Clive Summerfield wrote:
And how about this....
"If I am honest about it, there is another reason why I....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Even he cast doubt on what he says!
- Tony Blair 15th Feb 2003


--
Toby.

'One day son, all this will be finished'

In message , IMM
writes
Well Kelly said they can do it in days.

So where are they?

Are you really so stupid. They have the know-how to do it very quickly,
that was certain.

What, build chem, bio or nuclear WMD from scratch?

I don't think so


A great many "experts " were convinced that they existed, Now most of
them are doing an abrupt about turn

Kelly said differently.

We gave them six months notice of
inspection, so they hid/got rid of things.

But the whole country is available to inspect and they have been
searching hard since they invaded

So they got rid before the invasion. or hid them in the desert. Ever been
to a desert?

I have actually, several.

You can't for example, just hide biological weapons in the sand, they
degrade

There is no evidence that he had any fissile material for nuclear
weapons

Tomorrow, I hope to be able to refute the existence of bio, chem and
nuclear capabilities


They still had the know-how
which is the main point, not the hardware.

45 minutes you moron - that's what the man said. That was the basis for
going to war

It was not. read my other post of this. Thicko moron. You lack simple
logic.

I'm not interested in your other posts, the time stated by Bliar was 45
minutes, it's on record for all to see


IMM, when even George Bush is questioning the existence of WMD
(Elections are coming up, of course), it's only blind fools like you
who
repeat ssuch idiotic mantras

It is not me saying that. I only repeat what experts say. Kelly was an
expert who had been to Iraq over 40 times. Bush has distanced himself
from
the intelligence people for political reasons, who furnished him, and the
British, with the findings. He is letting them take a fall. There is no
need for him to do that as the Iraqies had the potential to have WMD
within
days.

The point is that they had the potential to ramp up WMD within days.
Kelly
said so. It is very simple.

"They still have the know-how, which is the main point, not the
hardware" ... in case you've totally lost the plot, it's what you said a
few lines above. Do you have the faintest idea how long it takes to turn
know-how without the hardware into a real WMD - be it bio, chem, or
nuclear. Obviously not since you said "The point is that they had the
potential to ramp up WMD within days"

Kelly said "days". YES DAYS!!!!!!! He said week then days, which mean less
than 7. Are you that thick!

Again, I'm talking about what Bliar said - it was his justification for
going to war


They DID have them, that is for certain. They used them, that is for
certain. They could deploy them within days, that's is for certain.

He had some nerve gas which he had the capabilities to deliver over
short distances. He did not have the delivery systems to do what Bliar
quoted

At the time of these gas attacks, we and the US were supporting him


Where are they? Who knows. They did have them and could deploy them within
days. Then there is point of supporting terrorist groups.

Al qaeda and Saddam were not bedfellows. There is no evidence to suggest
that Iraq have attempted to export or train terrorists.

Maybe you would
think differently of a plane or two smashed into bocks in London.

I think you are referring to Saudis there

You seem to have swallowed hook line and sinker, the story put about as
an excuse to invade Iraq. You don't seem able to separate the WTC
attacks from Saddam Hussein

just come up on the TV - "How Bush and Bliar got it wrong" Saturday Ch4
at 7pm. Watch it, you might learn something

--
geoff

IMM wrote:

Another one in cloud cuckoo land. This is the best government in living
memory.

And just how long is your living memory? about 3 years by the sound of it.

some great anti-social laws, etc, etc.

Yup - "anti-social" sums most of what they do.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes
Well Kelly said they can do it in days.

So where are they?

Are you really so stupid. They have the know-how to do it very quickly,
that was certain.

What, build chem, bio or nuclear WMD from scratch?

I don't think so

They did. It is easy to get the parts from other civilian industries.

A great many "experts " were convinced that they existed, Now most of
them are doing an abrupt about turn

Kelly said differently.

We gave them six months notice of
inspection, so they hid/got rid of things.

But the whole country is available to inspect and they have been
searching hard since they invaded

So they got rid before the invasion. or hid them in the desert. Ever
been
to a desert?

I have actually, several.

Did you look from the window?

You can't for example, just hide biological weapons in the sand, they
degrade

There is no evidence that he had any fissile material for nuclear
weapons

Tomorrow, I hope to be able to refute the existence of bio, chem and
nuclear capabilities

...to be continued. Maxie has a look.

They still had the know-how
which is the main point, not the hardware.

45 minutes you moron - that's what the man said. That was the basis for
going to war

It was not. read my other post of this. Thicko moron. You lack simple
logic.

I'm not interested in your other posts,

You should be. read it.

IMM, when even George Bush is questioning the existence of WMD
(Elections are coming up, of course), it's only blind fools like you
who
repeat ssuch idiotic mantras

It is not me saying that. I only repeat what experts say. Kelly was
an
expert who had been to Iraq over 40 times. Bush has distanced himself
from
the intelligence people for political reasons, who furnished him, and
the
British, with the findings. He is letting them take a fall. There is
no
need for him to do that as the Iraqies had the potential to have WMD
within
days.

The point is that they had the potential to ramp up WMD within days.
Kelly
said so. It is very simple.

