The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
http://www.neilswaab.com/comics/wiggles/images/rehab239.jpg
Hits the nail squarely on the head.
Hits the nail squarely on the head.
Page:
Light wrote:
> Wouldn't you also agree that, as I've searched the net for proof of
> what he has said and found none, unless he can provide any sort of
> proof for what he is saying, anyone reading would be justified in
> dismissing what he has said?
I was just trying to be as pragmatic as possible, but that isn't easy. I guess i screwed it up this time.
> Stargate = fantasy
> Iraq Land Grab = reality
>
> C'mon Skarra; that's lazy reasoning and I'm pretty sure you know that
> yourself. When the intel is gonna be used to send people to their
> deaths, don't you think it should be of the highest quality?
I'm not saying it shouldn't be of the highest quality, i'm just saying, as far as the intel community sees it, why should they have to make every piece of intel gathered public.
> Going back to the Hutton enquiry, I've found this;
>
> http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Press/040129.htm
>
>
> Which notes that Hutton cleared the government of the charge of
> 'sexing up' the dossier. I think we're arguing at cross purposes; are
> you saying that this is what the government was cleared of? I'm
> saying that they lied about the intel in the first place, as opposed
> to 'sexing up' (I'm growing to hate that phrase...) the intel.
> However, the site goes on to say;
I'm saying they didn't lie at all. I believe they saw the intel, and it pointed to Iraq having WMD.
> As Lord Hutton himself confirmed, the question as to whether the
> intelligence in the government dossier was unreliable fell outside
> his remit. But during 2002 and 2003, the governments in London and
> Washington spent considerable energy in persuading their publics that
> war was necessary because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But
> no weapons have been found, and President Bush now only speaks of
> "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities".
Yes, he didn't look at the validity of the intel, but, and i quote:-
*Mr Campbell made it clear to Mr Scarlett on behalf of the Prime Minister *that 10 Downing Street wanted the dossier to be worded to make as strong *a case as possible in relation to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's *WMD, and 10 Downing Street made written suggestions to Mr Scarlett as to *changes in the wording of the draft dossier which would strengthen it. *But Mr Campbell recognised, and told Mr Scarlett that 10 Downing Street *recognised, that nothing should be stated in the dossier with which the *intelligence community were not entirely happy.
So, everything there the intel guys were ok with.
> Did the US and UK governments exaggerate the threat? Or were they
> themselves misled by available pre-war intelligence on Iraq's WMD
> capability?
The intel may well have been wrong, but if all the intel pointed to WMD, how could Tony Blair just sit and do nothing?
> BASIC Director Dr Ian Davis said that:
>
> If Lord Hutton had been given a similarly narrow remit to investigate
> the sinking of the Titantic, he would have probably found the deck
> chair attendant culpable, while exonerating the captain for ignoring
> iceberg warnings and the ship owner for the shortfall in lifeboats.
> And no doubt the BBC would have been criticised for misreporting the
> size of the iceberg. It is now time to focus on how the intelligence
> on Iraq's WMD could be so wrong and how to avoid making the same
> mistakes with the next secretive tyrant.
Yes, thats what the new investigation is looking at, the Intel itself. Hutton sais that Downing Street didn't lie, but he doesn't know if they got it wrong. If the Intel was wrong, is that Blairs fault? No, just a screw up at MI6. And as i said a few weeks ago, i'd like to know if they got it wrong.
To sum up if i havn't made my views clear:
I believe the Government didn't lie, just acted on the Inteligence it had.
I believe that if no WMD are found, that doen't mean they wern't there pre-war.
I believe if anybody made a mistake, it was the Inteligence community. Perhaps not even them. There are reports that Saddam himself was lied to by people claiming he had WMD.
I believe that Hutton clears the Government from 'sexing-up' stuff.
And i still, and always will believe action in Iraq was the right thing to do, for other reasons as well as the WMD issue.
> Wouldn't you also agree that, as I've searched the net for proof of
> what he has said and found none, unless he can provide any sort of
> proof for what he is saying, anyone reading would be justified in
> dismissing what he has said?
