BBC to produce Kelly tape in bid to exonerate reporter

[Nambe]

Guardian Newspapers Limited

The BBC has a tape of David Kelly expressing serious concern about how Downing Street made the case for war, the Guardian can reveal.

Susan Watts, science editor of Newsnight, recorded her conversations with the weapons expert, who killed himself on Thursday.

In her report she quoted a "source" - now known to be Dr Kelly - suggesting that No 10 was "desperate" for information and had exaggerated "out of all proportion" the claim that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes.

The BBC believes the tape is the "smoking gun" that will exonerate Andrew Gilligan, the Today programme correspondent who originally reported the suggestion that No 10 included the 45-minute claim in the September dossier on the case for war "to make it sexier", against the wishes of the intelligence community. ---

The tape's existence explains the corporation's determination to stick by its story under the onslaught of criticism from No 10. The BBC will submit the tape to the judicial inquiry led by Lord Hutton and will tell him that Watts and Gilligan checked their quotes with Dr Kelly before broadcasting them.

Banish bush From Texas Too

[jpgray]

1. Excellent news!

It's a tragedy that Dr. Kelly died, but it is important the right people are blamed for taking this to that sorry conclusion.

[Cha]

2. Wahoo! Mountian Dew!!

Thankful that Susan Watts "taped it"!!

[Demobrat]

3. Tape recordings, huh?

Brings back fond memories...of Tricky Dick's demise.

[tinnypriv]

4. Dynamite!

Can you imagine this being played at the public hearing?

Kelly tape: No 10 was desperate for info, exaggerated the 45 minute claim...

Blair: Er...

Would he dare call Kelly a liar?

I think a simple poll question: "Who do you trust more, Dr Kelly or Tony Blair" would come out, oh, about 99%-1.

[realityboy]

5. Exacally

If this tape spells it out clearly, it really could be game over for Blair. Can you imagine Kelly's voice saying "No 10 was desperate for info, exaggerated the 45 minute claim" being played out on the news? Whats Blair gonna do? Try and discredit the poor guy now that hes dead?

[Gin]

6. now all we need is a tape from 1600.....wouldn't it be lov-ely?

.

[TacticalPeek]

8. tapes you say?

we tend to assume after trickydick that nobody's gonna have tape, right?

remember ONE of the flanks these guys must defend is CIA...

got tape?

[tsipple]

7. Damn, I Like When I Get Predictions Right!

Way to go, BBC! Now that's what real journalism looks like. It's especially delicious that the BBC waited a bit to see what the Government and its "competitors" would do. Now they'll soon have egg all over themselves.

[chromotone]

64. Damn straight!

Now that's what real journalism looks like.

Didya hear that, American Media...?

...American Media?

...American Media!, didya hear that???

...AMERICAN MEDIA!!!

why isn't there ever a "wake up and pay attention" emoticon when you need it?

:shrug:

[dfong63]

9. this is gonna be good

i can hardly wait...

[jefff]

11. An unterior motive?

Not to throw too much cold water on the BBC, but it seems to me that all of this is effort to discredit Blair is a great way to put a Tory back in #10.

I'm not saying I support Blair, but you have to wonder why the BBC suddenly has so much spine.

[rooboy]

26. The BBC has always had a spine.

Good journalism always distrusts the government of the day. The BBC got just as much heat from Thatcher's crowd in the 80's.

[MoonRiver]

37. Dare we assume that some journalists still have integrity?

I know this is a very radical question, but what the hell.

[dfong63]

40. don't think so

Not to throw too much cold water on the BBC, but it seems to me that all of this is effort to discredit Blair is a great way to put a Tory back in #10.

discrediting Blair is the only way to get an honest laborite back into #10.

[T_i_B]

43. Blair is instigating an anti-BBC witch-hunt

As such the BBC has to defend itself as much as it can. the credibility of the BBC is at stake, and in fairness that credibility has taken a knock as a result of this one story by Gilligan.

BTW, the BBC would be fools to try to get Dimwit-Smith into downing street as the tories are ven keener on privatizing it than Blair is. Also, has anyone noticed how much the Murdoch press is going after the BBC with Blair? I do suspect that Blair has got up this row in part in order to appease Rupert Murdoch.

[AP]

10. Everybody has their opinion...

...but treating Kelly's opinion of Blair as proof of "sexing up" is on par with treating some anonymous DUer's criticism of
Blair as evidence of wrongdoing. Like Kelly testified, he had no idea if the dossier was sexed up because he never saw
an draft other than the final draft -- and that was the allegation Gilligan was trying to prove with Kelly's 'evidence'.

