BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 16 Mar 04 - 08:08 AM

refrsh.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Feb 04 - 12:39 PM

My first reaction when Hutton was profiled as the judge to carry out the enquiry was "another Widgery", a comment which I made in some thread here. I was surprised by the amount of information that came out during the hearings, and thought I had misjudged him. But when he produced his findings, it was clear that he had taken a bizarrely narrow view of his terms of reference.

What has been interesting since is the number of his links to Widgery which have since been brought up by the Guardian - he represented the paras that perpetrated Bloody Sunday, and when the coroner in the subsequent inquest commented that it had been murder, he was there again, and attacked the coroner. If you put Hutton and Widgery into a search of the Guardian you'll get details.

I'm really disappointed with Mr Tony's choice of leader of the new enquiry (which has miraculously become desirable now that plain honest citizen Dubya wants to know how the US got involved in a war in Iraq, but please don't report till after the election). I would have thought that Tony would have asked Cruft's to supply a judge.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 06:04 PM

I'm still recuperating from the Mudcat gathering in Portaferry, but it's time I showed my face in this thread to take my lumps. Not only are there many posts here, but some are very long, so I've not yet absorbed them all. Suffice to say that I still disagree with Teribus quite a bit, but I must say he's chucked a lot of useful info into the melting pot.

On the central point of my challenge to T'bus, I was clearly wrong. When the Beeb corporately ringed its wagons round Gilligan I was sure they must have checked his notes - maybe even listened to Susan Watts's tape - and concluded that Gilligan was bomb-proof. I find it quite incredible that they rushed to defend him against a direct challenge, from the PM's office of all places, on the strength of his word alone.

I am also amazed that Gilligan defended his 6.07 broadcast, given what we now know, and given that he himself did not repeat his major inaccuracies in any of his further 16 broadcasts that day. He should have come clean at once.

Until two days ago I was at a loss to know how the Today editor, Kevin Marsh, had clung to his job. He was savaged by Hutton, and rightly, or so I thought. However I then saw this in the Guardian, which says, for the benefit of those who don't want to follow the link, that contrary to Hutton's report, Marsh did insist on Gilligan scripting his piece, and did himself check that script before broadcast. Moreover it was a convention of Marsh's editorship that any reporter engaged in a two-way should broadly follow the script. Gilligan, in that fateful early-morning broadcast, chose to depart from the script.

I don't know if the Guardian story is true - Marsh is consulting lawyers, and if he has a case, he will no doubt pursue it. It does seem unreasonable that Hutton should have subjected Marsh to criticism without having called him as a witness.

So much for the Beeb. In every other way I am disappointed in Hutton, who has shown himself worthy only to follow in the tradition of Lords Denning and Widgery in dancing to the government's tune. The Guardian did a series of interviews with members of the public who had queued to attend the inquiry and who had been there every day. All of them were surprised, astonished or angry, in varying degree, that Hutton had not a word to say about the failings of government.

The one thing that can be said for Hutton is that he put all the evidence on the internet for all to see. It has devalued his own report, in that we are all capable of reaching our own views on the evidence. For that reason the enormous popular reaction against Hutton is far more credible and informed than would ever have been possible in the past. And unfortunately for Blair, the feeling that Hutton was a grotesque whitewash does him direct damage too. The image of the "straight kind of guy" is gone for good.

One last thought. Something has given Blair a terrific shot in the arm. As someone who has been repulsed by his policies and cringe-making evangelising, I have to say that from his encounter with Paxman and the students on Newsnight onwards, he has been on stronger form than I've ever seen him. The Newsnight performance can't be ascribed to the Hutton factor, as it pre-dated the report, unless maybe he had early notice that he was in the clear.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 12:37 PM

Perhaps there's no point in doing so, but I'd like to suggest that all of us try to avoid using insulting language about people who disagree with us. (Even in response to that kind of thing from others.)

It's not difficult to do, and it does not in any way stop us emphasising the points we wish to make, or indicating how strongly we might feel about certain things.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 10:35 AM

Not round and round the houses ard, merely putting a few facts in the way of your normal narrow-minded, bigotted crap.

Now let's take a look at your latest offering:

"Saddam was slaughtering the Marsh Arabs and the pleas of the various human rights groups were ignored, money was more important than the lives of the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs."

When was he doing this ard? If memory serves me correctly with regard to the Maadan that happened after "Desert Storm". So at the time he was doing the slaughtering, the UN were supposed to be looking after this, UN sanctions were in place but proving totally ineffective, Saddam's ability to slaughter was somewhat impaired due to the fact that he could not use his airforce because the USA and the UK imposed the Southern No-Fly zone (much to the objection of well intentioned fools like yourself). In the North, British Royal Marines backed up by US and UK air power prevented Saddam doing the same to the Kurds (the well intentioned fools objected to that too).

So please don't tell me about pleas from various human rights groups, they are very good at highlighting issues but then form the backbone of resistance when others attempt to take action to try and put things right.

When it comes to contributions by nations with respect to battling for the rights of man, the record of the UK is not all that shoddy.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: ard mhacha
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 09:52 AM

Around and round the houses goes Teribus to avoid the point, blabbering on like a politician.
Quite simply, Saddam was slaughtering the Marsh Arabs and the pleas of the various human rights groups were ignored, money was more important than the lives of the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs.
Surely you wouldn`t equate the Russians and the French with the British, those fine upstanding battlers for the rights of man.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 04 - 07:36 AM

Oh, come along ard, don't be so shy, why not tell the whole story? Perhaps because it may dilute the point you are trying to make, in yet another one of your feeble attempts at maligning the British Government?

