responsibility and inferences
In this post I attempted to outline some of the ironic elements of the Hutton report and the subsequent resignations of the chairman of the BBC and the victorious proclaiming by Tony Blair that he told the truth. Seriously, Tony you either lied or got it wrong. You misled us because what you said was wrong. Stop spinning and how about an apology at least!
This post by blogorrhoea brilliantly says what I wanted to say. In fact this comment suggests that maybe Blair is not off the hook as much as the media are inferring. Oh ofcourse the media wouldn’t be trying to put the boots into the BBC would they?
In short, I’m with National Union of Journalists president Jeremy Dear, who sez it all:
“Whatever Lord Hutton may think, it is clear from the evidence he heard that the dossier was ’sexed up’, that many in the intelligence services were unhappy about it, and that Andrew Gilligan’s story was substantially correct.”
Gilligan was substantially right, and to the degree he was wrong, if wrong he was (and we still do not know that he was wrong), this may have contributed to a tragic but unforeseeable death.
Blair was substantially wrong, and this drew Britain into contributing to a number of tragic and wholly foreseeable deaths the obscene magnitude of which is (a) being officially and studiously ignored and (b) still mounting.
January 30th, 2004 at 1:33 pm
not deceitful… just stupid
I’ve been reading about Tony Blair and his WMD fiasco. Over at signposts Phil’s been posting here and here, and