Been meaning to mention the Hutton Enquiry for a couple of days, but hadn't. Now it's finally filtered through the world's press to the extent that even Americans have heard about it, I guess now is the time.
Now, those more right-wing among you are likely to be of the opinion that if the BBC says Blair lied about WMDs and they've now been proved wrong, then that means Blair was telling the truth so Bush was telling the truth so there ARE WMDs after all. U-S-A! U-S-A!
This is not the point. The fact is, the BBC has never been popular with the government in office. They've always felt quite put out that the state broadcasting service hasn't restricted itself to being a mere mouthpiece for their policies, but has instead been a well-regarded example of balanced journalism the world over. My favourite example was a senior Conservative politician saying in 1988 (during a Conservative administration) that the BBC's broadcasting of a Nelson Mandela tribute concert proved once and for all that the Beeb were a socialist organisation. This was at the same time the goverment refused to countenance sanctions against Apartheid South Africa and that nation was a favourite business partner of Prime Minister Thatcher's husband and son, by the way.
But I digress. Broadcasting is changing, and to the Government's consternation the BBC is successfully changing with it. This is not popular with the one man Blair is even more scared of than Bush: Rupert Murdoch. He hates the BBC, their mandate by the crown, the licence fee, everything. He also own the Sun newspaper, and it's a proven fact that whoever the Sun backs at elections usually wins. Blair wooed Murdoch to Labour's side in 1997 after a generation of Tory support, but now he's worried about how the new Opposition leader, Michael Howard, is making overtures. I don't think the Sun's support alone will make the Conservatives electable, but it's not a chance any Premier is likely to take.
So what does this have to do with what Gilligan said in an unscripted telephone interview with the anchor's of the BBC's Today radio programme at 6:07 in the morning?
Well, look at the timeline. A whole month goes by before Alastair Campbell gets on his high horse about that broadcast. In the meantime, although not mentioned in that link, he even has lunch with some of the BBC's editorial and management staff he subsequently attacks, in what were by all accounts perfectly congenial circumstances.
So, even though Howard's election as Oppostion Leader was months away at that time, it's all very convenient how all of a sudden Campbell is gunning for the BBC, going on ITN's (Independent Television News) flagship serious news programme Channel 4's Seven O'Clock News to rave about BBC accountability.
All this isn't the whole story, it's mainly backstory. It's not the real reason Dr. Kelly committed suicide. We may never know what happened there. But for the Ministry of Defence to get off the hook - no mention of owing their employee a duty of care, regardless of whether or not he crossed the line by talking to journalists to the extent he did - with only a brief mention that they should have told him they were going to release his name (with press liaison officers letting journalists keep guessing until they got it right), is nothing short of obscene.
To ignore the dozens of emails sent by Campbell to John Scarlett (head of the Joint Intelligence Committee) asking for numerous changes in wording that totally altered the contents of the Iraq Weapons Dossier, and instead say the JIC must have been 'subconsciously influenced' by the PM's desire for the strongest possible case to be put forward via the dossier, is absurd.
The BBC did screw up, mind. Whether that means the chairman of the Board of Governors and the Director-General should resign, I don't know. Gilligan certainly didn't do himself any favours and is probably best gone (however, he was already on Campbell's shit list for previous reporting on how the European Constitution was being spin-doctored by Downing Street).
But however much Blair and Campbell might privately gloat while publicly feigning magnanimity by saying they don't want resignations, and this whole affair should have a line drawn under it, once thing is certain: this isn't over.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Now, those more right-wing among you are likely to be of the opinion that if the BBC says Blair lied about WMDs and they've now been proved wrong, then that means Blair was telling the truth so Bush was telling the truth so there ARE WMDs after all. U-S-A! U-S-A!
You're the ONLY person I've heard make that Grand canyon-sized leap in logic. That's beyond even Fox News' brand of crazy.
I totally agree with you on the Ministry Of Defence's role being obscene: they fed him to the wolves. No more so than, say leaking the cover of a CIA operative to the papers though, of course.
So: there are unscrupulous reporters in both countries looking to make headlines regardless of facts or consequence? I, sir, am shocked and appaled.
