NationStates Jolt Archive

Well as we don't yet have a thread on this I plan to make one, yesterday Tony Blair was once again absolved from single blaim by another independant inquiry, much as I may regret posting this thread as it will undoubtable turn into a pro/anti war flinging contest. I wondered what people thought of the outcome of the report. Personally, much as I dislike Blair I agreed with the war and wouldn't want to necessarily see Blair destroyed because of it. I do to a degree believe that they did it believing that the claims were given in the best motive, but were intentionally overdone. As it would be very pointless to intentionally lie. And you?

he's a liar.

he's a liar.
Blair, Butler, which?

I think the front page of The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk) said it best:

The intelligence: flawed

The dossier: dodgy

The 45-minute claim: wrong

Dr Brian Jones: vindicated

Iraq's link to al-Qa'ida: unproven

The public: misled

The case for war: exaggerated

And who was to blame? No one

But then again, what did you expect after the previous one?

Its not as much as a whitewash as the Hutton report, then again thats not hard. I recon its the best we can get as its very hard for a civil servant to go against an elected official.
Still enough material has been provided for Howard and Kennedy to make Blair's further stay in Government an uncomfortable one.

Congratulations to Tony Blair. His critics are facing another blow.
The accusation that he was manipulating intelligence and that he was deliberatly exagerating the threats by Iraq is proven to be false.
Blair has survived the Iraq issue very clearly.
What may lead to his fall could be a defeat in the referendum in the EU constituition which is sceduled to take place after the general election, which is likely to be held next year. That could be a situation where he decides to resign. Well: or he tries to go for a second referendum. But probably he is going to leave that to his succesor, which seems to be Gordon Brown.
Or are there any other candidates inside Labour???

Blair, Butler, which?


Blair..... Don't you think? Can't trust that dude. He's a lawyer don't forget. Slippery....

Blair..... Don't you think? Can't trust that dude. He's a lawyer don't forget. Slippery....
His wife is a lawyer, I actually don't trust him, and Michael Howard said very well what I have thought for a while, if push came to shove people would not trust him again. In regards to the independant, I read that and immediately dissected it. It isn't actually right on all points.

The intelligence: flawed

The dossier: dodgy ; Nope, specifically didn't say that, it said it was exagerrated.

The 45-minute claim: wrong ; It didn't exactly say that, it said it shouldn't have been included


Iraq's link to al-Qa'ida: unproven

The public: misled

The case for war: exaggerated

And who was to blame? No one ; Nope, it said they all were to blaim, but singled out no individual.

Congratulations to Tony Blair. His critics are facing another blow.
The accusation that he was manipulating intelligence and that he was deliberatly exagerating the threats by Iraq is proven to be false.
Blair has survived the Iraq issue very clearly.
What may lead to his fall could be a defeat in the referendum in the EU constituition which is sceduled to take place after the general election, which is likely to be held next year. That could be a situation where he decides to resign. Well: or he tries to go for a second referendum. But probably he is going to leave that to his succesor, which seems to be Gordon Brown.
Or are there any other candidates inside Labour???

Not really, if Blair steps down it would be Brown I would have thought. I don't think there is anyone else realistically, which would mean Mandelson's career would soon be over....again!

The Butler report, quite correctly I believe, criticizes not any individuals, but the system by which the intelligence was considered.

It also criticized the presidential style of government, a bold step for a civil servant to take.

I believe this is a fair assessment. I believe Mr Blair made a mistake, a mistake that under a cabinet style of government would have been avoided.

I think Tony Blair should take more responsibility for the failings that occurred than he has done, but not to the extent that some sources have suggested.

I hope that at after the next general election the parliament is hung; a coalition government would be forced to use a cabinet government. This does not seem so unlikely given the recent by-election results.

The Labour party’s huge majority is one of the reasons Mr Blair can get away with his leadership style. Can you imagine John Major trying to push through the most recent education bill introducing top up fees? The reason I don't trust Mr Blair and the Labour party is because of that. It wasn't like they just omitted their intentions from the manifesto, they explicitly stated they would not introduce fees, then went back on that pledge.

it was a complete whitewash to be honest. someone should take the blame, and that someone is the government as an entire entity

The Butler report, quite correctly I believe, criticizes not any individuals, but the system by which the intelligence was considered.

It also criticized the presidential style of government, a bold step for a civil servant to take.

I believe this is a fair assessment. I believe Mr Blair made a mistake, a mistake that under a cabinet style of government would have been avoided.

I think Tony Blair should take more responsibility for the failings that occurred than he has done, but not to the extent that some sources have suggested.

I hope that at after the next general election the parliament is hung; a coalition government would be forced to use a cabinet government. This does not seem so unlikely given the recent by-election results.

The Labour party’s huge majority is one of the reasons Mr Blair can get away with his leadership style. Can you imagine John Major trying to push through the most recent education bill introducing top up fees? The reason I don't trust Mr Blair and the Labour party is because of that. It wasn't like they just omitted their intentions from the manifesto, they explicitly stated they would not introduce fees, then went back on that pledge.
Yes that's very true, I think in exact words in attacked the informality of his government, where it was just led by a few.

it was a complete whitewash to be honest. someone whould take the blame, and that someone is the government as an entire entity
I don't believe at the time they intended to outright lie, it was obvious that it was intended to be exagerratted, but I cannot believe he would be foolish enough to outright lie.

