Strange Famous

Despite the absolute certaintity that Blair lied about Iraq's ability to strike its enemies with weapons of mass destruction, and that Blair deliberately and wantonly lied to the British people and the House of Commons; and the strong suspicion that Blair was involved in ordering the murder of Dr Kelly by the secret police...

Today Blair is cleared by this crooked sham of an investigation.

We live live in fictitious times, and as Orwell said, in times of universal deciet, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Blair may bribe Hutton to clear him, but all right minded people know he is a liar, a coward, and we he will be suspected of murder until a real inquiry can clear him or find him guilty of that crime. The United Kingdom today stands alone in its shame and indignity, a pathetic sham of a democracy.


Tony Blair, Prime Minister
As leader of the country, Tony Blair had the most to lose, but has been completely exonerated by Lord Hutton.

His report concludes that the principal allegations against the prime minister - that he was involved in persuading intelligence officials to exaggerate the content of their Iraq weapons dossier and that intelligence was inserted by the government knowing it to be wrong or questionable - was "unfounded".

The only question mark Lord Hutton raised in this area was the possibility those in charge of drawing up the dossier could have been "subconsciously influenced" by Mr Blair's desire to have a strongly worded dossier.

But the law lord was satisfied the dossier authors were "concerned to ensure" the contents was consistent with the available intelligence.

The other main question surrounding Mr Blair's conduct was his role in Dr Kelly's name becoming public.

Mr Blair said he took responsibility for decisions leading up to Dr Kelly's exposure as the BBC's source.

Days after Dr Kelly's death, Mr Blair told reporters he did not authorise the "leaking" of his name, asserting it was a different matter to confirm the name "once the name was out there".

Lord Hutton said the government's belief Dr Kelly's name would eventually become public was, in his opinion, "well founded" and that the government would have been charged with a cover up if it had sought to suppress it.

Accordingly, Lord Hutton added, "the issuing of the statement was not part of a dishonourable or underhand or duplicitous strategy to leak Dr Kelly's name covertly in order to assist the government in its battle with the BBC".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/h...ml/default.stm

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Liquor Dealer

LONDON — A judge cleared Prime Minister Tony Blair's administration Wednesday of any direct involvement in the suicide of a government expert on Iraqi weapons, but the BBC came under fire for its reporting of the scandal, prompting its chairman to resign.


The British Broadcasting Corp.'s board of governors said it accepted Gavyn Davies resignation "with great reluctance and regret."

Associated Press


Looks pretty simple to me - The BBC could't put any money where its mouth was. Accusations to the contrary this seems to be the way it was. In spite of the fact that it obviously didn't come out the way you hoped for - it seems to be a done deal at this point.

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

lurkette

Listen, I'm as pissed as the next guy about going to war under false pretenses. But honestly, when you start spewing unsubstantiated conspiracy theories like this you don't do the rest of us on the anti-war side any favors and, frankly, you sound like a lunatic.

This report was very specific in its focus - investigating rather shaky BBC claims that ultimately led to the death of David Kelly by his own hand - and in no way exonerates the British government from responsibility for jumping the gun in interpreting questionable intelligence as justification for going to war in Iraq. But please, if you're going to make up your mind in advance of and in the face of all evidence to the contrary, could you at least not post it here and make the politics board an even more ludicrous place than it already is?

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Charlatan

I agree with Lurkette...

It is most certain that he lied about the missle capabilities of Iraq BUT it doesn't logically follow that he ordered Kelly murdered.

Sure it is possible but without proof it is not reasonable to spread slander.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Strange Famous

Lurkette

How many people have you ever heard of killing themselves by slitting ONE wrist?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Liquor Dealer

Damn! You're right!!! They usually slit all three

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

Arc101

It is no surprise that the judge cleared the government - never has any enquiry headed by a government appointed judge come down hard on the prime minster of the day or those in power. If there was any danger of this, than an enquiry would not have been set up.

lurkette

This is all the evidence you've got?

It might be unusual but it's hardly the basis for a "secret police assassination" conspiracy theory. I can imagine say, slitting your first wrist so deeply that you cut the tendon and can't grasp the knife to slit the second. Sure, you could grab the knife with your teeth or something. But really, this is thin evidence indeed. If anything, it's evidence that there WASN'T an assassination.
Don't you think, if they'd killed him and were trying to make it look like a suicide, they'd have made it look a hell of a lot more convincing and slit both wrists for him?

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

dragon2fire

let me say this now any of you that belived blair and bush last year are blind


i thought he was full of shit back then and he is still full of shit

lurkette

This is really beside the point. Do you have something of substance to contribute to this topic?

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Peetster

The ones that actually want to die. The cut must be parallel to the radius and ulna, assuring ample blood loss and death. A properly executed slice renders the hand useless and it won't be able to cut the other wrist.