I was just trying to be as pragmatic as possible, but that isn't easy. I guess i screwed it up this time.
> Stargate = fantasy
> Iraq Land Grab = reality
>
> C'mon Skarra; that's lazy reasoning and I'm pretty sure you know that
> yourself. When the intel is gonna be used to send people to their
> deaths, don't you think it should be of the highest quality?
I'm not saying it shouldn't be of the highest quality, i'm just saying, as far as the intel community sees it, why should they have to make every piece of intel gathered public.
> Going back to the Hutton enquiry, I've found this;
>
> http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Press/040129.htm
>
>
> Which notes that Hutton cleared the government of the charge of
> 'sexing up' the dossier. I think we're arguing at cross purposes; are
> you saying that this is what the government was cleared of? I'm
> saying that they lied about the intel in the first place, as opposed
> to 'sexing up' (I'm growing to hate that phrase...) the intel.
> However, the site goes on to say;
I'm saying they didn't lie at all. I believe they saw the intel, and it pointed to Iraq having WMD.
> As Lord Hutton himself confirmed, the question as to whether the
> intelligence in the government dossier was unreliable fell outside
> his remit. But during 2002 and 2003, the governments in London and
> Washington spent considerable energy in persuading their publics that
> war was necessary because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But
> no weapons have been found, and President Bush now only speaks of
> "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities".
Yes, he didn't look at the validity of the intel, but, and i quote:-
*Mr Campbell made it clear to Mr Scarlett on behalf of the Prime Minister *that 10 Downing Street wanted the dossier to be worded to make as strong *a case as possible in relation to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's *WMD, and 10 Downing Street made written suggestions to Mr Scarlett as to *changes in the wording of the draft dossier which would strengthen it. *But Mr Campbell recognised, and told Mr Scarlett that 10 Downing Street *recognised, that nothing should be stated in the dossier with which the *intelligence community were not entirely happy.
So, everything there the intel guys were ok with.
> Did the US and UK governments exaggerate the threat? Or were they
> themselves misled by available pre-war intelligence on Iraq's WMD
> capability?
The intel may well have been wrong, but if all the intel pointed to WMD, how could Tony Blair just sit and do nothing?
> BASIC Director Dr Ian Davis said that:
>
> If Lord Hutton had been given a similarly narrow remit to investigate
> the sinking of the Titantic, he would have probably found the deck
> chair attendant culpable, while exonerating the captain for ignoring
> iceberg warnings and the ship owner for the shortfall in lifeboats.
> And no doubt the BBC would have been criticised for misreporting the
> size of the iceberg. It is now time to focus on how the intelligence
> on Iraq's WMD could be so wrong and how to avoid making the same
> mistakes with the next secretive tyrant.
Yes, thats what the new investigation is looking at, the Intel itself. Hutton sais that Downing Street didn't lie, but he doesn't know if they got it wrong. If the Intel was wrong, is that Blairs fault? No, just a screw up at MI6. And as i said a few weeks ago, i'd like to know if they got it wrong.
To sum up if i havn't made my views clear:
I believe the Government didn't lie, just acted on the Inteligence it had.
I believe that if no WMD are found, that doen't mean they wern't there pre-war.
I believe if anybody made a mistake, it was the Inteligence community. Perhaps not even them. There are reports that Saddam himself was lied to by people claiming he had WMD.
I believe that Hutton clears the Government from 'sexing-up' stuff.
And i still, and always will believe action in Iraq was the right thing to do, for other reasons as well as the WMD issue.
Skarra wrote:
>
> To be fair to Bell, if he has no links, he may be going of things
> like interviews with top US brass. It stands to reason that they
> wouldn't give away any information on a website.
Okay; firstly, I can't believe you're actually suggesting that Bell would have access to info given by US top brass! I assume you mean that any public interviews wouldn't be on the net. But ask yourself; do you really believe, bearing in mind the opposition to the land grab, that any such comments justifying it wouldn't be put straight onto the net on one of the many pro and anti war sites?
