Question for the Brits

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-09-19 01:44am

I was wondering what the reaction has been to Andrew Gilligan and the controversy surrounding him and the BBC. What are people's general opinions about what is happening? How big of a deal is it over there and such?

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2003-09-19 02:17am

Erm, i'm not overly bothered. It was a bloody stupid thing of him to do though.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-09-19 10:44am

It's the fucking top story everyday. All the news channels have reports every half an hour and I'm getting pretty bloody sick of it.

If I hear Dr. Kelly or Hutton Inquiry mentioned one more time I swear I'm gonna scream!

Tatterdemalion · Post by **Tatterdemalion** » 2003-09-19 10:54am

Pretty indifferent to Gilligan here, though I'm hoping that the whole Kelly mess will make Blair a little more careful from now on (Though from the look of the whole House of Lords debacle it looks like Blair really doesn't give a **** about his backbenchers and core voters.) and I must admit that and the Hutton inquiry gave Campbell a good, and rather ironic, excuse to leave. Hoon?s a gonner, but no one cares about him anyway.

Personally I hope the BBC gets let off, after all what Gilligan writes in another paper shouldn't really be their business, and the LAST thing I want to come out of this is for Murdoch to get his grubby hands on any more media influence.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-09-19 12:49pm

It's a massive story over here.

IMO: Gilligan & BBC = Basically right (we never really believed the dossier anyway)
Blair&co = Lying scum.

Embracer Of Darkness · Post by **Embracer Of Darkness** » 2003-09-19 05:23pm

Tin foil hats at the ready everyone, but I think the Government had Kelly killed.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-09-19 05:34pm

Embracer Of Darkness wrote:Tin foil hats at the ready everyone, but I think the Government had Kelly killed.

I doubt it, seems a little to obvious for them to attempt something like that straight after he gave evidence, why not arrange a car crash before hand and nobody would even hear about some MoD employee dying.

The entire "sexed up" scandal would have come to nought and that would have been that.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-09-19 05:35pm

Embracer Of Darkness wrote:Tin foil hats at the ready everyone, but I think the Government had Kelly killed.

Hey, aluminum foil not only blocks the government's mind control rays, it also makes a lovely headpiece.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2003-09-19 05:37pm

Blair isn't quite the Smiler*, but he's a lying fuck.

Didn't vote for him last time, won't vote for him next time.

*Transmetropolitan

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-09-19 05:48pm

With the choice between Mr “Slick” Blair, Mr “No platform” Smith and Mr “Protest vote” Kennedy I have to vote for Blair, there just isn't much other option.

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2003-09-20 09:17am

WHo cares if the report was "sexed up". We just needed to go and kick Saddam's ass anyway!

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2003-09-20 01:46pm

2000AD wrote:WHo cares if the report was "sexed up". We just needed to go and kick Saddam's ass anyway!

Thread hijacking underway...

That reminds me of something that I've never quick been able to grasp. Some people claim that Bush lied about WMD to trick the American people into supporting the war, but I can't believe that. I don't know about Britian, but in the US, the war would have been quite popular without any sexing up of WMD reports. I saw poll that was conducted every year since 1992 asking if we should invade Iraq, and every year about 25-40% of the American people said yes. Add in the general increase hawkishness since 9/11, and the general increase in pro-war sentiment once a war actually starts, and add Scot Spiker(sp?) and Saddam's oppression. With that, you don't need to lie about WMD for the war to be popular at home. Hence, why would the government lie? But if they didn't lie, where are the WMD. Can our intelligence agencies really be that incompetent? Very confusing.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-09-20 04:29pm

CelesKnight wrote: I don't know about Britian, but in the US, the war would have been quite popular without any sexing up of WMD reports.

No. Many British people felt our Government was sucking up to the US, and that there was no real reason for the war. Essentially, the feeling was and is that Labour were putting American interests before that of the British people.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2003-09-20 06:40pm

The BBC, in the end will come off with only a few bruises. Some things could have been handled better, but in the end, what they did was no big deal. They weren't the ones who named Kelly.

The government on the other hand, is going to get the brunt of the blame, Hoon I expect to go. Blair will take responsibility as always, but will stay.

AS for the war itself, the majority of the population here were against it.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-09-20 06:52pm

Hoon can't go, he is one of my favourite characters the way he ridicules the opposition in the parliamentary defence debates is just classic, if they replace him I may have to consider not watching the show anymore.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2003-09-20 07:00pm

TheDarkling wrote:Hoon can't go, he is one of my favourite characters the way he ridicules the opposition in the parliamentary defence debates is just classic, if they replace him I may have to consider not watching the show anymore.

Duncan Smith was better earlier, when he told the Lib Dems that winning was a "grave stratigic error"

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-09-20 08:40pm

CelesKnight wrote:With that, you don't need to lie about WMD for the war to be popular at home. Hence, why would the government lie? But if they didn't lie, where are the WMD. Can our intelligence agencies really be that incompetent? Very confusing.

It's possible that the available intelligence pointed to the existance of WMDs and thus action was taken against Iraq. Clearly we have no found any WMDs, so it is very possible that the intelligence that President Bush received was wrong.

Another viewpoint is that Iraq may have had WMDs and at least the capability to produce them. The possibility of an activated program distributing weapons to terrorists around the world was considered bad enough by the current administration that action must be taken regardless of if Iraq actually had any at the moment. A pre-emptive assault, so to speak, which many are not happy about.

Also, the administration believed that Iraq would act as a "terrorism sink" once invaded, keeping the fighting on 'their' ground. It also distracted everyone from other operations we're doing (such as those in the Philippine Islands) elsewhere.