The Hutton Report

[sun-star]

How does everyone feel about the events of this week in relation to the Hutton Report? Was it fair to criticise the BBC and exonerate the Government of blame? Is it a reasonable outcome or a whitewash? Does it change your opinion of Tony Blair or the BBC, for better or worse? And does anyone despise Alistair Campbell as much as I do?

Sorry to non-Britons who have no idea what I'm on about, and sorry to anyone who's sick of this debate. I'm rather close to being sick of it myself, but I wondered what you all thought

[Lalaith_Elf]

it was all tony blair's fault - okay so maybe the BBC was a little in the wrong, but im still blaming tony blair. HE should be the one to resign after all thats happened this past year - the war in iraq and the death of dr. kelly, just to name to obvious ones.
he has done nothing good for this country and introducing university top-up-fees is just making everything worse.

[jerseydevil]

I know quite a bit about it - but I haven't read the actual report. I know the media is outraged - especially the liberal media. Oh well - haven't had much faith in the BBC for a long time. They never seemed very neutral - especially when it came to the US and Iraq. They were against the war - and that was quite clear. I think the BBC basically got what they deserved.

I did hear that The British trust the government 30% and trust the media only 40%. I think those were the numbers, according to one of the British papers.

[The Gaffer]

I've read extracts of it, but not the entirety.

Basically, Hutton believed everything the Government witnesses said and nothing that the BBC witnesses said. When you look at the evidence he was presented with and the conclusions he drew, they just make no sense.

The BBC was not "anti-war": they asked awkward questions, like "did the Government take the country to war on false pretences?" To my mind:

1) that's the media's job
2) that's a pretty important question to ask, not least in the light of the fact that
3) it turned out that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

But still, that's "liberal media" for you.

It's completely one-sided and a whitewash. Everyone here can see that.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

It seems clear Tony Blair should but won't resign. He laid on the bit about the weapons of mass distraction heavier then the draft dodgers in the White House. Since he's been the head of government in the U. K. for some time I don't see how he can escape blame and censure for either misunderstanding, misinterpreting, or distorting beliefs about Iraq's weapons systems. And like some analysts here have observed, it's true many intelligence services like the French, German, and Israeli, also thought Iraq had some chemical or biological weapons, but they didn't preemptively invade a country at the cost of hundreds of their soldiers lives (mostly U. S. and U.K.) and thousands wounded while allowing Al Qaida entry into Iraq and the Taliban to rebuild and reorganize in Afghanistan.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I did hear that The British trust the government 30% and trust the media only 40%. I think those were the numbers, according to one of the British papers.

Yes - the poll I read had trust in the government at 31% and trust in the BBC at 67%. Hardly a surprise, unfortunately. Someone would have to have been born yesterday to believe anything this government says.

Originally posted by The GafferWhen you look at the evidence he was presented with and the conclusions he drew, they just make no sense.

I agree with this. From reading the evidence to the inquiry, I completely expected the Government to be criticised. I didn't want them to be, because I wish I could believe they had been honest, but it's impossible to maintain that wish in the face of what obviously happened. I don't think it will make much difference though - I would be surprised if anyone says "Well, I thought the government lied but a law lord says not, so I'll change my mind". Blair's still going to suffer for this from the public - probably by an increase in voter apathy, of course.

Pity the BBC had to suffer as well. They only did their job and now they have to submit to the smug, self-righteous reproaches of the Blairites

[Dúnedain]

I still find it funny how your brits bash Blair. Mark my words. History will show that Blair was the best thing that happened to Britain in the past century...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
It seems clear Tony Blair should but won't resign. He laid on the bit about the weapons of mass distraction heavier then the draft dodgers in the White House.

Wait - Europe's golden son Clinton is out of office, so which draft dodger are you talking about? I never heard Clinton described as a draft dodger by Europeans. But he ran and hid in England, while he was safely denouncing the US.

Since he's been the head of government in the U. K. for some time I don't see how he can escape blame and censure for either misunderstanding, misinterpreting, or distorting beliefs about Iraq's weapons systems.

Do you realize the UN intelligence, the Clinton intelligence, and most of the intelligence around the world all said that Iraq had wmd?

And like some analysts here have observed, it's true many intelligence services like the French, German, and Israeli, also thought Iraq had some chemical or biological weapons, but they didn't preemptively invade a country at the cost of hundreds of their soldiers lives (mostly U. S. and U.K.) and thousands wounded while allowing Al Qaida entry into Iraq and the Taliban to rebuild and reorganize in Afghanistan.

NO - with Europe standard pracvtice it to wait until it blows up into a world war.

Can you say how we ALLOWED entry into Iraqw for Al Qaeda or the Taliban to reorganize in Afganistan? I do not think we are "allowing" it.

And yes Gaffer - the BBC is very anti-Bush, anti-war. They had a stake to make Blair look bad.

