The Iraq Inquiry - another whitewash?

[ptigga]

Wouldn't it be better to wait for the report to come out before dissing it?

 

The contents of the report is not nearly as important as the methodology used to create the report.

 

As us computer scientists often say, it's a case of "garbage in - garbage out". If the right information isn't collected during the inquiry then the report is going to be a load of dingos kidneys.

[Tradescanthia]

You have got more chance of winning the lottery than getting the truth out of this enquiry. Teflon Tony did'nt earn his nickname for nothing. I was delighted on his failure to get the EEC presidency, the EEC is corrupt enough without that charlatan heading it. We will never find out the truth, people have already been 'silenced' PERMANENTLY prior to this fiasco. The money this enquiry is costing would be better spent funding cancer treatments for the poor beggars who are being denied drugs on the grounds of cost.

[donkey]

Thank you for proving my point. There is a long tradition of people claiming inquiries are set up with foregone conclusions when they don't come to the conclusion they want. Whether you believe they are or not depends entirely upon how biased your own views are. There is nothing naive about dismissing out of hand the belief that the inquiry is rigged when we are 2 days into an inquiry that will last for over a year. I suspect that those of you who are willing to dismiss the inquiry almost before it has started do so because, deep down, you know that the inquiry will not confirm some of the things you believe about Iraq; not because the inquiry is rigged but because in your heart you know that many of the popular myths expressed by those in the anti-war camp are just as flawed as the Iraq intelligence.

 

Also it doesn't matter whether they supported the war or not. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who didn't have a view one way or the other. If you can prove their alleged support for the war influences their final decision in spite of evidence presented then fine, it's a whitewash. If they were all anti-war would you be claiming the inquiry was a potential whitewash? Bias is still bias whatever side of the fence it falls on.

 

You seem to be working on the aaumption that people fall into two camps:

1: Those who believe the war was undertaken in good faith.

2: Paranoid conspiracy theorists.

 

I wouldn't consider myself to be in either category, and I'd imagine the same can be said for the majority of those who opposed the war.

 

It does not seem 'biased' to be suspicious that the Government have rigged this enqury, if you happen to have noticed that they lied through their teeth about the war, and the oppositon largely supported them in this, and that both parties tried to cover up their widescale expenses fraud by trying to forbid free access to public accounts, and that the Government rigged the energy report in favour of the nuclear industry - as was proved in the high court in a case brought by Greenpeace http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/feb/15/nuclear.greenpolitics1 - and the various other ways politicians casually undermine democracy and transparency whenever it suits them. I'd be suprised if they haven't tried to influence the outcome.

[titusmax]

what a waste of time and money. iraq had it comming.

[mj.scuba]

Question about this inquiry - is evidence given under oath and can the witnesses be persued for perjury if they're later found to be telling porkies (eg if several witnesses contradict the evidence of a single person)?

Are witnesses legally obliged to give evidence?

 

Ta.

[depoix]

who cares? i mean really, who cares? iraqs ,all they have ever done is butcher each other.

the parents,the partners the widows and orphans care ,without this war they would be suffering no loss, and thats on both sides

[Magilla]

Also of concern:-

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245599/David-Kelly-post-mortem-kept-secret-70-years-doctors-accuse-Lord-Hutton-concealing-vital-information.html

 

(Daily Mail so may be entirely made up, but seems unlikely).

[hard2miss]

Also of concern:-

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245599/David-Kelly-post-mortem-kept-secret-70-years-doctors-accuse-Lord-Hutton-concealing-vital-information.html

 

(Daily Mail so may be entirely made up, but seems unlikely).

I have seen this and it needs a topic of its own. I think it all stinks of a cover up.

 

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to think this was an assasination, the cover up its self gives you that smell.

 

 

As for this Inquiry, the only reason we are on such a high alert now in this country is because of the run up to Tony Blairs forth coming appearance to give evidance. The Gov are minipulating us to beleve we should be in fear of something when its all about protecting the guilty.

[Funky_Gibbon]

It does not seem 'biased' to be suspicious that the Government have rigged this enqury if you happen to have noticed that they lied through their teeth about the war, and the oppositon largely supported them in this, and that both parties tried to cover up their widescale expenses fraud by trying to forbid free access to public accounts, and that the Government rigged the energy report in favour of the nuclear industry - as was proved in the high court in a case brought by Greenpeace and the various other ways politicians casually undermine democracy and transparency whenever it suits them. I'd be suprised if they haven't tried to influence the outcome.

 

Sorry but biased is exactly what it is. Until the report is written and published you have no basis on which to claim it will be a whitewash. We haven't even had a fraction of the testimony as yet, let alone had any conclusions written by the people who are leading the inquiry.

 

Not liking or trusting the politicians because of their alleged actions in non-related issues is not a valid reason for automatically assuming the whole inquiry is a whitewash. Firstly because you are making assumptions about the conclusions. Secondly because those politicians are not involved in the inquiry other than as witnesses.

 

As for your claim that I put people into two camps. I do not call all people with anti-war views "paranoid conspiracy theorists". There were plenty of valid reasons to be against it at the time. However the reasons given by all-too-many from the "anti-war" camp for being against it are just as fictitious as the dodgy dossier. If someone can't oppose going to war without making up the reasons we supposedly did (i.e Blair did it to make money; it was about oil; he wanted to suck up to Bush; colonialism) then they deserve to be called paranoid conspiracy theorists. None of those often quoted reasons stand up to even a minimal level of logical thought.

[mj.scuba]

Can anybody answer my post 45 please?