This is the scandal of the moment mainly because the BBC's reputation for good journalism: everyone is intrested when the "good guy" gets caught with his pants down. How much scandal would this have been if it was The Sun's reporter invlved and not the BBC's?
I doubt it'd get as much news time over here, at least.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:I doubt it'd get as much news time over here, at least.
Yeah, were all full up with celebrity trials!
Whild you're at it, read this if you've a mind to. Where's the apology? Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
It's not that large a leap of logic, Jason. Consider this page of the long-running "So, um, where are these WMDs?" thread. Conan the Librarian is ready to make all sorts of assumptions about the BBC just because one of their correspondents reported what people were just then starting to say but now are saying all over the place: that WMDs are unlikely to be found.
Chances are Teflon Tony will get away with this, this time. He won't have to resign for misleading the House, throwing a private individual to the wolves or targetting the state broadcasting service. Be interesting come the next election.
[ January 31, 2004, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Lee ]
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: So: there are unscrupulous reporters in both countries looking to make headlines regardless of facts or consequence? I, sir, am shocked and appaled.
There aren't just unscrupulous reporters. There are also unscrupulous politicians doing their bit for MiniTrue who have now effectively silenced the one state-run media outlet that has from day one called their "procedures" into question, and while that may not shock or appal you, it does STINK.
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: Whild you're at it, read this if you've a mind to. Where's the apology?
Ah, the NY Times. Renowned for its journalistic integrity in certain right-wing circles. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The Times wants an apology? For the war or their own completely fabricated news stories with no editorial oversight?
Lee said:
quote:Chances are Teflon Tony will get away with this, this time. He won't have to resign for misleading the House, throwing a private individual to the wolves or targetting the state broadcasting service. Be interesting come the next election.
Just change "Teflon Tony" to "Bush and you're an honorary American.
Still, "misleading the public" is nothing new when it comes to military actions: for any country, really. I thought I'd mention that before we get into historical precedents and everything. Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Hmmm.... I seem to remember a news organization actually being responsible for a war. Of course the news has no interest in such events now.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Spanish/American War?
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Yep, good ol Hearst.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Okay, I'd never heard about any of this until a few days ago (yay, US media coverage), so let me see if I understand the situation correctly:
Gilligan interviewed Kelly. Based upon what Kelly told him, he went on TV and reported that the September Dossier had been intentionally "sexed up" to favor war at the possible expense of accuracy (which appears to be true) and that Campbell was responsible for the "45 minutes" claim (which may or may not be true). The government got upset about the report, and they decided to identify Kelly as Gilligan's source. Then the government sent a committee to investigate Kelly. Kelly killed himself. And Hutton says the government is A-okay #1, and it's the BBC's fault that Kelly is dead.
Is that about right?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Except theres zero proof (so far as I know) that Gilligan (like "Gilligan's island"- funny!) was told anything of imporntance by Kelly and coud very well have been just making shit up for ratings. BBC didint look into Gilligan's notes for any evidence on the "sexing up" claims and they didint have any editorial oversight on what he was going to say on the air. And Kelly was disgraced after the Ministry of Defence hung him out to dry and killed himself.
While none of this proves there were ever WMD to begin with, it does look as though some people are trying to stick it to Blair and a lack evidence is not a big concern for them.
Blair gets to laught off a scandal by acting magnamous and not calling for anyone's resignation although it happened anyway, of course.
THe Sun gets to try to further undermine the BBC's credibility and further their own political meddeling.
Am I the only one that think Lord Hutton looks like Ed McMahon?
Um...that might be everything...Liam? Lee? Cartman? Bueler?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
WEll, yes and no. There is, it is true, no way of proving what Kelly told Gilligan. However, Hutton totally ignored the fact that Kelly is on record as saying similar things to Susan Watts, another BBC journalist, which means it's not totally unlikely he could have said the same things to Gilligan. The one thing he didn't mention to Watts was Campbell's role in all this - I think!
When the row blew up, the BBC were being attacked initially on whether or not Gilligan had a single source, and where that source came from. I think the government were saying that since the BBC had already said the source wasn't an intelligence expert, and intel people were the only ones to participate in the drawing up of the dossier, that the BBC had made up the whole thing. Then Kelly decided to go to his line manager and confess he thought he might be the source. . .