If the BBC just wants to be a mouthpiece for opinion, they should distribute the Rush Limbaugh programme, but if they
want to do real journalism, they need to dump reporters like Gilligan.

[indictrichardperle]

12. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

Who in the world would believe Poodle "sexed up" anything ? :eyes:

That 45 minute claim, the African Uranium claim? Oh goodness yes, the BBC is just like Rush Limbaugh for questioning those claims, its just "opinion" :eyes:

[AP]

13. Give me your summary of the 45 minute claim...

?

Give my your summary of the Africa uranium claim.

I'm disturbed that people here in their eagerness to criticize Bush aren't even paying attention to the facts and the precise allegations.

And, incidentally, the problem with Rush is that it's all opinions and no facts. The problems with Gilligan's journalism is that he took Kelly's opinion about what Blair was doing and tried to argue it was a fact which proved Blair sexed up the dossier. The problem was that Kelly never saw any other intelligence than his own, and that, when the raw reports were reviewed and earlier drafts were reviewed, there was no sexing up.

There's a problem here, but it isn't the one that the BBC tried to paint. Why do they want to paint in the way they do? Because they're trying to get a tory elected. Why don't they tell the truth like, apparently, it is told in the book 30 Days? Because Blair actually comes off reasonable well when you consider all the facts.

[tinnypriv]

15. Wow

You've read the book 30 Days, right?

I've got it right here. Care to tell me which pages deal with "the truth"? I seemed to have missed them when I actually read it.

[AP]

17. I've only heard the author interviewed...

...but he says that Blair knew that Bush was going into Iraq regardless of what Blair did. He knew that if Bush went in alone, that was going to be terrible for Britain and Europe (the US would have Europe by the economic short hairs, and would be able to pull so tightly, it would be the end of any government presiding over the fall). Blair was caught between a rock and hard place. There was evidence of threats, but not enough to justify an invasion (is there ever?) -- but, the overwhelming sense is that Blair was definitely acting with the best longterm interest of Britain, Europe and Iraq in mind (but probably not for the version of America that Bush promotes). This is not the character assassination that Gilligan is employing in trying to characterize events.

[indictrichardperle]

20. whoa......Blair was acting in Iraqs best interests

by invading them, bombing them and stealing their oil? Okay, now i know where you are coming from.

[AP]

22. Uh, yeah. What the fuck do you think it would be like for

Iraq if the US were in there all alone with no Guardian reporters, with no Blair making speaches about democracy in Iraq, with no Blair pushing for UN involvement? It is early days right now. Sabotage Blair, and the US will be in there alone, raping Iraq for the next 100 years. Don't sabotage Blair, cross fingers and hope a Dem wins in '04, and Iraq will be better off in 4 years compared to any year of Sadaam's reign, and compared to any scenario current or future in which US has free reign.

[indictrichardperle]

25. Thank Gawd for Poodle

:puke:

Gosh, maybe if Poodle hadnt went along with the junta(against his peoples will)...then maybe there would have been no fig leaf of a phony "coalition" for Junior to hide behind ?
Maybe if Poodle wasnt lying his ass off for Junior 24/7 in the press and at the UN.....the war could have bveen held off or prevented ?


Your view of Poodle as benevolent humanitarian is beyond twisted.

[AP]

32. You know that's bullshit.

It's sweet to think the UK has that kind of influence on the world, but it doesn't. Had Blair objected, he would have been lumped in with Chirac and Schroeder, and the US would be boycotting scones and Burberry scarves and Tiptree jams, in addition to French Fries, and it would give Bush even more leverage in economically destroying the EU, which would have resulted in such discontent that every government with a liberal or center left leader would loose the very next election.

You know I'm right. And I know you don't want to believe it because you think it's easier to hate Bush when you can hate everything that isn't blatantly 100% against him.

Blair is keeping his enemy close, and just because he isn't blatantly against Bush doesn't mean he isn't latently against Bush.

[ze_dscherman]

42. And you should know this is bullshit

You depict the U.S. as overwhelmingly strong in world affairs, without any one else having influence. This is exactly the picture the U.S. wants us to believe. Speaking of mere military firepower, this is right. But forget the rest.

But the simple truth is: The U.S. can not do without other nations! It has to rely on faithful allies like the U.K., it even will call the UN for help pretty soon to be able to cope with the problems of occupation.

Regarding the EU, Blair has done nothing to protect it - in contrary he has become the biggest wedge the U.S. uses against EU. Speaking of economics, an united EU with a U.K. adopting the Euro would put the U.S. in grave danger.

Blair is not keeping his enemy close. He has become part of the enemy.

[lastliberalintexas]

69. Ding-ding-ding!

We have a winner ladies and gents!

