Viewing Thread:
"Tony Blair "very angry" that Prime Minister leaked Hutton Report"

Well, it looks like he got away with it, anyway.

I don't think anybody is too surprised that a Tony Blair appointee didn't find fault with Tony Blair but, still, it's annoying.

Roll on a proper inquiry into Iraq.

Here is your exact post:
"(nice little Ignatious thing BTW but to little end)"
-------

So, in what way was it a "nice little Ignatious thing BTW" and how was it "to little end"?

Y'see your statement implies that you fully understand what I was saying and why, to the extent that you are able to negate my comment.
Which can only be achieved through complicit understanding of my intent and the context in which the word was used.
Which isn't the avoiding answer you have provided with multiple choice options and the disclaimer that I would dismiss it out of hand and therefore you "can't win".

I've got until the stars burn out to patiently point out the flaws in your half-wit attempts to be sarcastic and flippant.
And, as with "I was wait for it, wrong", I will continue to highlight the fact that rather than say "Yeah, whoops!", you will concoct all manner of replies that would befit a Mission Impossible plot for twists and turns.

Simple question that you *still* haven't answered.
I'll wait because I'm nice like that.

Belldandy wrote:
> Ignatious, well to be honest it could be a number of references and
> the context you use it in means the meaning is vague.

---

Nope, you are avoiding the point of my question. Yet again.
You said "Nice Ignatious line", and I have asked you what *you* think I meant by it in order for you to smugly toss it aside with
"Nice Ignatious line, with little if any relevance" - or words to that effect, I'll pop it so you can be certain.
I didn't ask what I meant by it, I asked what you thought I meant so that you felt compelled to acknowledge it.
In order for you to award it some minor sarcastic relevance, you must have an idea of what it means *to you* when you said that.

So, just so there's no confusion:

What does Belldandy think I mean with my "Ignatious" reference that you felt you had to acknowledge it and then dismiss out of hand?

Belldandy wrote:
> Okay so one person can't find it. Next.
>
> And Anime? You call them cartoons, enough said.
---

"Next"? My dear deluded Bell, I haven't said anything at all about the Hutton enquiry nor your comments about it, so don't try that one on me.
And "enough said", is yet again ducking your original comment, clown.

I'll pop it for you if you like, "As Goatboy is doing with anime" when Light asked you to justify your comments on a subject you were holding forth in detail about (cannabis) but offering nothing but repeated info and banner-headline moronity.

Go down a few and read what I said, and you have clumsily co-opted to give yourself some weight and intelligence:
"Find the post where I discuss anime in any kind of depth"

Really, you *are* floundering aren't you.

Ignatious, well to be honest it could be a number of references and the context you use it in means the meaning is vague. At a guess it is either

1)Dogma reference - the nutty priest
2)Religious reference - doubtful
3)This nutty english guy Ignatious
4)Office reference - never watched the program so that's a guess.

Failing any of the above an obscure pop culture reference which you can share with us all...

Okay so one person can't find it. Next.

And Anime? You call them cartoons, enough said.

Just as soon as you answer my "Ignatious" question and where you get "as Goatboy is doing with anime"

Works both ways chum.

Now, as much as I'd love to respond to Light, I fear that the majority of you would simply skip pass it and mark it down as another one of these customary spats.

So instead I'll keep it short and simple.

Light - no in fact anybody - find me where I say that the Hutton report validates the war. Light says that is what I am saying. So someone please find where I said it.

Come one Light, no more messing around, find where I say it and quote the reply.

I've glanced over the report summary. Seems to pretty much say "BBC - false accusations, tut tut. Blair - good lad, did what you could with what you had, very honest meboy."

Now, I'm not going into whether or not there is any clandestine butt-sucking going on, but I'd say it essentially gives Blair the right to blast everyone who doubted him until someone else comes up with another report.

The unbelievers will likely never be satisfied until a report is released damning Blair for scare-mongering and 'sexing up' every dossier under the sun, while his supporters will revel in anything that clears him, and will doubtless dissmiss anything to the contrary as extremist, lies or simply 'inadmissable as evidence'.

It was inevitable really that the report would, for anyone who didn;t want to see the results it gave, pose only more questions than it presented answers. People just feel too strongly about it, and have convinced themselves of the truth one way or the other, with little room for change.

Belldandy wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Erm...wasn't the Hutton report about how information was released
> about Dr Kelly's death and not the actual War intel? Well my oh my,
> it was.
>
> Quote from actual report


>
> Is that clear enough for you Light?


So hang on; this paragraph;

> The issue whether,if approved by the Joint Intelligence
> Committee and believed by the Government to be reliable,the
> intelligence contained in the dossier was nevertheless unreliable is
> a SEPARATE ISSUE which I consider DOES NOT fall within my terms of
> reference."

Says explicitly that the validity of the war intel is NOT within Hutton's investigative remit, right? And...and you're still saying that it is? Or have I misunderstood. Please do correct me if I have.




>
> Maybe it would have helped if you had listened to it before
> commenting eh? Intelligence was relevant only in the context of the
> allegation made by Gilligan. It is YOU that made the gigantic leap
> from that this report could be used to validate a war just because
> the intelligence in that dossier was proven not to have been faked at
> the time of that dossier.

So let me get this right; you're saying you read the entire Hutton report in an hour are you? You're saying that all of your comments are based on a full reading of the report?

For the record, lets put this right; I was saying that someone was bound to use the report to say "This proves the war was justified". I didn't say it COULD be used; I said someone WOULD TRY and use it. Nothing more. Do you see? If you want to misrepresent what I say in order to try and score points, then knock yourself out dear boy. Christ knows, you need all the help you can get to win an argument.


>
> Only three parties had that report and the opportunity to leak it.
> Downing Street could not because they'd know that any leak would be
> investigated and that if it was traced to them they'd be in severe
> trouble. Downing Street at that point in time already knows that the
> report does not threaten it and actually vindicates it in most
> aspects.

I disagree. Downing Street can quite easily blame the leak on a civil servant of some description. Yes, there will be an investigation. But as this one exhonerated Downing St, why should they fear one?

>
> The Kelly family also had the report. Again they have little reason
> to leak anything because all that Kelly was criticised on, in a minor
> way, was meeting and talking with Gilligan about issues he should not
> have. However Hutton accepted that it is likely that Kelly did not
> intend in advance to talk to Gilligan as he did and that Gilligan's
> notes (of which there were two versions) would not be the record of
> the entire meeting.

Agreed.
>
> Which leaves the BBC. Whilst it is unlikely that an executive
> decision was taken to leak information it is pretty clear from the
> report itself that the BBC has poor controls over its people and what
> they do. A possible motive could be to try and deflect attention away
> from the BBC, or more likely that someone who stands to lose from the
> reports findings but whom feels they were coerced or forced into
> doing something in the chain of events at the BBC leaked it in
> revenge. I do not think money could be a motive as the Sun would have
> to account for the money and the trail would lead to the person.

So why not the apololitical civil service? Plus you've come up with reasons why it couldn't be Downing St or the Kelly's, but you've failed to do the same for the BBC. Knowing your anti-BBC bias over Iraq, it reads more like you've decided it was them and made up the rest afterwards.

>
> Either way the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has been asked to
> investigate so the answer will become apparent in the future. If it
> is not the BBC then I'll admit I am wrong at that point. But right
> now I would wager they are at the very least somehow involved.

Fair enough; I'll not rip into you for giving reasons behind your opinions. I'll just disagree with them. You might want to take note of that.

>
> 1. a few vague attempts to insult other posters based on
> misunderstanding what was actually posted (you'll note I didn't post
> a damn thing until after the report had been made public...as it
> happens, I haven't actually read the Sun today. Or at all for the
> last 3 years...)
>
> Incorrect. You posted at 12:47 about the validity of the report an
> its findings which was quite amazing considering that at that point
> only the Government, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, BBC, Hutton
> and Kelly family even knew the full content of the report. Even if
> you were simply agreeing at 12:47 with unknown kernel who had read
> the Sun you were - by your own admittance because you state you have
> not read the Sun - agreeing with something you had never read nor
> seen.


Hm, I should have been clearer shouldn't I? Okay, fair enough; I was not posting based on the full report. Only the news articles about it. Only a moron of the highest calibre would claim to have read, digested, and then had time to respond to the Hutton report in less than an hour. Which is why I'd like you to clarify something for me; are you saying that you have based all of your posts on this topic on the actual Hutton report?

>
> 2. followed by an implication that anyone disagreeing with him is
> simply making it up.
>
> Unsurprisingly, no evidence is offered for either of these claims.
> What a shock...
>
> It is a simple point.
>
> You alledge the report is not valid - with no proof. I am sure Lord
> Hutton would like this proof that you and few others seem to have.

Uhh, excuse me? Where exactly did I do that? I believe I said....nothing of the sort dear boy. What I said was that (listening carefully?) someone will almost certainly try and use the report to say it validates the war. I didn't say a thing about the validity of the report. If you can find the post where I directly questioned it's validity, let me see it.

In other words, the best case here is that you've misunderstood what I said. It's either that, or you're simply lying again. So which is it?

>
> You link the report to validating the war despite Hutton making
> numerous references that it is in no way possible to do so.
> Intelligence associated with the enquiry was only measured reliable
> in the context that at the time of those events it was credible and
> believed true, not that the same intelligence was actually reliable
> in the context of today and what we now know.

Jesus CHRIST Bell!! Heh; how come you're able to ruin whatever good points you make so effortlessly?

Okay....I SAID that the report will almost certainly be used by some to validate the war, okay? Do you see? Right...now how is my commenting on what I think the report will be used for in some quarters mean that I myself am calling it into question? What logical deductive process led you to this?

>
> You seem unable to make the differentiation Light.

Okay, now I hate to rain on your parade here, but the impact of your sniffy declamation is somewhat ruined by the fact that I did not and have not claimed that the report is invalid in any way. You read something, didn't bother to seek clarification, made an assumption, and based everything after that on your misunderstanding.

In keeping with my promise to Darwock, I'm afraid I won't be responding to any of your responses (should you have the courage to make them) about this post. My apologies for that, but as it's painfully obvious to everyone with 2 eyes and a grasp of the English language that you've screwed up in your deduction and have once again misunderstood someone in a graphic manner, I'm fairly happy to leave it there.

Darwock wrote:
> P.S. Light & Belldandy, do us a favour and shut up now - don't
> turn an interesting discussion into another bickering match between
> you two and your choice of words.

Sorry Darwock; I'm gonna take one more to respond to his claims, THEN I'll leave it. I promise!