The worst Iraq spin yet

[Observer]

Re: The facts are not correct..

Apology not necessary - I just wanted to correct your mistake. Rule number one for me, whenever I read or hear anybody or any organ asserting anything as a "fact" is "Where's the vested interest/bias/prejudice?"

I don't understand why you get worked up about politicians lying? Or course they lie, spin, conceal etc. We all do to a greater or lesser extent. Thing is, if we (that is journalists/interviewers in particular) insist on asking stupid questions which aren't reasonably capable of being answered with absolute certainty and honesty, we must expect to get lies (or less than the "truth") back. Anyway, Blair lying or not lying is not the "key point" for me. Maybe it is for you.

Last - for you to ponder on - truth is relative (but that's another whole philosophical issue of its own).

 

[jimi]

Re: The facts are not correct..

I recollect there's an old Bob Dylan song about when your young everything is black and white but when you're older it more shades of grey.

Of course all politicians prevaricate .. its their job. But however I do perceive several fundamental differences between Tony Blair and most if not all other PM's in the last hundred years or so.

1)Parliamentary democracy. No other PM has held such absolute power where there has been a significant majority, no effective opposition and no check on the executive from a second chamber.
2)Obsession with spin. Presentation and propaganda are the goal rather than performance and real targets. If a target is not going to be achieved the rules, measurements are changed
3)Fundamentalism. Despite his obsession with spin TB gets his crusading cape on and takes off making promises he can't keep.
4)If human life is to be sacrificed I'd like to know the facts.

I think we're entitled to a leader we can trust .. or you never know the US might be bombing us so we'll get rid of our nuclear warheads,germ warfare,chemical weapons ..

There's also another Bob Dylan song .. A hard rain's agonna fall

 

[Bergman]

Re: WAKE UP! WAKE UP!

Yes

Very good

And then what?

Do you really believe that will get rid of some threat against UK?

What will happen next in ME

Is it a coincidence that Iran has re-started its nuclear programme today?

Can you ignore N Korea?

What about Isreal being in breach of UN resolutions (for years)?

Saddam has had chemical and biological waepons since 1980s and not used them against west or Isreal. What changed and when?

 

[Bergman]

Re:The document published today is based, in large

"The document published today is based, in large part, on the work of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC)"


nuff said<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Bergman on 10/02/2003 20:36 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Ohdrat]

Re: WAKE UP! WAKE UP!

oh and what about N Korea.. they at the mo seem to me to be more of a threat to world "peace"

 

[Observer]

Re:The document published today is based, in large

That was in the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" paper published in September - not the paper published last week. As I said, read the reply to Jimi.

 

[Observer]

Blair\'s lies

Exactly what are you saying he lied about? As I have pointed out in other posts, there is no statement in the paper published last week, which I understand includes information written 12 years ago, about it being an "up to date intelligence report". That is contained in the paper published last September.

Looks to me like you jumped to conclusions based on poorly researched and unverified assumptions. Put another way, you sought to put a spin on some data in order to support and/or justify your own bias or prejudice.

 

[jimi]

Re: Blair\'s lies

He'd be done under the trade description act for passing something off!

But what I want to know is:

Is it worth booking an E Med holiday or should I wait a month or so and get it a lot cheaper?

I bet you £5 that Blair will not be PM this time next year?

 

[Observer]

Re: The facts are not correct..

Hmmm. Not sure I am able to accept an old hippy's "take" on life as my guiding philosophy.

The way to find a solution to a complex problems is, where possible, to break it down into smaller units which can be addressed more clearly. Sometimes that can be done and sometimes it can't. I believe it can on the particular issue of Iraq, based on the reasoning stated in my first post on this thread.

Can't agree with your point 1. Margaret Thacher had a 100+ majority in 1983 as well as a comfortable Tory majority in the Lords. And Michael Foot was not exactly effective in opposition either. By contrast, Tony Blair's government has suffered several reversals in the Lords.

I broadly agree with your point on spin. It's an unfortunate consequence of the pervasive focus on the short-term and the insistence on black and white answers to questions which cannot be answered that simply.

