Blair, Hoon et al didn't lie. They honestly believed the dossier.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
28/1/04
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.
· 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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Deepest Oxfordshire
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
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.
Gadget
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.
Gadget
Last edited by Captain Gadget; 2nd Feb 2004 at 04:59.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tracy Island
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I want the American people to know that I, too, want to know the facts
It's a pity the neither Blair nor Bush were interested in them before taking the nations to war
Last edited by FEBA; 2nd Feb 2004 at 17:09.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Mirage F1 chemical equipped ans whitewash
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...
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...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
This man has no conscience.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And Robin Cook is saying that he did 
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
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
Last edited by A Civilian; 5th Feb 2004 at 06:42.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Who taught Blair to be convincing?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Gentleman Aviator
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
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
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
What a slimy bunch Trust-me-Tone and his gang truly are.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Shrewsbury, UK
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
I just sincerely hope that it doesnt actually work!!