly that it is specious to waste public money on an inquiry where the parameters, brief and staff are selected by the accused.



I consider the Hutton Enquiry to be accurate and fair and the judgement reached to be fair and accurate within the corrupted principals it was provided with.



I call upon Tony Blair and his immediate cabinet to resign for their part in the lies, as delineated above, presented to Parliament and the peoples, resulting in war crimes against innocent Iraqis and the deaths of British soldiers. That the displacement of an utterly unwholesome regime and the capture of its leaders resulted from the lies is in no way mitigation of the actions which brought the outcome about.



A measure of the arrogance and hubris of this Government and its contempt for the people and parliament is that it will come as no surprise that they have raised two fingers to the British public and parachuted in a new placement to replace the placements they made previously, who have resigned from the BBC, a man of debased and reviled standing amongst politicians, media and the public at large – such contempt for public sensibility is normally the measure of a third world dictator!



For most of my life I have had the honour and privilege of being rightly proud of my nationality and the lead it has given this planet – I deeply regret the shame one must now feel at being British and no amount of endeavouring to blame the fact that we are ruled by a foreign and alien supra national EUropean soviet mitigates the shame accrued to being British under this present Government. There is almost no aspect of British value that has not been debased by Blair and his cronies, who have done more damage to Britain than any terrorist or army in modern history, no greater single event has done more to eradicate freedom of speech in Britain than the Government report by Hutton.



Regards,

Greg



Greg Lance - Watkins,

c/o Glance Back Books,

Cynulliad i Gymru - The Welsh Assembly [trans.],

17 Upper Church Street,

CHEPSTOW,

NP16 5EX

Monmouthshire,

Britain.

Tel/Fax: 01291 - 62 65 62



For More Information & Facts visit: WEB SITES:

www.SilentMajority.co.UK

www.MrCHAD.co.UK

www.WelshAssembly.org.UK

With today's communications surveillance systems, my ‘e’mail to you will be no secret to any number of the world's intelligence agencies, especially Echelon. The inclusions of keywords like bomb, nuclear, assassinate and the like will ensure "They" will know where my ‘e’mail originated from. Anonymity is pointless in the face of the obscene new Government driven surveillance, WE have permitted to take over control of our lives in the greater New World Order.



It is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between the State violence imposed on peoples; by their own politicians, in the pretence of defending them, and the alleged violence of ‘so called’ terrorists fighting for freedom and dignity; which is the greater evil?



Increasingly the informed, honest, decent and law abiding peoples of Countries can empathise with those who wish the death of self seeking parasitic politicians and Super States, together with their corporate lackeys and self seeking apparatchiks.



Please be advised that if you wish to be removed from this list you have only to ask – however IF you hold ANY political job or Office or job paid for in any way by The State, or elected office PLEASE do not be surprised if you are completely ignored. You CHOSE to be exposed to my legitimate lobbying on behalf of my Country.

[In case your wondering chaps, I have his FULL permission to forward this entire message including his FULL personal details - that's how strong HIS convictions are]

[Jackonicko]

Nick,

You began it, by describing Gilligan as an "Embittered caught-out hack". I haven't met you, but even being as generous as possible, on the basis of what you've posted, Gilligan (who I have met) is worth at least ten of you. He's probably worth ten of me, too, come to that!

I don't feel the need to justify my characterisation of Tony and his gang. That opinion seems to be shared by the bulk of the population, though you clearly know better (who's arrogant again?).

I'm desparately impressed that you 'inhabit the int community' (can I hold your gun sometime?) but would suggest that those members of the community who have had the guts to stand up and be counted (from John Walker down) have expressed severe misgivings about the way that Downing St attempted to use JIC material as a PR weapon, grave concerns about the way in which politicians directed the language to be 'hardened' to give the document more 'impact' and have expressed astonishment that anyone could have believed the dossier, as released.

I haven't seen any intelligent, open minded people (from left or right, political, media or Forces) express anything other than disquiet over the one-sidedness and lack of balance in Hutton's report. Only unthinking doctrinaire New Labour acolytes, the terminally reactionary, and those with silly prejudices about the Press seem to have greeted the report with much enthusiasm.