As the Head of Government, Blair is ultimately responsible for all of government.

If the intelligence sources are incompotent, and got it that wrong, then ultimately Blair is responsible for their performance. If they are really that poorly performed, why is there no big shake-up?

Alternativley, or additionally, if the intelligence were only prepared to submit what they believed their political masters wanted to hear, that is again a failure of government.

And, of course, the same ultimate responsibility rests with Bush and Howard.

As the Head of Government, Blair is ultimately responsible for all of government.

If the intelligence sources are incompotent, and got it that wrong, then ultimately Blair is responsible for their performance. If they are really that poorly performed, why is there no big shake-up?

Alternativley, or additionally, if the intelligence were only prepared to submit what they believed their political masters wanted to hear, that is again a failure of government.

And, of course, the same ultimate responsibility rests with Bush and Howard.

Why Howard?

It was found that no pressure had been actually placed on them to come back with a certain result, purposely anyway.

I hail the Butler Report. It nearly echos what the US Senate Report said. I have a thread on that if anyone is interested in viewing it.

I basically absolved the Blair government of Lying and lucky enough for Blair because had he been found lying, he would have had to resign from his post as PM.

I hail the Butler Report. It nearly echos what the US Senate Report said. I have a thread on that if anyone is interested in viewing it.

I basically absolved the Blair government of Lying and lucky enough for Blair because had he been found lying, he would have had to resign from his post as PM.

Can I have a link to your thread, I can't seem to find it?

he's a liar.

humm... that's a compelling argument.

he needs to clearify it and he did I believe! Enerica, I had to repost my thread you can view it now!

Well as we don't yet have a thread on this I plan to make one, yesterday Tony Blair was once again absolved from single blaim by another independant inquiry, much as I may regret posting this thread as it will undoubtable turn into a pro/anti war flinging contest. I wondered what people thought of the outcome of the report. Personally, much as I dislike Blair I agreed with the war and wouldn't want to necessarily see Blair destroyed because of it. I do to a degree believe that they did it believing that the claims were given in the best motive, but were intentionally overdone. As it would be very pointless to intentionally lie. And you?

I would question whether the Butler report can be viewed as independent. Not only was Lord Butler previously Blair's cabinet secretary before getting his no doubt very well deserved peerage in 1998 (courtesy T. Blair), but one of the report's authors, Ann Taylor, is a former government whip who was actually involved in signing off on the original dossier.

Speaking of dossiers, what happened about the other one -- the one where they nicked a student's thesis off the internet and presented it as the latest intelligence report? After first going through and changing words like "opposition groups" to "terrorists", of course. Is anyone in jail for that yet? Did anyone even lose their job? Miss out on a promotion? Denied a holiday entitlement? Lost parking privileges? No TV for a week? Anything?

Why Howard?

It was found that no pressure had been actually placed on them to come back with a certain result, purposely anyway.

Why not Howard? Get real, this guy's got form mate. Remember "children overboard" and "non-core promises". The intelligence was flawed or ignored - someone has to be responsible.

Why not Howard? Get real, this guy's got form mate. Remember "children overboard" and "non-core promises". The intelligence was flawed or ignored - someone has to be responsible.

The intel community was at fault. Not just one person but the whole intel community. No sense blaming one person for the fault of intel!

The intel community was at fault. Not just one person but the whole intel community. No sense blaming one person for the fault of intel!

Hmm... even when the intel community gave provisos and caveats about the quality of the intelligence? Caveats which were removed, before the intelligence was presented to the public as hard fact when -- as the intel community knew -- it was made up of at best educated guesses and at worst outright fantasies concocted by Saddam's many enemies? Who decided to dress up speculation as certainty? Does anyone remember Tony and pals expressing even a tiny doubt? I remember Robin Cook saying, when he resigned from the cabinet before the war started, that he didn't think any WMDs would ever be found. He saw the same intelligence reports as the rest of them -- he just wasn't willing to commit UK troops to an unjustified and illegal war. The spooks are just the scapegoats here.

Hmm... even when the intel community gave provisos and caveats about the quality of the intelligence? Caveats which were removed, before the intelligence was presented to the public as hard fact when -- as the intel community knew -- it was made up of at best educated guesses and at worst outright fantasies concocted by Saddam's many enemies? Who decided to dress up speculation as certainty? Does anyone remember Tony and pals expressing even a tiny doubt? I remember Robin Cook saying, when he resigned from the cabinet before the war started, that he didn't think any WMDs would ever be found. He saw the same intelligence reports as the rest of them -- he just wasn't willing to commit UK troops to an unjustified and illegal war. The spooks are just the scapegoats here.

Firstly, the report made no one a scape goat, and even mentioned the fact that it was exagerrated and should not have been included, secondly your opinion on the war is exactly that, your opinion, we are there now, we have gotten rid of Sadaam, and hopefully now we can instate democracy and then leave. However in the case of this our opinions on the war have no baring on the fact that the report did implicate the government but didn't single anyone out. Tony Blair didn't express doubt no, and he was wrong on his judgement, and, much as I despise the man, I don't believe he intentionally lied, it was not worth his while, as he would have known he would get figured out. It was one statement and was blown out of proportion.