Let's put in a few corrections to actually make your post a bit more accurate:

My point?, are you still with me?. A great number of companies and businesses, from many countries throughout the world had been working on Saddam`s various projects for years, as far back as 1979, when Saddam became Iraq's President. I knew two of the men Sadamm held as hostage , they worked for Mivan a Belfast firm, and they weren`t too displeased as they were paid quite a sum by Mivan when they returned.

All of those firms went out to Iraq with the blessings of their respective governments as throughout that time it was perfectly legitimate for them to do so. Exceptions here could possibly be the French and Russian governments who were rather keen on the idea of providing Iraq with a nuclear power plant that would be capable of providing fissile material for nuclear weapons.

Initially, Saddam, although a dictator (as were his predecessors), on assuming the leadership of the Ba'athist party in Iraq, did many things that were of great benefit to the people of Iraq, particularly in the area of infrastructure, healthcare and education.

Saddam, a secular pan-arabist, viewed the arrival of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran, as something that might cause the Iraqi Shia population to question the advisablity of living in a secular Arab state, likewise with the upheaval in Iran the Kurdish populations of Iran, Iraq and Turkey felt the time might be right to press for either an independent state or for greater autonomy within their respective countries. Now Saddam had not butchered large numbers of his fellow Ba'athists to gain power, only to oversee the fragmentation of Iraq, hell no - besides their regions were the ones that held the vast majority of Iraq's oil wealth.

Just prior to taking over power in Iraq, a meeting was held at Camp David, where a peace accord was reached between Egypt and Israel. Up to then Egypt had led the pan-Arabist movement, so Saddam decided that Iraq under his leadership would assume that role, it had to be done gradually as Hassad in Syria had better claim to take over that role, and besides Saddam felt he had some clearing up to do at home to get his population in line with this new direction. Material for his oil production and infrastructure projects he got from the west, military hardware he got in abundance from the Soviet Union, and Iraq's oil paid for it.

In his quest, to become leader of the Arab nations aligned against Israel, he felt that not being a "front-line" Arab state was a bit of a drawback, so he had a Mr. Bull (he of super-gun fame) contacted. If Iraq had a super-gun, Iraq could hit Israel, so Saddam set about acquiring one, but it needed special steel. So Saddam got his buyers to contact probably the best specialist steel company in the world, Churchill's of Sheffield, to obtain the tube sections for his gun, the order being disguised as an order for high specification steel pipe to be used in the Iraqi oil and gas industry. Unfortunately for Saddam, one of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise Officers at Immingham Docks took a closer look at these pipes, and the rest is history, Mr. Bull died and Saddam never did get his super-gun.

Meanwhile the situation in Iran was going to hell in high gear, Saddam saw in this an opportunity to resolve a long running dispute with Iran concerning the Shat-al-Arab waterway. The Iranians were willing to negotiate, which Saddam took as a sign of weakness, so he mustered all of his Army, superbly equipped by Russia and kicked-off the Iran-Iraq War. At first it all went according to plan, but things started going haywire. Shipping was attacked in the Arabian Gulf, which caught the attention of the rest of the world, particularly Japan and the USA.

Now the USA's, Japan's and the West's take on things was that they actually preferred things the way they were prior to the start of this war and they did not want either side to win it. Neither side would listen to either the UN, or the USA, so Uncle Sam and the Western powers decided to help both sides fight it out until it dawned on both sides that neither would win. This is what did come to pass and a peace deal was negotiated.

Sitting back in his corner, Saddam had a look at Iraq's current account and decided it would need a fresh injection of funds in order to pay for the war (which had been catastrophic for Iraq) and to finance any future ventures. Looking around he spotted Kuwait and thought that that would do nicely, so after waiting until his Russian and French friends had resupplied him with military hardware, in he went............ I think we all know the rest.
   
Oh, ard, the difference between the tyrant up until the start of the Iran-Iraq War and the tyrant after was that after the Iran-Iraq War the tyrant became a clear threat to the peace and stability of the region.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Peter T.
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 01:58 PM

Omigod, Lord Butler! Where is Lord Hutton, that indefatigable seeker of truth when you need him?

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 01:29 PM

Lord Butler is also well known for the investigations he carried out into allegations against Jonathan Aitken and Neil Hamilton. He gave them a clean bill of health. Subsequently this was generally agreed to have been a serious misjudgement on his part - but it was politically convenient at the time for the Government of the day.

This will obviously be another non-holds barred, searching, inquiry, which will fearlessly expose any kind of dodgy business, without fear nor favour...

I think it's time they ran "Yes Prime Minister" on TV agasin.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: ard mhacha
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 01:18 PM

My point?, are you still with me?. Numerous British firms had been working on Sadamm`s various projects for years, as far back as the 1970s.
I knew two of the men Sadamm held as hostage , they worked for Mivan a Belfast firm,
and they wern`t too displeased as they were paid quite a sum by Mivan when they returned.
All of those firms went out to Iraq with the blessings of the tory governments who were in power throughout that period
Sadamm was still the same dictator,who ruled Iraq with a rod of iron, I think the iron was supplied by a Birmingham firm, well they supplied all of the rest of his needs.

So what was the difference between the tyrant then and the tyrant now?.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 10:52 AM

Yes, He did go to Baghdad and secure the release of around 100 hostages, he had been there previously in 1990 in an attempt to prevent hostilities. so had a lot of others including Mohamed Ali and Willy Brandt - What's your point ard?

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 10:16 AM

According to the BBC

The inquiry into intelligence about Iraq's weapons capability.

Terms of reference

1. To investigate coverage available on WMD programmes of countries of concern and on the global trade in WMD, taking into account what is now known about these programmes.

2. As part of this work, to investigate the accuracy of intelligence on Iraqi WMD up to March 2003, and to examine any discrepancies between the intelligence gathered, evaluated and used by the government before the conflict, and between that intelligence and what has been discovered by the Iraq Survey Group since the end of the conflict.