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"and that Campbell was responsible for the "45 minutes" claim (which may or may not be true)..."
No, Campbell wasn't responsible for that claim (an Iraqi Lt. Col. who tipped MI6 was), but he was responsible for planting it (after a bit of spinning, naturally) in the British intelligence dossier that was published in september 2002. Then it somehow got attributed to Kelly, I think.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Looks like we're going to have an inquiry into the actual inteligence now. Another opportunity for The Dear Leader to blame someone else. Basically, the BBC was at fault in allowing the unscripted remark to go out and then standing by Gilligan quite as strongly as they did. On the other hand, if they had apologised immediately, it would have looked as though the government was controlling the BBC.
The sheer one-sidedness of the Hutton Report was remarkable though. Basically, Hutton seems to have accepted the testimony of all the pro-government witnesses without question.
And Murdoch's control over many sections of the media is certainly worrying. He has an enormous amount of power which he seems willing to utilise ti the advantage of the highest bidder; the only reason he supported Labour was because they said they'd change the law so he could buy a terrestrial TV station.
Oh, and one other thing, not entirely related, except the link to The Leader; 5 votes. With a majority of more than 160.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I wonder what all these Iraqi sources were getting in return. I was reading various Vietnam POW websites today, and it seems a nice little cottage industry grew up in South-East Asia around providing false leads to POWs and MIAs in return for cash and/or green cards. I wonder how many of the Iraqi asylum seekers we're currently supporting at the taxpayers' expense are actually defectors. . .
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: I wonder what all these Iraqi sources were getting in return.
They were probably "getting" the fuck outta dodge with their families and possibly a little cash to start over. No winning lottery ticket or anything and definitely not the cherry package we gave certain german rocket scientists and physists at the end of WWII.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
You really are getting old, Lee. Either that, or you've swallowed a Daily Mail at some point.
I wonder where the 45 minute thing came from anyway?
"Shall we say they can launch in 30 minutes?"
"30 minutes? Don't be silly! Who'd believe such a short time? Fool!"
"Okay, how about 50 minutes?"
"Idiot! 50 minutes is far too long! No-one will panic over that amount of time!"
"45?"
"Perfect."
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The 45 minute window o' terror is really an hour: you forgot CNN's commercial breaks.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
"I am Colonel in Republican Guard!"
"What, another one? That's three this week. Hit the road, buddy."
"But. . . er, I know where are WMDs!"
"Oh, why didn't you say so? Here, have a visa. Now, can you point to their location on a map? But keep your eyes open, the last guy pointed to the middle of the Gulf. If you're going to miss Iraq completely, at least try to hit Syria."
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: Fears over WMD were a cornerstone of the government's case for war with Iraq.
But the prime minister said on Wednesday he had not known what sort of weapons were being referred to at the time of the Commons vote on 18 March 2003.
quote: Tory foreign affairs spokesman Michael Ancram said later Mr Blair's response raised "serious questions about what the government knew when Britain went to war with Iraq".
Makes you wonder if He actually read all the dossier or just the summary in the Sun.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
And he's about the only one too. We all knew there weren't going to be any intercontinental ballistic missiles!
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Across the pond, as they say, the music is just starting for our play...and it sounds like there may be some discordant notes.
quote:Bush sets narrow limits on inquiry Critics urge broader scope for Iraq panel
WASHINGTON -- President Bush has established a narrow charge for his new independent commission on U.S. intelligence capabilities, directing the panel to focus on flawed prewar intelligence assessments of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and other nations.
But the commission may quickly find itself pressured to explore broader events and discussions that formed the tangle of spy data and policymaking leading up to the March 20 invasion of Iraq.
Those uncharted lines of inquiry that administration critics are urging the group to address include:
- The role of Vice President Dick Cheney and his staff, including Cheney's visits to the CIA to review intelligence reports and his trips to Capitol Hill to describe, in closed briefings, the prewar dangers posed by Iraq.
- The role of George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, who in an impassioned defense of his agency and its work Thursday said Bush "gets his intelligence from one person and one community--me."