You ask how come Hutton concluded that "Andrew Gilligan's report that Downing Street "probably knew" the 45-minute claim in its Iraq dossier was wrong..." and that "Whether or not that source was subsequently shown to be unreliable, the central allegation made by Andrew Gilligan in his BBC report was unfounded"?

Well perhaps because Hutton was fatally biased against the media - pre-supposing that the BBC figures were liars and rogues, and that Government ministers and civil servants were honourable and as pure as the driven snow. Most reasonable people accept that the BBC made mistakes, and that in claiming that the Government 'probably knew' the 45 minute claim was wrong Gilligan was painting himself into a corner (thoughin point of fact there is no evidence that that is not EXACTLY what poor Dr Kelly said, or inferred). But they also accept that the Government has behaved shabbily and with a degree of dishonesty.

I'm quite happy to acknowledge that the BBC (and other sections of the media) frequently make mistakes, and seldom operate with the degree of accuracy and precision that I would like. The fact that Hutton criticised the BBC doesn't bother me at all. The fact that he did so while letting shabby, dodgy operators like Blair, Hoon, and Campbell off the hook entirely does upset and shock me, however.

Gilligan's central points were that Iraq did not have WMD, and that evidence suggesting otherwise was so flimsy as to be less than credible. That has been borne out by subsequent events.

He also made the allegation that the Government directed the Int boys to harden up the dossier to give it more impact. That has been confirmed to the satisfaction of more qualified observers than I.

He reported that Kelly had suggested that Campbell was the man responsible. Hutton may prefer to believe Campbell than Gilligan, others may not. The truth is impossible to uncover, with certainty.

There has been a procession of yet more experts (many of them active weapons inspectors) on Newsnight tonight, all casting doubt on the existence of any WMD in Iraq at all, and certainly ruling out the presence of deployed or deployable weapons. At best, serious observers suggest that there may be residual evidence from pre Desert Storm, but there seems to be agreement among those who should know that Iraq has had no new WMD since 1991.

Again, if Blair did believe the 45 minute claim he should resign on the basis of incompetence and stupidity.

[RobinXe]

So this intelligence community that you "inhabit", would this be the same one that got it all wrong according to David Kay, ex-chief US arms inspector?

In the words of Robin Cook:
I just don't see how Tony Blair can hold the line that he was right when everyone else is now admitting they were wrong.

[soddim]

It is hard to ignore the rebuttal of sound reasoning and, even after too many pints at the local, I feel the need to respond.

Could somebody please tell me how the BBC could be held to share the blame in the suicide of Dr David Kelly? Surely that was the central point of the Hutton inquiry and how did his employers who hung him out to dry get off unscathed?

If the establishment had sacrificed Hoon or Scarlet maybe Hutton would have been believable, but to blame the BBC for honestly reporting what a civil servant had leaked to them - that beggars belief.

All those who still support this corrupt establisment need some therapy.

[Jackonicko]

Had Kelly himself not gone forward and 'given himself up' it's quite possible that he would not have been discovered. Gilligan's blurring of his source's job description might have made it difficult to identify him. But at the same time, Kelly would still be alive today had he not spoken to journos. (I incline to the view that he'd have come a cropper by talking to Susan Watts or one of the others even if he hadn't spoken to Gilligan). To that extent, the BBC must take some responsibility for events.

But the lion's share of the blame must surely go to the MoD who so signally failed in their duty of care to the man. No other whistleblower has been named. No other naming has been carried out in such a cynical and underhand manner. Seldom can a bloke have received so little protection, support or backing from his line managers, whatever his supposed crimes.

And why did the Government suddenly take umbrage because one journo, in one broadcast, suggested that they had been less than straight, and were engaging in spin. These were hardly new complaints from the press, but by attacking the story they deflected attention from (and blame for) what ultimately happened to Kelly. More cynical spin.

But the saddest thing is that none of this will really significantly dent Tony's chances at the next election.

[BEagle]

Sorry, misread the thread title. I thought it said: "Blair, Hoon et al didn't lie. They honestly believed the tosser." and was about how Tony the Poodle and his gang believed all that Mad George had told them..........such as about WMD.

[Maple 01]

You began it, by describing Gilligan as an "Embittered caught-out hack".