Secondly; if that is the case, and he has no links, why assert the point in the first place? In debate, it's up to the person asserting a point to prove it. Bell repeatedly says "No, you prove that I'm telling the truth". And repeatedly, he's shown to be lying. Would you agree that, at the very best if we assume he's not lying, Bell is simply parroting something which has no real knowledge of? And if not, wouldn't that mean that you're defending his right to make an unsupported statement, defend it as fact, yet refuse to provide any proof?
Wouldn't you also agree that, as I've searched the net for proof of what he has said and found none, unless he can provide any sort of proof for what he is saying, anyone reading would be justified in dismissing what he has said?
>
> And i think we're all forgeting out position. In the big scale of
> things, why do the military/ inteligence agencies have to, not only
> justify themselfs, but then release every piece of intel they
> gathered for public scruitiny, in their eyes anyway. A similar issue
> was addressed on Stargate SG-1 the other week. General Hammond didn't
> want the public to be aware of the goings on inside the SGC, because
> he didn't want the outstanding work his people did to be picked at
> hair by hair by Joe public. The same may be behing the thinking of
> the Intel community.
Stargate = fantasy
Iraq Land Grab = reality
C'mon Skarra; that's lazy reasoning and I'm pretty sure you know that yourself. When the intel is gonna be used to send people to their deaths, don't you think it should be of the highest quality?
Going back to the Hutton enquiry, I've found this;
http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Press/040129.htm
Which notes that Hutton cleared the government of the charge of 'sexing up' the dossier. I think we're arguing at cross purposes; are you saying that this is what the government was cleared of? I'm saying that they lied about the intel in the first place, as opposed to 'sexing up' (I'm growing to hate that phrase...) the intel.
However, the site goes on to say;
As Lord Hutton himself confirmed, the question as to whether the intelligence in the government dossier was unreliable fell outside his remit. But during 2002 and 2003, the governments in London and Washington spent considerable energy in persuading their publics that war was necessary because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But no weapons have been found, and President Bush now only speaks of "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities".
Did the US and UK governments exaggerate the threat? Or were they themselves misled by available pre-war intelligence on Iraq's WMD capability?
BASIC Director Dr Ian Davis said that:
If Lord Hutton had been given a similarly narrow remit to investigate the sinking of the Titantic, he would have probably found the deck chair attendant culpable, while exonerating the captain for ignoring iceberg warnings and the ship owner for the shortfall in lifeboats. And no doubt the BBC would have been criticised for misreporting the size of the iceberg. It is now time to focus on how the intelligence on Iraq's WMD could be so wrong and how to avoid making the same mistakes with the next secretive tyrant.
>
> To be fair to Bell, if he has no links, he may be going of things
> like interviews with top US brass. It stands to reason that they
> wouldn't give away any information on a website.
Okay; firstly, I can't believe you're actually suggesting that Bell would have access to info given by US top brass! I assume you mean that any public interviews wouldn't be on the net. But ask yourself; do you really believe, bearing in mind the opposition to the land grab, that any such comments justifying it wouldn't be put straight onto the net on one of the many pro and anti war sites?
Secondly; if that is the case, and he has no links, why assert the point in the first place? In debate, it's up to the person asserting a point to prove it. Bell repeatedly says "No, you prove that I'm telling the truth". And repeatedly, he's shown to be lying. Would you agree that, at the very best if we assume he's not lying, Bell is simply parroting something which has no real knowledge of? And if not, wouldn't that mean that you're defending his right to make an unsupported statement, defend it as fact, yet refuse to provide any proof?
Wouldn't you also agree that, as I've searched the net for proof of what he has said and found none, unless he can provide any sort of proof for what he is saying, anyone reading would be justified in dismissing what he has said?
