“I take full responsibility and apologize for any information given in good faith that has subsequently turned out to be wrong,” Blair told the House of Commons, in a stormy session dominated by the war.
Doesn’t that quote from the above article cover what they are asking for then?
Rob - 06:10am on 10/13/2004
Just because a politician is asking for an apology, it does not rule out the legitimacy of the request (although I admit that cynical motives may lie behind the great majority of politician’s actions).
The two political parties here are not asking for an apology for the faultiness of the intelligence (that would be ludicrous, as Blair did not compile it); nor are they asking for an apology for the war in general. What they seek is something very specific - an apology for the distortion of the intelligence presented to the cabinet.
Nearly all of the evidence presented by MI6 carried with it caveats as to its veracity, or warnings that information was ‘single-sourced’ (that is to say, uncorroborated). Crucially, these caveats and warnings were totally absent from the dossier the government presented. The case for removing Saddam on the basis of his possession of WMD was therefore far stronger than it legimately ought to have been. That is Blair’s responsibility, and it is quite correct (setting aside cynical motives) to request an apology.
Mark - 06:10am on 10/13/2004
I may be showing my age but I can remember a time when the leader of the government was ultimately responsible for the government.
MikeAdamson - 07:10am on 10/13/2004
Rob -
In the quote you have just given, Tony Blair is apologizing for the failures of the intelligence services (something for which he has no direct responsibility).
The apology being demanded by MPs is quite different - an apology for the way in which the intelligence received by Downing Street was presented. Whatever the failures of the intelligence services, they did attach caveats and conditions as to the reliability of their information; these caveats and conditions were omitted when the evidence was presented.
That is what Tony Blair should be apologising for; he has not done so.
Mark - 10:10am on 10/13/2004
I don’t know Mark, seems like you’re splitting hairs. In that quote Blair says that he takes full responsibility for any intelligence given that turned out to be inaccurate. I don’t know what else you want. Any accusations of him leaving out parts of the report in order to make the case for war stronger seem to be covered in that first apology.
Asking for another seems to be a politically-motivated request.
Rob - 11:10am on 10/13/2004
I don’t know Mark, still seems silly to me. Blair said that he, personally, takes responsibility for the intelligence. Maybe I’m way off base here since I don’t typically follow British politics all that closely, but it seems like these politicians are just driving for a soundbite.
Rob - 12:10pm on 10/13/2004
Rob -
I accept your last point. The demand is politically motivated. These are politicians we are talking about, after all. But as I stated earlier, that does not mean that Tony Blair is somehow exempt from making an apology.
Equally, I am not splitting hairs. The apology Tony Blair has made is utterly different from the one required. Let me show you how.
Someone, lets call him MI6, comes to me and says that he has heard of a magic purple tree that can cure diseases. He stresses, simultaneously, that he has heard this information from one person only , and equally that this person is quite unreliable.
I then proceed to tell all my friends that there definitively exists a magic purple tree that can cure people. I do not tell them about the uncertainty surrounding this information.
It then turns out that this magic tree does not exist. My friends turn out to be quite angry. What should I be apologizing for?
A) For MI6, who gave me information about the tree ‘in good faith, that has subsequently turned out to be wrong’?
B) The way I, personally, omitted crucial information about the certainty of its existence?
Tony Blair has made apology A. He has not made apology B.
“I take full responsibility and apologize for any information given in good faith that has subsequently turned out to be wrong,” Blair told the House of Commons, in a stormy session dominated by the war.
Doesn’t that quote from the above article cover what they are asking for then?
Just because a politician is asking for an apology, it does not rule out the legitimacy of the request (although I admit that cynical motives may lie behind the great majority of politician’s actions).
The two political parties here are not asking for an apology for the faultiness of the intelligence (that would be ludicrous, as Blair did not compile it); nor are they asking for an apology for the war in general. What they seek is something very specific - an apology for the distortion of the intelligence presented to the cabinet.
Nearly all of the evidence presented by MI6 carried with it caveats as to its veracity, or warnings that information was ‘single-sourced’ (that is to say, uncorroborated). Crucially, these caveats and warnings were totally absent from the dossier the government presented. The case for removing Saddam on the basis of his possession of WMD was therefore far stronger than it legimately ought to have been. That is Blair’s responsibility, and it is quite correct (setting aside cynical motives) to request an apology.
I may be showing my age but I can remember a time when the leader of the government was ultimately responsible for the government.
Rob -
In the quote you have just given, Tony Blair is apologizing for the failures of the intelligence services (something for which he has no direct responsibility).
The apology being demanded by MPs is quite different - an apology for the way in which the intelligence received by Downing Street was presented. Whatever the failures of the intelligence services, they did attach caveats and conditions as to the reliability of their information; these caveats and conditions were omitted when the evidence was presented.
That is what Tony Blair should be apologising for; he has not done so.
I don’t know Mark, seems like you’re splitting hairs. In that quote Blair says that he takes full responsibility for any intelligence given that turned out to be inaccurate. I don’t know what else you want. Any accusations of him leaving out parts of the report in order to make the case for war stronger seem to be covered in that first apology.
Asking for another seems to be a politically-motivated request.
I don’t know Mark, still seems silly to me. Blair said that he, personally, takes responsibility for the intelligence. Maybe I’m way off base here since I don’t typically follow British politics all that closely, but it seems like these politicians are just driving for a soundbite.
Rob -
I accept your last point. The demand is politically motivated. These are politicians we are talking about, after all. But as I stated earlier, that does not mean that Tony Blair is somehow exempt from making an apology.
Equally, I am not splitting hairs. The apology Tony Blair has made is utterly different from the one required. Let me show you how.
Someone, lets call him MI6, comes to me and says that he has heard of a magic purple tree that can cure diseases. He stresses, simultaneously, that he has heard this information from one person only , and equally that this person is quite unreliable.
I then proceed to tell all my friends that there definitively exists a magic purple tree that can cure people. I do not tell them about the uncertainty surrounding this information.
It then turns out that this magic tree does not exist. My friends turn out to be quite angry. What should I be apologizing for?
A) For MI6, who gave me information about the tree ‘in good faith, that has subsequently turned out to be wrong’?
B) The way I, personally, omitted crucial information about the certainty of its existence?
Tony Blair has made apology A. He has not made apology B.