IMO he is, you don't have to like it. Your response, again, IMO, sounds rather like 'I was only getting my own back'

I haven't met you, but even being as generous as possible, on the basis of what you've posted, Gilligan (who I have met) is worth at least ten of you. He's probably worth ten of me, too, come to that!

That's your opinion, didn’t his own boss at Today have severe doubts about his methodology, style and sources? And have you read the transcript of his notes of the key interview? Would YOU use notes like that? What was the stuff about the date stamp on his PDA?

I don't feel the need to justify my characterisation of Tony and his gang. That opinion seems to be shared by the bulk of the population, though you clearly know better (who's arrogant again?).

The journos last time I looked

I'm desperately impressed that you 'inhabit the Int community' (can I hold your gun sometime?)

And your sarcasm adds to the debate how?

You might like to consider that YOU mentioned how the Int world in the first place, I suppose that was designed to add legitimacy to your argument, claiming it followed your views, I suggest on the whole it dosn't, but I’m just a low level guy.

You are an unaccountable journo - perhaps you have the bigger weapon?

I haven't seen any intelligent, open minded people (from left or right, political, media or Forces) express anything other than disquiet over the one-sidedness and lack of balance in Hutton's report. Only unthinking doctrinaire New Labour acolytes, the terminally reactionary, and those with silly prejudices about the Press seem to have greeted the report with much enthusiasm.

Then perhaps you hear only what you want, like Mr Gilligan. I like the bit about 'silly prejudices against the press' BTW smacks of GWB's 'you're either for us or against us'

I'm quite happy to acknowledge that the BBC (and other sections of the media) frequently make mistakes, and seldom operate with the degree of accuracy and precision that I would like.

When a politician screws up the media bays for his/her blood, when a journo screws up it’s totally understandable……And why not examine the ‘unbiased’ BBC coverage
Of wars involving the UK since 1982 – all mistakes and inaccuracies, or attempts to mould public opinion?

The fact that Hutton criticised the BBC doesn't bother me at all. The fact that he did so while letting shabby, dodgy operators like Blair, Hoon, and Campbell off the hook entirely does upset and shock me, however.

He also made the allegation that the Government directed the Int boys to harden up the dossier to give it more impact. That has been confirmed to the satisfaction of more qualified observers than I.

Again 'I don't like the outcome so I'm going to cry 'foul'

He reported that Kelly had suggested that Campbell was the man responsible. Hutton may prefer to believe Campbell than Gilligan, others may not. The truth is impossible to uncover, with certainty.

The version I heard was that Gilligan put the name of Campbell into Kelly’s mouth – hey- perhaps Gilligan’s notes will clear the matter up…..

There has been a procession of yet more experts (many of them active weapons inspectors) on Newsnight tonight, all casting doubt on the existence of any WMD in Iraq at all, and certainly ruling out the presence of deployed or deployable weapons. At best, serious observers suggest that there may be residual evidence from pre Desert Storm, but there seems to be agreement among those who should know that Iraq has had no new WMD since 1991.

Which has nothing to do with this.

Again, if Blair did believe the 45 minute claim he should resign on the basis of incompetence and stupidity.


Journalist with an agenda, fine if you’re freelance, but not if you work for the BBC, as in Mr Gilligan’s case.

Once more with feeling, it’s not up to the BBC to act as the ‘Official opposition’

In a recent poll the BBC had a 60% credibility rating down from 97% pre war, I'd say that was a problem.....The reporter made a big deal about ‘the majority of those questioned supporting the BBC’ until the guy he was interviewing mentioned the 97% figure.

Incidently, I see the BBC has pulled Gilligan's notes and an e-mail from his boss from their website......

[FEBA]

