Comments on: Some post-Hutton thoughts

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 11:57:58 +0000

A masterly and fair-minded summary of all I believe on the subject, Dan. Couldn’t have put it better myself! In fact I owe you a debt of gratitude for stating so clearly opinions that I was merely groping towards in my incompetence. Thank you so much.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 11:46:55 +0000

Chris Bertram Summarised: The BBC should not have made assertions for which they had insufficient evidence. I assert that reporting of the death of Sgt Roberts, and his wife’s complaints about same, amount to ‘whipping up hatred against Tony Blair and those close to him’, for which assertion I have precisely no evidence. So long as I say ‘imho’ the matter may be considered settled. If the media grant prominence to the apparently factually well-founded complaints of Sgt Roberts’s widow, I shall accuse them of ‘parading’ her. No, I shall not explain why I do not use a less loaded word, nor consider the possibility that she is not a mindless dupe being ‘paraded’ but an individual making a choice to complain publicly about a matter of great importance. I do believe that the the Blairites should be held accountable, but I do not say for what, by whom, and in what manner, since this would make it rather harder for me to pretend that reporting of equipment shortages in combat zones is illegitimate journalism. I shall state that it is not possible for me to back up my arguments by quotation by saying that the Mail has no online archives, conveniently forgetting that the BBC, which I also accuse of ‘whipping up hatred’, has excellent online archives. I shall state that criticism of the Secretary of State for Defence for failings in military supply amounts to ‘whipping up hatred of Tony Blair and those close to him’ since the Defence Secretary is after all in the Cabinet and thus ‘arguably close’ to Tony Blair. I leave open the question of whether all criticisms of Cabinet Ministers shall also be considered efforts to ‘whip up hatred’. Intelligent argument is for the birds.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Thu, 05 Feb 2004 16:38:11 +0000

Selective quotation again, Dan. The original sentence ended “Blair and those close to him.” Which, arguably, includes those politically close to him such as Hoon. I’m afraid the Daily Mail and the MoS don’t have online editions (afaik), but the point I was making and that you wilfully refuse to understand is that the parading of this woman by the press is just one episode of many designed to make Blair and his circle look unfeeling, shifty, dishonest etc etc. Drip, drip, drip … each drop has an effect on public perception. I’m all for holding Blair and the Blairites to account. But imho, this episode wasn’t about exposing their real failings at all, but was a nasty piece of rhetoric on the part of the newspapers concerned.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:11:55 +0000

‘Bereaved widow’ is of course tautologous. £100 to charity: offer still stands.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:05:01 +0000

To make the offer again: if Chris Bertram can come up with one piece of evidence that would convince a reasonable person that Samantha Roberts’s complaints about the circumstances of her husband’s death, or press reporting of said complaints, amount to ‘whipping up very personal hatred of Tony Blair’, I shall send £50 to a charity of Chris Bertram’s choice. No, £100. And, if asked, I will mail the cheque to Chris c/o the University of Bristol Philosophy Department. And I will never again trouble Chris by commenting on one of his posts. Come on, Chris- has to be worth it. You can’t possibly have made your assertion about the Roberts story being an effort at ‘whipping up very personal hatred of Tony Blair’ without any evidence at all, now can you? To James, Chris’s representative on earth: you accused me of not saying something, now you admit that I did say it but reproach me for having done so ‘parenthetically’. If you can’t read anything in brackets, that’s sad, but most of us don’t have that problem. Bertram’s poorly expressed original post spoke of the ‘parading’ of Samantha Roberts- meaning that either she paraded herself, which is clearly offensive, or that she was the dupe paraded by the press, which is also clearly offensive. It went on to say that the only reason for the prominence of the Roberts story in the media was as part of a campaign of ‘whipping up very personal hatred of Tony Blair’. Might I point out that some British journalists, and a great many of their readers and viewers, do actually feel that regardless of the rights and wrongs of the recent war, British soldiers should not be deprived of vital equipment such as body armour? Has it crossed your mind, James, that so far from ‘parading’ or ‘being paraded’,Mrs Roberts is actually making a legitimate complaint about her husband being sent into battle with grossly inadequate equipment- as he himself complained in his taped journal? It may well be a bit of a stretch for you to imagine a working-class woman- and the wife of a soldier, at that- as an intelligent, autonomous individual making a case that deserves to be listened to on its own merits…but try, James, try. Just imagine that Samantha Roberts is the bereaved widow of an academic, or something else reassuringly middle-class.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:57:42 +0000