"They still have the know-how, which is the main point, not the
hardware" ... in case you've totally lost the plot, it's what you said
a
few lines above. Do you have the faintest idea how long it takes to
turn
know-how without the hardware into a real WMD - be it bio, chem, or
nuclear. Obviously not since you said "The point is that they had the
potential to ramp up WMD within days"

Kelly said "days". YES DAYS!!!!!!! He said week then days, which mean
less
than 7. Are you that thick!

Again, I'm talking about what Bliar said - it was his justification for
going to war

See other post.

They DID have them, that is for certain. They used them, that is for
certain. They could deploy them within days, that's is for certain.

He had some nerve gas which he had the capabilities to deliver over
short distances. He did not have the delivery systems to do what Bliar
quoted

At the time of these gas attacks, we and the US were supporting him

Where are they? Who knows. They did have them and could deploy them
within
days. Then there is point of supporting terrorist groups.

Al qaeda and Saddam were not bedfellows. There is no evidence to suggest
that Iraq have attempted to export or train terrorists.

Maybe you would
think differently of a plane or two smashed into bocks in London.

I think you are referring to Saudis there

You seem to have swallowed hook line and sinker, the story put about as
an excuse to invade Iraq. You don't seem able to separate the WTC
attacks from Saddam Hussein

Saddam was into terror.

just come up on the TV - "How Bush and Bliar got it wrong" Saturday Ch4
at 7pm. Watch it, you might learn something

...keeping looking and tell us when you find them.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

Another one in cloud cuckoo land. This is the best government in living
memory.

And just how long is your living memory? about 3 years by the sound of it.

some great anti-social laws, etc, etc.

Yup - "anti-social" sums most of what they do.

You are in cloud cuckoo land. How old are you? 19?

Capitol wrote:
The big picture is that the BBC report was substantially
correct and 80% of the British people know it!
Absolutely, and nearly every other media organisation had a similar
conclusion.
By charter the BBC can't voice an opinion or take a stance, if Gilligan had
just written his original piece in The Daily Mail none of this would have
happened. A lot of this is down to Alastair Campbell and his ongoing
dispute(s) with the BBC. It seems to jar to hear Tessa Jowell[1] distance
herself by stating that AC's comments were 'just those of a private
individual'

We need a channel like Fox News in the UK, to give

Hopefully you meant like the _inverse_ of Fox News, and it's "yee-hah we
shot up them eee-rah-keys good an' proper" jingoism.

Toby.

[1] Said Britons need lessons in understanding television so they can
differentiate between opinion and fact. "Everyone needs to be able to decode
the way the media works, questioning everything in order to understand
everything"

As minister for public health, she was at the centre of the Ecclestone
affair over tobacco sponsorship of Formula One.

IMM wrote:

You are in cloud cuckoo land. How old are you? 19?

I wish! That way I would be looking forward to starting my business in a
couple of years - at the start off a nice long period of stable tory
government - rather than spending half my time fighting rear guard
actions to fend whatever of this bunch of jokers next big plan is to
screw any type of individual entrepreneurial initiative into the ground.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:01:36 +0000, geoff wrote:

It is not worth debating with idiots.

I think the rest of us are fast coming to that conclusion

One of the lessons I learnt a very long time ago is that when
conversing with idiots, innocent bystanders can have a difficult time
figuring out who is the idiot.

Unfortunately we've either got just one idiot (VZZ - apply ROT13), or
a dozen wannabee idiots. I'd rather believe that we've got just one
idiot

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:19:28 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

And just how long is your living memory? about 3 years by the sound of it.

You are being unbelievably generous!

I tend to think our IMM has the memory retention capability of a
goldfish. Must be real nice getting up each morning in a different
bedroom!

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

IMM wrote:
"PoP" wrote in message

I've been on Sheffield (as was) before it got used for target
practice by the argies. Type 42.

I heard an interesting story back in the days of the Falklands.
Beware matelots tales...

Apparently in the war theatre ships like Sheffield are put on "picket
duty" in front of and to protect the carriers, to pick up and deal
with any incoming. That's why Sheffield was in harms way.

Sheffield was equipped with Sea Wolf missiles.
Sheffield was not. It had Sea Dart.

Blimey IMM gets it right.
Close to HMS Arrow on the fateful day (A Type 21 which had Sea Cat)

Sea Wolf was only on the type 23s.

But the Type 23 was not in the South Atlantic, only on drawing boards.
So nearly right, try Type 22s.
When HMS Sheffield was struck the Type 22 frigates HMS Brilliant and HMS
Broadsword were assisting the carrier HMS Hermes and cvs HMS Invincible,
using the close defence Sea Wolf. HMS Sheffield was 20 miles away. It's Sea
Dart system, unlike the Sea Cat and Sea Wolf systems, was not really a close
defence system, but a high speed high altitude missile & had successfully
taken out Argentinean surveillance aircraft at altitude of almost 40,000
feet. It's beam tracking guidance was not really suited to surface skimming
threats.