Jacko
There's a lot of cutting and pasting on this thread which is annoying. Some wish to strategically dissect what has been written which only serves to focus on the minutia rather than the topic as a whole. However some of it is self defeating and serves to illustrate my (and everyone else's) concerns perfectly. for example Grant T said "What is curious about a Judge doing the job he was told to do and that was to investigate who was responsible for the death of Dr. David Kelly"
The Hutton affair has a stronger whiff that a Spanish trawler in the Irish box and I really hope, for the sake of democracy, that it will bring down Blair, Straw, Hoon the Intelligence cronies and the heads of the MOD.
The fact that Spanish trawler syndrone was seeping from under doors into the corridors of power leads me to disagree with your statement that " Had Kelly himself not gone forward and 'given himself up' it's quite possible that he would not have been discovered. Gilligan's blurring of his source's job description might have made it difficult to identify him. But at the same time, Kelly would still be alive today had he not spoken to journos. (I incline to the view that he'd have come a cropper by talking to Susan Watts or one of the others even if he hadn't spoken to Gilligan). To that extent, the BBC must take some responsibility for events"
Dr Kelly was a man troubled by a good conscience regarding the magnitude of duplicity that the government was prepared to use in order to take the country to war. TB won the vote based on the fact that WMD existed in Iraq and that it's threat to us and future generations was more than he could bare. No mention in his arguement of regime change or meddling with the political sovereignty of Iraq, just WMD. This is what bothered Dr Kelly and that is why he approached Mr Gilligan. Dr Kelly was a highly intelligent man, he knew full well the gravity of his decision to meet with the BBC. You can't hold the BBC responsible for that. Hutton said that Gilligans report was without substance, do you believe that ?
Maybe Mr Gilligan would like to comment on this site. It's clearly read by the right people.
Regards
FEBA

[DK338]

Interesting thread, unfortunately dominated by the odd bigot.

Maple 01, do us all a favour old boy and bu££er off to whatever cave you crawled out from and take your Walter mitty persona with you. I fail to see how an FOA instructor at Shawbury can possibly claim to have access to relevent Int material or even inhabit the Int community, you mate are not in a position to make the assertions you do.

However I gratiously concede that you have your views and are entitled to voice them, I have my views too, but the difference between us is that I decide to keep mine private. You however not only have to flap your gums and rubbish others, but you fraudiently attempt to add credibility to your point with false affiliations to the Int world.

FYI I work with Int specialists daily, and have done for a number of years, but my line of work revolves around their periphery. Throughout the lead up to GW2 there was profound scepticism surrounding various claims made by government, and discomfort at the prospect of invading a sovereign state, regardless of it's unpalatable regime, on the basis of possibly incomplete, inaccurate and altered data. However, as we are all members of HMF, we are apolitical and therefore do as our elected masters bid, whether we like them or not.

I bid you good day sir and farewell.

[John Farley]

In off the first post or not it a linesman can still see an own goal

Great stuff chaps - keep it up

[Jackonicko]

Feba,

We seldom agree, but this time we seem to. Could I just assure you that I don't condemn Kelly's actions - he did the right thing but in doing so does bear some responsibility. The BBC rightly chose to report his concerns (again the right thing, but again bringing with it some responsibility).

Maple,

If it were just the media 'crying foul' you'd have some grounds for what you say, but it isn't. Most reasonable observers (including many from the int world) see Hutton as unbalanced, unfair and unduly selective.

If you believe Hutton you're supposed to believe that Kelly never mentioned Campbell at all, not that someone fed him the name.

You seem to be happy to cast mud at Gilligan. All I can say is that that seems pretty low, and add that media figures from Rod Liddle (until recently his boss at Today) on the left to Boris Johnson on the right seem to rate him very highly indeed. And I don't see anything particularly exceptionable about what Gilligan said in his reports - he qualified what was already only a reported opinion with liberal use of words like 'probably', and has since been shown to have been largely correct. Blair, on the other hand, has been shown to have been entirely wrong, though the 'independent' enquiry which he set up (under the leadership of another chummy barrister who Labour had elevated to the Peerage) and whose terms of reference he set out unsurprisingly let him off scot free.

[FEBA]

Jacko
I bare you no malice nor anyone else on this site. Where I think your wrong I'll say so. In this case I'm with you 100%. Either way I'd be happy to meet you at the bar irrespective of our opinions.
I still think that it was the government and the civil service that drove poor Dr Kelly to his death, not the BBC.
Cheers
FEBA :ok:

[Maple 01]

I fail to see how an FOA instructor at Shawbury

Never been to Shawbury 'Old boy'. Think you’re getting confused with DH98 and his colleague. Suggest you keep your personal comments to your self until you've got your facts straight; still, I'm big enough to accept your apology.

[BlueWolf]

Once again I'm in the not-always-comfortable position of agreeing with Jacko.

