The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
So, Blair wasn't telling any lies. I'm just wondering what people think should happen now.
Personally, i think there should be an inquiry(sp?) into the validity of the Intel. Most know i supported the war, and still will, as i feel it was the right thing to do, WMD or not. However, i would like to see if MI6 made a balls up on a collosal scale. Also, i would like to see everybody who doubted Tony Blair's integrity to look at the report and perhaps say sorry. Thoughts?
Personally, i think there should be an inquiry(sp?) into the validity of the Intel. Most know i supported the war, and still will, as i feel it was the right thing to do, WMD or not. However, i would like to see if MI6 made a balls up on a collosal scale. Also, i would like to see everybody who doubted Tony Blair's integrity to look at the report and perhaps say sorry. Thoughts?
Erm, no shades of grey at all. Pretty black and white. The BBC failed to control Gilligan, failed to ensure he could substantiate his allegations - notably these allegations were not "grey" when first made - then failed to investigate properly when the government complained.
Belldandy wrote:
> Erm well Hutton actually adresses that issue as well...and in the
> context of Gilligan's entire report that day sexing up was clearl
> meant in the context of "making up".
Changing 'may have' to 'do have' IS making up, albeit on a fairly small scale.
But of course, there's a limit to the degree of 'making up', where these changes were inevitably built on some factual basis. So again we're back to shades of grey, and from a very small soundbite (it all goes back to one offending sentence by Gilligan, whatever the surrounding context) we can't even pin down the particular shade all that accurately.
> Erm well Hutton actually adresses that issue as well...and in the
> context of Gilligan's entire report that day sexing up was clearl
> meant in the context of "making up".
Changing 'may have' to 'do have' IS making up, albeit on a fairly small scale.
But of course, there's a limit to the degree of 'making up', where these changes were inevitably built on some factual basis. So again we're back to shades of grey, and from a very small soundbite (it all goes back to one offending sentence by Gilligan, whatever the surrounding context) we can't even pin down the particular shade all that accurately.
Darwock wrote:
> Mr. Duck there's more to it than that. They claimed to have solid
> proof that Iraq had WMDs at their disposal. They went to war without
> UN approval based on evidence they wouldn't let anybody see (because
> it jeapordised their intelligence agency staff or something??)
Of course, but that's not really covered by hutton...
> Mr. Duck there's more to it than that. They claimed to have solid
> proof that Iraq had WMDs at their disposal. They went to war without
> UN approval based on evidence they wouldn't let anybody see (because
> it jeapordised their intelligence agency staff or something??)
Of course, but that's not really covered by hutton...
Loquacious Duck wrote:
> Does that constitute 'sexing up' the dossier?
> Well, I'd say that's a matter of opinion.
> As such it's too weak to legitimately accuse the government of
> *dishonesty*, but enough like 'sexing up' for people who think it was
> to state that opinion.
Erm well Hutton actually adresses that issue as well...and in the context of Gilligan's entire report that day sexing up was clearl meant in the context of "making up".
Hutton did not go too far, in fact he has essentially preguessed any possible criticism, such as you point out, and made clear his reasoning. Its just rather obvious a lot of criticism is coming from people who have not read or heard anything other than select soundbytes...
> Does that constitute 'sexing up' the dossier?
> Well, I'd say that's a matter of opinion.
> As such it's too weak to legitimately accuse the government of
> *dishonesty*, but enough like 'sexing up' for people who think it was
> to state that opinion.
Erm well Hutton actually adresses that issue as well...and in the context of Gilligan's entire report that day sexing up was clearl meant in the context of "making up".
Hutton did not go too far, in fact he has essentially preguessed any possible criticism, such as you point out, and made clear his reasoning. Its just rather obvious a lot of criticism is coming from people who have not read or heard anything other than select soundbytes...
Mr. Duck there's more to it than that. They claimed to have solid proof that Iraq had WMDs at their disposal. They went to war without UN approval based on evidence they wouldn't let anybody see (because it jeapordised their intelligence agency staff or something??)
Belldandy wrote:
> Hard to say.
>
> On the one hand an inquiry would put an end once and for all into
> many allegations made about the war and the reasons for it. On the
> other hand we've already seen just on this forum that those making
> the allegations, when not substantiated by an enquiry, simply claim
> the enquiry is invalid.