People that cut perpendicular to the bones are just crying out for attention. That doesn't mean many of them don't succeed, just that there are more permanent, nonrecoverable ways to take care of the business at hand. Dr. Kelly obviously knew what he was doing.

Ordinarily I strive to stay on-topic. Since the question was posed by the thread originator, I feel it is appropriate to respond to this point.

dragon2fire

as i understand it the point this aritcale is trying to make is o no blair lied to us


all i am saying is duh

seretogis

There is no better way to prove how right you are, than plagiarizing Michael Moore.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Strange Famous

And Eric Blair... who Michael Moore himself was ripping off, which was the point of what I said, wasnt it?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

lurkette

Dude, make some sense, quick.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

nanofever

Think about it, if the government did assassinate him it would of been done by well trained operatives. I'm thinking something like causing a carbon monoxide leak in the house when Kelly was sleeping or something equally dubious. If a group of people who did thing like this for a living did this then no questions would be asked because it would have been perfectly done.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

Lebell

I'm about one more conspiracy post from moving this to Tilted Paranioa.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

nanofever

Tilted Paranoia is actually run by mods who are fincinally backed by the Zionist movement. As we all know the Zionists have long standing ties to both Roswell and the Illuminante. Since the 16th century, the Templars have also supported the creation of a Tilted Paranoia forum as a homeland for the displaced Paranoid. Thus the Paranoid forum is controlled by a whole bunch of people and pirate ghost, Zionists Pirate Ghosts.

Wonder if that is enough conspiracy ?

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

Lebell

No.

If you had been seriously trying you would have found a way to work the Illuminati in there.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

lurkette

He did, he just spelled it wrong

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Lebell

oh, sorry.

I just skimmed it.


Then he missed the Star Chamber and the Masons link.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

mr sticky

How did I get linked to tilted nonsense!?

__________________
The sad thing is... as you get older you come to realize that you don't so much pilot your life, as you just try to hold on, in a screaming, defiant ball of white-knuckle anxious fury

Strange Famous

Anyone who has read Animal Farm could not fail but to draw the connection between the sheep and those who put down and laugh at people when they try to tell the truth.

I don't know that Blair ordered Kelly's murder, but I think, from the available evidence, it is far more likely that Kelly was killed than it was a suicide - we know that he feared for his life once his name was made public.

We know, and everyone knows - that Blair lied about the 45 minutes claim, he knew this was false, but he wanted his dodgy dossier to be sexed up - we know for a fact Blair is a liar.

And now the BBC is being torn apart, by this crooked enquiry - the people in charge of my country are liars, crooks, butchers and dispicable turncoats. How long before we see Lord Hutton getting a lucrative pay off/appointment?

Lurkette - Michael Moore's speech at the Oscars seems to me to be a reference to something George Orwell said:

"When you live in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act"

This seems never so relevant than when looking at Blair the Liar, Blair the crook. The anger I feel at this blatant miscarriage of justice really makes my blood boil; and all the complacent people who just say "oh well, the Hutton inquiry proved Blair was telling the truth, Saddam Hussain had the power to bomb surrey at 45 minutes notice with nerve gas, so of course we had to go to war..." make me so angry and so sad.

We know that Saddam Hussain was a crook and a butcher - and we supported him through his worse times, the UK even tried to sell him components for his nuclear weapons programme - at least America only ever sold him chemical weapons...

The fact is that there were no WMD, Blair knew this, and he lied, lied, lied again and he is laughing at the British people. The BBC who tried to tell the truth are punished for it, and the arrogant government of liars is laughing in our face.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Lebell

No, the only thing we've established, is that you have the opinion that Blair is a liar and a murderer and that there is a large body of evidence that says you are wrong.

Now we are down to the equivalent of,

"I'm right!"

"No you're not!"

"Yes I am!"

"No, you're not!"


So you can play the martyr with your "Animal Farm" reference (and heck, maybe you sincerely feel that way), but from this perspective, if anyone is laughing at you, it's because you are coming across as a conspiracy nut.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

lurkette

Truth != strongly held opinion

If you have evidence, state it. If not, quit blustering about being the lone revolutionary voice for truth when all you have is a bunch of half-baked ideas based on speculation and jumped-to conclusions.

Again, if you have this evidence, please state your sources.

No, we know NOW that the claim was false; we know that the dossier was based on shakey intelligence. There's a huge difference between making a bad decision based on bad evidence and having little interest in waiting for better intelligence, and knowingly lying. Again, unless you have evidence that Blair knew beforehand that the claim was false and deliberately lied, you're making claims that can't be backed up.

Yeah, join the club.

The BBC made as bad a choice as Tony Blair did, going public with information that was not verified to the standard that it should have been. You can't hold them to separate standards.