>
> And i think we're all forgeting out position. In the big scale of
> things, why do the military/ inteligence agencies have to, not only
> justify themselfs, but then release every piece of intel they
> gathered for public scruitiny, in their eyes anyway. A similar issue
> was addressed on Stargate SG-1 the other week. General Hammond didn't
> want the public to be aware of the goings on inside the SGC, because
> he didn't want the outstanding work his people did to be picked at
> hair by hair by Joe public. The same may be behing the thinking of
> the Intel community.
Stargate = fantasy
Iraq Land Grab = reality
C'mon Skarra; that's lazy reasoning and I'm pretty sure you know that yourself. When the intel is gonna be used to send people to their deaths, don't you think it should be of the highest quality?
Going back to the Hutton enquiry, I've found this;
http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Press/040129.htm
Which notes that Hutton cleared the government of the charge of 'sexing up' the dossier. I think we're arguing at cross purposes; are you saying that this is what the government was cleared of? I'm saying that they lied about the intel in the first place, as opposed to 'sexing up' (I'm growing to hate that phrase...) the intel.
However, the site goes on to say;
As Lord Hutton himself confirmed, the question as to whether the intelligence in the government dossier was unreliable fell outside his remit. But during 2002 and 2003, the governments in London and Washington spent considerable energy in persuading their publics that war was necessary because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But no weapons have been found, and President Bush now only speaks of "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities".
Did the US and UK governments exaggerate the threat? Or were they themselves misled by available pre-war intelligence on Iraq's WMD capability?
BASIC Director Dr Ian Davis said that:
If Lord Hutton had been given a similarly narrow remit to investigate the sinking of the Titantic, he would have probably found the deck chair attendant culpable, while exonerating the captain for ignoring iceberg warnings and the ship owner for the shortfall in lifeboats. And no doubt the BBC would have been criticised for misreporting the size of the iceberg. It is now time to focus on how the intelligence on Iraq's WMD could be so wrong and how to avoid making the same mistakes with the next secretive tyrant.
Light wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Whatever. Could you addess the points I've raised please.
>
> No, you have internet, I assume you have the ability to search for
> information. Go search.
>
>
> Okay. I've searched and found nothing to support what you've said.
> Ergo, you must be lying.
>
> If I'm mistaken and you're telling the truth, could you address the
> points raised yourself please?
To be fair to Bell, if he has no links, he may be going of things like interviews with top US brass. It stands to reason that they wouldn't give away any information on a website.
And i think we're all forgeting out position. In the big scale of things, why do the military/ inteligence agencies have to, not only justify themselfs, but then release every piece of intel they gathered for public scruitiny, in their eyes anyway. A similar issue was addressed on Stargate SG-1 the other week. General Hammond didn't want the public to be aware of the goings on inside the SGC, because he didn't want the outstanding work his people did to be picked at hair by hair by Joe public. The same may be behing the thinking of the Intel community.
> Belldandy wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Whatever. Could you addess the points I've raised please.
>
> No, you have internet, I assume you have the ability to search for
> information. Go search.
>
>
> Okay. I've searched and found nothing to support what you've said.
> Ergo, you must be lying.
>
> If I'm mistaken and you're telling the truth, could you address the
> points raised yourself please?
To be fair to Bell, if he has no links, he may be going of things like interviews with top US brass. It stands to reason that they wouldn't give away any information on a website.
And i think we're all forgeting out position. In the big scale of things, why do the military/ inteligence agencies have to, not only justify themselfs, but then release every piece of intel they gathered for public scruitiny, in their eyes anyway. A similar issue was addressed on Stargate SG-1 the other week. General Hammond didn't want the public to be aware of the goings on inside the SGC, because he didn't want the outstanding work his people did to be picked at hair by hair by Joe public. The same may be behing the thinking of the Intel community.
Belldandy wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Whatever. Could you addess the points I've raised please.
>
> No, you have internet, I assume you have the ability to search for
> information. Go search.
Okay. I've searched and found nothing to support what you've said. Ergo, you must be lying.
If I'm mistaken and you're telling the truth, could you address the points raised yourself please?
> Light wrote:
> Whatever. Could you addess the points I've raised please.
>
> No, you have internet, I assume you have the ability to search for
> information. Go search.
