Rather than answer questions on his dodgy Iraq dossier, Blair through his spin-doctor Campbell created a fight with the BBC over their reporting of the affair as a diversionary contact.
Then a government advisor was named as a probably source of the leak. The BBC refused to comment, and the man himself denied it.
That man is now dead.
Whatever way you look at it and whatever the cause of death, Blair and Campbell have blood on their hands. They hung this man out to dry in trying to force the BBCs hand. All so that they could divert attention away from their own suspect dealings.
Erm, futile, I dislike Blair as much as the next man…but I’d still like to see a bit more information on what’s happened here before making any judgements.
For example, the current status is:
It seems a bit early just now to immediately leap to your conclusion of blood on Blair’s hands.
Agree with Gary Kumquat. Though subsequent information may well reveal any number of things, it seems premature at this time to arrive at the conclusion that Blair et al. were involved.
Governments have lived through much worse scandals than the original BBC story. I don’t see the incentive for this government to choose to risk all by offing this man. I very much doubt that they had anything to do with this at all.
I think you misunderstand. I doubt that this is anything other than suicide, as his death is the last thing the Government need. The point is he was put in an impossible situation, accused and convicted by the Government without evidence, all in the name of saving certain political careers.
Perhaps it is too early for conclusions. I suppose that there is an outside chance of a tragic accident. But I think we can all join up the dots in this picture.
Suicide is tragic, but it is always the choice of the one who chooses to commit it. I really don’t see why this guy was driven to it. If anything, I would have thought that he could have played off the publicity quite nicely.
Yeah, I just pushed right ahead with deploying troops and starting a war in the BBQ Pit. I’ll have my dossier to justify all this prepared for inspection just as soon as I’ve googled it all off the internet.
kabbes, that assessment of suicide is, IMO, rather (and unnecessarily) harsh. It may seem like the “choice” to you, but to many who try and/or are successful it is often the only visible option (the pain of life outweights the pain of death). Back when I was suicidal, FWIW, I would have taken your assessment as an insult of the highest degree because while it may be literally true that it is my “choice”, the far greater issue is what is causing me (or whoever) to have to even consider it. Five years separated from my last serious (i.e. 6+ months) bout of suicidal thoughts have (fortunately or not) not substantially separated me from being able to revisit those times (i.e. while I am not now suicidal, I can remember how it felt).
I agree with Brutus. The actions are irrelevant to the larger point, which is “pushing ahead with a decision, without having all of the evidence beforehand.” Seems to me that
is making a decision without having all of the evidence (which includes things yet to be discovered). The difference in severities of actions is noted but, as I have already posited in this post, of no consequence to the analogy itself.
You’re right of course. In my defence, I was focussing on this one, specific incident. And in this case, suicide is a “choice” in that if he was suicidal anyway, that can hardly be seen to be the fault of the UK government and if he was not suicidal then… well… I personally would not see the situation as one that is suicide-worthy.
Sorry for any offence though. To anyone who may have read this. I’ve had suicidally depressive friends in the past and it isn’t something I’d ever wish to belittle.
They have now announced that the body found was his and that he was “lying on the ground” about five miles from his house.
My personal feeling is that this will turn out to be a stress related heart attack or similar. He was after all 59 and he must of been under some fairly terrible stress.
However thats just arm waving as at the moment no one but the police know the real truth.
FG - Why is this blood on Blairs hands? Has Gillalind revealed the name of his “source” to the BBC? Has he qualified his source ala “deepthroat” in the Watergate scandal? From what little, I’ve read Kelly said he couldn’t be the source because of the context of his conversation with Gillalind. What I’m trying to say is: What evidence is there of the existence of a source?
Not trying to be argumentative but catch me up to speed if you would.