A Conversation for Ask h2g2
The 45 minute question
Geggs Started conversation Feb 6, 2004
There is, I'm sure you must have noticed, some debate in political cirlces over the 45 minute claim in the September Dossier.
At the time we were all lead to believe that the claim related to long-range weapons. On the of the most significant this to emerge during the course of the Hutton enquiry is that the claim actually relates to battlefield munitions (and we now know it wasn't even true in that regard either).
The current debate, however, is about when the Prime Minister knew about this, and whether it the distinction between long range or battlefield weapons is important in any case.
I have my opinions, but I won't bleat on from the start. I did in the first post of the Butler enquiry thread, and no one has answered me yet, so I'll leave it for later.
But, for how, what do you think? Should Blair have known? Does the difference matter? Is Howard right to call for Blair to resign over this? And so forth.
Geggs
Geggs
The 45 minute question
Zak T Duck Posted Feb 6, 2004
Yes Blair should resign, mostly for selfish reasons of my own. I've got a fiver resting on him resigning before the end of the month at odds of 6-1
The 45 minute question
Researcher 524695 Posted Feb 6, 2004
We were sold a war on the basis of "weapons of mass destruction". I fail to see how ANY battlefield munition can be so designated.
Battlefield munitions imply, to me at least, things like:
- rifles
- grenade launchers
- mortars
- self-propelled guns
- tanks
- short-range tactical missiles (range, say, 50km or less).
Even if such things could be equipped with nuclear, biological or chemical agents, their effective range and area of destruction is very limited - limited, in fact, to people who have chosen to go to the battlefield. They could not be said to pose an "imminent threat" to anyone except an invading army or the local population - even if they exist.
Whereas weapons of "mass destruction" would, to me, imply some form of munition capable of dealing death, simultaneously, to, say, 5,000 people or more. Are the government actually now implying that they didn't believe Iraq had that capability? If so, what is their definition of "mass destruction"?
The 45 minute question
Geggs Posted Feb 6, 2004
Quite so. One must wonder what was going on inside their heads.
Geggs
The 45 minute question
BouncyBitInTheMiddle Posted Feb 6, 2004
I remember the Government's pre-war propaganda about Iraq verging on hysteria. We were all quite clearly in danger of imminent attack. Now I thought it was pretty obvious then that we weren't, although everyone would say that now that they haven't been found.
I don't think the Prime Minister will step down or be forced out before the next elections, but I think everyone is pretty fed up with him. The trouble being that we could get another John Major (economic crash), Margaret Thatcher ("there is no such thing as society") or whichever incompetent it was before who let the unions take over (before my time).
At least we don't have a Disraeli.
The 45 minute question
Geggs Posted Feb 6, 2004
I don't think he'll resign either. I just can't see it happening. But if he would, do you think this should be the point for him to resign over? Is it important enough?
Geggs
The 45 minute question
Researcher 524695 Posted Feb 6, 2004
Yeah... Jewish prime minister. How likely is that to happen again...?
The 45 minute question
Dogster Posted Feb 7, 2004
My take on this is that certainly Blair should have known it referred to battlefield weapons, and if he genuinely didn't know, which I could believe but don't, then that is itself very serious. Ultimately though, it's a moot point whether he personally knew or not. Someone knew, and nobody (with one honourable exception) made any attempt to correct the general impression shared by media and MPs alike that it referred to long range weapons. Thus, parliament and the country were misled.
Blair should resign, but not over this. He was taking the country to war regardless of what weapons Hussein did or didn't have. This was clear at the time and is clear now. He is a liar because he was trying to make us think we were going to war over WMD when we were really going to war for quite different reasons. That is why he should resign.
Incidentally, didn't he say he'd resign if no WMD were found? Or am I just fantasising?
Howard is just indulging in politics as usual and should be ignored.
The 45 minute question
Demon Drawer Posted Feb 9, 2004
Somewhere along the way someone is not telling hte whole truth.
Andrew Gilligan was not telling the whole truth and the Chairman and DG both resigned.
Someone in Governemnt at some level is not telling the whole truth.
So quid pro quo somebody should resign from Government on a like for like basis that should equate to Geoff Hoon and Tony Blair in this instance.
Will they own up to this is another matter?
The 45 minute question
Lizzbett Posted Feb 10, 2004
I was surprised that Geoff Hoon didn't fall on his sword over the David Kelly furore. If he had received more criticism in the Hutton report, possibly he would have resigned. There's still time!
Blair, on the other hand, is made of teflon and nothing will stick to him. I noticed in the last week or so before the invasion of Iraq that he was talking about "liberating the Iraqi people" rather than WMD, so I do think he knew that the threat was less than we had previously been led to believe.
Key: Complain about this post
The 45 minute question
More Conversations for Ask h2g2
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."