SHOCKING: Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying (BBC Radio)

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Oelewapper, Feb 6, 2004.

  1. Oelewapper

    Oelewapper Guest

    Tags:


  2. Mycroft

    Mycroft Guest

  3. Nobody

    Nobody Guest

    Oelewapper wrote:
    > Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying on Iraq - on BBC radio:
    > http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/audio/geoffhoon.ram Sensational. Incredible stuff... !!!!

    Well, there is nothing that is terribly new in that 20 minute broadcast. Just confirms suspicions
    that 1- the intelligence knew there was no international threath 2- ministers and Bliar made sure
    they had deniability.

    I think was was more telling was teh former speaker (his name espaces me) who admitted in parliament
    yesterday that he knew about it and had personally told Bliar prior to resigning his post.

    Mr Bliar may claim his aides didn't tell him. But he can't deny that he wasn't told by others, he
    can't deny he wasn't told by other world leaders, he can't deny that he wasn't told by Blix and El
    Baradei that none of the so called intelligence they were given panned out.

    And all this happened before the illegal invasion began.

    Both Bliar and Bush deserve to be tried for war crimes. Their invasion of Iraq was just as legal as
    Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, or Argentina's invasion of the Falklands. And you should include the
    leaders of spain and australia in that war crime tribunal. They are personally responsible for more
    deaths than those who perished on 9-11, especially outside the USA since these leaders did not have
    any popular support for their crime.
     
  4. Sam D.

    Sam D. Guest

  5. stan

    stan Guest

    In rec.food.cooking Mycroft <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do that for a living but are not
    > supposed to get caught!

    It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the truth, they get voted out of
    office. The truth sometimes hurts. Jimmy Carter can attest to what happens when you run a truthful
    political campaign.
     
  6. Steve Wertz

    Steve Wertz Guest

    >Actually, quite credible since all of the US has now ...

    Why does it not surprise me that you'd be the first to respond to this crossposted trolling?

    -sw
     
  7. Oelewapper

    Oelewapper Guest

    "nobody" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > Well, there is nothing that is terribly new in that 20 minute broadcast.
    Just
    > confirms suspicions that 1- the intelligence knew there was no international threath 2- ministers
    > and Bliar made sure they had deniability.

    First of all, you've got to keep in mind the exact circumstances of this morning's interview: about
    one week after the Hutton-whitewash, by the same program (the Today Program) that sparked the whole
    "Hutton-Kelly-BBC" row and put the defence minister in an extremely difficult position. But above
    all, during this interview - following yesterday's Common's scandal about the PM's ignorance about
    the 45min WMD claim - the defence minister actually gets caught with his pants down: in a follow up
    report towards the end of the program (see other audio-file), we hear some quotes by the minister
    from the time of the Hutton-inquiry, where he confirms to be well aware that the public opinion
    (misguided by major press outlets) thought that the 45-minute claim referred to ballistic weapon
    delivery capabilities, and that this was exactly the ("imminent threat") issue/argument at the time:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today5_hoon_20040205.ram

    The defence minister says there that he 'recalls' the press articles... in other press interviews,
    he has earlier said that he didn't bother to correct public opinion because that would be something
    that would have been "too difficult" to achieve...

    The conclusions of this are far reaching, which is why the journalist (John Humphrey) keeps pressing
    the issue:

    1. Tony Blair should have asked questions about this '45mins imminent threat WMD' issue, because it
    concerned the security of the nation. Now Blair says he didn't bother to ask... despite the fact
    that he toke the country to war over the issue.
    2. Geoff Hoon is lying, and actually contradicting earlier statements in the press and before the
    Hutton inquiry (under oath).
    3. David Kelly, whose name was leaked to the press by Geoff Hoon's office, under supervision of Tony
    Blair who said that he was "empathlically not" aware of the naming strategy, despite the fact
    that Lord Hutton, of all people, found that the PM indeed was chairing the precise meeting where
    this naming strategy was decided upon - well David Kelly was right when he said

    Blair's press spokesman, Alistair Campbell.
    4. Andrew Gilligan, the BBC's Today Program journalist who had claimed the

    found that AG did not have the necessary proof to substantiate this claim, and AG last week was
    forced to quit the BBC; well AG is hereby proven right:

    interview !!!

    This radio interview is a real shocker !!! This is not the normal way BBC journalists interview
    politicians,... but given the particular circumstances, and the accurate exposure of the exact lies
    by TB and GH, that were the issue of the Hutton-report/whitewash, I believe John Humphry was
    absolutely right to press the issue in the way that he did.

    Andrew Gilligan and Greg Dyke should be restored in their job at the BBC. Geoff Hoon and Tony Blair
    are not ordinary politicians, lying as part of their job, but instead they are national traitors and
    international war criminals, and they should therefore be made to resign...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/audio/geoffhoon.ram
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today5_hoon_20040205.ram
     
  8. Jarg

    Jarg Guest

    <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > In rec.food.cooking Mycroft <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do that
    for a
    > > living but are not supposed to get caught!
    >
    > It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the truth,
    they get
    > voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts. Jimmy Carter can attest to
    what
    > happens when you run a truthful political campaign.

    You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the subjective nature of "truth", you
    are wrong that he lost because of his campaign. He lost because he was a terrible leader and inept
    to boot. History will not judge his presidency kindly.

    Jarg
     
  9. Steve Wertz <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    >>Actually, quite credible since all of the US has now ...
    >
    > Why does it not surprise me that you'd be the first to respond to this crossposted trolling?