I always supported the war, but never the reasons given to justify it. Frankly I think it's patently obvious that the WMD claims were bollox from the start.

If Blair is still claiming that they were true and that he believed them then and believes them now, then he's either being very dishonest or very thick.

Either way the man isn't fit to be a Prime Minister, and he should resign forthwith.

[Jackonicko]

"A sad end. No winners."

A sad end? Undeniably.

No winners? Then why are Blair and Campbell looking so smug, and how come Hoon still has a job?

[HectorusRex]

This may help explain his totally biased views, but not how he can be regarded as a competent judge!

Who Is Hutton? - Revealing History

A history of Hutton's life, from Bloody Sunday cover up to Pinochet affair to Iraq war lies.
By Re-Sista! 28/1/04
From: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284545.html
Upon his resignation as BBC chairman Gavyn Davies commented on the irreconcilable contradictions between Hutton's "bald conclusions" and the balance of evidence presented to the actual Inquiry.

Even BBC political editor Andrew Marr comments on Hutton's underlying assumptions and background, making him more likely to believe and trust certain social groups: "again and again, he comes down on the side of politicians and officials."

So who is Hutton? And what is in his background to come to these extraordinary conclusions? What has led to the report's extraordinary absolution of Blair's war lies and attack on journalistic freedom?

The 72 year old Baron Hutton of Bresagh, County of Down, North Ireland, is a classic representative of the British ruling establishment. A member of the Anglo-Irish elite, he was educated at Shewsbury all boys boarding school, and then Balliol, Oxford, before entering the exclusive club of the British Judiciary. Whilst British Judges are overwhelmingly conservative, upper class, white, male and biased, Hutton's background is even more compromised.

His name will be familiar to residents of the Six counties of Ulster. During the bloody thirty years war Hutton was an instrument of British state repression, starting in the late 1960's as junior counsel to the Northern Ireland attorney general, and by 1988 rising to the top job of Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.

Hutton spent his career as Judge and Jury in the notorious northern Ireland kangaroo 'Diplock Courts'. These were special non-Jury courts, condemned by human rights advocates for their miscarriages of justice. He was hated for this role by the families of the many innocent Catholics wrongly convicted here.

Hutton distinguished himself after the Bloody Sunday massacre of civil rights protesters in 1972. He played a key role in the ensuing judicial cover-up called the Widgery Inquiry which absolved British troops of murder. This miscarriage of justice is only now being investigated by the current Saville inquiry.

Then in 1978 he represented the British Government before the European Court of Human Rights, defending it against a ruling that it abused and maltreated detainees from the conflict.

However, he will be remembered in the rest of the UK for his role in the 1999 Pinochet affair. Another senior Judge, Lord Hoffman had contributed to the decision to arrest and extradite the notorious former dictator of Chile and mass murderer General Pinochet during his visit to Britain.

As a law lord, Hutton led the rightwing attack on Lord Hoffman, on the excuse that Hoffman's links to the human rights group amnesty international invalidated Pinochets arrest! Lord Hutton said, "public confidence in the integrity of the administration of justice would be shaken", if Lord Hoffman's ruling was not overturned.

More recently, Hutton was also involved in the ruling that David Shayler, the former MI5 agent, could not argue he was acting in the public interest by revealing secrets.

This history of intimate links with, and knowledge of Britain's secret military intelligence operations meant he could be a trusted pair of hands when it came to the Kelly affair.


ENDS

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0401/S00155.htm

[Maple 01]

28/1/04

So Hutton was OK until after he'd reported? Isn't it the slightest bit odd that he was a 'wise choice' right up until he gave the answer many here didn't like.

Would Indymedia (oxymoron in this particular case) have been so quick to condemn him if he'd found against the government?

Here’s their statement of policy

· Indymedia United Kollektives works on a non-hierarchical basis
· we reject all systems of domination and discrimination
· we acknowledge that the struggle for a better world takes many forms. The focus of the Indymedia UK collective is on grassroots politics, actions and campaigns
· Indymedia United Kollektives does not have any ties with political parties or larger NGO's
· we understand that by lobbying there will be no radical change. As a collective our attitude is assertive, and where necessary confrontational

· Inherent in the mainstream corporate media is a strong bias towards Capitalism's power structures, and it is an important tool in propagating these structures around the globe. While the mainstream media conceal their manifold biases and alignments, we clearly state our position. : Indymedia UK does not attempt to take an objective and impartial standpoint Indymedia UK clearly states its subjectivity.
So obviously an unbiased bunch then. I wonder if Private Eye’s Ken Spart works for them.