Unfortunately when the UK went to war they forgot to inform the
onboard computer systems on Sheffield that Exocet was to be
considered a hostile missile. It's manufactured in France which is
part of the NATO pact. You don't expect your friends to be firing on
you so any Exocet which is in the sky can't be coming your way.

Not true at all. The UK knew all about the limited number of Argentinean
Exocets, down to the serial numbers.
The radar on a Type 42 had less detailed resolution than that of other ships
in the task force.
The Sheffield was operating closer to the coast than most of the task force,
it's radar subject to clutter from the mainland. The ship was not in a full
state of preparedness and it had not had information about the threat passed
on to it from HMS Invincible which had been tracking the incoming aircraft.

Subsequently no further ships were lost to long range Exocet during
the conflict
The Exocet used were short range variants, the HMS Glamorgan seriously
damaged when attacked by them for the third time.


--
Toby.

'One day son, all this will be finished'

IMM wrote:

"PoP" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:46:53 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:


Everyone seems to miss the point - that she lied.

I'm missing the point here. What's the distinguishing feature you are
referring to? All Prime Ministers lie, and Bliar has turned it into a
fine art.


Prove he lied.




Hutton already has. Its there in teh evidence. It was just missed out
from the conclusions thats all. He didn't lie MICH about his
responsibility for letting Kelly get outed. Any more han teh Nazi party
lied MUCH about letting thousands of jews homes get trashed.

later on they just went ahead and did what they wanted anyway, under the
gusie of 'we are at war, and they are a threat to national security'.

They were socialists too.

IMM wrote:

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"PoP" wrote in message
. ..

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:46:53 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:


Everyone seems to miss the point - that she lied.

I'm missing the point here. What's the distinguishing feature you are
referring to? All Prime Ministers lie, and Bliar has turned it into a
fine art.

The only distinguishing feature that I can see is that Thatcher lied

during

a campaign to liberate sovereign territory from an invading hostile

country.

On the other hand, Blair lied as part of justification to conduct an
invasion of sovereign territory.


NO. 1 HE DIDN'T LIE!!! He went into Iraq to make the world a safer place.


Debatable.


If the other lot were in power they would have done just the same. They
were all for it before the conflict.



That's not the point. The pint being there wasn't enough of a case to go
to war ON THE BASIS HE CLAIMED, and he knew it, and lied to make it happen.

Its not the war we are discussing, its the sleaziness of Tony Bliar and
his way of making decisions for reasons of his own, and using Campbell
to sell them to the public at large.

WE don't happen to think that is democratic. one of the features of a
democracy is that government is strengthened and safeguarded by
decisions being taken by a consensus of ministers. If they are
deliberately fed false and misleading information by one person and a
coterie of chums, then it makes a mockery of the cabinet and system of
government.


Tony is at heart not a democrat. He is at heart a dictator. That's what
we are seeing.

Clive Summerfield wrote:

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...

In message , Dave Plowman
writes

In article ,
BillR wrote:

True. Think it really started with the Thatcher woman lying through
her teeth about the sinking of the Belgrano.

I hated Thatcher but that sinking was correct.. alls fair in war.
Why would she have to explain it? we were at war, it was a warship so

we

sank it... whats the problem?

Everyone seems to miss the point - that she lied.


And history seems to be repeating itself

There was no inquiry to Thatcher's lies. Blair commissioned an inquiry,

he

did not have too, and was proven above board.



Blair commissioned an inquiry on a very narrow remit, that did not address
the fundamental issues, but was instead intended to divert attention away
from the more critical subjects. Very successfully I may add.


The other lot are poor losers. This government is the best we have had in
living memory. The opposition have to grasp on straws to try and

discredit

them. It is laughable to watch them.



Nah, my Dad (74 years old) can remember many better governments than this
shambolic bunch of chronic underachievers. The most damning thing about this
government is that in spite of all the good will from the country; in spite
of the favourable economic climate; in spite of an overwhelming
parliamentary majority, they have failed abysmally to deliver on any of the
major policy areas.

Democratic reform - Jenkins report shoved on the shelf, reform of the Lords
badly botched
Transport policy - no discernable policy
Welfare - no reform, still a spiraling burden on the state
Health - total number of admin and managerial staff up, number of beds down
Education - speaking as a school governor I can state with confidence that
staff spend more time on out of the classroom on admin and DfES number
crunching than they did 8 years ago. And our standards are maintained in
spite of the LEA.
Crime - well, more people are being criminalised than ever before.
Unfortunately most of them are motorists who have no alternative to driving
(see Transport policy above). Locally we have few policeman than 8 years
ago. And they spend more time on admin and paperwork than before.
Taxation - up, massively.
Business - good for business if you happen to be a large multinational with
an unhealthy focus on off-shore outsourcing
etc
etc
etc

I damn this government for doing so little, and doing it so badly.



Oh come on, they have NEARLY banned FOXHUNTING!!!!
I measn, what could be more important and signifcant than that?!!!



Now on with life as a silly sideshow closes down.



Unless of course you're a member of the armed forces fighting in Iraq. In
which case I guess "Now on with death..." would be more appropriate.



There are always people who have invested too much prayers in an idol to
see the clay feet poking under the trouser legs...