    Glad to confirm your opinion, whatever that might be, not that I care, eh?

    And just for your info, there were three postings when I received the thread. I chose to respond to
    the first, but that does NOT mean I was first to respond. If you have problems with doing the math
    on that, too bad :)

    --

    "I'm the master of low expectations."

    GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003
     
  10. Warchild

    Warchild Guest

    "Jarg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:D[email protected]...
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > > In rec.food.cooking Mycroft <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > > Shocking! A politician lying............hang on a minute they do that
    > for a
    > > > living but are not supposed to get caught!
    > >
    > > It all stems from the fact that when honest politicians tell the truth,
    > they get
    > > voted out of office. The truth sometimes hurts. Jimmy Carter can attest
    to
    > what
    > > happens when you run a truthful political campaign.
    >
    > You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the
    subjective
    > nature of "truth", you are wrong that he lost because of his campaign. He lost because he was a
    > terrible leader and inept to boot. History will not judge his presidency kindly.
    >
    > Jarg
    >

    History looks at Jimmy Carter very kindly. As for his presidency, I don't think that history will
    give it much thought, as it wasn't noted for war-mongering and personal scandals. Certainly he had
    his problems to overcome, like the hostage crisis, but he had his successes, like Camp David.
     
  11. Jarg

    Jarg Guest

    "devil" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:p[email protected]...
    > On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 19:00:51 +0000, Jarg wrote:
    >
    .
    >
    > He mostly lost because of the deep recession that putting inflation under control required.
    >
    >

    I'm not sure many economists would concur withh your views about the necessity of a recession to
    control inflation. Certainly in other times inflation has been controlled without recession. In any
    case, that was only one reason he lost the election. You are overlooking his foreign policy
    failures, the Iran hostage crisis and Afghanistan for example. Nice enough man but he exuded
    impotence.

    Jarg
     
  12. John Bailey

    John Bailey Guest

    "Sam D." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Oelewapper" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying on Iraq - on BBC radio:
    > >
    > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/audio/geoffhoon.ram
    > >
    > >
    > > Sensational. Incredible stuff... !!!!
    > >
    >
    > But what did he prepare for dinner?

    If he keeps dropping his boss in the brown sticky stuff... Cyanide?

    John

    Hoping he invites Tony over to share.
     
  13. Stark Raven

    Stark Raven Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Jarg
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > You mean the truth according to Jimmy Carter? Putting aside the subjective nature of "truth", you
    > are wrong that he lost because of his campaign. He lost because he was a terrible leader and inept
    > to boot. History will not judge his presidency kindly.
    >
    > Jarg
    >
    Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on. We were terrible, petulant
    followers during Carter's Presidency, unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.
     
  14. "John Bailey" <[email protected]> writes:

    > "Sam D." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > "Oelewapper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > Britain's Defence Minister under fire for lying on Iraq - on BBC radio:
    > > >
    > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/audio/geoffhoon.ram
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Sensational. Incredible stuff... !!!!
    > > >
    > >
    > > But what did he prepare for dinner?
    >
    > If he keeps dropping his boss in the brown sticky stuff... Cyanide?
    >
    > John
    >
    > Hoping he invites Tony over to share.

    Maybe they could go for a walk in the woods together.

    Alan

    --
    Alan Williams, Room IT301, Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Road,
    Manchester, M13 9PL, U.K. Tel: +44 161 275 6270 Fax: +44 161 275 6280
     
  15. Nobody

    Nobody Guest

    Stark Raven wrote:
    > Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on. We were terrible, petulant
    > followers during Carter's Presidency, unworthy of being led anywhere other than death valley.

    You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long lasting peace agreement that has
    lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement considering that none of the other presidents were
    able to get anything real done.

    A president doesn't have 100% control over the ecomomy. He can help steer it, but he can't steer it.
    It is possible that Carter may not have steered it sufficiently in the right direction (or perhaps
    helped steer it in wrong direction). But it isn't 100% his own doing. (and yes, that applies to Bush
    as well, although Bush definitely has streered it very much in the wrong direction over his whole
    stay at the white house)

    As far as the Iran hostages issue, which was Carter's real undoing at the 1980 elections, it would
    have happened to any USA president at the helm during that time period.
     
  16. "nobody" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Stark Raven wrote:
    > > Sorry but it's the American people that history will look unkindly on. We were terrible,
    > > petulant followers during Carter's Presidency, unworthy of being led anywhere other than death
    > > valley.
    >
    > You forgot that Carter got Egypt and Israel to sign a real, long lasting
    peace
    > agreement that has lasted to this day. That is quite an achievement considering that none of the
    > other presidents were able to get anything
    real done.

    It has only cost American taxpayers $5 billion a year since 1979.
     
  17. Dan Brusca

    Dan Brusca Guest

    Wow, that's really blown my faith in politicians :p

    --
    www.moviedirt.co.uk
     
  18. John Bailey

    John Bailey Guest

    > > > > Sensational. Incredible stuff... !!!!
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > But what did he prepare for dinner?
    > >
    > > If he keeps dropping his boss in the brown sticky stuff... Cyanide?
    > >
    > > John
    > >
    > > Hoping he invites Tony over to share.
    >
    > Maybe they could go for a walk in the woods together.
    >
    > Alan

    Such a nice picture....

    john
     
  19. Go Fig

    Go Fig Guest

Loading...