Opinions wanted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

As I said, you must have missed it.

The information was given in the evidence to the inquiry, I believe the transcripts are available if you care to look. Hutton decided that such information was not relevant to his conclusions hence it is not in his report, although I suppose that technically the transcripts are probably part of his report if you want to be so picky.

I have no idea who supplied the uncorroborated information to the intelligence agencies, and I hardly think it matters. If you think it matters, I suggest you contact Tony Blair and demand full disclosure.

I did not suggest that the Government had gone outside its own intelligence agencies to obtain this information. The point is that the intelligence agencies were concerned that so much emphasis was being placed on the information when they did not have a corroborating source, yet it was presented to parliament as sound irrefutable evidence.

The evidence presented to the Hutton inquiry showed that their were plenty of people, not least the late Dr David Kelly, who believed the information to be unsound. Consequently the format of its presentation deliberately misled parliament. In other words, they lied.

Need I spell it out any further?

---

Spell it out as much as you want mate.

You're basically saying that the information he relied upon came from the intelligence services which were employed to advise him. That's what he based his decisions on.

If there were subsequent enquiries that's really not the point. He could only base his decision on what the intelligence services put in front of him at the time.

---

Are you deliberately missing the point?

The government was given information, but was told it was unreliable.
They told parliament it was sound irrefutable information.
Truth - unreliable. Lie - irrefutable. Simple enough?

The later inquiry is when the the lie became apparent, not the cause of the lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manofstyle

@j2k4 - If you think Bush did not lie, are you saying that Iraq still has WMD's hidden somewhere?

---

Do you see getting something wrong as being the same as telling a lie.

As I understand it, from my own Country, the PM was told by intelligence departments that it was likely there were weapons of mass destruction there. He acted on that.

If they were wrong, which now appears likely, then that does not make him a liar.

Oh and there's absolutely no need for the possessive apostrophe in your post.

---

Wow, you are either very forgiving, or someone has done a good marketing job on you.

You present a very loose standard for what is a lie vs. simply "getting it wrong". Would you still be so forgiving if you lost family to this war?

The American people were flat out lied to about this war from the beginning. There is plenty of evidence of this, I guess you are just choosing not to see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Spell it out as much as you want mate.

You're basically saying that the information he relied upon came from the intelligence services which were employed to advise him. That's what he based his decisions on.

If there were subsequent enquiries that's really not the point. He could only base his decision on what the intelligence services put in front of him at the time.

---

Are you deliberately missing the point?

The government was given information, but was told it was unreliable.
They told parliament it was sound irrefutable information.
Truth - unreliable. Lie - irrefutable. Simple enough?

The later inquiry is when the the lie became apparent, not the cause of the lie.

---

So the intelligence services provided a report, to the Government, saying that their own report was pish.

I don't think so. That's just bunkum.

Intelligence is not the same as information, or are you too stupid to know the difference. Or don't you know what the fuck you are talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Are you deliberately missing the point?

The government was given information, but was told it was unreliable.
They told parliament it was sound irrefutable information.
Truth - unreliable. Lie - irrefutable. Simple enough?

The later inquiry is when the the lie became apparent, not the cause of the lie.

---

So the intelligence services provided a report, to the Government, saying that their own report was pish.

I don't think so. That's just bunkum.

Intelligence is not the same as information, or are you too stupid to know the difference. Or don't you know what the fuck you are talking about.

---

:pinch:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

So the intelligence services provided a report, to the Government, saying that their own report was pish.

I don't think so. That's just bunkum.

Intelligence is not the same as information, or are you too stupid to know the difference. Or don't you know what the fuck you are talking about.

---

:pinch:

---

See you in a couple of days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Are you deliberately missing the point?

The government was given information, but was told it was unreliable.
They told parliament it was sound irrefutable information.
Truth - unreliable. Lie - irrefutable. Simple enough?

The later inquiry is when the the lie became apparent, not the cause of the lie.

---

So the intelligence services provided a report, to the Government, saying that their own report was pish.

I don't think so. That's just bunkum.

Intelligence is not the same as information, or are you too stupid to know the difference. Or don't you know what the fuck you are talking about.

---

No, I didn't say the intellience agencies provided a report saying that their own report was pish.

I said they provided intelligence, with the caveat that the government shouldn't place too much emphasis on it because the information it came from had only one source. All in the one report see. Simple enough for you?

You don't even have to take my word for it. It's common knowledge. Out there in the big wide world. Not hidden from view. If you could master a search engine I'm sure you could find it for yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

So the intelligence services provided a report, to the Government, saying that their own report was pish.

I don't think so. That's just bunkum.

Intelligence is not the same as information, or are you too stupid to know the difference. Or don't you know what the fuck you are talking about.

---

No, I didn't say the intellience agencies provided a report saying that their own report was pish.

I said they provided intelligence, with the caveat that the government shouldn't place too much emphasis on it because the information it came from had only one source. All in the one report see. Simple enough for you?

You don't even have to take my word for it. It's common knowledge. Out there in the big wide world. Not hidden from view. If you could master a search engine I'm sure you could find it for yourself.

---

So your source is the interweb.

Go you.

Please allow me to explain, one last time. Intelligence doesn't have caveats. That's not how it works. Intelligence is not the same as information, a least not within the intelligence community.

The fact that you see the words as interchangeable tells me all I need to know.

Look, if I just say you have an unfeasibly small penis can we just do away with all this fannying about and I'll do the day of moderation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

No, I didn't say the intellience agencies provided a report saying that their own report was pish.

I said they provided intelligence, with the caveat that the government shouldn't place too much emphasis on it because the information it came from had only one source. All in the one report see. Simple enough for you?

You don't even have to take my word for it. It's common knowledge. Out there in the big wide world. Not hidden from view. If you could master a search engine I'm sure you could find it for yourself.

---

So your source is the interweb.

Go you.

Please allow me to explain, one last time. Intelligence doesn't have caveats. That's not how it works. Intelligence is not the same as information, a least not within the intelligence community.

The fact that you see the words as interchangeable tells me all I need to know.

Look, if I just say you have an unfeasibly small penis can we just do away with all this fannying about and I'll do the day of moderation.

---

Twist and squirm all you like, I didn't say my source was the interweb.

Intelligence doesn't have caveats? Are you stupid? Intelligence is all about caveats, otherwise it would be called facts.

I've also never said the words were interchangeable, that's just another of your inventions. If that's all you think you need to know it explains why you can't follow an argument.

If you spent a little more time concentrating on the subject and less time being insulting and trying (and failing miserably) to be what you probably think is funny you might just have a chance of holding your own in this thread. Give it up, find a porn site and hold your own there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Intelligence doesn't have caveats? Are you stupid? Intelligence is all about caveats, otherwise it would be called facts.

---

Did you mean to also say, "...unless the caveat has to do with WMD, in which case it can be discounted on it's face..."? :whistling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Intelligence doesn't have caveats? Are you stupid? Intelligence is all about caveats, otherwise it would be called facts.

---

Did you mean to also say, "...unless the caveat has to do with WMD, in which case it can be discounted on it's face..."? :whistling

---

No, but I can imagine you would want others to believe I would.