Cheers
Clive

Clive Summerfield wrote:

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"PoP" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:46:53 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:


Everyone seems to miss the point - that she lied.

I'm missing the point here. What's the distinguishing feature you are
referring to? All Prime Ministers lie, and Bliar has turned it into a
fine art.

The only distinguishing feature that I can see is that Thatcher lied

during

a campaign to liberate sovereign territory from an invading hostile

country.

On the other hand, Blair lied as part of justification to conduct an
invasion of sovereign territory.

NO. 1 HE DIDN'T LIE!!! He went into Iraq to make the world a safer place.
If the other lot were in power they would have done just the same. They
were all for it before the conflict.



You poor delusional soul. He went in to Iraq because he believed it was his
moral duty to free the Iraqis from their oppressive leadership.



********.

He went to war because it suited his enormous vanity - to be a World
Staresman not a slick marketing type in charge of a bunch of
incompetents who only got to power because the Tores were so busy
fohting amongst themselves and riding teh gravy train that the countr
was sick of em. AND because he hadn't the courage to admit to anoher
weak vain stupid deluded man - GWB - that he had not got ultimate
authority in the UK.


If he was so keen on democracy and freedom, he would have done more to
introduce it in the UK.



Storming
into an unstable region all guns blazing is not a coherent policy towards
peace. You are aware of the origins of Al Qaeda aren't you? Quite possibly
Blair also joined with the US in a gesture of solidarity, attempting to gain
favour with George W. Bush's administration. However, if that was a
motivating factor, then I'm quite sure that TB managed to convince himself
that it wasn't. The lie was to place undue emphasis on Saddam's WMD in an
effort to swing the Labour Party behind him.

And as for IDS, well I wouldn't trust him to sit the right way on a lavatory
seat.



IDS is actally IMHO a better man. Just not smart enoh to win elections
and control his party.


Cheers
Clive

IMM wrote:


Nah, my Dad (74 years old) can remember
many better governments than this
shambolic bunch of chronic underachievers.


Name me one? Wison's in the 1960s wasn't too bad.


It was Wilson actually. It was a shamles. He managed to avoid the
inevitable union confrontation, and weaselled his way thorough this and
that. As a result of his taxation regime, anyone with half a brain and
any ambition left the country. Most never came back. The damage to
britains industry was immense, the unions finished the job and Thatcher
adminstered the death blow.

I remember the stock joke of the period (The M1 had just been built)

Two surgeons overheard in Milton Keynes

"Amazing what modern surgery can do, I got a couple of legs and arms,
off the M1, stitched em together and now its a jazz pianist"
"That's nothing mate, Our crew found no more than a piece of ****, and a
bit of a pipe, I sewed em together, and now it's prime minster"

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 01:32:12 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:29:32 -0000, "IMM" wrote:



Anything can be proved by setting terms of reference and asking
selective questions. You simply leave out anything you don't want to
hear.

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.

It certainly does......
..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:19:48 +0000, PoP wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 02:19:28 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

And just how long is your living memory? about 3 years by the sound of it.

You are being unbelievably generous!

I tend to think our IMM has the memory retention capability of a
goldfish. Must be real nice getting up each morning in a different
bedroom!


Research has it that that is about 8 seconds.........

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Jerry.
writes
snip

As I type this, it would appear (according to reports) that even Pres'
Bush
is now doubting the Intel' and if there are any / actual / WMD's.

I think that the word you were looking for is "electioneering"


Quite possibly, but Bush could also be seeing the writing on the wall (you
can't just ignore people like Mr Kay and what he is in effect saying) and
has know decided to try and regain / some / control over the 'spin' machine.
Something our own Mr Blair should seriously consider, as other have said
(like Mr Cook MP), he just needs to accept that he and his government might
have been wrong but they believed what they said was true at the time (even
if it wasn't IYSWIM) - most people would have accepted it, I have my doubts
now though...

It's Blair's attitude more than the issue, he is failing into the trap
Thatcher feel into, the 'I'm right - don't question / my / judgment'
attitude, and I can see the Blair suffering same fate in the end.

Its patently obvious what happened.

(i) Tony and GWB decide, fr reasons as yet unclear, to have a war.
(ii) Tony realises there are thin grounds, and not enough to persuade
the laber Party. Or the UN. Full of peaceniks ever since CND.
(iii) There is therefore a need to prodce a compelling document.
(iv) a reviw of intelligence material and other garbage is put togeher,
and Campbell is put in the process to make sure its polished.
(v) it isn't strong enough, so a few words are changed to completely
change the meaning of the document from 'potential, possible threat' to
'real actual threat'. Tony is a lawyer. T estrongest legal defence for
war is an imminment and present danger to national security. Hey presto,
we have one. Regime change and freeing opressed peoles is what the Nazis
did in the Sudetenland, allegedly. Not now considered adequate excuse.
Nr is UN mandates ten yera old with very imprecise wording.

(vi) Kelly, and probably others, know this is balls. He has been there,
and he knows what the size of the threat is better than anyone. Kelly
makes his reports internally, they are brushed aside as 'not being the
sort of thing the PM wants to hear old boy' 'Campbell is driving this
one, and he won't want your input'.