3. To make recommendations to the prime minister for the future on the gathering, evaluation and use of intelligence on WMD, in the light of the difficulties of operating in countries of concern.

4. The committee has been asked to report before the summer recess.

5. The committee will follow the precedent in terms of the procedures of the Franks Committee [into the Falklands War] and will have access to all intelligence reports and assessments and other relevant government papers, and will be able to call witnesses to give oral evidence in private.

6. The committee will work closely with the US inquiry and the Iraq Survey Group.

The committee of inquiry will be made up of privy councillors and Chaired by Lord Butler of Brockwell.

Lord Butler (Chairman):
Career civil servant who served five prime ministers from Heath to Blair as cabinet secretary. He was working on private papers with Margaret Thatcher on the night of the IRA attack on the Grand Hotel in Brighton and narrowly escaped death. Lord Butler was also with John Major when the IRA mounted a mortar attack on Downing Street in 1991. He retired in 1998 after a 37 year career and was made a life peer, serving the House of Lords as a crossbencher. He also became Master of his old college at Oxford.

Sir John Chilcot:
Career diplomat who has held senior positions in the civil servant. He was principle private secretary to William Whitelaw during his time as Tory home secretary and also spent seven years as top civil servant in the Northern Ireland office.

Lord Inge:
Sits in the Lords as a crossbencher having had a distinguished military career. He was chief of the defence staff from 1994 to 1997.

Ann Taylor MP:
Former leader of the Commons and is an ex-chief whip. She now chairs the Commons intelligence and security committee (ISC) which provides parliamentary oversight of the intelligence services. Her committee has already conducted an inquiry into Iraq and it found that intelligence chiefs failed to highlight any gaps in their knowledge about Saddam Hussein's WMD programmes when giving advice to Mr Blair.

Michael Mates MP:
Senior Conservative backbencher who chairs the Northern Ireland select committee. He is also a member of the ISC.

                         ---------------------------------------------

On the composition of the panel, not bad, two senior ex-Civil Servants, one ex-Chief of the defence Staff, two senior MP's both members of the ISC.

All had to be Privy Councillors due to the nature of what they are going to be looking at.

All are well grounded in the area of intelligence material so they will know what they are looking at and what is being said to them.

All know how the "system" works.

Their terms of reference, however, I think are poor.

Items 1 and 3 relate to the future; 4 and 5 relate to input and precedent; 2 relates specifically to Iraq.

Unfortunately for item 2 to be addressed thoroughly and accurately the only people who can provide the information are outwith the jurisdiction of this inquiry and can therefore not be compelled to give evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: ard mhacha
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 09:53 AM

Yes, Heath did negotiate with his friend Saddam on the release of the human shields, as he had visited Saddam on more than one occasion, and described him in glowing terms.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Gareth
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 08:21 AM

No - Teribus - You lack your customary accuracy - Surely every good thinking person knows that SH did not invade Quwait. He merely responded to the invitation of America to liberate the people of Quwait from the dangers of freethinking and incipient democracy.

Heath, and Viscount Stangate, were not negotiating the release of hostages, they attended to ensure that these freedom loving volunteers to act as human shields, were treated to the same privaleges that any Iraqui had.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 05:32 AM

No ard mhacha, I think at the times of Heath's visits he was negotiating the release of Saddam's human shields, westerners unfortunate enough to have been in Kuwait at the time Saddam's boyos paid that place a visit.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: ard mhacha
Date: 04 Feb 04 - 05:22 AM

In all of your writings no one has ever referred to former Tory Prime Minister Ted Heath and his many visits to Saddam Hussein.
Heath described Hussein as a gentleman, a man I can converse with.
He constantly praised Hussein, but at that time of course, the Iraqi leader was everyone`s darling, Rumsfeld was another admirer as Saddam was at war with Iran, enemy No1 in the eyes of the US.

Now that WMDs are sidelined as a reason for going to war,Bush and Blair can always fall back on Heath and Rumsfeld friend as the prime reason.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Peter T.
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 07:44 PM

Actually, as long as we are being picky, the word was not changed to "must" -- I was mistaken in my memory -- the whole sentence was rewritten positively. While we are at it -- Jonathan Powell, the Downing Street chief of staff, suggested that the dossier drop the statement that Saddam would only deploy his weapons of mass destruction "if he believed his regime was under threat". Guess what? It did. Saddam now becomes a rogue monster on the loose.

And what was Alaistair Campbell doing chairing a meeting of the Intelligence Committee? No politics there.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 07:33 PM

"Subconsciously" of course!

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Peter T.
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 07:23 PM

It is simply not true that the Government did not touch the dossier, it was involved up to its eye teeth in it. We know that, just as one example, Alaistair Campbell had the Intelligence Committee change: "The Iraq military may be able to deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so" to "The Iraq military must...". This was in spite of internal protests from Brian Jones and others about the single sourcing of this. The intelligence committee chiefs were in constant contact, and under constant pressure from Downing Street to sex up the dossier -- "to go through the presentational aspects" to quote one of Campbell's lovely euphemisms -- which they did.   

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Peter T.
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 07:10 PM

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 05:17 PM

The Bush administration now regrets not killing WMD investigator Kay in a similar manner to Kelly's murder.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 03:51 PM

Well, I don't think I'm completely mad, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Our common goal is, I think, to increase public confidence in the Parliamentary system. Depending on where you sit, this may or may not involve increasing confidence in an individual party. I have not given any opinion on what I think of the Hutton report apart from the issue on whether Hoon should have been criticised for one particular stance - and I say criticised, not sacked, demoted or anything else. What I would have wanted that particular criticism to achieve would be to make it clear that ministers responsibility to ensure that their press releases etc are accurate does not stop after the press conference in which they are issued.

