Opinions wanted

[lynx]

Manipulating the evidence so as to persuade others of the validity of one's case comes far nearer to lying that getting it wrong.

That's one reason why those who say "look - the other side all agreed too" are deluding themselves. They agreed on the basis of the "evidence" presented to them. Whether they would have disagreed had they seen the raw evidence is a subject for a different debate, but in my book if you twist the truth you can't then claim the support of others based on those distortion's.

So you are saying that they just looked at the evidence from the intelligence agencies and took that on faith, believeing the people who were paid to do that job and were presumably experts in doing it.

Surely that's exactly what the PM did as well.

Or do you think it's the case that the Govt got material from the agencies and manipulated it to garner support from others.

Have you some evidence of this.

Yes, it came out in the Hutton inquiry, but obviously didn't make it into his stifled report. Perhaps you missed it.

The intelligence agencies were concerned about the emphasis and importance that was being placed on uncorroborated information, a fact that was omitted from the published documents presented to Parliament. Do you really believe that the same result would have been forthcoming from a parliamentary vote if such concerns had been expressed? As far as I can see that comes down to misleading parliament, a euphemism for lying.

[JPaul]

So you are saying that they just looked at the evidence from the intelligence agencies and took that on faith, believeing the people who were paid to do that job and were presumably experts in doing it.

Surely that's exactly what the PM did as well.

Or do you think it's the case that the Govt got material from the agencies and manipulated it to garner support from others.

Have you some evidence of this.

Yes, it came out in the Hutton inquiry, but obviously didn't make it into his stifled report. Perhaps you missed it.

The intelligence agencies were concerned about the emphasis and importance that was being placed on uncorroborated information, a fact that was omitted from the published documents presented to Parliament. Do you really believe that the same result would have been forthcoming from a parliamentary vote if such concerns had been expressed? As far as I can see that comes down to misleading parliament, a euphemism for lying.

Sorry to appear obtuse, how could it come out without being in the report. If it wasn't in the report then how did it come out.

And also, who supplied this uncorroborated information. Presumably someone other than the intelligence agencies, if they were concerned about it. I find it bizarre that the Govt sought intelligence other than via it's own intelligence agencies if that's what you are suggesting.

[j2k4]

Don't fuck with my posts; you can't even handle your own.

Agreed and I'll fuck with your posts as I see fit.

I'll remember that, thanks.

[j2k4]

I post a rebuttal of your position, in which you make absolutely no mention of 9/11, and you chastise me for not mentioning it.

Amazing.

My point is "How can you overlook 9/11 as the most significant single event as regards American foreign policy in the past 65 years; it shouldn't even need to be reiterated".

Yours seems to be "Oh, that! Big fuckin' deal...everyone else has suffered terrorist attacks for years, and it's all your fault anyway".

The quality of your rebuttal is questionable into the bargain.

manofstyle-

You're new here, aren't you?

[Busyman™]

Why?

will this give you a hint at all (at all)

No I got that part....but what's the point of that?

[lynx]

I post a rebuttal of your position, in which you make absolutely no mention of 9/11, and you chastise me for not mentioning it.

Amazing.

My point is "How can you overlook 9/11 as the most significant single event as regards American foreign policy in the past 65 years; it shouldn't even need to be reiterated".

Yours seems to be "Oh, that! Big fuckin' deal...everyone else has suffered terrorist attacks for years, and it's all your fault anyway".

The quality of your rebuttal is questionable into the bargain.

manofstyle-

You're new here, aren't you?

I didn't overlook it.

I was responding to your post, and since you didn't see fit to mention it I assumed you didn't think it relevant.

If you'd mentioned it I would probably have pointed out that WRT to Iraq it isn't relevant to the start of that conflict.

And what's more your diversion away from the content of your post isn't going to work. You tried to show common ground, yet the quote you used clearly indicates a yawning gulf between their respective policies.

I suspect you thought no-one would bother to read such a long piece, other than the bits you'd highlighted. Didn't work, did it.

[j2k4]

And what's more your diversion away from the content of your post isn't going to work. You tried to show common ground, yet the quote you used clearly indicates a yawning gulf between their respective policies.

I suspect you thought no-one would bother to read such a long piece, other than the bits you'd highlighted. Didn't work, did it.

Your post made me yawn.

That last sentence is a fast exercise in illogic, isn't it?

[lynx]

Yes, it came out in the Hutton inquiry, but obviously didn't make it into his stifled report. Perhaps you missed it.

The intelligence agencies were concerned about the emphasis and importance that was being placed on uncorroborated information, a fact that was omitted from the published documents presented to Parliament. Do you really believe that the same result would have been forthcoming from a parliamentary vote if such concerns had been expressed? As far as I can see that comes down to misleading parliament, a euphemism for lying.

Sorry to appear obtuse, how could it come out without being in the report. If it wasn't in the report then how did it come out.

And also, who supplied this uncorroborated information. Presumably someone other than the intelligence agencies, if they were concerned about it. I find it bizarre that the Govt sought intelligence other than via it's own intelligence agencies if that's what you are suggesting.

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?

[JPaul]

Sorry to appear obtuse, how could it come out without being in the report. If it wasn't in the report then how did it come out.

And also, who supplied this uncorroborated information. Presumably someone other than the intelligence agencies, if they were concerned about it. I find it bizarre that the Govt sought intelligence other than via it's own intelligence agencies if that's what you are suggesting.

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.

[Busyman™]

There is also the great chance that he wanted certain intelligence before it was reality.

I have heard from many sources (can't remember names) that after 9/11, Bush wanted to turn attention to Iraq soon after before intelligence ever came about.