(vii) Kelley is ****ed off and many of his chums are ****ed off. He
decides to have a few quiet chats with some press chums.

(viii) Unfortunately, one of them is Gilligan, who is clever, hates
Campbell, and has rather few morals. Gilligaan gets more out of Kelly
than Kelly wanted to say, including the one fatal slip - he mutters
'Campbell' under his breath: Now Kelly merely wanted to indicate that
the document was not in accord with the views of many in Intelligence,
and seems to be being subverted by political processes...

(ix) But Gilligan has an axe to grind, he adds two and two together and
makes five, and claims that inside sources have told him that the
government, in the shape of Campbell, has sexed up the dossier. IN ORDER
TO MISLEAD PARLIAMENT AND THE PUBLIC. This is stupid, Never put in words
that the average smart person can work out for himself...see later, viz
'Hutton report'..for the smart way to shop a PM..

(x) Campbell, and government, caught in the headlights of the incoming
express train, panic and deny everytthing. So far its only an 'unknown
single source'....

(xi) It becomes pretty clear its Kelly. The MOD leans on him VERY hard.
First of all he is in breach of contract, possibly in breach of official
secrets act, and he is going to be cast to the Wolves. His only chance
is to deny that he ever mentioned Campbell, and hope like hell that
Gilligan will retract and take some of the blame, and hope the
conversation was not recorded. He is lucky. Gilligan is not that
efficient, and it isn't. But he is unlucky also. Gilligan stcks to his
guns, and with hindsight rather stupidly, he is backed up not only for
hi srifght to publish but also (key piunt) in teh veracity of his story,
by Greg Dyke. Bad mistake Greg. If th Beeb had said 'w stand by iur
roght to publish single sorce alleagtins, tho we make no claim as to
their accuracy' all would have been well...but the Beeb smells the fear
sweating out of time and Campbell...and close for the kill. It IS true
of course, but can it be proved to be... ?

(xii) Kelley is now in terrible position. Because the Honor of The
Blair is impugned, as well as that of Campbell Chief Rat, this is
turning into a bitch of a fight, and he is right in the ruddy middle.
His name comes out (after he is promised that it won't, as a payment for
coming forward) his job, salary and pension are on the line, and he is
advised to lie to the committee investigation and deny he ever mentioned
Campbell. Because if the whole story comes out, not only are Campbell
and Blair in the dock for tampering with evidence, but so are his bosses
and the whole of the JIC. They are all compromised.

(xiii) Kelley is totally distraught. His career is over, he may face
criminal charges under the official secrets act, he has learnt to his
cost that blowing the whistle in the public interest nearly always loses
you your job (happened to a friend of mine - another story tho)..he says
tha 'I never told him that' but leaves out 'but frankly he got it 99%
right because he is a sharper cookie than I expected, and a damn sight
less scrupuois as well'

(xiv) Kelley writes a letter and tops himself.c With luck, his wife will
still get her pension, and he won't go to prison.

(xv) The heat is now really on, and desperate things are being done at
all levels in the JIC/MOD and in government to cover up the ghastly
mess. Kellys letter vanishes never to be seen again. A carefully
specified enquiry is set up to establish the innocence of the prime
minister in the one thing he was probably fairly innocent of - the
actual outing of Kelly. OK he was chairaman of a meeting where it was
decided that they wouldn't actually out him, but would tell the press
more than enough to guess at the three or four possible suspects, and
confirm any guesses they might make. That is sufficient to maintain a
position of 'credible deniability'- Our Tone never actually said 'out
him' merely sat there, and didn't stop it when he had the power too. He
IS a lawyer, after all..passive inaction is harder to prove than
positive action..

(xvi) Hutton is chosen because he can be relied upon to support the
forces of the establishment - he always has in the past. Unfailingly.

(xvii) Hutton tho, is a bit peeved, he decides to gather in all the
evidence anyway, and present it in detail, and then come to the 'right
decision' on Campbell and Bliars direct involvement in Kellys death
(negligible proved) but leave out any reference in his conclusions as to
their responsbility in the process that put a couple of dodgy dossiers
up for public consumption and put such intense pressure on an honest man
to reveal the inner workings of that process to a journalist. His
reasons for so doing may be simpl to have a quiet life, or maybe there
was wicked sense of dry humour in there - he knows a whitewash will
inflame public opinion more than a balanced judgement ...

(xviii) In order to do that he needs to take a swipe at the BBC. Maybe
they haven't been kind to him in the past - Bloody Sunday etc etc.

So there you have it. The real facts behind the news. Based on what? On
years of dealing in boardooms with sleazy people like the Campbells and
Blairs, with corporate politics, and with the likes of Kelly, and
Gilligan. Plus the evidence of Hutton. I have seen the most
extraordinary decisions made by managing directors, and upheld by
boards, simply due to pressures being applied. I know of one MD who has
sacked, or forced the resignation of, no less than four directors (on
after another at decent intervals) and countless staff, who disagreed
with what turned out to be a disastrous policy. It happens every day.
The natural response of a weak leader is to oversell his ideas, get
consensus, pass the job along to someone dispensable, and sack them when
it blows up.

