Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » World Watch » Hutton Inquiry slams BBC not Blair

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Hutton Inquiry slams BBC not Blair
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
After months of attacking the Blair government over the WMD issue in Iraq, The Hutton Inquiry has ruled in favor of the government and against the media's unsupported attacks.

Chairman of BBC Gavyn Davies resigns.

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John L
Member
Member # 1411

 - posted      Profile for John L   Email John L   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, There is some good that comes to pass in this world.
Posts: 885 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg Dyke, The BBC Director-General said in defense of the BBC: "...[W]e would point out again that at no stage in the last eight months have we accused the prime minister of lying."

Should I point out this accusation was the primary basis for the charges of lying against Presdident Bush? If Blair was never accused if Lying, why was Bush?

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John L
Member
Member # 1411

 - posted      Profile for John L   Email John L   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
hmm, yes,

By his own words, M. Dyke proves that he is the consumate politician. I would expect for him to make a run for Parliament soon!

Posts: 885 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, no, no. Blair was acquitted of knowingly exaggerating the intel, meaning the blame was shifted to someone else. Also, he was in fact found to have been involved in outting David Kelly, only not of knowing that the poor guy was so stressed out as to kill himself over it.

However, Blair did cleverly influence the report by stating in advance what the consequences of a "guilty verdict" would be. Must have put quite a bit of pressure on Lord Hutton...

As for WMD - it's totally clear that Blair lied, knowingly or not. Have y'all read David Kay's reports and statements? Not only are the weapons not there, he doesn't believe they were - at least not since the mid 90's. Is he politically motivated too?

Poor Blair. I mean, he was so badly fooled by his allies in the Bush administration that he didn't even have the good sense to hedge his bets: "Capable of launching within 45 minutes", he said. Bush can still cling desperately to "let's wait for the weapons comission to finish its work". Blair doesn't even have that. We already know for a fact that what HE said was a lie. You want to believe that he really thought so? Fine. He still has to explain on what basis. The only possible explanation is that some MI5 flack fed him a load of b.s.

Now, I don't know if Blair did what Cheney did (set up a whole new intel operation to manufacture the "evidence" he wanted, after the regular guys refused to prostitute themselves) so I can't say for sure if he was duped or not. Neither explanation does much good for his reputation.

So yes, Blair dodged a copuple of political bullets, but don't kid yourself that he or the war have been validated in any way.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
RickyB, sorry, you must not have read Kay's entire statement. He totally vindicated what was known at the time and underscored the fact that nobody lied. His point that there may be no WMD in Iraq that may be found is totally in line with his acknowledgement that they may have shipped out to Syria as we've been discussing since forever.

Moreover, did you not read the part where Dyke stressed that the BBC never even said that Blair ever lied, yet here you are using that non-charge to "prove" that Bush lied when he said the British had information that pointed to WMD in Iraq? The only charge that there were no WMD came from those who had no clue about what was going on and leapt to the conclusion that the British intel was wrong. Too bad... all the investigations have fully exonerated what was known at the time were not prefabrications but honestly-held beliefs that are still believed to be true. What position do you fall back on if our troops and the Turkish troops who are guarding that 600 square-mile portion of the Syrian desert finally get clearance to go into the territory and search for it? What happens if intel is developed that shows where it is, so our soldiers don't have to crawl on their hands and knees with hand trowels looking for it because the static electric interference from the sands of the desert defeat our best high-tech search insrtruments?

Look - there is no information that anyone lied about anything. ...Except the Clinton appointee in the embassy who composed the bogus Niger yellowcake letter who coincidentally may have stumbled on a true effort for Iraq to acquire the yellowcake. So even though she tried to cadge money for a forged document, even she may not have lied. Remember, we have no reason not to discount Wilson's testimony because he admitted only talking to low-level bureaucrats who had no motive to admit any possible Iraqi contacts that would have them thrown in prison had the info come out. Not only would it have ended with them in prison, but they would also be in trouble with other nations that had contractual claim to all the yellowcake they could produce.