Sounds like you are claiming to know the results of such an inquiry before it has even been carried out... you wouldn't want to be hypocritical now would you?
> Hard to say.
>
> On the one hand an inquiry would put an end once and for all into
> many allegations made about the war and the reasons for it. On the
> other hand we've already seen just on this forum that those making
> the allegations, when not substantiated by an enquiry, simply claim
> the enquiry is invalid.
Sounds like you are claiming to know the results of such an inquiry before it has even been carried out... you wouldn't want to be hypocritical now would you?
This all seems a little odd to me.
We know, for a fact, that the government sent the original dossier back to the MoD to be re-written so that it made better reading for the public.
We know that re-writing included changing 'may have weapons .... 45 minutes' into 'does have weapons .... 45 minutes'.
Does that constitute 'sexing up' the dossier?
Well, I'd say that's a matter of opinion.
As such it's too weak to legitimately accuse the government of *dishonesty*, but enough like 'sexing up' for people who think it was to state that opinion.
Even so, the BBC probably went a bit too far, but then again so did Hutton.
Am I clutching at straws? I don't think so, that reasoning seems fair enough...
We know, for a fact, that the government sent the original dossier back to the MoD to be re-written so that it made better reading for the public.
We know that re-writing included changing 'may have weapons .... 45 minutes' into 'does have weapons .... 45 minutes'.
Does that constitute 'sexing up' the dossier?
Well, I'd say that's a matter of opinion.
As such it's too weak to legitimately accuse the government of *dishonesty*, but enough like 'sexing up' for people who think it was to state that opinion.
Even so, the BBC probably went a bit too far, but then again so did Hutton.
Am I clutching at straws? I don't think so, that reasoning seems fair enough...
Hard to say.
On the one hand an inquiry would put an end once and for all into many allegations made about the war and the reasons for it. On the other hand we've already seen just on this forum that those making the allegations, when not substantiated by an enquiry, simply claim the enquiry is invalid.
Certainly I think it is important to find out how intelligence about Iraq was gathered and why it seems to have been so wrong, although comments made by Blair today suggest the Iraqi Survery Group have actually uncovered evidence of Iraq pursuing WMD and hiding that pursuance from the world. Even on the question of WMD I don't think there can ever be a real answer because it is a massive country in which to hide stuff and there is no way anyone could monitor the entire country 24/7. With the right information it would be entirely possible to move stuff without any satellite detection.
Finaly, by it's nature, any enquiry into this subject is likely to be heavily classified, and if you have an atmosphere where people don't trust the government in the first place then the enquiry may be a waste of time.
On the one hand an inquiry would put an end once and for all into many allegations made about the war and the reasons for it. On the other hand we've already seen just on this forum that those making the allegations, when not substantiated by an enquiry, simply claim the enquiry is invalid.
Certainly I think it is important to find out how intelligence about Iraq was gathered and why it seems to have been so wrong, although comments made by Blair today suggest the Iraqi Survery Group have actually uncovered evidence of Iraq pursuing WMD and hiding that pursuance from the world. Even on the question of WMD I don't think there can ever be a real answer because it is a massive country in which to hide stuff and there is no way anyone could monitor the entire country 24/7. With the right information it would be entirely possible to move stuff without any satellite detection.
Finaly, by it's nature, any enquiry into this subject is likely to be heavily classified, and if you have an atmosphere where people don't trust the government in the first place then the enquiry may be a waste of time.
So, Blair wasn't telling any lies. I'm just wondering what people think should happen now.
Personally, i think there should be an inquiry(sp?) into the validity of the Intel. Most know i supported the war, and still will, as i feel it was the right thing to do, WMD or not. However, i would like to see if MI6 made a balls up on a collosal scale. Also, i would like to see everybody who doubted Tony Blair's integrity to look at the report and perhaps say sorry. Thoughts?
Personally, i think there should be an inquiry(sp?) into the validity of the Intel. Most know i supported the war, and still will, as i feel it was the right thing to do, WMD or not. However, i would like to see if MI6 made a balls up on a collosal scale. Also, i would like to see everybody who doubted Tony Blair's integrity to look at the report and perhaps say sorry. Thoughts?