See above about the definition of "truth."

See, here's where you're putting 2+2 together and getting 47: The Hutton inquiry does not prove that Blair was telling the truth nor does it verify the 45 minute claim - it merely states that he did not insist that the claim be inserted into the dossier knowing beforehand that it was false. If you ask me, it is a much more powerful argument against the war to say that the systems for gathering intelligence in the UK and US are deeply flawed and should be examined, than to blame the entire thing on the duplicity of two powerful men. It's a systemic vs. an episodic argument, and would make much more difference in the long run, holding our governments to a higher standard of evidence-based decision-making, regardless of who is in office.

You assume that simply because I don't buy into your loony toons conspiracy theory that I support Blair and Bush and support the war. Far from it! I think that B&B let us down horribly in relying on sloppy intelligence, not taking the time to verify very serious claims, and ignoring the advice of qualified experts who questioned their judgments. Incompetence is as serious a betrayal as dishonesty as far as I'm concerned. I'm simply saying that your arguments that you've presented so far are based on some kind of fantasy and do more to taint the anti-war argument than a dozen Hutton reports.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Seaver

TRUMAN KILLED ROOSEVELT DAMN IT!

Listen to the facts, open your eyes you sheep! Who dies of old age? He was in a wheelchair, his heart didnt have to work as hard as someone who walks! Truman wanted the bomb, he wanted the power! Oh yeah, dont forget the aliens!

Please dude wake up.

1) No evidence
2) No evidence
3) No evidence

Oh wait... I forgot, you can search in google and find some wells/animal farm quotes, so obviously you're enlightened.

Dragonlich

If the "kangaroo court" had ruled that Blair had indeed murdered the guy, and had indeed lied to us, the judge would have been dismissed as a leftist anti-war moron by the pro-war people.

Now that he hasn't come up on their side, the anti-war people are dismissing him as a right-wing puppet.

If you oppose this report, please provide credible evidence to back your case, as Lord Hutton did. If you can't, then you should at least accept the possibility that you are *wrong*.

Strange Famous

The Hutton report is laughable. We KNOW that Blair lied about the 45 minute claim, the only way he could have believed this if he was a complete idiot and totally uninformed...

Why are the BBC resigning and taking the blame, and not laughing in the face of Hutton?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Seaver

Yes, there IS a possibility that I'm wrong. But the fact of the matter is some really nasty accusations are being thrown with ZERO substance to it.

Like my point about Truman/FDR, anyone who argues against that COULD be wrong.. but any person with 2 connected brain cells knows it holds no water.

Dragonlich

We *know* that Blair might have believed the 45 minute claim to be true. Hell, even doctor Kelly believed that Iraq had WMD's, he just didn't think they could be deployed in 45 minutes (but days/weeks).

We do NOT know that Blair lied. We cannot know that, because we cannot read Blair's mind, nor do we know everything he knows. Therefore, your statement is logically incorrect.

Furthermore, your claim that Blair would be a complete idiot/uninformed if he did believe the 45-minute argument is also incorrect, given (again) the fact that you do not know, nor will ever know, everything that Blair knows. Perhaps he has some really reliable source of info that you'll never hear about. Perhaps he does not, but regardless: you do not *know* anything about this issue - you merely *think* you know.

As far as the BBC is concerned: they claimed that Blair lied, but couldn't back that claim with evidence. Therefore, their reports on this issue are nothing more than hearsay and innuendo. This is hardly responsible journalism, which the BBC is famous for. Therefore, their image as a good, unbiased news source is at stake. *That* is why they take the blame instead of laughing it off - they are supposed to be impartial, and are only supposed to report FACTS.

smooth

One thing we do know:

Whatever information he had, it certainly wasn't reliable, because his claims didn't pan out.

Dragonlich

Do you truly believe that the entire country of Iraq has been fully searched yet? Or that, if the claims are true, Syria would be admitting they are indeed hiding Saddam's WMDs?

We haven't found WMDs *so far*, that's all we know. Sure, it may be getting more and more unlikely that we will find any "smoking guns", but that doesn't mean we *know* they're not there. Just sayin'.

smooth

No, we can say that we now know they couldn't have been launched in 45 minutes, which was the supposed grave threat to my country.

We also know they didn't know exactly or even approximately where they were.

It's also a reasonable assumption that they didn't get carted off into some other country since we would presumably have pretty little bird's eye views of them caravaning around the desert with missile launch systems--like we used to demonstrate the precision of our weapons systems during the last war.

Dragonlich

We do NOT know that, we assume that. It is still possible these weapons were smuggled out at the last minute, or that they simply weren't used in those 45 minutes (for some reason), and are now hidden. Unlikely maybe, but still possible. Hence, you do not know. Sure, the difference between "knowing" and "assuming" in this instance is becoming small, but it becomes very important if you pretend to have "facts" about something.