For the new inquiry, I think, like the Liberal party (I am not a member!), that too narrow a remit simply means even today people are dismissing it and that is unhealthy. It almost guarantees that when reaches its conclusion there will be yet another outcry. So what can be done to increase the confidence? I've put some ideas forward that you don't like, but that's fair enough. I'm just interested in ways to move forward.

It is quite clear that the Hutton report has not cleared the air. So we should look for some other ideas which might help. I've put a few forward for sandblasting. Perhaps you and MGOH can come up with a few more.

To answer some of your specific points, Teribus: It is by no means rare for committees to produce a report with one or more desenting views. I don't think that is necessarily disasterous. You are entitled to disagree.

How do we establish what issues 'the general populous' thinks are important? I wouldn't use a phone-in myself, but surveys like this are done all the time in industry. I don't rule them out for politics. Its not miles away from what the famous focus groups did.

Should the general public have access to all the internals of the security services? No, but the presumption could have been that everything that could be published should be, and published at the earliest opportunity.


How decides who can be trusted? I freely admit this is hugely difficult. I think the way I would start would be by excluding those with a clear vested interest and then using some variation of allowing candidates to be challenged, rather like American jury membership now. Again, this is just an idea and you may have a better one.

I agree in the new inquiry all parties (except the Liberals) will be represented. Much as a hate to say that this one's a matter of presentation, I think it is. Had the announcement been on the lines of 'We have reserved X places for each party and ask each Party leader to provide its nominees to these places' it would make it more explicit that the Government was distancing itself from the appointment system. I fully admit that that is probably exactly what went on behind closed doors anyway. Its the "justice being seen to be done", not the "justice being done" part of the slogan.

Its exactly the same reason that I suggest the commitee appoints its own chairman (from within themselves, I should have said). Make it as explicit as you possibly can that the government is not manipulating things.


As this part of the thread has moved a long way from Dr Kelly, I don't intend to respond further here, but if anyone wants to start a fresh thread on 'How can we improve UK inquiries' I will happily resume there.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 02:21 PM

Any time, in the light of the current evidence, we examine our previous beliefs to see how far they may have been accurate or not, and to inquire into what the possible motivation for actions carried out may have been, in a sense we are using hindsight. In setting up these inquiries, it is evident that the governments involved accept it as a necessary and useful thing to do.

If it were a matter of making judgements about people's actions on the basis of information which they did not know and could not have known, that would be a wrong use of hindsight. That can never be justified, and I do not think I have ever done it in this discussion. However, teasing out what in fact was known at the time, and what inferences could reasonably have been drawn from what was known - that is the very heart of the matter.

...................................

("Trite" - "commonplace, hackneyed, worn out" is how my dictionary defines it. Well, we could all throw that word at each other, just because we find ourselves in disagreement, but I can't see how it adds anything useful to the argument.)

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 01:55 PM

DMcG,

You think an inquiry is a good idea.

How do we establish what the 'the general populus' think are the important issues? - Hold a phone in?

It must be seen to be independent - of Government and "big business" I presume. You do grant that it won't be easy, which is one hell of an understatement when you consider the subject matter. But let's look at the suggestions:

1) Well I thought that the Law Lords were appointed, but whatever. Now you want it that these Law Lords sit in judgement and do not have to take the same line - What then happens with regard to the findings of this Inquiry? Or don't you want any? If the latter is the case, why bother going to the time and expense of holding this charade.

2) So unlike Peter T, you do believe, and would recommend, that the british public as a whole should be given free access to the information, sources, etc, of the British Intelligence Services in order that they could fully appraise themselves of the situation and make a decision on the conduct of those services and the British Government - It is still absolutely ridiculous.


3) Who decides who these people are "who are trusted"? - Have another phone in?

On the things you detailed that don't help:
i) Keeping things private.

Obviously doesn't help, apart from the fact that following your suggestions up above we will be broadcasting the workings of our security services to the world and it's uncle.

ii) All parties will be represented apparently, with the exception of the Liberal Democrats, at their insistance. They don't want to be seen as being part of any inquiry that can be seen as justifying the case for war - nothing like going into to inquire about something with an open mind.

iii) You mean have this group of government appointed Law Lords elect is own chairman, or the jury, or the "trusted ones" - too damn difficult - have another phone in - don't be surprised if it turns out to be Posh & Becks, although you might be lucky and get Jonny Wilkinson.

To, seriously, make the above suggestions and relate them to anything other than the organisation of the Tennis Club Social you would have to be completely mad.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 01:10 PM

MGOH:

In relation to this please do not come out with such trite pronouncements coloured by hindsight.

Your first point the assessments relating to how dangerous Saddam's regime was came from what the UN said he had. What had to be evaluated was what he could be doing to enhance his ability to use it.

There were no distortions, one of the things that the JIC assessment stated that they believed that Iraq had reactivated development programmes relating to delivery systems - That was accurate UMOVIC found them on advice from British Intelligence. As for, "..the intelligence reports were distorted so as to strengthen the case for going to war without delay" - dossier prepared in September 2002, kick-off, March 2003 - some "without delay" there Kevin.

The affable Dr. Blix reported lack of Iraqi co-operation right up until his last report to the UN Security Council - Iraq's full and active co-operation from day one was requirerd under the terms of Resolution 1441. The weapons inspectors were not given the time because they were being given the run around.

The ensuing war was caused solely by Saddam & Co., playing silly buggers by dragging his feet when it came to meeting the demands of the international community.