I also disagree with your accusation of fundamentalism (at least, I don't really understand what you're driving at).

As for point 4, well - it's a bit naive. I'd like to know all the facts. The reality is that classified information will not be disclosed to you and me and the populace at large.

As for <<I think we're entitled to a leader we can trust>> How are we so "entitled"? Divine right? Statute law? It's nonsense - like the constant claims/assertion of many other "rights" - as if they have some kind of intrinsic existence. The only rights you or I or anybody has are those which are granted by the society/community of which we are a part. There are no so called "inalienable" rights - including the cliched "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". The first two are granted (or not) by "society" and the last is not and will never be a "right". It's a state of mind.

 

[Observer]

Re: Blair\'s lies

Make it £50 and I'll give you 2:1

 

[Observer]

Re: Blair\'s lies

Holiday: I've booked mine already - Greece I think (have to check with SWMBO).

Don't let a small matter like war put you off.

 

[Twister_Ken]

That\'s the differencce between us

>Don't let a small matter like war put you off<

You see war as a small matter. I see it as piles of the dead, as shattered bodies, of people living for years with disfiguring wounds and terrible handicaps, of families grieving for a generation and more.

And sadly, those that do die and those that suffer horribly will not be those who ordered the tanks and the bombers and the missiles and the gunships to go in. No, they'll be thousands of miles away, drinking fine wines and sweet meats, and going to bed safe with their ghastly wives.

The people who die will be little people who only wanted some happiness and some food and a better life for themselves and their children.

 

[jimi]

The facts are not correct but the message is!

1) Point I was making is that at no time have all these factors come together. The Lords was a second house divorced from the executive with genuine constitutional checking powers. It no longer is and TB proposal for a revising chamber by appointment seems to me to be a way of getting executive cronies in place.It would appear that their is no constitutional check on the executive and there are no plans for any. Perhaps it is time to properly divorce the executive and parliament?

3)Fundamentalism. Extreme conviction politicians with sufficient power have always taken their countries eventually to where that country would not otherwise sanely be. Refer to point 1 as well!!!!

4)If your happy with a leader who deceives you, Fine! I'm not. I'm a father with 3 children and if they were killed by bombs or missiles I'd want to know why! I'm sure there are a lot of fathers,mothers and children in Iraq who feel likewise. I've never believed anyone who says to me "Trust me, I know better" in my experience they are lying.

As Ken says, this is not a game. Thank goodness for some sense from some of our European comrades!

 

[Magic_Sailor]

Re: WAKE UP! WAKE UP!

Observer

I understand what you mean, which is why my post said that I was uncomfortabe. However, don't a lot of your arguements pertain to other countries as well as Iraq - perhaps even to some coutries we consider friendly.

The uncomfortable confusion comes from the fact that we do need to defend ourselves - but when our leaders lie to us, we can't know why, who or what to defend against.

The apparent lack of commitment you percieve is their fault (our leaders) - not ours. There is no lack of intelligence or patriotism in this position.

Magic

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://hometown.aol.co.uk/geoffwestgarth/myhomepage/travelwriting.html>Click for website!</A>

 

[Magic_Sailor]

Re: Blair\'s lies

Sorry

I've heard TB claim it's the most recent information from new and undisclosed sources and I also heard the student author saying it was his work. I've also heard that "Downing St" has now admitted this. By heard, I mean on the radio.

As these are from the horses mouth, as it were, I assume them to be correct.

I do not have a position by definition as I am confused and uncomfortable. Therefore your uneccesary sarcasm about my spin was incorrect.

Magic

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://hometown.aol.co.uk/geoffwestgarth/myhomepage/travelwriting.html>Click for website!</A>

 

[Observer]

Re: That\'s the differencce between us

Ken,

I would have liked to credit you with the intelligence to recognise the obvious use of irony. I was responding to a flippant, throwaway remark by Jimi in similar vein.

To seize on such a remark and infer a general attitude to the subject matter is either argumentative or slow-witted. If it's not the latter, it must be the former.

