The Iraqi government’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, says he supports Blair on removing Saddam (video clip of Blair interview.)
Comment at end
16th December, 2009
And what does this ‘TROOF’ seeker say?
“If you were in the hearing and know what was said during the blackout, please let us know.”
Don’t you find this call to leak sensitive information disreputable? Questionable? Illegal? Even treacherous?
Now let me guess – if you think Tony Blair is a ‘war criminal’ and the Iraq Inquiry is a sham, you conclude that Ames is an OK kind of a guy and just doing a journalistic investigator’s job.
On the other hand, if you think that Tony Blair was a prime minister who took an extremely hard decision and did NOT lie to us to have his wicked way with ALL of us, you may not be quite as convinced that Ames is to be trusted as a disinterested observer.
The truth is that none of us knows ALL THE ‘TROOF’ yet. That’s what the Inquiry is supposed to help us discover.
Personally I find this man’s behaviour beneath contempt. It would certainly be contempt of court if this were a TRIAL in a court of law and not just an Ames mock-up of one.
Chris Ames has a website set up solely to find Blair guilty of war crimes… to … (oh go here and believe them if you will)
I really can’t be doing with this crowd of WE ALL KNOWERS and their pretext of disinterest and fairness.
My reaction to Ames’ nosy request –
WHO told this guy that HE is the arbiter of all truth? The sole judge of what should or should not be heard in public? Isn’t that for Sir John Chilcot to decide?
Ames is no more a man with a mission for the truth – the REAL truth – than I am a fan of Saddam Hussein.
The issues around when and why the live streaming is interrupted is NONE of his business.
Some might say, but I couldn’t possibly comment…
CHARGE AMES WITH TREASON
If there is a law to prevent such as him from going about leaking confidential excerpts, especially if they ARE sensitive to national security, there may the question of “treason”. After all, this is “sensitive information” in the judgement of Sir John Chilcot. And they tell me that treason laws are still applicable these days. Though I imagine that like hanging, drawing and quartering, treason charges are reserved for one “guilty man” only.
The rest of Ames’s words of wisdom:
“The broadcast/netcast of the Inquiry was cut during this morning’s evidence session with Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who was giving evidence for a second time. He described the invasion as “a catastrophic success”.
It appears that Greenstock said something sensitive, which caused Sir John Chilcot to pull the plug for about a minute. The broadcast/netcast is on a one minute delay. Reporters and bloggers are largely reliant on the audio visual feed as no electronic devices are permitted in the actual room.
If you were in the hearing and know what was said during the blackout, please let us know. Greenstock was talking about the tendency of Paul Bremer to give too positive a picture of post-war Iraq, compared to the military, diplomatic and intelligence sources to whom he would speak privately.
The Guardian reports that:
“A member of the audience in the inquiry chamber said that after the feed was cut Greenstock went on to say that Colin Powell, who was then secretary of state, used British intelligence reports about the situation in Iraq because they were more accurate than the more optimistic dispatches that Bremer was sending to Washington.
“People aware of the piece of intelligence now deleted from the record dismissed it as insignificant. They made it clear that in their view the information was not at all sensitive from the point of view of national security.”
I recommend that people read this piece.
Here is Andrew Sparrow’s live blog, which suggests that the blackout happened between 11.46 and 11.52.
Here is the BBC report of the session.
Ames’s site – Iraq Inquiry Digest
MY THOUGHTS ON INTERRUPTING THE LIVE COVERAGE
The streaming video coverage of the Iraq Inquiry is screened with a minute’s delay. This is meant to be sufficient time to block information which may be considered sensitive. I have no idea why one minute is considered enough time. It CANNOT always be sufficient time. And what is the position of those members of the press and the public still watching 0n the screen in the room/ante-room? Are they allowed to hear it all, anyway?
If so, what’s the point? They will immediately twitter it or text it to the press, even if they have to give up their right to watch the rest of the fun and games. After all this could be the SMOKING GUN!
If there is a “sensitive” comment, the whole procedure should be STOPPED by the chairman.
The hall should be emptied, or the witness and panel moved to another room to continue the line of inquiry in real seclusion.
Otherwise, Sir John, suspending proceeds momentarily, is a waste of time.
With their usual logic I imagine it won’t be long before we hear TROOF seekers blaming British troops for ensuring that the Iraq WAR did NOT fail. (See BBC report on today’s Iraq Inquiry.)
What’s that you say? Oh, you thought it HAD failed. Where on earth did you get THAT idea? It was actually an astounding success, despite the deaths caused HUGELY by insurgents in Iraq, ongoing to this day.