The ONLY people to come out with any semblance of dignity are the BBC,
and Kelly. Because they have resigned (permamently, in Kellys case). For
the good of the BBC (or his family, in Kellys case), not because they
were anywhere near as guilty. They are the ones showing real public
responsibility - the BBC (and in Kellys case public interest and his
family as well) is more important than their jobs.

NOTHING is more important then Tonys job, to Tony. Even Campbell had to
go...quietly, well in advance of any report, in case it was
negative..and if things turn out right, he will be back for sure. He is
too useful, but becamne a liability - if the balance swings back,...


I hope that clarifies things. That is not a legal conclusin borne out
ofcarefl examinatin of teh undenianle evidence. That is a sane
assessment of the evidence, interpolated with most probable motives and
actions by thiose involved.

In short, I think it probably represents what most of the people who
have really thought the thing through, roughly feel happened.

Capitol wrote:

IMM wrote in message ...

Stop tabloiding. Look at the "big picture"



The big picture is that the BBC report was substantially correct and 80% of
the British people know it! The government machine was determined to present
a case for war and the words were manipulated to make that case. Even the
world press is amazed at the bias in the Hutton conclusions. Go and look it
up. In the normal British master/slave culture, the messengers bearing bad
news have been shot! I believe that it was High Cudlipp of the old Daily
Mirror who coined the phrase "publish and be damned". I still believe that's
the correct response. We need a channel like Fox News in the UK, to give
some teeth to our TV channels. Maybe channel 4 is going in the correct
direction.

Bliar should resign as the head of a government which operated in this
unprincipled manner. IMO he is not fit to govern.



He never was.

And now the whole world knows it. Hutton has damned him with faint praise.

He is the laughing stock of the world.

Now even that bitch Condoleeza Rice, is starting to run with the
hares...the cracks are appering in the Bush adminsitration, but they are
being very careful not to impugn the integrity of the President, its all
carefully worded 'intelligence failures' and so on...but if they get to
dig deeper, they will find, as we have, the failure was not with the
intelligence, but with those who chose to selectively adjust its meaning
so suit a course of action they were already embarked upon....




Regards
Capitol

geoff wrote:


"They still have the know-how, which is the main point, not the
hardware" ... in case you've totally lost the plot, it's what you said a
few lines above. Do you have the faintest idea how long it takes to turn
know-how without the hardware into a real WMD - be it bio, chem, or
nuclear. Obviously not since you said "The point is that they had the
potential to ramp up WMD within days"


I have the know how to produce Ricin, an Atomic bomb, and a long range
missile.

The development programs to actally do it would take me years, and
millons (apart from Ricin, which anyone with an ounce of chemical
engineering can cook up in a kitchen). The plant required to do it and
the materials , however, could not fail to show up on anyones security
radar.

The yanks were fooled, or chose to be fooled, by Saddans posturing. When
the real experts knew - and even I knew - that what was claimed -
esentially biological weapons with delivery systems of over 3000 miles -
was absolutely impossible. The best SCUDS Saddam had could barely make
Israel. They were destroyed. To acquire and set up more and better is a
massive exercise on a country that had been bombed back to the middle ages.

One of the benefits of a snotty uni engineering course is that you have
a fairly good idea of what can be done and what cannot. What was
proposed by Bliar AS FACT was patently impossible.


I knew it then and It is confirmed now. I had expected a few small scale
labs cooking up sample quantities of nasties, maybe even a few shells
with nerve gas. Even that has not been found. Just a few places where
peope were making token efforts in order to get funding r to keep in wth
the Baath party.



your maths just doesn't add up

Toby wrote:

Capitol wrote:

The big picture is that the BBC report was substantially
correct and 80% of the British people know it!

Absolutely, and nearly every other media organisation had a similar
conclusion.
By charter the BBC can't voice an opinion or take a stance, if Gilligan had
just written his original piece in The Daily Mail none of this would have
happened. A lot of this is down to Alastair Campbell and his ongoing
dispute(s) with the BBC. It seems to jar to hear Tessa Jowell[1] distance
herself by stating that AC's comments were 'just those of a private
individual'


We need a channel like Fox News in the UK, to give


Hopefully you meant like the _inverse_ of Fox News, and it's "yee-hah we
shot up them eee-rah-keys good an' proper" jingoism.



Yeah, They can't even tell a towel head from a sand ****** on fox news,
allegedly...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

But no weapons, never mind if they could have used within 45
minutes...

He did find... WMD-related activities,

Stop tabloiding. Look at the "big picture"

As I said..."Stop tabloiding. Look at the "big picture""

snip babble


That is your problem, I am looking at the bigger picture,

You are not. You can't see common sense and keep spouting 45 minutes
********. Are really that brainwashed a Tory? Snap out of it mate. The
party is not for you, or any other sane mortal.