"Speaking of economics, an united EU with a U.K. adopting the Euro would put the U.S. in grave danger."

Yes, and Blair's England was ready to adopt the Euro! Screw him to the wall, his Labour party possibly fails to even hold seats and the Tories take over. Oh yeah- and the Tories just so happen to be in favor of keeping the Pound. Coincidence? Hmmm.

Does anyone doubt this was a bonus in Shrub's plans all along? Ok- not his, since that would require actual thought. But this was certainly one of the things the cabal thought about and hoped and planned for.

[T_i_B]

70. Blair is not ready for that

As joining the Euro would require a referendum, and the Euro-sceptics have such a grip on public opinion that Blair would almost certainly lose such a referendum if he tried to take us in. Blair does realize that though and there has not been any danger of us joining the Euro for quite some time.

As to Shrub's plans, well Blair was gullible enough to fall for them! :eyes: Can't say I have any sympathy for Blair as it was he who got himself into this mess, we the British people were the ones who warned him against it! "new" labour only has itself to blame.

[lastliberalintexas]

71. Oh I am not defending Blair

Quite the contrary. I think that he is as evil as Shrub. I could possibly at one time have bought the idea that he may have been duped into believing {insert his supporters' arguments here}. But if that were the case, he should be screaming for Shrub's head now that the blinders are off. The fact that he is not leads me to believe that he is not just some dolt, but an actual co-conspirator.

I just also see the Euro-Dollar battle as one more skirmish in this war being fought on behalf of the wealthy. Overseas investments and investments in the Euro have really hammered the dollar in recent months, and the powers that be certainly realize the danger to the US if the Euro becomes the dominant world currency. Heaven help us if the "peacenik" European nations of the EU become more powerful than the US! However would Shrub and his boys strongarm them into future wars?

[ze_dscherman]

41. Without Blair

- the U.S. would have lost the "liberal/left" figleaf Tony is
- the U.S. would have faced a much stronger und unified Europe opposing it's unilateralism. Blair wants to play it both sides, and he weakens the EU stance.
- the U.S. would have had to pay even more for this f***ing war, thus having less to spend for another raid
- the U.S. would be isolated even more

It's like you are arguing "I helped that criminal beating up his victim because, if I hadn't helped, he would have beaten harder than me."

You have fallen for the "good cop" spin in a "good cop /bad cop" scheme, and probably Blair has fallen for the same scheme. But this does not absolve him from becoming a lying war criminal himself.

Still, you maybe right suspecting the U.S. is trying to put in a Tory as "reward" for their faithful poodle.

[tinnypriv]

27. Right

In which case, I suggest actually read the book for yourself.

Especially the part where Blair, when asking about the make-up of an audience he is to address says: "How many anti-Americans"? Note: not "how many are opposed to war?", but: how many can we label with an idiotic phrase in order to discredit their opinions? (pg 8)

Another part I suggest you read is where Blair and others, when trying to promote a military policy decide to "Kofi" it - i.e. "obscure this bit of military planning with some humanitarian waffle"(pg 139). To "Kofi" something is apparently a verb in No 10 (ibid).

Away from the book, you've just invalidated your own point. You say there wasn't enough evidence for an invasion, yet Blair had to go along with Bush. It therefore holds that Blair did indeed "seize" (Susan Watts, quoting Kelly - she has it on tape) on any information that could present an alarming picture of the Iraqi threat, and promote it beyond the actual threat, in order to bring the UK into line behind an already planned U.S. invasion.

What you're essentially saying is: Tony Blair is a fanatic liar. He was pretending, (up until the last minute), that if Saddam disarmed he "would be allowed to say in power" (No 10 Official spokesman, in late Feb), when he knew FULL well back in Sept 2002 that no amount of disarmament would satisfy Bush and the U.S: "Gulf War 2...would happen whatever anyone else said or did" (pg 87).

Please. I don't like being lied to, and I certainly don't like being lied to in order to appease your lunatic, RW adminstration because it is bent on attacking a country no matter what anybody thinks. You think our Prime Minister LYING to us is in our "best longterm interests"? No, I rather think you have a funny conception of accountablity and democracy.

[AP]

38. 30 Days author was on Fresh Air today and he described a

good politician with the best interest of the British people at heart. Doesn't anyone remember the Tories? And, hey, if you like sausage, you don't want to see how it's made. Why does everyone act surprised like Blair is the first guy ever to be a politician?

[TahitiNut]

34. I heard that. Blair even posed that rationalization himself.

It reminded me of a buddy of a bank robber going along to help so the bank robber would only kill the guards and not the customers and tellers too. With friends like that ... :eyes:

[sendero]

35. that is the LAMEST...