[Tocsin]

Jacko,

What do you feel about Mr Gilligan "shopping" Dr Kelly to an MP on the Committee interviewing him? (re. Susan Watts also having an interview). Do you not feel that questioning had something to do with Dr Kelly's final actions?

[Captain Gadget]

First, let me state that I fully accept the outcome of the Hutton Inquiry. Hutton's qualifications are impeccable, he is the umpire (ref for you footy types) and his decision is final. As a gentleman player of the game, I respect his decision and will not dispute it.

As I walk back to the pavilion, however, bat under arm, I have to say that I wish that messrs Dyke, Davies and Gilligan were running our Armed Forces (in stark contrast to Day, Wratten et al) and that messrs Blair, Hoon and Campbell had just been forced to resign from the BBC. (I can say this because I am no longer a public servant, and because I am therefore now entitled to express an opinion - and about time that I did).

It was all so unnecessary, anyway. Iraq had manifestly failed to comply with the terms of the 1991 ceasefire, and therefore a re-commencement of hostilities would have been justified at any time. There was no need for all this WMD bolleaux (unless, of course, it was necessary to justify war in a hurry because Dubya was determined anyway to finish what his Daddy started - use it or lose it).

Tony (if you PPRuNe), I think this may yet come and bite you in the arse. If it does, no arse-biting will ever have been better deserved.

Dr Kelly was betrayed. He was a good man who undoubtedly made mistakes (don't we all?), but the way in which he was driven to his death, and the way in which his death was (and, more importantly was not) investigated betrayed him further. May his soul rest in peace.

Tony, enjoy your moment of glory, for it will not last.

Lord Hutton, retire now, before you hurt yourself.

:mad: Gadget

[Archimedes]

This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3450151.stm) might make Tony's life interesting...

[FEBA]

I want the American people to know that I, too, want to know the facts Dubbya

It's a pity the neither Blair nor Bush were interested in them before taking the nations to war :mad:

[Navaleye]

After GW1, I saw some footage of an Iraqi Mirage F1 with a chemical tank attached doing low/slow passes and spraying chemicals. Presumably the equipment remains. It just has to be filled. Not a major job.

The Hutton report is something out of "Yes, Prime Minister". the Nasty BBC get drubbed and everyone in the govt comes out smelling of roses. Roll credits...

[gravity victim]

I see on Pprune's entertaining khaki equivalent ARRSE that the squaddies have come up with a cunning plan for disposing of Bliar at the next election, should he unwisely hang on that long.

The plan is as follows:

Military personnel deployed overseas at election time can nominate a constituency in which to vote. (Apparently you only have to show an intention to have been in that constituency at the time of the election, thwarted only by the needs of Queen and Country. An address will suffice.)

There are 20,000 disgruntled squaddies in various grim hellholes all over the place, to back up Bliar's 'world peacemaker' pretensions.

Bliar's majority in Sedgefield was trimmed to 8000 at the last election.

QED!

[alamo]

Not original. That's how we planned to get rid of Wilson!

[timzsta]

Of great interest to me is the leaking of the report. My points of interest are:

1. It was leaked to "The Sun". The Sun was on the Iraq issue very pro Blair and is no great supporter of the BBC, regularly criticising it. Seeing as the Hutton report was so damning of the BBC, leaking the report to the most "pro Blair anti BBC" newspaper would cause maximum effect.

2. Very few people had access to the report in advance. Almost all of those who did gave evidence to the Hutton enquiry. If one of these people were to be found to have been involved in some way with the leaking of report, that IMHO, calls into question their integrity and honesty. And in so doing that may call into question the honesty and accuracy of the evidence they gave to the enquiry.

3. The leak came within a couple of hours of the PM winning the "Tuition Fees" vote. It turned out to be one of his greatest evenings since coming to power. Incidentally one of people to get a copy of the report was The Office of the Speaker of the House of Commons, for distribution to the Houses of Parliament in due course. That office would have, in all likelyhood, IMHO, been very empty say between about 1830-2000 on the Tuesday night. The first news of the leak came on the evening news programmes at about 2200. Timings are interesting........