I'm apolitical mate, put that in your pipe and choke on it ! :~)
As for the 45 minutes issues, that is what all this is about, it IS the
bigger picture. The real point is, Blair and his cronies don't want it
discussed, hence the attack on the BBC (the daily complaints sent to the BBC
by Cambell when he was employed at No.10) and why they are resisting an
enquiry into the Intel' gathering that let to what seems to be wrong
conclusions (and if they can get Iraq wrong how many other matters are they
getting wrong, that is the really worrying thing, at this time of high
terrorist alert).

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 01:32:12 -0000, "IMM" wrote:

snip

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

It certainly does......

LOL, and I bet I know which Tabloid IMM reads...

In article ,
Andy Hall 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?

Indeed. Believing the end justifies the means tends to be more a right
wing thing - and of course the leadership of new labour is very right wing.

But IMM simply disagrees with everyone, since only he is infallible. He
should be the next pope.

--
*I yell because I care

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

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

--
*24 hours in a day ... 24 beers in a case ... coincidence? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes


Bliar should resign as the head of a government which operated in
this
unprincipled manner. IMO he is not fit to govern.

He has been proven not to be a liar, by a top judge.

Given the fact that (as I wrote earlier) that Hutton came from what you
call a snotty university, how can YOU of all people have any faith in
what he says?

If a snot says they were above board, it means they could not prove
otherwise. If they could they would. Duh!


You really do not understand what 'Terms of reference' mean.
Under the terms of reference Load Hutton had to work to (imposed by HMG and
himself) he came to almost the only conclusion he could.

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Another one in cloud cuckoo land. This is the best government in
living memory.

And just how long is your living memory? about 3 years by the sound of
it.

Well, you must be pretty young if you can't remember just how many
ordinary people's lives Thatcher and her pals ruined. Or, of course, very
rich.

--
*Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
I wish! That way I would be looking forward to starting my business in a
couple of years - at the start off a nice long period of stable tory
government - rather than spending half my time fighting rear guard
actions to fend whatever of this bunch of jokers next big plan is to
screw any type of individual entrepreneurial initiative into the ground.

Ahh. A boss, then. Not surprising you like a party whose sole purpose is
to improve the lot of the few at the expense of the many. You should go
into parliament - they're good at doing that too with their own conditions
of service etc.

--
*Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

"Toby" wrote in message
...
Capitol wrote:
The big picture is that the BBC report was substantially
correct and 80% of the British people know it!
Absolutely, and nearly every other media organisation had a similar
conclusion.
By charter the BBC can't voice an opinion or take a stance, if Gilligan
had
just written his original piece in The Daily Mail none of this would have
happened. A lot of this is down to Alastair Campbell and his ongoing
dispute(s) with the BBC. It seems to jar to hear Tessa Jowell[1] distance
herself by stating that AC's comments were 'just those of a private
individual'

LOL ! I hadn't heard her say that, she (HMG) might like to think the 'Man on
the Clapham Omli-bus' has the memory span of a newt but she is very wrong if
she thinks the public have forgotten that Campbell was employed by Blair at
the time of those complaints (the ones that started the whole sorry (Kelly)
state of affairs.

In article ,
Jerry. wrote:
It's Blair's attitude more than the issue, he is failing into the trap
Thatcher feel into, the 'I'm right - don't question / my / judgment'
attitude, and I can see the Blair suffering same fate in the end.

It's a trap most 'leaders' fall into regardless. That's why countries like
the US have a limit on the number of terms a president can serve. Happens
regularly with 'captains of industry' too.

--
*Horn broken. - Watch for finger.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , IMM
writes

snip
[ re WMDs in iraq ]

We gave them six months notice of
inspection, so they hid/got rid of things.

But the whole country is available to inspect and they have been
searching hard since they invaded


And they can question (in what ever manner they like in effect) those who
allegedly designed and built them - yet they still have not found anything,
not even a trace of them. If they had, either the British, US or UN (even a
nomad walking across a desert), don't you think the fact would have been on
and in every form of media this side of Mars ?

They still had the know-how
which is the main point, not the hardware.

45 minutes you moron - that's what the man said. That was the basis for
going to war

And is the point IMM refuses to acknowledge, or does he really believe that
not only can you deploy and lunch a weapon but build the thing in that time
?!

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

Kelly said "days". YES DAYS!!!!!!! He said week then days, which mean
less
than 7. Are you that thick!


And the government said 45 minutes, which for the intolerably challenged
like you 'IMM' is lest than one hour (one 24th of a day), so even if the
experts were correct in their opinion that Iraq could launch WMD's in days
it means that what the government were wrong when they stated that Iraq
could deploy and launch WMDs in 45 minutes.

They DID have them, that is for certain. They used them, that is for
certain. They could deploy them within days, that's is for certain.

Even if we accept what you say, but not the HMG stated 45 minutes...


Where are they? Who knows. They did have them and could deploy them
within
days. Then there is point of supporting terrorist groups. Maybe you
would
think differently of a plane or two smashed into bocks in London.


And again, even if we accept what you say, but not in the stated 45
minutes...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

Saddam was into terror.


Yes, his own people, and those counties that neighbour Iraq, not that he did
a lot of that after he got kicked out of Kuwait.