... rationalization I have heard recently, and I hear a lot of them. If that *was* his "strategy", and I'm highly skeptical of that, he failed abjectly.

For god's sake nobody wants a effing Tory in there but Blair simply does not have a leg to stand on here, period.

[AP]

39. You think that's lame? Here's what I think is STUPID.

The entire premise of this thread is that, ooh, there's this tape of an interview with Kelly which, let's pray, will bring down Blair and put Gordon Brown in office (and if you love Greg Palast, you'll know that Brown's a bigger whore than Blair in Palast's mind) so that will quickly lead to a Tory government in name and spirit lead by IDS.

And you know what's stupid about this? Gilligan used this tape in his first story. Do you people even read the articles? Knee-jerk hatred of Bush can only get you so far. You're going to have start reading and thinking at some point.

If there's something more incriminating than the parts which Gilligan had an actor read for his report, don't you think Gilligan would have had his actor read THOSE parts?

Hello? Is anyone thinking out there?

And the inspidness of the the thinking about Blair does not stop there. Here on DU, it reaches new level of ignorance every time I read a thread addressing Blair.

[T_i_B]

50. Gilligan had an actor read it?

If there's something more incriminating than the parts which Gilligan had an actor read for his report, don't you think Gilligan would have had his actor read THOSE parts?

I will belive that claim AP when you privide proof rather than just lying through your back teeth in order to protect your political paymasters. If a member of parliament were to make that claim then they would have their arse sued off them.

No wonder nobody belive a word the Blairites say when they come out with utter shite like this.

[AP]

53. Read the Guardian.

The article on this issue says that Gilligan used this tape to do his first report. To maintain Kelly's anonymity, he had an actor read Kelly's line.

Damn. I can't believe I'm arguing with people who convict first and consider the evidence later.

TiB, do you know what a SLAPP suit is? This is the second time you've said that I should worry about being sued. (Explicitly, the first time, and implicitly this time.) It makes me laugh.

[T_i_B]

68. I did read it....and you're a Liar!

From the Guardian article, which I read on the way to work as, like most Brits on here, I actually brought a copy of the bleedin' paper!

In Watts's report on June 2, an actor speaks her source's words, saying of the 45 minutes claim: "It was a statement that was made and it just got out of all proportion. They were desperate for information, they were pushing hard for information which could be released. That was one that popped up and it was seized on and it's unfortunate that it was.

That was on a Newsnight report where they are hardly going to use the actual tape. Nobody is claiming that is Mr Kelly. It is the ACTUAL RECORDING of Dr Kelly that will be released here, not an old videotape of Paxman & Co on Newsnight.

Damn. I can't believe I'm arguing with people who convict first and consider the evidence later.

That is exactly what we Brits think of you Another Poodle. We are the ones looking rationally at the evidence, you are just propogandizing on behalf of Tony Blair. You are the one putting the cart of ideology before the horse of known facts, not us. That is why we find it virtually impossible to take anything you say as anything other than bullshit. However silly it was of Gilligan to go ahead with that report it has nothing on your posts on DU.

And while I'm at it, why don't you have a good butchers at this article?

http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqdossieraffair/story/0,13754,1003596,00.html

BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan went back over his conversation with David Kelly at the end of their May 22 meeting to confirm the quotes he could use, the inquiry into the circumstances of the microbiologist's death will be told.

The BBC's evidence to Lord Hutton's investigation will reveal that Gilligan discussed with Dr Kelly which parts of their conversation he could quote from on May 22.

Gilligan is said to have made contemporaneous notes about his May 22 meeting with Dr Kelly in a central London hotel on an electronic device, which has been kept under lock and key by the BBC since its row with the government over the Iraq dossier erupted.

[tinnypriv]

63. Gilligan didn't have an actor read it

That was Susan Watts report on June 2 (updated, repeated on June 4). Gilligan repeated himself what "his source said" on the Today programme. He expanded on that in print form the following Sunday in the Mail on Sunday. :)

[indictrichardperle]

16. i realize Poodle is your hero

but surely you arent trying to deny his infamous "45 minute claim" ?

All of your blather about Kelly being a "key Blair witness" pretty much sums it up. Have fun watching Poodle resign over the next few weeks.

[AP]

18. Explain to me what you think the 45 minute claim is.

Let's just establish the facts first.

[indictrichardperle]

21. foolishness.....

everyone knows damn well what he lied about. Google it, cut and paste the quote......then try to defend that stinking pile of horse-shit.

[AP]

23. You can't tell me what you think the issue and facts are, can you?

Don't you care about the truth? If this whole thing is about telling the truth, you think that you'd care about more than just sloganeering.