To those who were against the war, I would suggest that the good Dr. Blix should be asked to explain why he himself was not a bit more forthcoming and forthright in his pronouncements at an earlier stage. He had been instrumental in writing the UNSCOM report of January 1999 stating that Iraq possessed WMD, he was the guy in charge of UNMOVIC, charged by the UNSC to ensure Iraqi compliance. Then last summer Dr. Blix then comes out with the opinion that he didn't think Saddam had any WMD. If I was the good Dr, I'd be keeping my head very much bellow the parapet, because I feel as though he is going to be in for a right slating before this is all over.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 12:44 PM

According to your comments, any inquiry is a complete and waste of taxpayers money, as it will convince nobody - the Government just can't win:
- Refuse an inquiry and they are covering things up.
- Set up an inquiry which finds in their favour and its a "whitewash"
- Set up an Inquiry which finds in their favour and its terms of reference were "fixed".

Not at all. I think an inquiry is a good idea but it must include the issues 'the general populus' think are important and must be seen to be independent. That's not easy, but here are a few ideas that might help.

1) Follow the Appeal court procedure where a number of Lords sit in judgement and do not have to take the same line.

2) How about adding an ordinary jury to confirm they agree the report is an accurate representation of the evidence? No need for that to be unanimous either.

3) Have some people outside Parliament and big business who are trusted as part of it. A few years back, Martin Bell would have been a good candidate, before he stood as an independant. (I don't know if people still see him as an 'honest broker' as they did then. They may do. I simply don't know.) Richard Fenniman did this on some US committees, if I recall correctly, though nothing of this scale.


Things that don't help include:
i) Keeping things private. One thing everyone seems to agree on about Hutton was that the publication of all the transcripts as things went along was excellent.

ii) The government picking the members of the inquiry. How to avoid that? Give each party a number of places and let the the parties pick the people. Maybe that was done: if so, make it public.

iii) The government picking the chairman. Have the inquiry panel elect is own chairman, rather than it being appointed.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK got. WMD thing)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 12:35 PM

There seems to be general agreement now that the intelligence reports supplied to the British and American governments, and used as justification for going to war in a tearing hurry, very much overstated the danger which Saddam's regime posed.

The question is whether this was because the "intelligence community" (to use the bizarre term that is now in vogue) got it wrong because of inadequacies, or because, under pressure from the politicians (or in anticipation of their wishes, in a nudge-and-wink way), the intelligence reports were distorted so as to strengthen the case for going to war without delayy.

The other question which is looming is, how to interpret the refusal to allow the weapons inspectors the time that they were asking for, in the light of increasing cooperation being shown by Saddam's regime (induced by the military build-up on his borders).

Could this have been coloured by a worry that, given further and fuller inspections, evidence might be forthcoming that Saddam's claim to have destroyed chemical and biological weapons was actually true, so undermining the official casus belli?

For in fact it now appears likely that this claim of Saddam actually was probably true. The puzzle, for which several answers have been suggested, is, why he didn't cooperate in demonstrating that it was true, rather than playing silly buggers by dragging his feet when it came to meeting the demands of the inspectors.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 12:28 PM

Hi Peter,

Which point? You made several:

- that the Intelligence services in America and Britain were politicised.

- that they were asked to make the case for the war, not present unbiased information.

- that they stuffed rumours into the dossier to please their masters.

- that Sir John Scarlett went over the line.

Have a look at what Sir John Scarlett said when questioned relating to the points you made above:

Examined by MR SUMPTION
Question:
Mr Scarlett, you have given evidence before and I am not going to go over more than some of the matters that you covered on that occasion and some further matters. When you undertook to oversee the preparation of the September dossier, what did you, at that stage, understand to be its purpose?

Answer:
My clear understanding, at that stage, was that it -- the purpose of the assessment was to put into the public domain and share, as far as was possible, taking account of security, the intelligence assessment which was available to the Prime Minister and the Government about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.

Question:
How did the task of preparing the dossier compare with the task of preparing formal JIC assessments?

Answer:
Well, there were very strong similarities. We were using the same procedures, the same coordinating machinery, the same people who would draft normal JIC assessments; and we were following the same basic approach, that there would be a substantial body of text containing analysis, drawing on a wide range of sources; and then there would also be judgments, which would be at the front; this is the procedure which is used for JIC assessments. Of course there were differences. The big difference was this was clearly not a straightforward, normal JIC assessment. It was for the public domain.
It was therefore for a different audience; and it was designed to bring together existing standing JIC assessments. It was not planning to formulate new ones, although it was also planned, and indeed the instruction of the JIC was on these lines, that new intelligence or recent intelligence should be incorporated.

Question:
How did the fact that it was for a public audience affect the process?

Answer:
The main point there was how were points and issues to be expressed for an audience which was, first of all, not used to reading intelligence assessments, and would not be familiar with some of the material.

Question:
You have already described, in earlier evidence, how the decision was made that you should have ownership of the dossier. What did you see as the purpose of appointing you to do that and how did you see your own personal role?

Answer:
Well, I was very clear, from the beginning, about this. I think I explained this when I gave evidence before, that a proposal of this kind, and a project of this kind, needed to have strong central control in one person and in one body, in this case the JIC. That person, and it was me, would then be in a position to put in place a robust drafting process which would ensure that the body concerned, the JIC, had proper editorial control, which would allow the assessment to stay in line with existing JIC assessments, would enable sources and methods to be properly protected, at the same time as intelligence to be brought forward and used if it was safe to do so.

Question:
Did you, at any stage of the drafting process, consider whether there was any tension between the Government's purpose in publishing the dossier and your purpose in objectively presenting the available intelligence?

Answer:
No, I did not. I did not see that tension there. And if there had been any tension, I was confident that it could be handled because we were using the standard procedures and the authority of the JIC.

The above strikes me as being neither "politicised"; directed towards making a case for war; nor, stuffed with rumour. The only thing different was that this, unlike standard JIC assessments, this was going into the public domain.

