Blair, Hoon et al didn't lie. They honestly believed the dossier.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newcastle/UK
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So would you consider John Walker to be better suited than you?
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,
just from reading Tom Clancy novels
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.
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).
"would you rather Saddam was still in power?", no I wouldn't, but that isn't the point.
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!!!!!!!!!!
Regards
-Nick
Newsflash
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3446391.stm
Embittered caught-out hack resigns
Thread Starter
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.
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.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He's worth ten of you, Nick........
and even the bad ones are more trustworthy than Tony and his gang of amoral lying rogues.
people from the Int community
and almost any independent minded person with a brain have expressed similar doubts.
and what he said is still substantially correct.
*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
**Mr Gilligan conceded some of his story was wrong, and apologised for it.
(*Huton quoted on BBC website)
(** BBC website)
Last edited by Maple 01; 31st Jan 2004 at 05:08.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a friend
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]
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]
Last edited by Tartan Giant; 31st Jan 2004 at 06:21.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Shrewsbury, UK
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So this intelligence community that you "inhabit", would this be the same one that
according to David Kay, ex-chief US arms inspector?
In the words of Robin Cook:
got it all wrong
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.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
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.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 desperately impressed that you 'inhabit the Int community' (can I hold your gun sometime?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: around and about
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fail to see how an FOA instructor at Shawbury
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
"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?
A sad end? Undeniably.
No winners? Then why are Blair and Campbell looking so smug, and how come Hoon still has a job?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is the British Sense of Fair Play?
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
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