[DrBB]

24. Except the 45 minute claim WAS bullshit

I just completely don't get your point here. Bush wanted to invade Iraq, Blair for god knows what reason wanted to do it too. Anyone paying attention knew they were massively exaggerating the threat at the time. I sure as hell did; didn't you? We saw report after report come out of these guys' mouths that turned out to be crap, sometimes within hours of the utterance. The aluminum tubes story last fall for instance. The Amazing Cardboard Drone, for another. The illusory al Quaeda links. Those were all bullshit, all of 'em, and plenty more where they came from. You had to be a moron or a Bush supporter (sorry, redundant) not to know they were "sexing up" the whole thing. "There was no sexing up" you say? Come ON man. It was ALL sexing up from the get-go. I don't get it.

[AP]

29. If you don't understand Blair's motivation, I suggest that

you and I read 30 Days and then discuss it.

Also, if you read the The Clinton Wars too, you'll see that Clinton thought that Hussein was a very serious threat. Not one justifying an invasion, but that was Clinton's attitude towards sovereinty. So now you got Bush looking at the same serious information, but not leaking the serious stuff, and media which doesn't care about the serious stuff (and you can come up with theories about why they'd do this -- perhaps to make sure the only thing anyone talks about is war and getting rid of Blair, rather than talking about an economy in the crapper). So Bush decides to invade. If he goes it alone, Europe and Britain are screwed economically for 100 years. If Blair goes in, he has a chance of saving Britain, Europe, and probably the Iraqis too (remember, was it, Mosul? -- "the British army played the roll of America's missing conscience").

By the way, sometimes I wonder if I'm the only person who read the articles which cited the sentences which were allegedly sexed up. Here's a paraphrase: raw report: Iraq can deploy to is units chemical weapons in 45 minutes. Dossier: Iraq can deploy chemical weapons in 45 minutes. BBC shouts "sexing up". Everyone else left scratching head. Mind you, the BBC never challenged the notion that raw intelligence reports were accurate. They didn't have a problem with raw reports, and have no experts disputing that. (Kelly had his opinions, but he admittedly wasn't high enough to know the full intelligence.) The BBC were making an argument of 'sexing up' designed to cast doubt about Blair's character (and nothing else, like bad intelligence) because they knew that would hurt him politically. And Gilligan and the Governors care about politics. They don't care about the facts, because the tories still in intelligence will be on their side if a tory PM takes over.

Look, I have a problem with invading a country on pretence. But I'm not so stupid to blind to the real political machinations here, which are designed to get a nice Tory in power who will totally turn a blind eye to misery and social injustice, just like they did in Yugoslavia.

So what say? We read 30 Days and The Cliton Wars, and we rethink the knee-jerk BS.

[dfong63]

45. blair lied

i don't care about his motivation, because the ends don't justify the means.

[AP]

55. Let's accept this proposition.

But I ask you, what ends do YOU want to see?

If the ends you wanted were, no invasion of Iraq, then you're barking up the wrong tree. Believe me, NOTHING Blair could have done would have kept Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney, Rove and Bush out of Iraq. Do you know how much Bechtel and Halliburton money was driving that end? If Bush said that he couldn't do it because Blair was stopping him, somebody would have shoved another pretzel down his throat AND down Blair's throat for good measure.

So what's your end? Mine is that Iraq gets an economy in which the wealth of its natural resources flows back to its middle and working class, and not to Houston, as soon as possible, so that that wealth operates as a bullwark against future invasion and from internal tyranny whether by the an American protectorate generals, and so that Iraq can no longer be used as to give Republicans a national security raison d'etre (ie, less fear in the world -- the fewere Sadaam Husseins in the world -- means less reason for Americans to vote for Republicans). And you know what? That happens to be the way Blair is playing this, while the US, on the other hand, is trying to keep the US out, is talking about running things there for 20 years, can't tell us Hussein is gone, and, hands over control to private US industry. And, oddly, everytime Blair gives a big speach (either in Iraq, or in the US congress) putting forth his vision for Iraq, something really crappy happens in the media which steals his thunder. Nonetheless, he seems to persevere.

[reorg]

52. pro-imperialist ramblings

>Kelly had his opinions, but he admittedly wasn't high enough to know the full intelligence.<

Did you actually read the transcript of his testimony? Did you watch it? I have some doubts, since he explicitly stated before the FAC that he was fully aware of all intelligence relevant to his field (bio and chemical weapons) and was even "alerted" when new intelligence materialised.

So he actually was "high enough" to have his very well informed opinions, as THE British expert in the field ... contrary to Mr. Blair and consorts, who where however "high enough" to twist whatever came up as "intelligence" into their war-mongering diatribes, for purely tactical reasons, as you thankfully admit in other messages in this thread.

