Maybe so. Note that both pro-war and anti-war partisans are likely to support their POV regardless of who may have been lying. Many of us think the war was a great humanitarian victory and a vital part of wiping out world terrorism. For us, even accurate BBC criticisms of Blair were out of line when they were overdone.
Note that Blair will be judged on his actions as well as on his words. If the war was good, he’s a hero, even if some of his justifications were false or exaggerated. OTOH all the BBC has is words. If their reports were false or exaggerated, then they have failed in their raison d’être.
I truly think that says more about your partisanship than the argument. What do you mean by overdone? The government involved in something that could be our Watergate - should the BBC just ignore it?
Not to me.
Raison d’etre? Hardly. You do know what the BBC is, don’t you? How huge the corporation is? TV, internet, radio. The BBC World Service? BBC drama, comedy, sports, education, light entertainment, documentary, and all the other commissions they sponsor?
If there are legitimate criticisms, they should be levelled at Radio 4’s ‘Today Programme’ news editors, and possibly the BBC governers for standing by its editorial team - if the BBC was incorrect.
december, your bifurcations are dizzying me more quickly than if I had spun round with a mop.
Are you now arguing that for the British government to insert falsehoods into an intelligence document in order to support an invasion without UN authorisation is justified, but the BBC calling Kelly a “senior intelligence official” when he is a senior MoD official with access to intelligence is outright failure and lies???
Bollocks to that. Remember that Blair faced the biggest revolt in the history of his government over the vote for war. The vote was won* because a lot of his MP’s set aside they’re worries about war and evidence because they believed Blair when he said that Iraq was an immediate threat to the UK/US/Europe. He did not talk about humanitarian reasons he talked about WMD’s being weaponised and ready to go in 45min.'s.
There are now questions over what he actually knew when he made these claims. If it’s proved he lied/exaggerated to Parliament about reasons for war he will not be held up as a hero he’ll be fucked out of his job and rightly so.
Blair said on numerous occasions that he’d wanted WMD sorted and he would accept Saddams regime remaining. Nothing Humanitarian with regards to the Iraqis about that I think you will agree.
There is no clear evidence that Saddam was a major player in world terrorism. The western intelligence agencies could find no direct links between Saddam and Al Qaeda, so the evidence that Saddam had WMDs, which could potentially be passed on to terrorists, was the only evidence they had that could link Saddam to terrorism (tenuous as the connection is, with no evidence that he had passed them on or planned to do so). If Saddam had no links to Al Qaeda and no weapons of mass destruction, then he did not pose a terrorist threat. Therefore Blair’s claims that Saddam posed a threat to British national security were false.
Or rather not, as its completely irrelevant. The issue is whether the Government lied in this case, not whether war is ever justified. For the record, it seems to have a been highly successful war with minimal casaulties.
No, of course it doesn’t, or at least not with a meaningful use of the term. If Blair is personally responsible for every death, then he’s also responsible for Iraq’s new democratic future - in other words, in the balance, he seems to be doing well so far.
Yes, I was using myself as an example of a pro-war partisan.
We each have our judgment about how much attention the media ought to devote to various aspects of the war.
This is true, but I think of the BBC as first and foremost a news organization. If the BBC’s news were undependable, but Benny Hill’s childish jokes made us laugh, would that mean that the BBC was OK?
refusal, you may have a point about’s Saddam’s links to al Qaeda not being strong. Still, there were some links, and Saddam celebrated in al Qaeda’s terrorsm, as this billboard from Iraq shows.
Though he started out working for the BBC (He made about 32 shows for them from 1955 - 1968*), “The Benny Hill Show” that we all know and love was produced by Thames Television and broadcast on the ITV network. He made 58 shows for Thames, from 1969 - 1989.
The episodes** of the Benny Hill show in syndication in the US are made up of footage from the Thames shows. So the chances are that if you’ve seen Benny Hill, it wasn’t a BBC show.
*He also did 8 shows for ATV during that period.
No, not “not being strong”, you mean non existent. Even the contrived lies of the US Administration have been disproven.
So let me see, If I, or anyone, draws a picture of George Bush humping OBL and have some US military grunts stand next to it, that makes it, according to this standard, conclusive proof of . . . goodness knows what in sunny Texas.
You have very curious evidential standards, predictable but curious.
There is also the professional opinion of the CIA and others that attacking Hussein mad it MORE likely that Chemical and Biological weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists who will target the US with them.
Let’s see, whose view should I give more weight- december’s or the CIA’s
Well, it is a matter that the CIA are experts in.
But on the other hand december’s view lets me feel better about the deaths in Iraq of US soldiers and Iraqi soldiers and citizens.
What’s more likely to be true vs what makes me feel good about tens of thousands of deaths. Hmmm.
Maybe this should be a Great Debate of it’s own:
Who do you trust more on the issues of international terrorism, decembe or the CIA?
I wonder. CIA reports that they believe Saddam was reconsituting his nuke program and that the biological weapons facilities were in fact weapons facilities are known here as “bullshit.”
Not really. I keep seeing Tenet and his lieutenants having to defend themselves from charges that they provided information when they actually argued against it. (October, Tenet insists that the bogus Niger connection be dropped from a speech. January, it shows back up in the State of the Union with later attribution to the CIA.) It seems to me that most of the claims that the “CIA” said something were mostly lies by the adminstration, not actual claims by the CIA.
The biochemical claims look plausible–although we still seem to have not actually found any weapons made of the stuff that the trailers “might” have been able to produce–including no residue in the trailers.
The nuke story is CYA. There is no firm statement of genuine evidence (which should be easy to produce now that we have the country in hand) and a lot of claims that “we had stuff we’re not telling you about” in spite of the fact that the exact claims that they shot down in October mysteriously made it into the State of the Union. Tenet is a good soldier covering his boss’s butt.
Among the nuke claims that they have released are the totally absurd aluminum tubes. Iraq was not supposed to buy any long-distance weapon parts. It was known at the time of the first Gulf War that Hussein was interested in a super cannon that could reach Israel. The aluminum tubes that were found had the right length for the proposed cannon pieces, had the right interior diameter and wall thickness for the proposed cannon, and were specially coated with the material consistent with the building of the cannon. All three of these specifications required Iraq to spend extra money to obtain these contraband parts. So they then get described as “centrifuge” parts for nuclear processing, despite the fact that Iraq would have had to bore out the specially ordered tubes to a different diameter, scrape off the expensive special coating, and saw the tubes down to a shorter length than the size they had paid for. Iraq admitted that they had bought the tubes for the cannon. The U.S. insisted that they were going to spend extra money to have the wrong sized tubes manufactured with expensive coating that had to be removed in order to smuggle in nuclear parts as contraband objects. If Iraq was smuggling contraband, why not just order the parts they needed? This violates Occams Razor pretty badly. So, while Tenet claims we have “six” bits of nuclear evidence, we are only being shown one bit of bogus evidence. He will need to do better to persuade me.