Sun-star - the poll I saw had belief in the BBC at 40% and it was a British media person who said it. That it seems that the general public does not trust either their media or the government.

Dunedain - don't forget - most of Europe bashed Churchill too when he said that Hitler was a problem and should be taken care of. I guess we could have waited to see if a million people were killed before acting. It seems like Europe doesn't like to learn from history. "let's juyst ignore it - and it'll go away." or "don't make them angry - they'll unleash their wmd". Isn't it amazing that that was used as one of the arguments for NOT going to war - that Hussein would unleash his WMD or nuke Israel - but as long as we left him alone - everything would be fine in the world.

I still find it amazing how Europe had no problem with us going into Bosnia. Melloshevic didn't attack any outside country, he did not have WMD, the UN did not go in there - nor was their ever a vote of approval to go into Bosnia. I wonder why that is? Oh yeah - it's because it was their next door neightbor and France and Germany didn't have hundreds of millions of dollars worth of oil deals, unlike with Iraq. Russia - the only country against us going into Bosnia - did have deals with Meloshivic.

I still support the war and I do not think we shold be getting out of their until security is there. As I said a year go - going into Iraq was more than just about WMD and that was the least of my reason for going in.

[johnnyrod]

Can we attempt to prevent this turning into another Gulf War thread? It should be clear by now that there are very different views on this from each side of the pond.

I think the BBC need to be responsible for what they did, but I don't agree with Blair getting away scot free. He has been good for this country until lately (see Lalaith's post for reasons) but the government should carry this one.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
I still find it funny how your brits bash Blair. Mark my words. History will show that Blair was the best thing that happened to Britain in the past century...

For what reasons?

Funny how you can make comments like that, and yet Europeans aren't allowed to comment on Bush... Interesting. If you don't want us to criticise Bush (which I don't have a problem with), why don't you apply the same standard to yourselves?

Originally posted by jerseydevil
most of Europe bashed Churchill too when he said that Hitler was a problem and should be taken care of. I guess we could have waited to see if a million people were killed before acting. It seems like Europe doesn't like to learn from history.

Your ability to turn complex historical issues into insults is truly outstanding

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by sun-star
Your ability to turn complex historical issues into insults is truly outstanding

LOL.

Well, it's suddenly looking worse for Bliar. Just when he thought he'd got away with it, Bush sticks the knife in by saying "Hell, why weren't there any WMDs? I want an inquiry! After the election."

Bush is pretty secure in this, in that the US discussion was mostly about kicking Saddam's ass (even though WMDs were a large part of the case for ass-kicking, tho let's not go there). This "regime change" argument never cut much ice here in the UK: Bliar sold it to us entirely on the WMD question, so he may yet have to resign if there's an inquiry.

Here's hoping.

[Radagast]

Originally posted by The Gaffer


Here's hoping.

Amen to that.

[LutraMage]

1. The reason most people don't believe the findings of the Hutton Report is because those findings don't appear to sit with the 'evidence' they had been hearing for months before the enquiry ended.

2. Where had this 'evidence' been aired? Er...on the BBC (and ITN which, like all the broadcasters and media, supported the journalists at the heart of the Kelly affair - surprise, surprise, no vested interest there then! ).

3. So for months a biased view was put out by the so called free press, and then a respected man is presented with all the evidence, piece by piece and face-to-face, and he comes to a conclusion based on days and days of such evidence. Yet, we all know better because of the few hours of biased news coverage we had seen or heard on the TV or radio. Way to go on opinion vs knowledge!

For the record, I can't stand Blair and I'd have been delighted if Hutton had found him guilty as hell - but he didn't, so either Hutton is a totally corrupt and biased toady, or he is a genuine and honourable man who had all the evidence before him and came to a considered opinion based on knowledge. I know which I believe.

By the way, when I was young you didn't talk about a Free Press, you talked about a Free and Fair Press - signifying that balanced against the powerful freedom of the media to print what they wanted was the responsibility to do so in a fair and unbiased manner. Nowadays, whilst I often hear so-called journalists championing the Freedom of the Press, I never hear them mentioning a Free and Fair Press - what a surprise!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
LOL.

Well, it's suddenly looking worse for Bliar. Just when he thought he'd got away with it, Bush sticks the knife in by saying "Hell, why weren't there any WMDs? I want an inquiry! After the election."

Sorry - where did you get it was AFTER the election? How long do you think that it will take to do an inquiry? Overnight? our elections are in 6 months - it has taken a two years to do the inquiry on 9/11. Do you really think that an inquiry and just be done like that? The inquiry is going to be starting soon - but won't be finished until after the election. This has nothing to do with Bush - it's just the facts that the inquiry would be impossible to be finished within 6 months.