...
>I have a problem with invading a country on pretence.
... just like they did in Yugoslavia.<

Yes, like all the "Racak massacre", "genocide in Kosovo", "horseshoe plan" and "100000 men missing" pretences. Aggressive Imperialism must be defended at all costs as long as WE can benefit from it - is that it?

[AP]

54. "Relevant to his field"...as for 'pro-imperialism'

you could really see some crazy assed imperlialism if Bush were in Iraq completely unfettered and without the "conscience" of the British Army, as the Guardian (I believe) reported -- which is what would have happened if Blair stayed out, and what WILL happen if Blair gets the boot (which is Bush's goal).

I hate the fact that a soverign nation was invaded on such slim pretext, but I'm glad as hell Bush isn't in there alone and that it's Blair who has an eye over Bush's shoulder.

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. Dossier Pre-'Transformation'

"I wonder if I'm the only person who read the articles which cited the sentences which were allegedly sexed up. "

I didn't realise the original material had been released. Where is it?

[tinnypriv]

14. You are aware

That the 45 minute claim by the British government was also just from one "opinion", right?

Have you even seen the testimony of Kelly?

You are aware that Kelly spoke to three journalists at the BBC and they all independently came to the same conclusions aren't you? If so, why aren't you calling for them to be "dumped"? If not, why are you attempting to comment on something you clearly know nothing about?

[AP]

19. What did Kelly say about the 45 minute claim before parliament?

?

[tinnypriv]

28. Three points

1) It wasn't before Parliament, it was before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of Parliament.

2) Your answer implies you haven't actually watched the testimony, yet here you are commenting on it. That alone invalidates anything you have to say on the matter.

3) You've yet to explain why you haven't called for Susan Watts and Gavin Hewitt of the BBC to also be "dumped", like you've said Gilligan should be. I'll await an answer to that, before I respond to your counter-question.

[AP]

31. I found the Guardian article very persuasive...

... the one which said that rank and file BBC reporters think that the Governors who supported Gilligan should resign. They're stunned that the governors thought Kelly was high enough to be an exception to the rule against single anonymous sources.

As for 1, I used contractions like "they're" when I write. Don't tell me you have a problem with that too.

Sorry, I missed the testimony. I'd love to see a transcript, but, again, I'm trusting the three Guardian articles I've read in the last two days which characterize the testimony as supporting Blair, and revealing that Kelly really didn' know enough about the things Gilligan was using him to prove.

[tinnypriv]

33. Right

I'm afraid it is late here, so I don't have the time to correct every single thing you're reciting, but let me do just one:

There is no "rule" against "single anonymous sources" in the BBC Guidelines.

They state:

"Programmes should be reluctant to rely on only one source" (my emphasis, 'Values, Standards and Principles', Official BBC Producers' Guidelines , p12).

Also, you can watch the Kelly testimony in full on the BBC News Online website. Just do a search.

However, since you're obviously ignoring the other pertinent points I raised in my earlier reply to you, I think it is pointless to continue the discussion.

[AP]

36. You seem to have a problem with shorthand.

When you've written your tome on the rules of posting to the internet, I'll toss it on my to-do pile. Until then, I think you understand the spirit of what I'm saying. And you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with BBC rank and file reporters who, accourding to the Guardian, believe that Gilligan's reliance on Kelly -- a single anonymous source for Gilligan's first story -- and the governors defense of Gilligan after knowing Kelly's identity, warrants resignations by them.

So don't make this personal between you and me and don't cite the the BBC rule book (oops, I mean the BBC "reluctancy list") and don't tell me that I'm using too few words to get accross my point, and don't pretend that you don't have to address the core message because you don't like the messenger.

Why don't you just address the Guardian articles?

[T_i_B]

51. Why not read Kelly's evidence to the select comittee?

before making wild allegations without any evidence? Even if Gilligan only had one source it is more than you ever produce to back up your allegations.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmfaff/uc1025-i/uc102502.htm

Personally, my hunch was that he wasn't the mole, and that the real mole was being protected, but then the BBC admitted he was the sourse and now I am awaiting the Hutton report. Both Government & Auntie (or more to the point Gilligan) have make mistakes, but let's not pretend that Blair is innocent here. Blair's first dossier was clearly written to shock & scare the public (I did actually read it when it came out) and the allegations in it have not been proved one little bit. There is very little evidence indeed to the effect that your paymasters were telling the truth.

[AP]

57. A good Q&A:

Q103 Andrew Mackinlay: Did you express any view about that document at all to him which you can share with this
Committee?

