MPs Criticize Blair's '45-Minute' Iraq Claim

[NNN0LHI]

For the British DUers. We do not use the word "unhelpful" very much here in the USA so I am a bit confused of the context here. Is the use of "unhelpful" a polite way of saying Blair lied? Thanks in advance. Don

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030911/wl_nm/iraq_britain_report_dc&cid=574&ncid=1473

LONDON (Reuters) - The most sensational claim made by British Prime Minister Tony Blair to justify waging war on Iraq was criticized by an influential parliamentary committee on Thursday.

The now infamous assertion that Iraq could deploy banned weapons at just 45 minutes' notice was used by Blair to steamroller intense public opposition to the U.S. war.

But the Intelligence and Security Committee said the 45-minute point lacked context and was "unhelpful to an understanding of the issue" in a report that will further undermine trust in Blair.

The committee also criticized embattled Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon, who has been targeted by opponents as a fall guy for the government's troubles over the case it made for war in Iraq.

more

[rjbcar27]

1. Don

It's not used in this case to imply lying, more that the 45 minute point was too vague and therefore did not tell the whole story. What they are really saying is that it bloody well shouldn't have been in the dossier.

[NNN0LHI]

2. Thank you very much, Sir. I really did not know. n/t

[emad]

3. Euphemisms are standard because it is considered a grave

'crime' to accuse the PM of lying - if such an accusation is made in Parliament, it is tantamount to an accusation of treason. Previous use of euphemistic language includes a top aide of Margaret Thatcher claiming his evidence before a House of Commons committee had been 'economical with the actualite' - ie. devoid of anything resembling truth.
There are technical reasons for this: if you call the PM a liar in Parliament, you can't be sued for slander/defamation but can be ousted if you can't back up your assertion and the target takes umbrage.

[0007]

4. Thank you for the clarity -

eom

[T_i_B]

5. Unhelpful = red herring

So "claims about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons capacity did not give a balanced view." Well what a suprise folks. :eyes:

Sorry but if you actually bother to read the September dossier then I can assure you that you will find it to be a work intended to make Saddam sound as dangerous as possible. In fact they make Saddam out to be a heck of a lot more dangerous than he evidently turned out to be in combat. In short the dossiers were a work of SPIN.

[ze_dscherman]

6. Steve Bell

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/0,7371,337484,00.html