I am extremely pleased to hear that you do not advocate complete access to the public. I also agree that, ".. one is required to trust one's political masters, and assume that intelligence gathering is evaluated properly." Your opinions relating to the activity of intelligence gathering indicate that you live in a country that has never been subjected to a terrorist campaign on it's doorstep. Democracies, by and large, do not have "huge secret intelligence agencies", the US is an exception, due mainly to it's role during the "cold war" years and advances in technology.

And contrary to what you might think, the intelligence services have been remarkably successful, since the end of the Second World War. In relation to 911, when the circumstances surrounding those events are investigated, and I fully believe they will be fully looked into, one of the things that will come out will be the number of warnings that were out there, gathered by a whole host of different agencies, from a whole raft of different countries. I believe that another of the things to come out will be the haphazard way in which that information was handled, both by those gathering it and by those whose decisions directed when it could be passed on and to whom. Because of the war on terror, that has improved significantly, but more to the point is this - that if those intelligence agencies did not exist (i.e. we relied on the strengths of open societies rather than all this spookery), you would not have heard a single whisper. You would put those for whom you are responsible at the mercy of any group who decides to terrorise you.

If you believe that my "..view of the Parliamentary process is more cynical than mine", then I apologise for giving that impression - I believe very strongly in the Parliamentary process as practiced in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: DougR
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 12:02 PM

Peter T. - I think you are reaching. There has been no evidence that either the British or American Intelligence services were pressured to make reports supporting an invasion of Iraq. If you have it, what is it? Someone's "guess" or "opinion" won't hack it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Peter T.
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 10:32 AM

Teribus, your own statement about the uniqueness of the dossier process proves my point better than I could.

That the public should have complete access was not what I was arguing. It is that in the absence of access one is required to trust one's political masters, and assume that intelligence gathering is evaluated properly. I should say that personally I believe that secret intelligence is completely overrated, and that there should be minimal intelligence gathering. Democracies do not flourish with huge secret intelligence agencies. We are better off relying on the strengths of open societies than all this spookery. It has not exactly been a flaming success.

Your view of the Parliamentary process is more cynical than mine. Parliament is the representative of the people, and in the days before the crucial vote, members of Parliament agonized over how to vote -- in part because of the massive pressure being put on them by both sides. Tony Blair was in a fight for British public opinion as expressed through the members of Parliament. Members of the Cabinet resigned. You may not like representative democracy (I have my good days and bad days with it), but there it is.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: dianavan
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 10:30 AM

Gareth - Anti war/pro-Saddam?

Anti war, yes. Pro-Saddam, no.

War is not the solution as you might be able to see by now.

...especially when they obviously had no plan to bring peace to the region other than military occupation.

d

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 09:53 AM

MGOH: "Maybe the new inquiry will sort out the truth."

Do you mean the truth, Kevin, even if it supports the Governments position? - Or do you mean the truth as perceived by you?

DmcG: Gilligan broke this story with his highly spun report - The rest of the "media" did what it normally does - went charging off down the same road like a pack on the scent. Once they realised they were in a cul-de-sac, they then concentrated on reporting the growing row between the Government and the BBC.

According to your comments, any inquiry is a complete and waste of taxpayers money, as it will convince nobody - the Government just can't win:
- Refuse an inquiry and they are covering things up.
- Set up an inquiry which finds in their favour and its a "whitewash"
- Set up an Inquiry which finds in their favour and its terms of reference were "fixed".

Why bother, on every shred of evidence produced so far, no inquiry will find that the Government acted irresponsibly.

Peter T : Just because something has been stated in numerous places, does not necessarily make it fact.

I cannot offer an opinion on the US Intelligence Agencies, but with regard to the British Intelligence Services, to date three different investigations (according to the BBC) have found that the British Intelligence Services, and the JIC to be non-politicised.

The British Intelligence Services were asked to do precisely what you state they were not - They were asked to present a factual unbiased evaluation of the intelligence information relating to Iraq correct as of September 2002. That is what they did.

The fact, that former heads of the JIC stated that Sir John Scarlett went over the line, might have something to do with the fact, that they wouldn't know where the line was that they were talking about. As sir John Scarlett said in his evidence to the Hutton inquiry, the dossier he was asked to compile was unique, it had never been done before. So what is also a fact is that those former heads of the JIC had no relevant experience upon which to make those statements, other than offering personal opinions. Sir John Scarlett went into quite some detail explaining the differences between a normal JIC report and the dossier.

Where on earth you get the idea that british public were being asked to support anything is beyond me, as far as I know the british public were never asked anything. Although from the objection stated in your post, you somehow seem to think that the british public as a whole should have been given given free access to the information, sources, etc, of the British Intelligence Services in order that they could fully appraise themselves of the situation and make a decision on behalf of the British Government - absolutely ridiculous.

The matter was put before the House of Commons, it was debated, there was a vote, and the Government Policy was backed. That was how it was done, it was done properly and in my opinion they made the right decision. This was all done, before they "headed off".

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Peter T.
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 08:31 AM

As has been stated in numerous places, the central point is that the Intelligence services in America and Britain were politicised -- they were asked to make the case for the war, not present unbiased information. This is why they stuffed rumours into the dossier to please their masters. Former heads of the JIC have stated that Sir John Scarlett went over the line. The problem here is that the citizenry were asked to support a pre-emptive war based on secret information of which only an edited fraction was made available: the fundamental entrusting is that the politicians are supposed to be asking the hard questions about this material, before they head off.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 08:25 AM

Conflating "the 45 minute claim" and "Gilligan's report" as if they are the same thing does not help anyone, including Parliament.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Gilligan's report, the rest of the press reported the 45 minute readiness as if British interests - Cyprus being mentioned - were in clear and imminent danger. Hoon knew this to be misleading, as he made clear to Lord Hutton's inquiry (see my transcript links above), and he (possibly in conjunction with other departments) allowed the rest of the press to continue with this without making any attempt to correct it, whatever representation they made to the BBC.