All conspiracy stories off course.

As for the 45 minute claim, I have grave misgivings. As someone who left the military a little over two years ago, my understanding of what "45 minutes" wrt a WMD means is something like this:

Weapon platform and weapon fully operation.
Personnel fully trained and prepared.
Targeting information available and means to pass it to the delivery platform in place.
The 45 minutes, IMHO, is purely the time between when the Command gives the order to use it to its being dropper/sprayed etc on the target.

Given the above we would have by now uncovered such a weapon system, and there would have been more than one "source" for its existence.

I do not believe Tony Blair is a liar. What I believe is that he became so convinced he was right on the Iraq issue, and so far before the time of the war, that he failed to take onboard any information, whatever the source (ie Hans Blix) that he may have been wrong. That does not make him a liar, that makes him a man of very bad judgement. A man of bad judgement should not be the Prime Minister of a country. And especially not one of a country with nuclear weapons.

As with most of the great scandals, we will probably never know the truth. The 30 year rule, I bet a lot of the packs on this issue have already been weeded or if not no records kept etc etc.

If I had stayed in the military I have little doubt that I would have been involved in the Iraq war. And I have no doubt that the Command would have required of me to inform my men and women of the reasons for which they were about to go to war. Namely "that Iraq presents a clear and imminent threat to the region, the UK and its interests and has WMD that are capable of being used within 45 minutes notice". Following the failure of any such weapons to have been found, or that they are likely to be found, if I was still in the military I would have very serious missgivings that the confidence of my men and women in my leadership and judgement would have been severly damaged as a result of what has since been unveiled (or failed to be unveiled).

In all probability Blair and his mates will survive this crisis and will win the next election and the reigns will be handed to Gordon soon after, probably within a year say. The second enquiry of course does not have the remit to investigate the politicians, rather handily.

There is a small probability, however remote, that someone somewhere may blow the lid on any "conspiracy" that may allegedly have taken place. And that could lead to one of the most spectacular resignations of a PM and a Government in the history of the modern world.

[Smoketoomuch]

Blair is now saying that he did not know what sort of weapons the '45 minute' warning applied to!

Flabbergasted!

[cyrus]

Absolutely amazed that this slippery PM could sound so convincing in the house that he was right when all around he is confronted with the evidence that the int was wrong and that the 45 minute claim was so obviously in error. Furthermore there are those who are coming out and stating that the int was not agreed by the military in the first place.

This man has no conscience.

[A Civilian]

And Robin Cook is saying that he did :ok: Ive been wracking my brains as to why I ever voted for this slime. Hell I even defended him on numerous occasions on this forum, more fool me I guess :(


edit:: post was in response to Smoketoomuch's

[soddim]

I remember the occasion when I listened to a very sharp air force officer who told me that the trouble with staff college was that it taught even idiots to write convincingly and that was why the RAF was suffering from the work of convincing idiots.

Who taught Blair to be convincing?

[Zoom]

Agree wholeheartedly with Smoketoomuch. It was incredible watching Blair trying to explain himself away on TV yesterday. I cannot believe that a so-called intelligent man would listen to or read an intelligence briefing without asking for clarification on the important issues such as this one, and then expect the public to accept his ignorance on the matter as if it made no difference. When it became clear - long before the war began - that the public had also been fooled by this false claim, Hoon did not think that it was his place to correct the misconception! Presumably he would have discussed the matter with Blair, which means that Blair probably knew what types of weapons the 45 minute claim referred to from an early stage.

The man and his cronies are blatant liars who bend and distort the truth to suit their ends in ways that I have not seen before. 'Spin' is far too kind a word for their activities.

[timzsta]

Let me get this straight in my mind. Andrew Gilligan broadcasts a story on national radio calling into question the integrity of the PM and Alistair Campbell.

The Government know that the story is false.

There follows an aggressive and sustained attack by Campbell, Blair and the Government on the BBC demanding an apology, which following the Hutton report is forthcoming.