Okay. I've searched and found nothing to support what you've said. Ergo, you must be lying.
If I'm mistaken and you're telling the truth, could you address the points raised yourself please?
Light wrote:
> Okay; 'In the context of the broadcasts'. In other words, the
> broadcast which relied on the supposed words of Dr Kelly. My reading
> of this is that Hutton is saying that the allegation is unfounded
> because Dr Kelly never said those things in the first place.
Our readings are different. I see it as saying the broadcast was wrong, because there wasn't enough to prove that the Government did 'sex-up' the document.
> Secondly, as the Hutton enquiry was only ever set up to investigate
> the death of Dr Kelly, don't you agree that it's extremely unlikely
> that it can be used to say that the Intel was correct? Especially as
> Hutton specifically stated that he was not investigating the intel,
> only the death? And if the Hutton enquiry did clear the government of
> lying, then why has a separate enquiry been set up to investigate
> that intel?
I never said it looked at the Intel, it just looked at if the Government had lied or misled the nation about the intel, and Hutton, in my eyes, sais they didn't. The seperate investigation is, in part, there to see if the Government lied or not, but its primary aim is to see if the Intel was good.
> Okay; 'In the context of the broadcasts'. In other words, the
> broadcast which relied on the supposed words of Dr Kelly. My reading
> of this is that Hutton is saying that the allegation is unfounded
> because Dr Kelly never said those things in the first place.
Our readings are different. I see it as saying the broadcast was wrong, because there wasn't enough to prove that the Government did 'sex-up' the document.
> Secondly, as the Hutton enquiry was only ever set up to investigate
> the death of Dr Kelly, don't you agree that it's extremely unlikely
> that it can be used to say that the Intel was correct? Especially as
> Hutton specifically stated that he was not investigating the intel,
> only the death? And if the Hutton enquiry did clear the government of
> lying, then why has a separate enquiry been set up to investigate
> that intel?
I never said it looked at the Intel, it just looked at if the Government had lied or misled the nation about the intel, and Hutton, in my eyes, sais they didn't. The seperate investigation is, in part, there to see if the Government lied or not, but its primary aim is to see if the Intel was good.
Light wrote:
> Whatever. Could you addess the points I've raised please.
No, you have internet, I assume you have the ability to search for information. Go search.
> Whatever. Could you addess the points I've raised please.
No, you have internet, I assume you have the ability to search for information. Go search.
Skarra wrote:
> This is from the actual report:-
> http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/
>
> >However in the context of the broadcasts in which the
> "sexing-up" >allegation was reported, and having regard
> to the other allegations >reported in those broadcasts I consider
> that the allegation was >unfounded as it would have been
> understood by those who heard the >broadcasts to mean that the
> dossier had been embellished with >intelligence known or believed
> to be false or unreliable, which was not >the case."
Okay; 'In the context of the broadcasts'. In other words, the broadcast which relied on the supposed words of Dr Kelly. My reading of this is that Hutton is saying that the allegation is unfounded because Dr Kelly never said those things in the first place.
>
> >The allegations reported by Mr Gilligan on the BBC Today
> programme on 29 >May 2003 that the Government probably knew that
> the 45 minutes claim was >wrong or questionable before the dossier
> was published and that it was >not inserted in the first draft of
> the dossier because it only came from >one source and the
> intelligence agencies did not really believe it was >necessarily
> true, were unfounded.
>
> I take this to mean that the Government only put intel in that it
> believed reliable, so Hutton does comment on the Government and the
> intel, not the validity of it, granted, but back to Pandaemoniums
> point, Hutton sais that the Government didn't lie.
Secondly, as the Hutton enquiry was only ever set up to investigate the death of Dr Kelly, don't you agree that it's extremely unlikely that it can be used to say that the Intel was correct? Especially as Hutton specifically stated that he was not investigating the intel, only the death? And if the Hutton enquiry did clear the government of lying, then why has a separate enquiry been set up to investigate that intel?
