Comments on: Iraq: “A secret inquiry is storing up trouble” http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/06/iraq-a-secret-inquiry-is-storing-up-trouble/ for free expression Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:09:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Barry http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/06/iraq-a-secret-inquiry-is-storing-up-trouble/comment-page-1/#comment-1385 Barry Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:57:25 +0000 http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=3803#comment-1385 There are a ton of different perspectives on this whole thing. This takes a look at quite a few of them: http://www.newsy.com/videos/gordon_brown_s_private_inquiry There are a ton of different perspectives on this whole thing. This takes a look at quite a few of them:

http://www.newsy.com/videos/gordon_brown_s_private_inquiry

]]> By: Yahoda http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/06/iraq-a-secret-inquiry-is-storing-up-trouble/comment-page-1/#comment-1384 Yahoda Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:30:43 +0000 http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=3803#comment-1384 Click on this link and join in this exciting game. http://yahoda.mybrute.com Click on this link and join in this exciting game. http://yahoda.mybrute.com

]]> By: P Robson http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/06/iraq-a-secret-inquiry-is-storing-up-trouble/comment-page-1/#comment-1383 P Robson Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:57:54 +0000 http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=3803#comment-1383 Blair said that it was an established fact that Iraq had WMD: this was essential for him to get the backing of Parliament in March 2003 and for getting the Attorney General to say that the invasion was legal. The public have never seen documents that support this assertion: the information that was in the September 2002 dossier was already largely disproved by March 2003, yet the assertion that the presence of WMD was an established fact grew louder. The hint has always been that Blair saw documents that backed up his assertion, but he couldn't show them to the public. A few months later it became clear that there were no WMD in Iraq. The UK had gone to war based on the assurances of the PM, and these assurances were wrong. Does the UK go to war on the basis of assurances that there is intelligence that the public, and its elected representatives, haven't seen? What does it do when this intelligence, or the assurances that this intelligence exists, turn out to be wrong? An Inquiry in secret compounds the original error. The public won't get to see the intelligence and is likely to be told that it was sound but, for some mysterious reason, turned out to be wrong. The decision-makers will save face but the public will be even more cynical than before. Blair said that it was an established fact that Iraq had WMD: this was essential for him to get the backing of Parliament in March 2003 and for getting the Attorney General to say that the invasion was legal. The public have never seen documents that support this assertion: the information that was in the September 2002 dossier was already largely disproved by March 2003, yet the assertion that the presence of WMD was an established fact grew louder. The hint has always been that Blair saw documents that backed up his assertion, but he couldn’t show them to the public. A few months later it became clear that there were no WMD in Iraq. The UK had gone to war based on the assurances of the PM, and these assurances were wrong.

Does the UK go to war on the basis of assurances that there is intelligence that the public, and its elected representatives, haven’t seen? What does it do when this intelligence, or the assurances that this intelligence exists, turn out to be wrong? An Inquiry in secret compounds the original error. The public won’t get to see the intelligence and is likely to be told that it was sound but, for some mysterious reason, turned out to be wrong. The decision-makers will save face but the public will be even more cynical than before.

]]>