We now know definitively: – Iraq’s supposed WMD in the government’s dossier of September 2002 related to small calibre, battlefield weapons, not to long-range, stratgeic weapons capable of reaching Britain or even the British base in Cyprus. – Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, knew this before the war started: Tony Blair by his own claim did not. Nothing was said to disabuse the media or public of misapprehensions. – “But on the 45 minutes there is not missing intelligence. Dr Jones saw all the intelligence there was to see on it, so incidentally did Lord Hutton,” according to Blair. Source for the above: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-988941,00.html For reference: Dr Brian Jones, who was head of the nuclear, chemical and biological branch of the Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) until he retired last year, “declared that Downing Street’s dossier, a key plank in convincing the public of the case for war, was ‘misleading’ on Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological capability. . . ‘In my view, the expert intelligence analysts of the DIS were overruled in the preparation of the dossier in September 2002, resulting in a presentation that was misleading about Iraq’s capabilities.’” – Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=487557 On this evidence, I’m bound to conclude that Gilligan was on substantially the correct track in suggesting the drafting in the government’s dossier on Iraq’s WMD exaggerated the threat to Britain. What more “proof” is needed? It seems that Gilligan is owed an apology. What we still haven’t got to the bottom of is how come, if the threat of WMD was as great as claimed, British troops were sent to Iraq without equipment to withstand an attack by biological or chemical weapons?

By: james

james — Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:39:02 +0000

Dan, I realised you also mentioned, albeit parenthetically, the alternative (and correct) version of what Chris said. Nonetheless, since Chris’s remarks clearly, unambiguously related to criticism of the media and not of Mrs Roberts, I can see only two possible reasons for suggesting, and seemingly favouring, the contrary – a mistaken reading on your part, or an attempt at a smear. Presumably the latter, since you maintain that the post “could be interpreted as either…”. Well, yes, it COULD be interpreted as either. But not in good faith.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:11:00 +0000

Feeble, Chris, even by your standards. I would love to sit in on one of your tutorials: ‘I’m right because I say I’m right, and furthermore, I’m older than you’ is the standard I would expect. Having said that, my heart has been torn by the recent accounts of rampant poverty among Britain’s academics, so if Chris can provide a single piece of evidence supporting his claim that Mrs Roberts’s complaints about lack of body armour, or press reporting of same, are in fact efforts at ‘whipping up very personal hatred of Tony Blair’, I promise to send £50 to any fund that exists to buy food and clothing for the ragged dons of Bristol- or any other charity nominated by Mr Bertram. That would mean you would have to back an argument up with evidence, Chris, as opposed to hand-me-down rhetoric, so I’m not worried that I’ll have to pay up.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:00:49 +0000

“Comments rather confirm my suspicion that reactions to Hutton almost entirely depend on what people thought about Blair anyway.” What people think of Blair is incidental. What matters is whether he mislead Parliament and took us into war on false pretences. Readers may be interested to see the latest intervention on the infamous dossier about Iraq’s WMD by Brian Jones, formerly head of the branch within the Scientific and Technical Directorate of Defence Intelligence Staff that was responsible for the analysis of intelligence from all sources on nuclear, biological and chemical warfare: “The intelligence official whose revelations stunned the Hutton inquiry has suggested that not a single defence intelligence expert backed Tony Blair’s most contentious claims on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. “As Mr Blair set up an inquiry yesterday into intelligence failures before the war, Brian Jones . . declared that Downing Street’s dossier, a key plank in convincing the public of the case for war, was ‘misleading’ on Saddam Hussein’s chemical and biological capability. Writing in today’s Independent, Dr Jones, who was head of the nuclear, chemical and biological branch of the Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) until he retired last year, reveals that the experts failed in their efforts to have their views reflected. “Dr Jones, who is expected to be a key witness at the new inquiry, says: ‘In my view, the expert intelligence analysts of the DIS were overruled in the preparation of the dossier in September 2002, resulting in a presentation that was misleading about Iraq’s capabilities.’” – from: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=487557 See also: http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=487515 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1140665,00.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-988941,00.html For the BBC news report on today’s debate in Parliament: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3458541.stm The Iraq dossier with its claim that WMD could be used within “45 minutes” is here: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2002/09/24/dossier.pdf