Hutton declared this matter to be outside his remit, and it is clearly going to be outside the remit of the new inquiry if, as widely predicted, it restricts itself to how the intelligence processes got things wrong.

That is why I believe that this new inquiry will lower people's trust in the Government still further: the questions that exercise the public will still not be investigated. I can hear people saying "Dodging the issue" and "whitewash" from here ...

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 07:50 AM

And here's another song THE AMATEUR WHITEWASHER.:

Slap-dab, slap-dab, up and down the brickwork, slap-dab all day long,
In and out the corners, round the Johnny Horners, we were a pair of fair clean goners,
Slap-dab, slap with the whitewash brush - Talk about a fancy ball,
But I put more whitewash on the old woman than I did upon the garden wall....

...There's got to be an inquest now, and I am in a dreadful row...

Maybe the new inquiry will sort out the truth. Or the one in America. Wouldn't bet on it though. Generally it takes a few years, and another political generation.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 06:51 AM

What complete and utter rubbish, Kevin - As usual you are wriggling.

With regard to Gilligan's report there is absolutely no way those two phrases relate to different things. Gilligans report was based entirely on the 45 minute issue, in an attempt by that reporter to create a sensation where in fact no story existed.

And contrary to what you state regarding inaction on the part of Government. The Goverment made quite vigorous attempts to set the record straight, by asking the BBC to correct the mistake made by one of their reporters. It was the BBC's mistake - it was therefore up to them to correct it.

The intelligence was not over-emphasied, the document itself was unique, Sir John Scarlett explained very clearly in his evidence to the Hutton Inquiry how the JIC conducts its business. He also detailed the steps this dossier took through its drafting process to submission for final publication and issue.

In his evidence the 45 minute claim is discussed in detail. In this he described how the various constituent services reviewing the intelligence information viewed this piece of intelligence and how on THEIR recommendation the importance of that piece of intelligence was down-graded in the final submission - all of which was done before Alister Campbell sent his sixteen point fax (of which the 45 minute thing was Point 10.).

Did people involved, and by this I mean people within the security services, think that the wording should have been different? - Yes of course there were, some wanted it played down, others wanted its significance played up - nothing odd about that at all, it is very rare indeed to get 100% agreement between all parties on anything that involves analysis and evaluation - so what does that prove with regard to Gilligan's report? He certainly made no attempt to obtain a balanced view on the matter, which he should have done. Why? Because he already had his story written - and why should anyone spoil a good story by obscuring it and detracting from the point to be made with the facts.

The BBC reported last night that there have been three investigations into Government interference with regard to the language and content of the dossier. On each occasion the result has been the same, and on each occasion the conclusions reached by those investigating have been that there was no interference on the part of the British Government. Now, according to you (and presumably Gilligan) they are all wrong, MGOH relying on his own cynicism and Gilligan relying on what he "interpreted" from his interviews with Dr. David Kelly. On that latter point another BBC Reporter interviewed the same man and came away with quite a different story.

On that basis Gilligan presented a report that was nothing like the true picture - except of course to you Kevin.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 05:45 AM

"It can't be both "badly wrong" yet present "a true picture"."

That's unusually confused for you Teribus. There's no contradiction, because the two phrases refer to different things.

The 45 minute threat, more especially as blazoned across the media, with no attempt by the Government to correct this, was badly wrong; Gilligen's story essentially presented a true picture of the fact that the dossier produced by intelligence over-emphasised the claim, that this was not in line with what some people involved in preparing the report believed it should say, and that the Government had played a significant role in ensuring this.

His mistake was in saying "probably" the Government knew that the report was significantly misleading, where the strength of the evidence would not have justified going beyond "possibly".

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 05:37 AM

"It can't be both "badly wrong" yet present "a true picture"."

That's unusually confused fot you Teribus. There's no contradiction,because teh two phrases refer to differet things.

The 45 mimute threat, more expeciaslly as blazoned across the media, with no attempt by the Government to correct this, was badly wrong; Gilligen's story essentially presented a true picture of the fact that the dossier produced by intelligence over-emphasised the claim, that this was not in line with what some people involved in preparing the report believed it should say, and that the Government had played a significant role in ensuring this.

This mistake was in saying "probaly" the Government knew that the report was significantly misleading, where the strength of the evidence woidl niot nhave justified going beyond "possibly".

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Gareth
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 04:09 AM

I hope any enquiry into intelligence on Iraq will also consider the role that the "Anti-War/Pro-Saddam" protesters had in supporting Saddam's murderous regime, and making war in the Gulf that more likely.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Feb 04 - 02:37 AM

MGOH,

Which is it? :

"The "45 minute threat", as interpreted by the media, was badly wrong," OR, "(in which he over-egged the pudding by saying "probably" instead of "possibly", but essentially presented a true picture)"

It can't be both "badly wrong" yet present "a true picture".   

So the Government, "launched their own weapon of mass destruction against the BBC for Gilligan's report." No Kevin they didn't what they asked for was that Gilligan correct his report, i.e. to admit that he had got it wrong. Instead of checking and confirming, by internal inquiry, that that was indeed the case. Greg Dyke & Co., at the BBC rather shot themselves in the foot by blindly backing Gilligan.

"The suggestion that MPs base their judgement just on what they hear in the House of Commons, rather than also on what they read in the press, and that therefore lies in the media do not really matter, is not in my view sustainable."

That view of yours, must rather dint your faith in trial by jury. The situation was exactly the same. The Government put forward a case to the House of Commons. To do that it provided what "evidence" their proposed course of action was to be based on in order that the individual Members could make their minds up. The issue was debated in Parliament and a vote was taken - That vote backed Government Policy.

