Trust in Government

[Didwot]

I have just spent the last half an hour reading Lord Goldsmith's carefully worded advice to Mr Blair. Take time out and do so yourself and do not be misled as to what his advice was.
It does not seem unambiguous to me.
Does it to you?
Does the issue of trust matter in these elections?

[Quizmonster]

Lord Goldsmith's advice seems ambiguous to you, Didwot. It doesn't to me.

Howard keeps harping on about the Joint Inelligence Committee's reference to the intelligence being "sporadic and patchy". What he never adds is that - in the very same paragraph - these intelligence experts also say: "It is clear that Iraq continues to pursue a policy of acquiring weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means." Later in the document, they say: "We judge Iraq has an offensive chemical warfare programme"...and..."we believe Iraq retains some production equipment."

Clear...judge...believe...if Blair had ignored such comments and WMD had existed and been used - as the entire United Nations Security Council believed possible (See UNSC Resolution 1441) - what would Howard have said then?

Yes, the issue of trust does matter in these elections and I know who it is that we shouldn't!

[kempie]

I contend this is more a matter of what Mr. Blair doesn't say.

Be it the 'dodgy dossier' or legal advice, there appears to be a common factor of caveats being removed or not mentioned.

Mr. Blair may believe he is telling the truth but my version of what constitutes 'truth' includes completeness and accuracy and that which is not the truth is a LIE.

[Quizmonster]

Kempie, I wonder how you'd get on as a witness in a court of law. One promises at the start to tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth", but that doesn't stop barristers - with the support of judges - from telling you: "Just answer 'yes' or 'no', Mr Jones." What if the "whole truth" involves answering: "Yes, and..." or "No, but..."? If you were so prevented, would you admit that you'd told a LIE? There is a vast moral difference between saying something that turns out to be wrong and saying something you know to be an untruth.

[kempie]

Quizmonster - I hold the legal profession in as little esteem as that of politicians (perhaps because of the crossover - what was Mr. Blair's previous profession?). Both seek to obfuscate and inveigle to win the argument.

Answering 'yes' or 'no' to a question may well be the complete answer to that question; it is the question not asked that may be more relevant.

I therefore amend my conditions for 'truth' thus - completeness, accuracy and relevance.