Not a Word anywhere about the Hutton hearings....

[veracity]

The Brits have been tearing down Blair because of the WMD lies and the TV 'news' networks refuse to cover the proceedings. We're being denied basic information about a whole lot of stuff here...and no one is screaming...except for a few brave souls who give us alternative news.

This is important.... people have to understand how networks like FOX are snake oil salesmen, - not journalists...


http://tvnewslies.org/html/unfair___unbalanced.html

[MoonAndSun]

1. I agree, veracity. Our "so-called liberal media" doesn't care as long

as they can talk about Arnie, Laci, Kobe, etc.

At least the people who really do care, and who have access to the internet, can go to places like the Guardian and the BBC. I just posted in LBN from the Guardian.

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/0,13822,1034862,00.html>

Of course, you will not see this on our media news programs.

[AP]

2. Actually, my impression was that the Hutton inquiry isn't doing

the damage expected, so people are ignoring it.

Take DU for example. On the day the guy's family testifies about how they're sure that he committed suicide, and they suggest that he was upset about being (accurately) described as not being at the top level of intelligence community, and they say that he was upset that his name came out (event though it's odd that one would think they could speculate to the press about their opinions, rather than facts, and they expect confidentiality), not a peep can be heard at DU, and nothing in any press except the British Press which has an obligation to state these facts.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

3. Actually, I commented on your post, and you didn't!

The thread I am refering to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=262908

Was replied to by me, and all you had to say was "I'm just repeating Paula Toynbee's comments."

By the way, he wasn't "(accurately) described" as not being at the top level of the intelligence community as you try to claim here, which I pointed out in the above thread. In fact, this thread shows that he was privy to much more information than the liars claimed he was privy to.

The following thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=95208

Refers to an article that says:

Then, in a bombshell revelation, it was revealed David Kelly was intimately involved in the dossier and knew of concerns about claims the Iraqis could launch chemical weapons within 45 minutes of an instruction to do so - the central allegation that sparked the bitter war of words between the BBC and the government.

At a meeting of seven or eight intelligence officers on September 19, five days before the dossier was published, Dr Kelly suggested between 12 and 14 changes to the dossier, which were adopted.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/0,13822,1034862,00.html

If Kelly was involved in making changes to the dossier, he must have been pretty high up don't you think?

But never mind, I am sure you will repeat the same baseless claims again tomorrow when these two thread disappear off the front page.