"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 09:42:15 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
IMM wrote:
It's interesting to note, that we have people with views from
across
the political spectrum, and those who feel that Baroness Thatcher
was
equally misbehaved in her day, yet the only person who seems to be
supporting Teflon Tony is yourself. Doesn't that strike you as
a
little odd?

No. It proves the power of the tabloids to influence minds.

Well, I don't read any papers and get all my news from the BBC. And am
a
socialist. But am perfectly aware that on the broader issue of WOMD
Blair
either lied, was very badly advised,

He did not lie. Badly advised by many intelligence depts, maybe. HE did
not
lie or sex up the document.

Well what the hell do you call altering the wording of a perfectly good, if
lacking in the required urgency, document is called then ?
The document was changed, FACT.
These alterations were asked for by those in No. 10, Fact.
If you change a documents wording (by adding or removing words, so that it
then reads completely decently it has been altered to meet your needs, FACT.

HMG might not have told a lie, but nor did he tell the truth either.


or both. The facts of the 'war' only
go to prove this.

H(mostly)RYK ... the whole "45 minutes" issue, followed by the
assignment of blame to the BBC, has diverted attention away from the
key issues: why was the intelligence regarding Iraq's WMDs so wrong,
and/or why was that intelligence incorrectly analyzed, and/or was that
intelligence and its analysis selectively passed on to the government,
and/or did the government chose to emphasize some of the intelligence
available to it and ignore the rest?

This is being addressed by the Yanks. Info was pretty well joint.



And the 'Yanks' have started to admit they got it wrong.