"They" might certainly have known exactly where these weapons were. The weapons might have been moved prior to invasion; that's not too hard to do with missiles and bombs, especially given Saddam's extensive experience in the field. Again, we don't know, we assume.

Ah, here you say it yourself: you *presume* satellites would have seen them moving around. Well, these satellites are not around all the time, and their movement around the sky is well known. It is not unreasonable to assume a series of secret transports might have taken place during the hours that the satellites were not around.

Also, how would you know if a truck is carrying WMDs or something else without someone on the ground checking it? It is unreasonable to assume Saddam would simply move his scud-launchers around without any camouflage. And we know from experience (Kosovo) that camouflage can be *very* effective against satellites and/or spy planes.

In short: there are plenty of reasons shipments of WMDs may have moved around undetected, which means that your assumption might be wrong, or even unreasonable.

(By the way, the precision of the weapon systems in the last war is probably overrated, just like the precision was overrated in the '91 gulf war. Most precision weapons, GPS-based bombs for example, are very good against static targets, but are pretty useless against moving targets.)

=========================

Now, this thread started with Strange Famous saying:

I think that I can safely assume Strange was way out of line when he claims to have "absolute certainty" about Blair lying. He simply cannot have this certainty, as has been shown.

Regardless of the further direction of this thread, and regardless of how you feel about the whole war, can we at least agree that the initial post was false? Hell, if that was posted in an existing thread, I'd probably consider it trolling.

dragon2fire

that i agree with

smooth

Yeah, we can agree to that, especially since I qualified my statement to not be that expansive. I merely claimed that we only knew their information wasn't reliable--it was this post you started responding to. Now it seems we are talking in circles.

Let me lay out my reasons for why I made the claim:

The first claim by my administration was that Saddam had nuclear weapons and that he could launch them within 45 minutes. We knew where they were and needed to rush in and stop this mad man before he obliterated NYC or LA. That was the original claim.

"Weapons of Mass Destruction" then entered the public lexicon and started to mean everything from nuclear weapons (the original claim to strike fear into every freedom lovin' American) to Saddam laying a huge, greasy fart in the wind (WMD related, & etc.).

I don't understand how you can continue to construe that original claim as even plausible when my administration already has admitted that the evidence that Saddam was trying to purchase enriched uranium was flat out wrong and the only thing they've found in regards to production was a box of pieces buried under some scientist's rose bush--hardly placing such a weapon anywhere near a 45 minute launch window!

Along with that claim came was that Iraq would be a "cakewalk" because, not only would the people love and greet us happily, the informants would pour into our midst once Saddam was gone and tell us where everything was hidden.

Quite the opposite really, the scientists have poured into our midst to explain that whatever evidence they had was actually wrong--they didn't have any nuclear weapons, were decades away from making one, and even the more vague term of WMD wasn't of much value since the stuff they did have was the industrialized world's decades old cast-off shit--not too much of a threat since it was either rotting away, could easily be circumvented by donning a gas mask or walking away, or consisted of the shit Americans and English prolly sprinkle on their eggs each morning for seasoning.

Whatever the case, their was nothing resembling a weapon that could have leveled NYC or LA. Now your (and Bush's) only retort is that the military hasn't searched every last inch of Iraq. Of course, they'll never be able to do that and, even if they magically could, they couldn't possibly exhaust all the places such weapons could have been carted off to (the second fallback response).

Of course, those of us back in reality (as opposed to neo-con fantasy land) realize that the evidence Bush and Blaire were using to make their claims was, at best, unreliable.

Given what I know about human behavior I'm more inclined to believe that they used the evidence, despite what I consider to be good reasoning, because it confirmed their suspicions rather than they blatantly lied. I'd like to know exactly what they knew and the process they went through to determine what they knew so that we can take steps to either punish the people who acted inappropriately (if they did) or create safeguards to minimize the chances of it occurring, which is why I'd like an independent probe into the matter.

I've posted my thoughts on this matter as well as the resaons I feel this way. I'm not going to gain any satisfaction by browbeating you into agreeing with me--so you needn't waste time trying to counter my position.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Lebell

Just a few points of clarification:

WMD's have always meant NBC's (nuclear, biological, chemical). The only change is now it's entered into the everyday lexicon.

My understanding was that the claim was 45 minutes for a WMD (chemical or biological in this case) and that it might or might not have been missiles, and if it were, Israel would be the target. I am not aware of anyone ever saying that Saddam had a missle that could reach the US.

I also understand that we never claimed that Saddam currently had nuclear weapons, but that he was actively pursueing them.
The details may be wrong, but Kay says that there is evidence Saddam did indeed try to start up his nuclear program again in 2000-2002.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!