Why is it so important to believe bad things about your President in spite of the evidence? Don't you think your suspicions are themselves suspect?

Who knows... you may even be right, and Kelly who committed suicide after being the source of all the problems may have been an honest whistleblower rather than someone caught in the act of trying to lie himself to undermine a political opponent. Lord Hutton came out on the side of Blair, however, so don't hold out too much vindication from that direction.

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
WmLambert, I am not using Blair for anything. The fact that Bush lied is evident from his own actions. Furthermore, you sound quite ridiculous insisting that Blair doidn't lie when we know he did - the 45 minute crock cannot have been true, since it requires delivery mechanisms that cannot be "hidden in Syria". The only thing that Hutton cleared Blair of is knowingly lying, which still leaves him to show where on earth he got that claim.

quote:
The only charge that there were no WMD came from those who had no clue about what was going on
Well, turns out the clueless were right. I ask again: The Bush administration claimed, before the war, that it knew precisely where the WMD were - within a 200 mile radius. How on earth was it moved from there without anyone noticing? We're not talking about some small amount. They spoke of many, many truckloads of chemicals. You can't move all that and not have anyone notice, especially at a time when all intel is focused on you.

As for
quote:
Except the Clinton appointee in the embassy who composed the bogus Niger yellowcake letter who coincidentally may have stumbled on a true effort for Iraq to acquire the yellowcake
Puh-leeze. First, where do you get the claim that it was a Clinton employee or any US employee who did this? Some Ann Coulter site? From what I read, it was Iraqi dissidents - which makes a whole lot more sense. If a US employee forged a letter, how come he wasn't arrested and tried?

Second, Is this Clinton apointee also to blame for Bush using this claim in the 2003 SotU address after Ambassador Wilson proved it to be false? And make up your mind - was the claim bogus or not? You can't have it both ways.

As for the possibility that the weapons were moved to Syria, et me get this straight: Saddam goes to all this trouble to get and produce WMD, then doesn't use it even to save his life, but instead ships it to Assad...for what? just to spite the US? In the hopes that Assad will simply give it back some day? And this was done undetected and hidden....where?

Again, the claim that the location of the weapons was pinpointed was tried before the war. You want to invade Syria, do it because of terrorism. Not because of some crock about non existant weapons.

And another thing: You cannot rely on Kay's so called exoneration of Bush, and at the same time ignore his flat statement that the weapons simply weren't there - that the logistical array necessary to have produced them did not exist in recent years. As I said before, you can't have it both ways.

Speaking of Kay, what he said was that the intelligence was wrong - but what intelligence? The CIA knew there was no conclusive evidenc eof weapons, and said so. That's why Cheney invented "The Office for Special Operations" - to manufacture evidence, which has now been proven false. You can't say "I was duped" when you arrange to be duped in the first place. that's a bit like killing your parents and then crying to the judge that you're an orphan. [Big Grin]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Doug64
Member
Member # 1044

 - posted      Profile for Doug64     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The fact that Bush lied is evident from his own actions.
RickyB, your attitude seems to be that if a government official tells you something that later turns out to be wrong, he's automatically a liar. I have to disagree with you on that one, especially in the case of President Bush. I can't see any way he and those under him could have thought that they would be able to lie about WMDs and not have that lie discovered later, and if the public relations disaster and political difficulties that would be caused by not finding WMDs was obvious to me before we invaded, it certainly had to be obvious to the White House. I really can't believe that the president and all his subordinates, including Colin Powell, are really that stupid.
Posts: 2137 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
RickyB, I think your antipathy in this comes from one sole point of logic, that "You cannot rely on Kay's so called exoneration of Bush, and at the same time ignore his flat statement that the weapons simply weren't there." Did you read his entire statement? Yes, he said over and over that everybody was correct in assuming there were WMD before going in after them - but that we are wrong to believe there are any in Iraq now. I looked really hard at his entire statement, and was disgusted to see that he never really came right out and said anything. He said we were wrong - but he never, ever specified what we were wrong about. He agreed that everytbody, including France and Germany stated positively that Iraq had WMD. He said that no one deliberately mislead anyone, nor put pressure on any investigators to do anything unprofessional. He never even said there was no WMD in Iraq now, he held out the possibility that there might be. But he still said we were wrong in our thinking.