I Bush and Blair had stated those facts as the reason why he (Saddam) should
be over thrown they just might have got backing, but they chose to use the
WMD's issue (and the immediate threat they posed to counties as far away as
Cyprus) - the fact that now they can't produce those WMDs, not even short
range battle field weapons, is now starting to catch up with them.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

snip

LOL, You really should read the Huttion report, I am, and I have never
even
set foot in the local Tory party office.

Send the money by post do you?


Unlike you I don't support any political party, in anyway.

"IMM" wrote in message
...
"Jerry." wrote in message
...
snip


Go and read the Hutton report FFS and stop being an utter plank !

You are reading it? You sad *******. This is storm in a teacup. A nothing
issue. The power of media is awesome at times, look what it has done to
him.


Well, if not reading it means I'll be so ill informed as you are I'm glad
that I'm a sad *******, at least I'm not an ignorant ******* like you....

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip
[ re Peter Madalson ]

After he's finished doing the pantomime circuit by the looks of it.

LOL, god one Andy.
^^^^^^^^^

Was that a Freudian slip, the way IMM is blind to the facts and shows blind
loyalty to the people he admires I would not be surprised if it was !...

"Dave Plowman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jerry. wrote:
It's Blair's attitude more than the issue, he is failing into the trap
Thatcher feel into, the 'I'm right - don't question / my / judgment'
attitude, and I can see the Blair suffering same fate in the end.

It's a trap most 'leaders' fall into regardless. That's why countries like
the US have a limit on the number of terms a president can serve. Happens
regularly with 'captains of industry' too.


And that is why I have believed for a long time that there should be a
similar limit to the number of term a Prime Minister can hold office (not
the party, I hasten to add...!).

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Clive Summerfield wrote:

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Clive Summerfield" wrote in message
...

"PoP" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 00:46:53 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman
wrote:


Everyone seems to miss the point - that she lied.

I'm missing the point here. What's the distinguishing feature you are
referring to? All Prime Ministers lie, and Bliar has turned it into a
fine art.

The only distinguishing feature that I can see is that Thatcher lied

during

a campaign to liberate sovereign territory from an invading hostile

country.

On the other hand, Blair lied as part of justification to conduct an
invasion of sovereign territory.

NO. 1 HE DIDN'T LIE!!! He went into Iraq to make the world a safer
place.
If the other lot were in power they would have done just the same. They
were all for it before the conflict.



You poor delusional soul. He went in to Iraq because he believed it was
his
moral duty to free the Iraqis from their oppressive leadership.



********.

I think you missed the irony implicit in "...he believed it was his...".
Remember we're talking about a man who I suspect lies even to himself.


He went to war because it suited his enormous vanity - to be a World
Staresman not a slick marketing type in charge of a bunch of
incompetents who only got to power because the Tores were so busy
fohting amongst themselves and riding teh gravy train that the countr
was sick of em. AND because he hadn't the courage to admit to anoher
weak vain stupid deluded man - GWB - that he had not got ultimate
authority in the UK.


The real reason, but one I doubt he'd even admit to himself.


If he was so keen on democracy and freedom, he would have done more to
introduce it in the UK.



Storming
into an unstable region all guns blazing is not a coherent policy
towards
peace. You are aware of the origins of Al Qaeda aren't you? Quite
possibly
Blair also joined with the US in a gesture of solidarity, attempting to
gain
favour with George W. Bush's administration. However, if that was a
motivating factor, then I'm quite sure that TB managed to convince
himself
that it wasn't. The lie was to place undue emphasis on Saddam's WMD in
an
effort to swing the Labour Party behind him.

And as for IDS, well I wouldn't trust him to sit the right way on a
lavatory
seat.



IDS is actally IMHO a better man. Just not smart enoh to win elections
and control his party.


Aye well, I wouldn't trust TB to be able to find his own arsehole with a
compass map and torch, let alone understand how to crap on a toilet.

Cheers
Clive

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

But no weapons, never mind if they could have used within 45
minutes...

He did find... WMD-related activities,

Stop tabloiding. Look at the "big picture"

As I said..."Stop tabloiding. Look at the "big picture""

snip babble


That is your problem, I am looking at the bigger picture,

You are not. You can't see common sense and keep spouting 45 minutes
********. Are really that brainwashed a Tory? Snap out of it mate.
The
party is not for you, or any other sane mortal.



I'm apolitical mate, put that in your pipe and choke on it ! :~)
As for the 45 minutes issues, that is what all this is about, it IS the
bigger picture.

Read back on what I explained to you. read a few times.

The real point is,

You said the above was the real point. Duh! You are confused.

I just watched BBC 24 Straight Talk. The 3 journos all agreed that the
enquiry was right. Surprisingly, the one 100% for it was the Sun journo.
One said because the government came away whiter than white people suspected
underhandedness, with one saying, if the government had a little criticism
there would be no after shock like there is. Also this fat ******* from a
snotty uni who lied. His 10% of lies were very big lies. The all
castigated the BBC for closing ranks too early, poor editing and control and
no looking at it objectively soon enough.

The BBC f***ed up big style.