The morning after the dossier is published, and I quote from Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman last night, who was quoting from The Sun (headline the morning after dossier published) "British holidaymakers and servicemen in Cyprus could be just 45 minutes from a chemical attack". This story was front page in a number of other leading national newspapers that day. The Government, namely the Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon knew that this story was false. Yet the Government made no attempt to demand that this story be corrected.

Why?

Who else knew that the 45 minute claim only referred to battlefield weapons?
Did Alistair Campbell know?
Did Sir John Scarlett know?
Did the Foreign Office know?
If they did not know, why wasnt a warning issued to the public about the danger they faced by going on holiday to Cyprus?
When did the PM finally get told that the 45 minute claim referred only to battlefield weapons?
Was it prior to him having to give evidence to the FAC, or ISC or the Hutton Enquiry?
Who, and why, finally decided that PM had to know that the 45 minute claim referred only to battlefield weapons?
----------------
Edited for spelling

[teeteringhead]

Never mind Cyprus timzsta, the London Evening Standard strongly implied that London itself could be a target.

Blair's reply yesterday was along the lines of: "I'm not in the business of correcting every wrong Standard headline"

Wot, not even if it wrongly claims the capital and seat of government is under threat:confused: :confused:

[Zoom]

But why should Blair correct every wrong headline if they all suit his case so well? He just lets the newspapers and the public's imagination do his work for him. What John Lydon said in the jungle on Tuesday night describes him and his cronies rather well, I think.

[BEagle]

Just listening to BuffHonn giving his excuses in front of the Defence Committe. The grilling comes next...

What a slimy bunch Trust-me-Tone and his gang truly are.

[Postman Plod]

Geoff was star guest on the Today Programme this morning, unfortunately missed most of his interview, however he continually stated after being specifically asked a number of times that he had not seen the Sun headline until a "couple of weeks ago" after watching Panorama. He claimed there was no public debate or worry at the time of the headlines, hence he never heard about them...

20 minutes later, after a bit of research, it was found that honest Geoff had in fact stated during the Hutton review (was that under oath?) that he was well aware of the Sun headline "45 minutes from Doom" as well as other headlines, and what parts of the world they refered to.

Ooopsy. Didn't he just lie? 8:10-8:30am interview, and around 8:50am - 9am when they come back to the story. Might be worth a proper listen if you can get access to the Radio 4 website and a pair of headphones!

yet again, he's setting himself up as the fall guy for Bliar - I almost feel sorry for him! Claim Tony knew nothing about battlefield weapons, and then set yourself up to take all the flack.

[RobinXe]

I personally find it an affront to myself and the rest of the electorate that out leaders would not only lie to us, but then expect us to be placated by a clumsy, transparent cover-up of more lies and sham enquiries.

I just sincerely hope that it doesnt actually work!! :mad:

[BillHicksRules]

Let me propose how the PM was briefed on Iraqi capabilities

Intelligence Briefer: “PM, we have a source that states the Iraqis have chemical and biological weapons that can be used within 45 mins of the order being given.
Prime Minister: “OK that is good enough for me lets go and invade”
IB: “But PM….”
PM: “No buts we have no time to waste.”
IB: “But you need to know…..”
PM: “Geoff, You have anything to say?”
Geoff Hoon: “Nope, I am with you Tone”

We are supposed to be calmed by the fact that the PM was either woefully underinformed or too incompetent to ask any follow up questions.

I am a simple salesman in Scotland but when I heard about the 45 min claim my first question was “What kind of weapons are we talking about?” Nowhere was it mentioned that this was simple mortars and artillery shells.

Now I would expect the PM to be a bit more thorough in his checking up

What do you think Chaffers?

Cheers

BHR

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

But...if they can bury a Mig in the sand, they could feasibly bury a mobile scud and launcher in the sand. And Cyprus is in range of a Scud missile.

So they could get themselves off the hook with that statement alone.

But they are all a bunch of slimy scumbags. I didn't vote for them.

I thought we were an autonomous collective.

[Woff1965]

The Mig in question had :

1) a broken canopy window.
2) did not appear to have been sprayed with spraylat (or other protective coating)
3) was buried under large quantities of sand for some time prior to the start of the war.

I strongly suggest the only way it would ever have flown again is if someone piled significant quantities of C4 under it and lit it off!