Also - they only ever said that the inquiry would be completed sometime in 2005. This means that Bush may actually still be in office. But what ever body is really getting at and you included is that it won't affect the election if Bush was guilty of anything. Your hope and the hope of the liberal media is that there is a smoking gun that says Bush lied about the WMD.

There are several reasons why this is completely outrageous and something the liberal media wants to ignore. Before the war - Clinton made a statement on TV saying that under his administration ALL intelligence pointed to the fact that Iraq had WMD. The UN reports said that Iraq had WMD. Most of the intelligence around the world said that Iraq had WMD - even Europe's. Bush was going off of all the reports that everyone else had.

And you are right - for us it wasn't about WMD. So that is why most Americans really don't care too much that nothing was found. We're worrying about trying to get Iraq peace right now.

[Sween]

The problem with the Hutton report is that it managed to completally excusses the government! Now this to me is completally unacceptiable.

The BBC allthought in some ways of been wrong. Well wrong in the way all journalism is wrong they have not been guilty of anything that hasnt been done in the past or is happening this very day by governments and media alike.

This case in my opinion was very irionic in many ways its root was the government sexing up a document to serve there ends and its end was a journalist sexing up a report to suit there ends.

Now the BBC i think has come out of this looking like anyy media group unlike a lot of people i dont believe everything i hear from the media and i certinally dont from the government.

But how the hell did they manage to find the government not guilty on all charges when it was them that released the guys name etc etc.

The fact is that both partys were far from blameless but the report has found the goverment to be this. This for me makes the whole report a joke and makes me suspect the goverment very much

[Dúnedain]

Well here is just another point that needs to be thought about. We aren't even a year from the start of the War last year and the debates and all that. The team that is looking for the WMD's is only composed of 1100 members. Iraq isn't exactly a small country either. Now, just because nothing has been found yet, doesn't mean it's not there. And the converse point can be said as well. But think about this. If Saddam can be found in a hole in the ground that was really found almost by accident. What makes you think WMD's couldn't be stored in the same manner?

[BeardofPants]

Right. Must I mention the Colin Powell report? You know - with all the photos... and 'evidence'... and stuff?

[Tuor of Gondolin]

As to Dunedain's ????? point, still hoping to find weapons of mass distraction, I guess he hasn't heard that Bush's boy in Iraq (the Kay man) says "Everybody was wrong" in thinking Iraq had nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.
___________________________________
As for JerseyDevil's fantasy about the American people not caring that a preemptive war was undertaken under what turned about to be incorrect premises, check the plunging polls on Bush on both the Iraq invasion and Bush II's reelection prospects. Kerry is significantly ahead already! (Guess they'll have to find something else to try to smear a real soldier with since the dreaded "L" word doesn't seem to work anymore). Of course, they've already tried to rip General Clark (just listen to Robert Novak or Tucker Carlson).
How about a Kerry-Clark ticket?

ABB

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
As to Dunedain's ????? point, still hoping to find weapons of mass distraction, I guess he hasn't heard that Bush's boy in Iraq (the Kay man) says "Everybody was wrong" in thinking Iraq had nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.

And apparently you didn't read my whole statement...

LOL, Kerry is a joke, he is the fakest person running for Pres. it's ridiculous...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
As for JerseyDevil's fantasy about the American people not caring that a preemptive war was undertaken under what turned about to be incorrect premises, check the plunging polls on Bush on both the Iraq invasion and Bush II's reelection prospects. Kerry is significantly ahead already! (Guess they'll have to find something else to try to smear a real soldier with since the dreaded "L" word doesn't seem to work anymore). Of course, they've already tried to rip General Clark (just listen to Robert Novak or Tucker Carlson).
How about a Kerry-Clark ticket?

He is not significantly ahead and the debates haven't started yet. A couple of percentage points is NOT significant. That isn't even because of the War - it's because of the economy and most likely the deficit. The war is a non-issue in the campaign - except for trying to bring about peace.

As for my "fantasy about the American people" that isn't a fantasy - most of america didn't support the war because of only the WMD. There was more to the war than the WMD - and the WMD was the minor issue on why I and most Americans supported the war. The prospect of Hussein getting WMD was more dangerous - which would have happened if France and Germany had their way - because they wanted for years for sanctions to be lifted. The people of Iraq were being killed in Iraq AFTER Gulf War I - dipped in acid, having their hands and feet cut off, being tied up and dropped from three story cranes. For people who claim they want peace - it's funny how they are willing to just let the brutalality of Hussein continue. We also needed to bring democracy to the region - if we are going to beat the terrorists. Iraq is the most likely to succeed at having a democracy and most likely would be able to spill over into other countries of the region.

We can't just sit back and let the Middle East fester like it has been.

If something was initially done about Hitler - there wouldn't have been a World War II. Sometimes war is required to keep the long run peace, instead of sticking your head in the ground and hoping things won't blow up.