- The reliance on questionable human sources, including Iraqi defectors and foreign opposition leaders, who had much to gain from U.S. intervention.
- The role of the Pentagon, especially its consumption of intelligence reports by newly established groups such as the Office of Special Plans, which was formed to plan for postwar Iraq. Like Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was a strident proponent for ending the regime of dictator Saddam Hussein, once saying of Iraq's weapons: "We know where they are." Rumsfeld explained to the Senate last week that he meant the U.S. knew where Iraq's weapons sites were located--not the weapons themselves.
- The objections raised by those within the administration, particularly at the State Department, where a good bit of the intelligence on Iraq was discounted as untrustworthy.
Here's the executive order the president just signed authorizing his commission which he "established for the purpose of advising the President in the discharge of his
constitutional authority under Article II of the Constitution to conduct foreign relations, protect national security, and command the Armed Forces of the United States, in order to ensure the most effective counter-proliferation capabilities of the United States and response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the ongoing threat of terrorist activity."
The commission doesn't appear to have any subpoena power, only the right to "full and complete access to information relevant to its mission as described in section 2 of this order."
If I read this right -- and needless to say I'm no lawyer, notwithstanding that summer in grad school I wasted prepping for the LSAT -- what's 'relevant' is at the discretion of the department heads of the various executive branch agencies.
And if you read the "mission" as defined in the order it seems narrowly framed as looking at pre-war CIA analyses (actually the whole Intelligence Community) and how they stack up against what Kay's guys found on the ground after the war.
Anything the White House did with those CIA analyses, any fisticuffs between the Veep's office and the CIA, anything stovepiped through Doug Feith's operation at the Pentagon, anything that made its way from Chalabi's mumbo-jumbocrats to the the president's speechwriters -- that's all beyond their brief.
quote:QUESTIONING THE COMMISSION'S SCOPE: The President's decision to only support a WMD commission whose scope may be limited and which only reports after the election is facing serious criticism. AP reports, "Current and former U.S officials said they fear that Bush will try to limit the inquiry's scope to the CIA and other agencies and ignore the key role the Bush administration's own internal intelligence efforts played." The officials "said that intelligence efforts led by Vice President Dick Cheney magnified the errors through exaggeration, oversights and mistaken deductions." Similarly, Knight-Ridder reports current and former officials said, "What went wrong with intelligence on Iraq will never be known unless the inquiry examines secret intelligence efforts led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon hawks." Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wrote to Bush that, "One of the major questions that needs to be addressed is whether senior administration officials, including members of the Cabinet and senior White House officials, misled Congress and the public about the nature of the threat from Iraq...Even some of your own statements and those of Vice President Cheney need independent scrutiny." Former weapons inspector David Kay, with whom the President met yesterday, agreed, saying, "the commission should look into everything."
QUESTIONING THE COMMISSION'S INDEPENDENCE: The Pelosi-Daschle letter also raised serious questions about why the White House says the commission will be independent yet is appointing all of the commissioners itself. The letter said, "A commission appointed and controlled by the White House will not have the independence or the credibility necessary to investigate these issues." Joseph Cirincione of the non-partisan Carnegie Endowment for Peace "said the commission would not be truly bipartisan or independent because Mr. Bush would appoint its members and define its scope." He said, "I just spoke to the staff of 30 senior Democrats and none of their staff have been consulted on this panel. The President is trying to dig a defensive line to stop the damage. If he does it right, the commission can help him but, if he does it wrong, it will make it worse."
quote: Michael Howard said Lord Butler's interpretation of the inquiry's terms of reference were "unacceptably restrictive".
quote: His argument was not with the remit agreed for the inquiry but with Lord Butler's interpretation of it.
The Lib Dems have already declined to take part in the review because they thought its guidelines too narrow.
Mr Blair called the inquiry after mounting pressure caused by the failure to find any WMD stockpiles in Iraq, the American decision to hold an inquiry and the remarks of former weapons inspector David Kay.
At the time the Tories believed its remit covered the way intelligence was used before the war, saying that meant politicians' actions would be investigated.
But the inquiry committee later made clear it would concentrate "principally on structures, systems and processes rather than on the actions of individuals".
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)