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:46:38 +0000

Comments rather confirm my suspicion that reactions to Hutton almost entirely depend on what people thought about Blair anyway. On Dan Hardie: what James said. Those who’ve hung around these parts for a while will know that Dan has a habit of getting overexcited about my posts. I’m sure he could find a better outlet for that excess energy.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:45:46 +0000

James, if I may put you to the elementary trouble of reading my post, you will actually find that I said that Chris’s post could be interpreted as either Mrs Roberts parading herself, or being paraded by the press. You accuse me of only advancing the first interpretation. I further said that, under either interpretation, Mr Bertram’s point was offensive and invalid since a) the story of a British soldier being killed in Iraq possibly due to bad kit supply was a story of such importance that journalists should indeed have given it a lot of space and air-time and that b) the story had nothing to do with ‘whipping up very personal hatred of Tony Blair’ (Chris Bertram’s original charge). There is no ‘parading’ going on here, James and Chris. A woman- who happens to be bereaved, but is not in any way hysterical- has evidence that her husband was sent into battle having been ordered to give up his body armour, and that he was subsequently shot in the chest (ie the region that body armour protects). No-one has yet questioned this evidence. Journalists have concluded that this is an important story, on its merits. I happen to agree with them, since I hold to the eccentric view that British soldiers should not be deprived of vital equipment in war zones. No part of any story on the subject that I have read has included efforts to whip up ‘very personal hatred of Tony Blair’- although I have read criticism, from Mrs Roberts and others, of a Mr Hoon, allegedly Secretary of State for Defence, who would indeed have Parliamentary responsibility for soldiers’ equipment. Chris Bertram may or may not be able to defend himself, but certainly he has no need of defenders whose reading comprehension skills are so pitifully weak.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 04 Feb 2004 13:08:27 +0000

“What is most remarkable to me is the fact that Downing Street staff, with a political brief to make the dossier as threatening as possible, and with no intelligence expertise whatever . .” Absolutely. A trawl through the documentary evidence submitted to the Hutton inquiry makes it clear that Campbell was driving the successive redrafts of the Iraq WMD dossier. The later February 2003 dossier, drafted by Campbell’s outfit in Downing St., was subsequently dismissed by Jack Straw as “a complete Horlicks”. So much for Campbell.

By: TomD

TomD — Wed, 04 Feb 2004 12:17:23 +0000

A phrase that may become more prominent as the report is analyzed more deeply (rather than just parrotting its conclusions) is “Not necessary to express an opinion”. That is, Hutton found out a lot of things that make Campbell and the rest of the Government look bad, and he has to include the facts in the report, but he found it “Not necessary to express an opinion” on them. This allows him to reconcile almost anything, by judiciously ignoring it, with the notion that the Government did scarcely anything wrong. What is most remarkable to me is the fact that Downing Street staff, with a political brief to make the dossier as threatening as possible, and with no intelligence expertise whatever, were continually giving input into the drafting process; that their suggestions, made purely for political reasons, were almost invariably followed by the intelligence experts; and that Hutton thinks there is nothing wrong about this procedure. Added to which, lots of things which look bad for the government (such as a second dossier sourced from an obsolete doctoral thesis without attribution) were simply designated as off-limits and not investigated at all.

By: james

james — Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:50:52 +0000

Dan, Chris can defend himself, but for one thing I’m not sure if he is “some war-supporting academic” – actually, I could be wrong, but I think he opposed the war. In any case you seem, willfully or not to have misconstrued his comments re Mrs Roberts. You have him accusing her of “parading”; yet the phrase used is “the parading of Samantha Roberts” i.e. by the anti-Blair media. In other words she is being exploited. Not, then, that she is making a show of herself, or that she isn’t entitled to answers. It’s the same story when the press exploits the grief of the parents of the victims of pedophiles in order to whip up some circulation-boosting witchhunt. And to point that out oughtn’t require apologising to the exploited parents.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:42:21 +0000

“Responsibility for any undersupply of vital equipment to troops in Iraq surely belongs to senior military officers, MoD civil servants and the Secretary of State for Defence, an admirably competent man named Hoon.” Blair chaired at least two meetings in Downing St about outing Dr David Kelly. How many meetings did he chair to establish whether British troops fighting in Iraq would be protected against chemical and biological weapons, which, he said, could be used within “45 miniutes”?