The moment of truth in Britain

The moment of truth in Britain
: The Guardian is essentially blogging the Hutton inquiry live. Key points:

  • I’m surprised this took so long to hit the blogosphere. I picked it up last night around midnight – there were already 102 reports indicated on

  • Leland

    Kate, were the 102 reports exclusive to the BBC?

  • Pat

    Jeff, you are seriously underinformed about British society and this Labour government.
    Once the BBC fuss clears, this is all we’re left with from Hutton – “the government didn’t lie this time”. And that’s just not good enough.
    Britain needs a full public inquiry into everything relating into the war in Iraq – that’s the only way we’ll know the truth.

  • Pat

    Oh, and.. “journalism-by-agenda” is the perfect retort to a government which spent 18 months sourcing any scrap of evidence to convince the British people, who never wanted war, that war was right.

  • Anonymous

    Its time to strand Gilligan on an island somewhere in the Pacifi Ocean

  • JorgXMcKie

    Pat: Yes, I’m always impressed with arguments that start with lies. This time, the BBC’s lies. May I suggest that those who wish to investigate come with, at least relatively, clean hands? How about concurrent investigations into both the Blair government and the BBC?

  • Richard Cook

    Hey Pat:
    What about ending the BBC tax? Typical B.S. The Beeb is caught in a lie? Investigate everyone!!! (and get that damn spotlight off me!!!!). Maybe its because the Beeb is so out of step with significant parts of Britain (and lies like dogs) that its rep for news sucks.

  • Wes

    Perhaps Gavyn Davies (ex-BBC chair) can go work at Al Jazeera. There should be an opening for cheif editor over there.

  • Steve in Houston

    You guys don’t understand what Pat is saying. Basically, that the anti-war position was right all along, and even if some “facts” were “shaded” along the way, it was all in service of a higher good and done with the best of intentions by people of high moral character (outside of the “shading” of some “facts”).
    I mean, really, what’s the problem with a few misrepresenations when you’re trying to accomplish something?

  • “Kate, were the 102 reports exclusive to the BBC?”
    I didn’t check them all, but saw no BBC credits in the shortlist. I spotted it around midnight – Australia outlets are always first – out on this stuff – and went to the Guardian where there were a number of reports already up…
    Something that has been overlooked is that Clare Short was working behind the scenes to get the accusations published…
    Started blogged about it right away, then went to bed … I was astonished that there was nothing up this morning at Drudge, Instapundit, etc. Nothing on the local news until mid morning. I did get a note from Reynolds, though, so I think I can take credit for the tip.
    Here I am, a commercial artist in nowhere Saskatchewan, Canada and I beat the major media outlets by at least 6 hours.
    Heh. Indeed.
    Then about 8:30 am the nameserver went down .. my first blog scoop and it was snatched away by bad software! And it’s still down which is a source of some frustration.

  • mike

    “Oh, and.. “journalism-by-agenda” is the perfect retort to a government which spent 18 months sourcing any scrap of evidence to convince the British people, who never wanted war, that war was right.”
    Pat, let me get this straight. If Tony B. believes, in good faith, that the war with Iraq is the right thing to do and, in good faith, lays before the British people all evidence at his disposal which supports his view, where is the problem?

  • Mike, you can save everyone the trouble if you simply go to the UN site and read the Jan 27, 2003 address by Hans Blix on the status of HIS search for weapons HIS AGENCY had considered unaccounted for. While you’re at it do a google search on WMD and Bill Clinton. You’ll find to your amazement that there was no requirement to “dig” up or spin intelligence. There was plenty. The reliability may be in question, but that is a technical issue that applies to a good number of international bodies, not a political talking point.
    Pretending otherwise is disengenous and assumes the reader is stupid. Let us all do everyone a favour and reactivate our pre-March 2003 memories when debating these issues..