Dr Kelly: We are talking of a conversation we had six weeks ago and for me it is very difficult to recall that, so
I cannot recall the comments that I made. All I can say is that the general tenet of that document is one that I am
sympathetic to. I had access to an immense amount of information accumulated from the UN that complements that
dossier quite well, remarkably so, and although the final assessment made by the United Nations was status of
verification documentation, not a threat assessment, the UN did not make a threat assessment, put the two together
and they match pretty well.

[AP]

58. 45 Minutes:

Q133 Richard Ottaway: In a throwaway line to a question just now you said you did have a view as to why weapons of
mass destruction were not used in 45 minutes. Would you like to elaborate on that?

Dr Kelly: I did not say I had a view as to why they were not used in 45 minutes, what I said was that I had a view
as to why weapons were not used during the conflict.

Q134 Richard Ottaway: What was that?

Dr Kelly: Basically early on in the war the weather conditions were such that you could not possibly consider the
use of chemical and biological weapons and later in the conflict command and control had collapsed to such a state
that you still would not be able to use them.

Q135 Richard Ottaway: So they could not have been deployed in 45 minutes?

Dr Kelly: That is a separate discussion as to what the 45 minutes means. Basically it would be very difficult to
see how Iraq could deploy in 45 minutes.

Q136 Richard Ottaway: The original statement was that "employed within 45 minutes" meant they could be got up to -
I think the word was - the utility within 45 minutes, which implied some sort of holding camp or base camp. Do you
agree with that?

Dr Kelly: I do not remember that statement being made, it does not actually make sense to me.

Q137 Richard Ottaway: You are quite an expert on this. Do you actually think that biological and chemical weapons
could have been deployed within 45 minutes?

Dr Kelly: It depends what you mean by "deployment".

Q138 Richard Ottaway: From Saddam Hussein saying "use them" to delivery on the battlefield, to actually being
fired at enemy troops, allied troops?

Dr Kelly: It makes a number of assumptions, that the weapons were all ready to go in the right place with whatever
system was being used with the right tracking to attack, and that is very unlikely. We are talking in terms of Iraq,
in terms of what we knew ten years ago, a country which filled its weapons to use them, it did not maintain a
stockpile of filled weapons, with the exception of mustard gas. It is actually quite a long and convoluted process
to go from having bulk agent and munitions to actually getting them to the bunker for storage and then issue them
and subsequently deploy them.

Q139 Richard Ottaway: Do you think on September 24 2002 there were weapons that could be deployed within 45
minutes?

Dr Kelly: I have no idea whether there were weapons or not at that time.

[AP]

59. This is a good deposition.

Q145 Richard Ottaway: Do you think that Iraq was a threat to the rest of the world?

Dr Kelly: I think it was a threat to its neighbours and to the interests of the UK.

Richard Ottaway: Thank you very much.

[Spentastic]

65. In 45 minutes though?

And hold up, the war was about an imminent threat to the security of the U.K was it not? Not British interests in the region.

[T_i_B]

67. That is what we were told Spentastic

The reason the British public were given for war was to disarm Saddam. Blair said as much in parliament on numerous occasions. To that effect the Blair spin machine wheeled out the 45 miniute claim, the Niger uranium claim and a host of other goodies in their two dossiers, one which was plagarized from a 10 year old thesis on the internet, the other being currently disputed as not one shred of the evidence of that dossier has turned up.

Which makes you wonder if there was another reason to go to war, stealing the Iraqi's oil for instance. According to AP that seems to have been the case, and his argument that we should poodle along with $hrubya come what may is morally repugnent. If we are to follow the line of thinking AP uses to justify his stance on Iraq than we should have got Neville Chamberlain to invade the Sudetenland with Hitler rather than merely appeasing him! :grr: As you can guess, that is not a line of thinking that I, or anyone else with the ability to tell right from wrong can subscribe to! It is about time that Blair realized that Britain does not have permanent allies, only permanent interests and that those interests are better served by siding with those countries whose governments are open to reason.

Bush, like Sauron, does not share power and Blair is a fool to think that he can play Saruman to Bush's Sauron.

[tinnypriv]

61. Like I said, this discussion is pointless

Within all of about 4 posts, I've deduced the following:

1) You reference books you haven't read to support your argument.
2) You comment on testimony you haven't seen.
3) You make false allegations about the BBC guidelines.

4) When any of this is pointed out, you fall back on asking the poster to discuss the "spirit" of your posts.

Sorry, arguments are derived from premises. Count me out of the discussion, since I see no reason to take you seriously.

[AP]

62. Okely dokely.

1) I haven't read 30 Days, but I heard the author interviewed on Fresh Air.

