Hutton Inquiry: BBC To Get Trashed?

[Solly]

Looks like Tony Blair has performed the great escape..two evasions in two days. And about time, the BBC is about to be criticised for its biased reporting.

Wonder how the leak got out...

[curtsibling]

The BBC will last a lot longer than Phony Tony!

[Solly]

Well that's because the BBC is an organisation and not a mortal human being. Crap point.

The BBC will have to make more changes than Blair, that's pretty likely.

[Urban Ranger]

The report is not out yet.

[Jamski]

Its been leaked to the Sun newspaper though. They say the data was not "improved" before Blair saw it.

-Jam

[MikeH]

No. There've been two leaks now and both have been different so wait and see I think. I think everyone did badly but I can't imagine the government getting off entirely even if Blair does.

[MikeH]

Actually, I take that back, I can imagine the government getting off entirely but I don't think they deserve to. I think the breaking of that story was the right thing to do and it's lucky for them that Kelly is dead.

[East Street Trader]

There is a statement due in the commons to-day. I will be surprised if Blair emerges wholly unscathed (almost whatever the actual report says). It is difficult to reconcile robust statements that you did not authorise disclosure with an acknowledged close involvement with a decision to confirm the person's name if asked. Well, without sounding like a hopelessly slippery character, anyway.

The BBC shilly shallied around so much that it cannot have expected to escape criticism.

One thing I rather hope that the report turns out to do is to start by placing the overwhelnming majority of the responsibility for much of what happened with Mr Kelly. But maybe it is unrealistic to think that likely.

[MikeH]

It's easy to place the blame with him because he can't fight back. Inquiries tend to clear governments, governments wouldn't order them if that wasn't the case.

[Jamski]

Inquiries tend to clear governments, governments wouldn't order them if that wasn't the case.

Good point. I can't remember one inquiry that didn't produce the WANTED result.

-Jam

[Drogue]

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.

[MikeH]

Brilliant bit of smokescreening isn't it.

[East Street Trader]

Whether or not someone can fight back is hardly a test of where responsibility lies.

Of course governments seek to whitewash things. It is also often expedient for them to take the heat out of scandles by creating delay.

And they appoint the inquisitor - sometimes blatantly picking a partizan of their own for the job.

But it does not follow that placing responsibility with persons other than the government is never right.

If you seek enquiries which always blame the government your enquiries will be just as useless as many of those we are so often afflicted with.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Well that's because the BBC is an organisation and not a mortal human being. Crap point.

The BBC will have to make more changes than Blair, that's pretty likely.

Metaphorically speaking, I meant.

The BBC can make or break Blair, and he knows it, old chap.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Jamski
--- the Sun ---

Yeah, then it must be true

[Drogue]

The Sun is crap, but they have got hold of it. They wouldn't print lies when the next day the the whole document will be published. Sure, it's populist and it's opinions are prejudiced and ill-founded, but thsi story is correct.

[East Street Trader]

The UK did not declare war on Iraq (any more than it has declared war on any of the people with whom it has scrapped since 1945).

It has become public knowledge that legal advice was taken on the question of whether sending troops was lawful, but that is not at all the same thing.

Indeed there is no direct legal fetter on the sovereign right of any country to declare war.

There is a reason why no country has done so since the '40s (I am very unclear about the US and Iraq). The reason is an international treaty obligation freely entered into by virtually every state - certainly including the UK and the US - not to be an aggressor. It is self evident that declaring war is aggressive.

Seemingly all those inumerable states who have engaged in armed conflict since the '40s have preferred putting their soldiers into a false legal position (because they cannot plead a state of war as justification for the killing and destruction they perform) than resiling from the treaty.

[curtsibling]

Funny how blowing the hell out of a country without provocation is now known as pre-emptive self-defence.

We all recall the Third Reich and Imperial Japan's pioneering drive of 'pre-emptive self-defence.'

At least in the good old days people had the courage to call it a conquest.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by curtsibling
Funny how blowing the hell out of a country without provocation is now known as pre-emptive self-defence.

We all recall the Third Reich and Imperial Japan's pioneering drive of 'pre-emptive self-defence.'

At least in the good old days people had the courage to call it a conquest.

Well in those days they came to stay and executed thousands who might get in their way. It deserved the name conquest more.

[Agathon]

Well I've been watching it, and it's the typical hatchet job. MikeH is right - inquiries like this tend to produce the wanted result.

The question is now whether the press has the guts to go after Hutton.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Agathon
Well I've been watching it, and it's the typical hatchet job. MikeH is right - inquiries like this tend to produce the wanted result.

The question is now whether the press has the guts to go after Hutton.

Unless he happens to be correct? Maybe the report is correct. Just because you think it was a hatchet job, doesn't mean it didn't get the right answer. As EST said before, the wanted result isn't always the wrong one.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Drogue

Unless he happens to be correct? Maybe the report is correct. Just because you think it was a hatchet job, doesn't mean it didn't get the right answer. As EST said before, the wanted result isn't always the wrong one.

He left out the important bit on WMDs as "outside his terms of reference".

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.

Have you ever been up close to such an inquiry? - I have. The MO is usually to make sure that those who order it weasel out of responsibility. If it's possible to make the conclusions less scathing, they do so.

[Whaleboy]

Blair is a populist, naive sham. I don't need enquires and votes to recognise that fact!

[Agathon]

Actually what's interesting is that the inquiry I mentioned was one that involved Bryan Gould, who, if he had not quit politics and become the vice chancellor of my old university, would now be the PM of Great Britain (he lost out to Smith and quit politics not long before Smith died).

If Blair is anything like him, don't believe a word he says. These guys are masters at getting things done while maintaining plausible deniability. I've seen this happen myself.

[MikeH]

Hutton totally sidestepped what should have been the focus of the report. Brilliant smokescreen. Government has had an inquiry, none of the real questions addressed, and been found innoccent.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MikeH
Hutton totally sidestepped what should have been the focus of the report. Brilliant smokescreen. Government has had an inquiry, none of the real questions addressed, and been found innoccent.

Yep. Now it's up to the media to hold them accountable. Not that they will - although I bet there's a few aggrieved people at the Beeb who will want Blair out.

[Drogue]

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.

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.

[MikeH]

The bbc can't do that. Papers like The Sun were already pro Gov't and anti BBC.

Interesting piece in the Guardian (who can and probably will criticize everyone):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/sto...132624,00.html

[Agathon]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Sikander


Well in those days they came to stay and executed thousands who might get in their way. It deserved the name conquest more.

I don't see the Allies pulling out of any regions that have been seized.

Need I remind you that not every conquest was about killing people...?