Now the whole intention of Gilligans incorrect report, was to state that the government of the day interfered with the content and wording of the JIC report, with the intention of "sexing it up". For the Government to do as you suggest Kevin would have involved them in doing exactly that - they would in fact be tampering with "evidence" - which you would appear to favour as long as tampering with that evidence pushes people in the direction you personally favour Kevin.

The British Government announced last night that it would be conducting an Inquiry into Intelligence relating to Iraq's WMD. I will predict what that Inquiry will find. They will find that at the time of presentation of the JIC Dossier, the information contained therein was based on credible information, and that procedures followed in relation to the analysis of that intelligence were thorough and rational. I predict that, not because I think that the forthcoming Inquiry will be a "Whitewash", but because that is what the information at the time indicated. I repeat, in order that this rather important point is not forgotten - It was the UN who stated that Iraq possessed WMD, Not G. W. Bush, Not Tony Blair.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Feb 04 - 09:32 PM

Lord Denning, Lord Widgery, Lord Franks, Sir Anthony Hammond and now Lord Hutton...

Whitewash never really seems to stick.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Feb 04 - 09:24 PM

Since Bush is under campaign pressures, he has asked for an inquiry as to why he was given misinformation regarding weapons of mass destruction. Of course the inquiry results do not have to be presented to him until after the election.

Both Bush and Blair seem to think their people are completely ignorant!

d

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Gareth
Date: 02 Feb 04 - 07:07 PM

Kevin - Give up !

You lost on facts,

You lost on report !

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Feb 04 - 04:41 PM

A song somehow comes to mind:

Whiter than the whitewash on the wall,
Whiter than the whitewash on the wall,
Oh wash me in the water that you washed the colonels daughter in,
And I shall be whiter than the whitewash on the wall.
On the wall,on the wall,
Oh wash me in the water that you washed the colonels daughter in,
And I shall be whiter than the whitewash on the wall.

Or maybe, to make it more explicitly topical:

Whiter than the whitewash on the wall,
Whiter than the whitewash on the wall,
I will be so clean if only you can wash me clean like Tony,
And I shall be whiter than the whitewash on the wall.
On the wall,on the wall,
I will be so clean if only you can wash me clean like Tony,
And I shall be whiter than the whitewash on the wall.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Feb 04 - 01:21 PM

"...his department would not be 'solely responsible' for any correction" Fair enough - in other words, the Government was collectively responsible for the lie of omission intended to mislead the public. That's the central feature of cabinet government - and it should put Tony unambiguously in the dock.   

However the convention is that, if he can be proved to have lied directly to the House of Commons, he is bound to resign. But lying to the public isn't seen as being anything like as serious. It just counts as political rhetoric.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Feb 04 - 11:33 AM

The server seems to have crashed - it worked about a minute after I made the post. Let's try a link to the transcripts.

Broadly, Hoon is arguing that although he has seen the press had 'given a false impression of' the 45 minute claim, he decided against issuing a correction because the press wouldn't have printed it anyway. When challenged whether he had a responsibility to do this he said his department would not be 'solely responsible' for any correction. I would would have asked him what he did to discharge his part of that responsibility.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Feb 04 - 10:54 AM

That link to Hoon hooning on didn't work. If he was arguing that a lie by omission is somehow not a real lie, that's rubbish. The thing that makes a lie a lie is the intention to deceive, and that was pretty clearly present.

The suggestion that MPs base their judgement just on what they hear in the House of Commons, rather than also on what they read in the press, and that therefore lies in the media do not really matter, is not in my view sustainable.

It's pretty clear that the Government did not see it that way when they wanted launched their own weapon of mass destruction against the BBC for Gilligan's report (in which he over-egged the pudding by saying "probably" instead of "possibly", but essentially presented a true picture).

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Feb 04 - 10:14 AM

MGOH,

Just a couple of points

"Troops in the area ready to deploy, and capable air support were also present in 2003."

Only thing in 1991, Kevin, was that Royal Marines were actually on the ground inside the Kurdish area of Iraq, they were deployed no "ready-to" about it.

"The pressure was getting results."

Was it really? I would like to know exactly what results those were Kevin.

"There was no immeduate need for war, and it is quite possible that Saddam could have been shifted without war."

No Kevin there was no immediate need for war, we could have all just carried on as before - that was what Saddam was hoping for. Having been given every opportunity to comply with UNSC Resolutions Saddam chose not to. While it might have been possible - anything is possible - going on past history regarding this man and the regime that backed him shifting him by means other than those adopted would have been highly improbable.

"The "45 minute threat", as interpreted by the media, was badly wrong, in a way which served to strengthen the case for war."

In which case, Kevin, the media should have spent a bit more time checking its facts. As normal, the "journalist" already had his story written with the spin he wanted to put on it, he scrabbled around to get something, or somebody (single-sourced and uncorroborated) to provide the flesh on the bare bones of his (the journalists) rather weak case.

"The Government wilfully failed to correct the false version of the "threat". This was a lie by omission, even if we accept that they actually believed in the existence of any such threat in the first place."

The passage containing the 45 minute reference in the JIC Dossier is, and always been, perfectly clear. The document that was presented in Parliament was for the consumption of those taking part in the debate. The document was the work of the Joint Intelligence Committee, as such the Government could not and did not alter it, members on both sides of the House based their decisions on what was contained in that document. They backed the Government of the day, and they were right to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Feb 04 - 09:12 AM

I should add that, even if you have no other objection to the Hutton report, Hoon should have been criticised for that attitude. If Hoon had issued a correction, and the papers chose not to print it, they could be criticised but Hoon would be demonstably innocent (in that particular). As it is, they did not have the option.

Subject: RE: BS: David Kelly (UK govt. WMD thing)
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Feb 04 - 08:53 AM

Hoon on 'lying by omission', speaking to the Hutton inquiry.