2) I just quoted from the testimony above, and it doesn't contradict what I've said.

3) You're arguing with the Guardian, not me.

4) YOU are the one who doesn't want to address the issues (you would rather make it something personal). Anyway, you promised to ignore me in a much ealier post of yours, yet, rather than address what I've said (or what the Guardian said), you keep repeating a variation of the post above. Who's zooming whom?

[dfong63]

44. wrong

...but treating Kelly's opinion of Blair as proof of "sexing up" is on par with treating some anonymous DUer's criticism of
Blair as evidence of wrongdoing.

nice try, but Dr Kelly is/was a real person, and a highly regarded arms inspector, not an anonymous nobody on the internet.

furthermore, this counter-flap over Kelly, the scapegoating of the BBC, is nothing but a smokescreen to obscure the very real government wrongdoing that went on.

the bottom line is that Blair lied. the charges were trumped-up, the evidence was non-existent.

[rman]

60. the man was a UN security- and defense expert

it is not the same as some anonymous DUers opinion.

his opinion is not about Blair but about the interpretation of intelligence information by the Blair administration.

[UTUSN]

30. Actually, Sounds Like BBC Is Throwing GILLIGAN Over the Side

See the other thread where the BBC governors are in panic mode and the ones supporting GILLIGAN are being pushed to resign and GILLIGAN's colleagues supposedly regard him as a lousy reporter who was not big shot enough to bend the rule of having more than one source. Sounds like BBC is caving.

[dArKeR]

46. BBC says it has tape of Kelly - TGM

http://theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030723.wkelly0723/BNStory/International/

[tlb]

47. Up to this point the facts support a good faith argument against the BBC.

I don't see how it's necessary to insult or belittle people who rely on the known record to make that argument.

I likewise rely on the Guardian's coverage showing how :

a) the BBC's allegations about the sexed up dossier are not supported by the record of changes made to the dossier .

b) whatever his expertise as a weapons expert, Kelly would not have been in the know to believably make the allegations Gilligan says he did ,

c) whatever misgivings Kelly may have expressed regarding the runup to war, they do not change a or b.

Additionally, Kelly spoke to numerous journalists it seems. This in itself tends to diminish any argument made how the Blair government exposed Kelly as the informant. It appears everybody knew or already had a good idea it was he.

Remaining unresolved is whether it was Kelly or Gilligan who lied to produce the " smoking gun " story. If there are unreleased audio tapes of Kelly making the claim, then the damage to the BBC is greatly diminished.

The way the BBC seems to be distancing itself from Gilligan leads me to expect the tapes will not be so clearly exculpatory.

I call them as I see them.

[Spentastic]

49. I disagree

The existence of a tape may well fully justify the BBC's stance. If in fact Dr Kelly alleges that the Government sought to exaggerate the threat (a threat he acknowledged)then Gilligan and the corporation are in far less bother than No.10.

It's all grey and mushy but would it be naive to think that Dr Kelly had no idea how his work was going to be used or who was asking for it? I've got a nasty feeling there are further sources who due to Dr Kelly's unfortunate demise will never be uncovered.

It's really funny, the "sexing up" relates to the 45 minute claim. However, it has been proved that Alistair Campbell was indeed actively involved in changing the dossier. I have a feeling that once again he's been a very lucky boy and there's nothing on record that will incrminate him.

Finally the whole dossier was utter rubbish. Blair and the boys decide to believe it. We have very poor intelligence agencies and / or a government of fools.

[reorg]

56. up to this point there is nothing to blame the BBC for

>I don't see how it's necessary to insult or belittle people who rely on the known record to make that argument.<

The problem is they don't rely on the known record, they rely on:

>... the Guardian's coverage ...<

which has been part of the Blairite spin machine from the getgo.


>b) whatever his expertise as a weapons expert, Kelly would not have been in the know to believably make the allegations Gilligan says he did ,<

On the basis of his expertise as THE British expert on biological and chemical weapons, Kelly is on the record as having been in a position to

1. have knowledge of all intelligence in the relevant field
2. be alerted to new intelligence
3. make reasonable judgements on how reliable it is.

So he knew when the "45 minute" claim came up and he knew what it was worth. Everything else, like who made the formal request to include it in a prominent place in the report, or who said what exactly to whom at what moment, is completely irrelevant, since it WAS included and it WAS questionable and was used for a purpose obvious to everybody.

[dudeness]

48. Tony Blairs downfall will not be through an inquiry

but will come from within his own party..If the labour follows traditional lines extremely nervous MPs in marginal seats will see Blair as a liabilty and begin the process of undermining his leadership.. this will happen sooner rather than later to give the party time to sell a new leadership team to the public..