> This is from the actual report:-
> http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/
>
> >However in the context of the broadcasts in which the
> "sexing-up" >allegation was reported, and having regard
> to the other allegations >reported in those broadcasts I consider
> that the allegation was >unfounded as it would have been
> understood by those who heard the >broadcasts to mean that the
> dossier had been embellished with >intelligence known or believed
> to be false or unreliable, which was not >the case."
Okay; 'In the context of the broadcasts'. In other words, the broadcast which relied on the supposed words of Dr Kelly. My reading of this is that Hutton is saying that the allegation is unfounded because Dr Kelly never said those things in the first place.
>
> >The allegations reported by Mr Gilligan on the BBC Today
> programme on 29 >May 2003 that the Government probably knew that
> the 45 minutes claim was >wrong or questionable before the dossier
> was published and that it was >not inserted in the first draft of
> the dossier because it only came from >one source and the
> intelligence agencies did not really believe it was >necessarily
> true, were unfounded.
>
> I take this to mean that the Government only put intel in that it
> believed reliable, so Hutton does comment on the Government and the
> intel, not the validity of it, granted, but back to Pandaemoniums
> point, Hutton sais that the Government didn't lie.
Secondly, as the Hutton enquiry was only ever set up to investigate the death of Dr Kelly, don't you agree that it's extremely unlikely that it can be used to say that the Intel was correct? Especially as Hutton specifically stated that he was not investigating the intel, only the death? And if the Hutton enquiry did clear the government of lying, then why has a separate enquiry been set up to investigate that intel?
Skarra wrote:
> but back to Pandaemoniums
> point, Hutton sais that the Government didn't lie.
Just a quickie to stir the pot as I'm very busy, but where is the *evidence being presented to the public* then?
> but back to Pandaemoniums
> point, Hutton sais that the Government didn't lie.
Just a quickie to stir the pot as I'm very busy, but where is the *evidence being presented to the public* then?
Light wrote:
> No; he said that Gilligan's (and therefore the BBC's) claim that
> Kelly had said the Government had sexed it up was unfounded. He
> didn't pass any comment on the governments evidence itself. Sounds
> picky, but the two are very different things.
This is from the actual report:-
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/ content/rulings/statement280104.htm
>However in the context of the broadcasts in which the "sexing-up" >allegation was reported, and having regard to the other allegations >reported in those broadcasts I consider that the allegation was >unfounded as it would have been understood by those who heard the >broadcasts to mean that the dossier had been embellished with >intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable, which was not >the case."
>The allegations reported by Mr Gilligan on the BBC Today programme on 29 >May 2003 that the Government probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was >wrong or questionable before the dossier was published and that it was >not inserted in the first draft of the dossier because it only came from >one source and the intelligence agencies did not really believe it was >necessarily true, were unfounded.
I take this to mean that the Government only put intel in that it believed reliable, so Hutton does comment on the Government and the intel, not the validity of it, granted, but back to Pandaemoniums point, Hutton sais that the Government didn't lie.
> No; he said that Gilligan's (and therefore the BBC's) claim that
> Kelly had said the Government had sexed it up was unfounded. He
> didn't pass any comment on the governments evidence itself. Sounds
> picky, but the two are very different things.
This is from the actual report:-
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/
>However in the context of the broadcasts in which the "sexing-up" >allegation was reported, and having regard to the other allegations >reported in those broadcasts I consider that the allegation was >unfounded as it would have been understood by those who heard the >broadcasts to mean that the dossier had been embellished with >intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable, which was not >the case."
>The allegations reported by Mr Gilligan on the BBC Today programme on 29 >May 2003 that the Government probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was >wrong or questionable before the dossier was published and that it was >not inserted in the first draft of the dossier because it only came from >one source and the intelligence agencies did not really believe it was >necessarily true, were unfounded.
I take this to mean that the Government only put intel in that it believed reliable, so Hutton does comment on the Government and the intel, not the validity of it, granted, but back to Pandaemoniums point, Hutton sais that the Government didn't lie.
Pesky f**king internet link...
Page: