The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
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.
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.
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Either way it is clear that the 45 minute claim was credible, was not
> made up, and was from true intelligence.
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.
Looks like I was overstating it when I said 8 hours, eh Bell? This is kinda funny actually; you spend one post trying to belittle me for stating that someone is bound to say that the Hutton report justifies the war, then you post something saying that the report justifies the intel that justified the war. Predictable, yet still rather satisfying.
>
> The leak? I'd bet on the the BBC...
Course you would Bell; you'd say the BBC ate babies in Iraq....oh, unless you google a link of theirs that backs up one of your theories.
Anyway, it could have been anyone but I'm intrigued; why do you think the BBC would leak a report that is critical of them?
>
> However it is quite interesting that many here chose to comment
> before the full statement by Lord Hutton was read out. Unknown
> Kerneal and Light both clearly based any comments on the Sun's
> reporting and not the acutal findings. But, from what I have just
> heard, it looks like you guys are not the only anti-war people who
> decided to indulge in some creative writing....
Mwah ha ha ha haaaa! A classic Belldandy post;
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...)
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...
>
> Either way it is clear that the 45 minute claim was credible, was not
> made up, and was from true intelligence.
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.
Looks like I was overstating it when I said 8 hours, eh Bell? This is kinda funny actually; you spend one post trying to belittle me for stating that someone is bound to say that the Hutton report justifies the war, then you post something saying that the report justifies the intel that justified the war. Predictable, yet still rather satisfying.
>
> The leak? I'd bet on the the BBC...
Course you would Bell; you'd say the BBC ate babies in Iraq....oh, unless you google a link of theirs that backs up one of your theories.
Anyway, it could have been anyone but I'm intrigued; why do you think the BBC would leak a report that is critical of them?
>
> However it is quite interesting that many here chose to comment
> before the full statement by Lord Hutton was read out. Unknown
> Kerneal and Light both clearly based any comments on the Sun's
> reporting and not the acutal findings. But, from what I have just
> heard, it looks like you guys are not the only anti-war people who
> decided to indulge in some creative writing....
Mwah ha ha ha haaaa! A classic Belldandy post;
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...)
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...
Has Howard said he's sorry for saying Blair lied. He should.
They're debating it now. Blair did his thing and Howard did his, accompanied by cackling and hooting Labour MPs. They behave like a bunch of really unpleasant schoolkids and it really makes me feel a bit sick.
So, Tony was cleared of 'sexing up' anything. It sais, if the Intel was wrong, thats another thing. But, wrong or not, Blair didn't lie. By the way, whens this debate on the report?
Aha! Got it.
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/ (space) content/report/index.htm
300 plus pages. Don't think I'll be reading this at the moment. Work to do.
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/ (space) content/report/index.htm
300 plus pages. Don't think I'll be reading this at the moment. Work to do.
Belldandy wrote:
> On another note, it's quite excellent that the full report is now
> available online for download in pdf format.
Can you post a link? I've tried to find it without any luck.
> On another note, it's quite excellent that the full report is now
> available online for download in pdf format.
Can you post a link? I've tried to find it without any luck.
You guys watching Mr Blair blubbering about it while people go 'yea' in the background?
Light wrote:
> Heh...so how long will it be before we read of someone claiming that
> the Hutton report, despite being about the death of a scientist and
> who's fault that was, is a full vindication of the land grab? I give
> it 8 hours, tops.
Belldandy wrote:
> What he did comment on was the intelligence relating to the
> circumstances leading to Kelly's suicide, and he has not faulted that
> intelligence in the context which the government presented it and
> assembled it.
Does that count?
> Heh...so how long will it be before we read of someone claiming that
> the Hutton report, despite being about the death of a scientist and
> who's fault that was, is a full vindication of the land grab? I give
> it 8 hours, tops.
Belldandy wrote:
> What he did comment on was the intelligence relating to the
> circumstances leading to Kelly's suicide, and he has not faulted that
> intelligence in the context which the government presented it and
> assembled it.
Does that count?
Belldandy wrote:
> But clearly you chose to comment before having heard any of the
> report.
I commented on what was leaked to The Sun last night - that Tony Blair wasn't underhand or duplicitous. Now I've heard the summary and it says exactly the same thing. Still, I do admire your newfound love of commenting only on things you know about.
> But clearly you chose to comment before having heard any of the
> report.
I commented on what was leaked to The Sun last night - that Tony Blair wasn't underhand or duplicitous. Now I've heard the summary and it says exactly the same thing. Still, I do admire your newfound love of commenting only on things you know about.
But clearly you chose to comment before having heard any of the report.
Face facts. Gilligan made false accusations questioning the integrity of the government and the intelligence agencies. These proved to be false and the BBC failed to exercise proper control over him and to properly investigate the government's complaints.
On another note, it's quite excellent that the full report is now available online for download in pdf format.
The fact is that anyone who questions the validity of this enquiry has only to examine the actual report which anyone can access the majority of.
You can say the enquiry has been fixed, but I suspect that similar to Gilligan's allegations you have no proof or ground for reasonable doubt other than it failed to say what you wanted it to say.
Face facts. Gilligan made false accusations questioning the integrity of the government and the intelligence agencies. These proved to be false and the BBC failed to exercise proper control over him and to properly investigate the government's complaints.
On another note, it's quite excellent that the full report is now available online for download in pdf format.
The fact is that anyone who questions the validity of this enquiry has only to examine the actual report which anyone can access the majority of.
You can say the enquiry has been fixed, but I suspect that similar to Gilligan's allegations you have no proof or ground for reasonable doubt other than it failed to say what you wanted it to say.
Page: