No 10 admits Hutton cover-up

[zimv20]

link (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=541887)


Downing Street admitted yesterday that MI6 embarked on an unprecedented cover-up after it withdrew intelligence supporting the Government's dossier on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction because it was unreliable.

In an astonishing admission after the disclosure of the cover-up in yesterday's Independent, Tony Blair's official spokesman said MI6 decided not to tell the Hutton inquiry - set up to investigate the death of the government scientist David Kelly - that crucial intelligence on Saddam's chemical and biological weapons was unsound. The security services, he said, felt it was "too sensitive'' to be made public. The head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, also decided not to tell Mr Blair. The Prime Minister's spokesman said Mr Blair only became aware of the withdrawal of the intelligence as a result of the inquiry by Lord Butler of Brockwell, which was delivered three days ago.

Senior sources close to last year's Hutton inquiry said they were unaware that crucial intelligence had been withdrawn, and had this been known, a number of government witnesses would have faced questions about the matter. The sources insisted that the fact that intelligence had been withdrawn by MI6 was not revealed to Lord Hutton either orally or in written evidence.

(more)

it's boggling my mind that blair wouldn't be told about key evidence supporting the invasion losing the support of MI6.

should we accept this as fact, or is dearlove covering up for blair?

[skunk]

The latter. On both sides of the pond it looks like those at the top conspired to over-egg the Iraqi pudding. What is the difference between betrayal of the electorate and treason? None, etymologically-speaking or ethically-speaking, I think.

[Savage Henry]

Yep, definately the latter.

It's not in the nature of a control freak like Blair to act and decide on something so important without having full knowledge, and making sure those information providers provided ALL information on which he would base his decision.

I can't think it's the first time MI6 have embarked on a cover-up to save the Govenments face.

[toontra]

Going back to my posts from last year I find that I was right on some points and wrong on others.

RIGHT: I was sure that the government had embellished the intelligence on WMD in order to justify the war

WRONG: I predicted that if this was ever to made public, especially if no WMD were found, Blair would have to resign

So I now find myself increasingly baffled as to why and how the grinning self-righteous jerk has gotten away with it (so far), all be it at an enormous cost to the Labour party and the public's confidence in anything to do with the government & politics in general.

[Sayhey]

Going back to my posts from last year I find that I was right on some points and wrong on others.

RIGHT: I was sure that the government had embellished the intelligence on WMD in order to justify the war

WRONG: I predicted that if this was ever to made public, especially if no WMD were found, Blair would have to resign

So I now find myself increasingly baffled as to why and how the grinning self-righteous jerk has gotten away with it (so far), all be it at an enormous cost to the Labour party and the public's confidence in anything to do with the government & politics in general.

I don't get it either. I may be an ignorant Yank, but why aren't we talking about Prime Minister Gordon Brown now? Just as importantly, why aren't there millions of people in the streets, like in the lead up to the war, demanding Blair's resignation? I like to believe (my stupidity probably) that if we had a system that would let us get Bush out earlier than Nov. 2nd, we would be doing so.

[iccy82]

... especially if no WMD were found...


but hang on, if there were no WMD in the first place, there would have been no need for more than a dozen countries to unanimously demand more than a dozen times, that Saddam comply with the GW1 ceasefire agreement

[iGav]

but why aren't we talking about Prime Minister Gordon Brown now?

Alot of people are asking that very same question.

I can see a few things possibly happening.

Blair has just under 2 years before the next General Election has to be called. The Media are in a frenzy over here because of the fact that Blair called an Election 1 year early in 2001 and as such, they think it's likely he'll call one early again. Wishful thinking.

He could in this time, have a major Cabinet reshuffle and focus on domestic issues for 18 months and go into the next General Election relatively strong.

Or Blair resigns, and Labour have to elect a new Leader. Nothing says that the next leader will be Gordon Brown though.

I'm not entirely convinced that Blair can win another Election, even though he's got about 20 months to prove otherwise. His reputation has been damaged, although he's still coming up smelling of roses considering the ***** that's being flung his way during the last 12 months.

I do think Gordon Brown would make a solid PM, the only detraction is his lack of charisma and passion. But I think he'd continue in the direction that Blair has taken the Labour Party, so I doubt we'd see massive changes within the Government or it's policies.

The biggest problem we have, is that we simply do not have ANY viable opposition to Labour. The bunch of elitest, racist, homophobes of the Conservatives with the Poll Taxing Thatcherite Howard at the helm isn't an option. Or we have the spineless Ginger of the Lib Dems. Both would be 1000x worse than what we have at the moment.

As for millions on the street protesting for Blairs resignation?? there wasn't 'millions' protesting against the War in the first place overhere... so I can't imagine there being millions demanding that he goes either. Or people just realise that Blair hasn't infact done that bad a job during his 2 terms and that the grass isn't always greener.