He said:
quote:
...I think at the end of the work of the [Iraq Survey Group] there's still going to be an unresolvable ambiguity about what happened.

A lot of that traces to the failure on April 9 to establish immediately physical security in Iraq -- the unparalleled looting and destruction, a lot of which was directly intentional, designed by the security services to cover the tracks of the Iraq WMD program and their other programs as well, a lot of which was what we simply called Ali Baba looting. "It had been the regime's. The regime is gone. I'm going to go take the gold toilet fixtures and everything else imaginable."

I've seen looting around the world and thought I knew the best looters in the world. The Iraqis excel at that.

The result is -- document destruction -- we're really not going to be able to prove beyond a truth the negatives and some of the positive conclusions that we're going to come to. There will be always unresolved ambiguity here.

...Speaking of ambiguity!!

All of the intel backs up everything that the coalition has alleged. Of course you have to walk on a tight rope to make sure that what was said is not misquoted or misattributed. We went into Iraq with the direct charge by the President the need to counter "The gathering storm" before the danger became imminent. The magpies crow that he said we had to go in "because of imminent danger," which is the exact opposite of saying "before the danger becomes imminent." Kay and Ritter and all the other players in this have exposed an energetic program to procure or build WMD. We've heard it said that Hussein had no "real" ongoing atomics program - yet we have proof that Hussein sent agents all over Africa trying to contract for some. Just how do you prove that nobody met in the dark of night and shook hands on it?

Joe Wilson went to tea with some low-ranking bureaucrats and heard them deny any skullduggery. That's it. There is no other investigation - except the covert HumInt by the British and Israelis who stand by their statements. Another powerful argument is the recently uncovered fact that Hussein was milking the "Oil for Food" humanitarian UN program for all it was worth. Gallaway, a British member of Parliament, who happens to be Arafat's Grand nephew was given a one million dollar coupon for oil from Hussein, as were terrorists and Government officials all over the MidEast. How much does a suitcase bomb from the Russian mafia cost? Will a coupon for Ten million dollars of oil that was supposed to feed the people do?

Is there an underhanded traitor in the CDC that would sell weaponized bugs in exchange for a life as a millionaire? If the contract was a done deal, would it be imminent danger yet? Or do you wait until the Anthrax is shipped?

Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mv
Member
Member # 462

 - posted      Profile for mv     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gilligan resigns!
Posts: 1798 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
John L
Member
Member # 1411

 - posted      Profile for John L   Email John L   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes,

There is still some justice in this world. Now, let us see if he received some oil from Iraq. Either way, he should still be able to get work with the Independent, or maybe The Guardian.

Posts: 885 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gary
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
... it's totally clear that Blair lied, knowingly or not. ---- RickyB
In your zeal to discredit, I think you're reaching to say that Blair lied. If someone is convinced they are telling the truth by all the facts available, how can you say they are lying? Unknowngly lying is an oxymoron. I realize you very much want to discredit Blair and, by proxy, Bush by accusing them of lying anyway you can but this is simply too much of a stretch.

quote:
... I don't know if Blair did what Cheney did (set up a whole new intel operation to manufacture the "evidence" he wanted, after the regular guys refused to prostitute themselves) so I can't say for sure if he was duped or not. ---- RickyB
Propagating consipiracy theories a la Madeline Albright and Howard Dean does not help you build a case either.

[ January 31, 2004, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Gary ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1