Do you really believe that the governments (not only the US and the UK) which are showing the determination to deal with the Iraq issue have no sensitivity to the human cost of war? Do you really think that the hundreds or thousands (in total) of people in positions of responsibility in these governments and the associated military organisations have NO feelings, emotions, misgivings, sensitivity? They are people with families and children like you and I.

How many times do they have to state their aversion to bloodshed in order to be believed? Or is your mind closed to the possibility that you may be misjudging them? Did the US strike out blindly and with no thought for consequences after 9/11? It did not. What it, together with the UK and others, is showing now is the determination to deal with the menace of Saddam before it grows more dangerous. It doesn't have to end in war. That's Saddam's choice.

Reference to >ghastly wives< does you no credit - personal insults do not contribute positively to debate on serious issues.

 

[Observer]

Re: WAKE UP! WAKE UP!

1. Yes, some of my arguments may well apply to ther countries and it's not beyond contemplation, if potential threats from other countries becomes more serious, that (military) action may have to be taken against them. Effective action may be more or less difficult than action against Iraq or even impossible. But before that happens, I would expect to see, and believe we would see, a build-up of diplomatic pressure and non-military action, both directly and through UN resolutions. The fact that there IS potential threat from other countries, that there ARE rogue states which terrorise and repress thier own citizens, underlines the importance of ensuring that the UN resolutions concerning Iraq - which have been in place, in some cases, for many years - are (albeit belatedly) enforced; preferably without the use of force but with force if necessary. If that is done, the chances of diplomatic and UN pressure working with respect to those other countries are massively enhanced. If we fail to enforce against Iraq now, those other countries will be encouraged to believe the UN will not act to enforce its will, so diplomatic pressure will be ineffective

2. You still haven't said what it is that Blair is supposed to have lied about. If you read the latest paper you will find that much of the information is academic in nature. There is also content (not specific details, but why should we expect that) which may well have come from intelligence sources.

I have no reason to doubt your intelligence or patriotism. I do think you have failed to identify the core arguments, which I have expressed elsewhere.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Governments

>Do you really believe that the governments (not only the US and the UK) which are showing the determination to deal with the Iraq issue have no sensitivity to the human cost of war?<

As referenced elsewhere in this thread, what we have here is not exactly a case of governments going to war. What we have are two leaders on one side and one on the other who see war as the only answer. I can't talk about the situation in Iraq, but in the US the urgent need to go to war seems to emanate just from GWB and a small coterie of his advisors, almost all of whom have very close connections with the oil industry. In the UK, as far as one can tell, it is TB alone who is leading the movement to war, with very many of his own cabinet being at worst lukewarm, and at best positively opposed. A friend, very close to the UK establishment, assures me that not one senior military figure is in favour of this adventure, essentially because they believe a) there is no justification and b) there is no stable end game.

So while I accept that there are many in government who are sensitive to the impending human tragedy, I regret that those people are unable to influence our leaders. Let's not forget that neither GWB nor TB have military experience (except taking the salute at ceremonial parades). Maybe that should be an essential pre-requisite for any leader who is about to take his or her country to war. BTW do you remember how GWB ran away and hid on September 11?

They've not seen the bodies bleeding
They've seen the bodies torn
They've not seen the children sundered
They've not seen the mothers mourn

Safe inside their concrete bunkers
Their status as their nation's head
They just push the blood red buttons
They don't count the blood red dead

 

[Twister_Ken]

UN resolutions

>the UN resolutions concerning Iraq - which have been in place, in some cases, for many years <

The old ones don't count in this situation, only 1441 and its possible successor do. You state that the UN has to be seen to uphold its resolution, but do you ask who has backed the UN into this particular corner? Two men, GWB and SH. And now between them they hold half the world to ransom.

It is a hard rain that's gonna fall.

 

[Observer]

Re: Governments

I think this has gone as far as it can without repetition. I respect your anti-war views but think you are wrong: wrong about Bush and Blair, wrong on the need to take a stand against Iraq and wrong because you have notably failed to provide a credible alternative strategy to ensuring Saddam's disarmament.

I suppose I should recognise the verse you quoted but afraid I don't. Presumably WW1? Is it Sassoon?

Regards.


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by Observer on 11/02/2003 12:27 (server time).</FONT></P>