 |
| |
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
IMHO Blair should emerge unscarthed, woth regards to Kelly. If Kelly wants to have an interview with the BBC, IMHO he has accepted that what he says and who it coems from becomes public. Unless he signed a contract stating that his anonymity is the price for his interview. The BBC cannot publish such violent criticism of the Government without evidence. And if it has the evidence, then it needs to be examined. You couldn't have a court case where a key witness is only questioned by one side. If the BBC wanted to make those allegations, they should have to put Dr Kelly's name out there, since he was the source. If Dr Kelly didn't want that, then he shouldn't have given the interview, and the BBC shouldn't have released the allegations.
More importantly, I'm sickened that one suicide gets a ful enquiry of this magnitude, while the decision to go to war, that cost hundreds of lives, didn't. It is far more important to know whether the UK went to war on false pretences, whether or not it was justified and legal, and whther or not the government acted properly with regards to our soldiers and their equipment, than it is to know whether and how they leaked Dr Kelly's name.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
He left out the important bit on WMDs as "outside his terms of reference". |
Which they were, since neither he, nor any other Britian, knows who was right yet. I think they're not there. I thought that from the start. But I can't show that. And so I don't know if he lied about it. He may have been given an intelligence report stating that there was, in which case our intelligence needs some improving.
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Look you have to be some kind of moron to believe the crap that was in that dossier, and that's what really matters. That's the large issue here. Saying that the government didn't know that the dossier was essentially fiction is completely ridiculous. I knew it was fictional, and all I had to do was use common sense. So did anyone else who bothered to actually think about it. |
How did you know that? Do you have intelligent reports from Iraq? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that what was in that dossier was untrue? Sure, I'll admit they haven't provided evidence that it was true. I'll admit that it may not be true, because I don't know. And unless you have some evidence that proves it's false, neither do you. If the joint intelligence committee go to the PM with intelligence reports, and sign the dossier, then if it's wrong, have a go at them. How is the PM meant to know anything about Iraq's programs apart from what the intelligence services tell him? The only problem I have is if he purposfully put things in their that were not true. Until I see evidence for that, I'll believe in innocent until proven guilty.
I don't want to be sticking up for Blair. I despise the fact he took us to war and I think he did it for the wrong reasons. However, I am not convinced he lied. I have no evidence that there was anything in that dossier that didn't come from the intelligence committee. And until there is some evidence, then we must consider him innocent of that.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
Which they were, since neither he, nor any other Britian, knows who was right yet. I think they're not there. I thought that from the start. But I can't show that. And so I don't know if he lied about it. He may have been given an intelligence report stating that there was, in which case our intelligence needs some improving. |
In which case you've fallen right into the trap they want you to. Neither you or the government can show that WMDs were there or not. But that doesn't mean that you have to reserve judgement on the government's case. And that case was misleading as well as being very weak. Basically, it just didn't make sense.
For one: it contained significant material plagiarized from a student's thesis which that student acknowledged was based on 10 year old data. Moreover, it is generally accepted that the estimates of Iraq's weapon reserves were based on worst case scenarios and faulty mathematics. The Niger rumour was also forged.
No one ever made a plausible case that he had nukes or was close to getting them. That's a preposterous claim. The Israelis effectively halted his nuclear program 20 years ago.
In short, while it may have been the case that Iraq had a few chemical shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war and may have had a spot or two of anthrax, to say that these constitute a threat is to exhibit one's own ignorance on the matter. These weapons are next to useless. Chemical weapons are only any good for attacking massed infantry and need to be used in such great concentrations to get any result, that it is unlikely that Iraq's meagre reserves would be militarily useful.
quote:
How did you know that? Do you have intelligent reports from Iraq? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that what was in that dossier was untrue? |
It's called common sense.
quote:
Sure, I'll admit they haven't provided evidence that it was true. I'll admit that it may not be true, because I don't know. And unless you have some evidence that proves it's false, neither do you. |
Do you have any idea of the tyranny that could be accomplished if everyone reasoned this way. If neither of us has conclusive evidence then we fall back on what we do know. And given common sense, that is that Saddam Hussein is unlikely to be a threat to anyone (as the war proved), is unlikely to give weapons to his ideological enemies (what a whopper that was), and was unlikely to ever attack any other country again, given his experience in Kuwait.
quote:
If the joint intelligence committee go to the PM with intelligence reports, and sign the dossier, then if it's wrong, have a go at them. How is the PM meant to know anything about Iraq's programs apart from what the intelligence services tell him? |
He could have gone to a bookstore and read about how useful such weapons actually are. Or he could have used common sense and realized that painting a surrounded country with a rag tag army and no air force as a major threat to world peace, was simply a whopper.
quote:
The only problem I have is if he purposfully put things in their that were not true. Until I see evidence for that, I'll believe in innocent until proven guilty. |
You know, it is good policy to reverse that in the case of politicians. You would get more accurate results.
quote:
I don't want to be sticking up for Blair. I despise the fact he took us to war and I think he did it for the wrong reasons. However, I am not convinced he lied. I have no evidence that there was anything in that dossier that didn't come from the intelligence committee. And until there is some evidence, then we must consider him innocent of that. |
So you don't think he lied?  The whole thing is an enormous whopper. Either they lied, or the intelligence services and himself are complete morons. And given we know they aren't stupid the result follows.
If you were the Prime Minister, and you received a dossier that it turned out was plagiarized in part from someone's schoolwork and contained a number of wild and incongruous claims, would you act like Blair did?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-01-2004 14:34
|