Hutton: what do you think?

[OldieMum]

I am getting cynical in my old age, but even I didn't expect Hutton to exonerate everyone in the Government for everything they did over the dossier and David Kelly and to blame the BBC for what they did at every stage. What do other people think? And who leaked it to the Sun?

Thanks, Georgina - there are some very interesting figures there.

I also saw today - can't remember if it was in that Mail or today's Guardian - a time line, starting with Gilligan's original broadcast, showing when and how Campbell started leaning on the BBC; and it was at least a week after the first Today piece, and quite a few days after the Mail on Sunday (?) "sexed up" piece. It could easily have just died. Why didn't it?

Greg Dyke on Frost this morning says he was constantly receiving missives from Alistair Campbell telling him what the BBC could and couldn't say. He says he used to ignore them. This Govt believes it has the right to control the BBC, remember the farce about Peter Mandelson being outed?

Message withdrawn

message withdrawn

I think also in this particular case the combination of savage sanctions and the presence of UN inspectors had effectively (as we now see) neutured Saddam Hussein as a threat even to his own people. There could be no repeat of his gas attacks while his country was packed with UNSCOM inspectors. At the time of the attack Saddam appears to have presented less threat to even his own people at any time since he came to power. Meanwhile, other countries were developing a nuclear capability, filling their torture chambers and using fundamentalist religion as an excuse to violently oppress their own people. The effect of this war has been to make daily life far worse for the majority of Iraqis, not just the children whose arms were blown off. We in the West are more in danger from terrorism, not less, and it has boosted the popularity of terrorists in the Arab world. I have grave doubts that Iraq will become this lovely Western-style democracy that we are told it will become. I strongly suspect it will become another form of repressive dictatorship and women's lives, in particular, will become far worse.
But fundamentally, the issue here for me is that we were lied to over and over again about the danger from WMD (non-existent) and the links between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam (non-existent and highly unlikely as Osama is a religious fundamentalist who strongly opposed Saddam's secular state).
There are too many disgusting ironies to mention. Not least the fact that the US has sent so-called terrorist suspects (including perfectly innocent Canadian engineers) to other countries such as Syria to be tortured on their behalf. This was not a war on moral grounds. Those moral grounds are now being used as all the other grounds (the ones we were told were the 'real' grounds) have been proved to be false. When Saudia Arabia and Syria are our friends and allies, I think it ill behoves our governments to talk about human rights abuses in Iraq.

Well well well. I see That nice Mr Gilligan has resigned. What a great loss to the world of journalism that will be.Perhaos he could go back to the Daily Mail where he used to work.

Donnie, I agree with you. It is sad that telling the truth on a matter of vital public interest can costs a good reporter his job.
Just one thing - he never used to work at the Daily Mail. It's so important not to make 'mistakes' don't you think? After all, that would be unforgiveable.

Gilligan's bio, FYI.

Biography

Andrew Gilligan
Defence and Diplomatic Correspondent, Today Programme

Andrew Gilligan is the Defence and Diplomatic Correspondent for BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Prior to joining the BBC in 1999, Andrew spent five years at the Sunday Telegraph working on the foreign news desk and as the newspaper's Defence Correspondent.
He also worked at the Cambridge Evening News from 1994 to 1995.
Andrew has reported from around 40 countries - including most recently Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.
For Today, he has posed undercover to buy anti-personnel landmines in contravention of the 1998 Landmines Act; exposed the relative ease with which it was possible to get postal votes on behalf of dead people; and obtained a series of damning leaked official reports about Britain's performance in the Kosovo war.
He broke the story of the RAF's £1 billion combat jet which couldn't drop precision bombs and was the first British journalist to report on the EU's controversial plans for a Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Andrew Gilligan was born in London on 22 November 1968. He was educated at a comprehensive school in South West London before going on to study at Cambridge University.

I'm with Aloha on all of this.

Message withdrawn

As far as I can see, and I agree, getting an objective view of what was and is happening in Iraq is difficult, thousands of Iraqis have died since the invasion from being blown to bits, shot at checkpoints by US and British troops and because of the chaos and lawlessness of post-invasion Iraq. There seems no end to it. I suspect that Iraqis who live outside Iraq are people who opposed Saddam to start with and who are of course not experiencing the reality of post-invasion Iraq. It is hard for me to imagine a torture greater than having your child's arms blown off. I am very doubtful that Iraq was the worst country in the world. Did you read today about North Korea's chemical weapons torture chambers, in which whole families are being gassed to death (quite often for being Christians, by the way). There seems to be no rush to invade them on 'humanitarian' grounds. I simply think that for the US and UK governments to cite humanitarian grounds is simply a lie. They didn't lift a finger while the gassing of the Marsh Arabs was going on. In Afghanistan I was emailing MPs on the subjection of women there and getting precisely nowhere over a year before the invasion. They didn't care. This had nothing to do with humanitarianism. The record of the UK and US governments on deposing overseas governments and replacing them is so bloody and grim that I have not faith in their abilities to improve matter. Look at Vietnam, where the US governments use of chemical warfare is even now causing many children to be born with monstrous birth defects, and the leaders of the most evil regime on earth have been reinstated by the US as leaders. I just don't buy it. I think where there is urgent humanitarian need, and the UN agrees, there is a case for military action, as in Kosovo. This is not the same issue. And we were deceived. That cannot be right.

If the Govt felt that the humanitarian issue was enough to justify the war, then they would have used that as the reason we were doing it, wouldn't they? But obviously they didn't think that, so had to find other reasons.

Oops, wasn't going to get into this one!

Bloss, it's a pretty sacred convention that civil servants are never named. This is because they aren't acting in their personal capacity, or as agents of any political party, but as servants of the public (or the crown). Being named is quite shameful. Even in the press office, where there's more of a sense of humour, it's infra dig. When my mother was a Whitehall press officer in the 80s, anyone who was named by a journalist had to stand the whole office a drink - a pretty expensive affair.
On the subject of 'outing' Kelly, let's not forget that Alastair Campbell initially tried to smear him by claiming he wasn't 'senior' but merely a lowly official. This was the country's leading expert on WMD, a man who was internationally recognised (and as we now learn was about to be knighted). I think this country and the world has lost someone very important thanks to Campbell's vindictive temper tantrum.

Message withdrawn

A. he was speaking unattributably ? as far as I'm concerned the thing Gilligan really did wrong was identifying him to the select committee as Susan Watt's source on Newsnight. That was appalling.
B. He had had media training from the department. Speaking to the media was part of his job. No doubt ministers ? who are NOT the employers of civil servants however much pressure they put on them ? would prefer it if journalists only spoke to press officers and got the official spin. But I think it would be pretty bad for democracy if the country's leading expert in WMD didn't speak honestly to the media and therefore the public. Evidence to the Hutton Inquiry was clear ? there were serious misgivings in the intelligence community about the dossier, particularly the way it had been rewritten in the light of Campbell's comments, Blair's summary which exaggerated the evidence and the fact Campell had chaired the meetings of the Joint Intelligence Committee which was responsible for the document. This last was plainly wrong. The reason Hutton has caused so much outrage was that he completely ignored all the evidence that was critical of the government and overplayed the evidence that was critical of the BBC. His findings are not a true reflection of the evidence presented but a highly biased account. Hutton is an establishment figure who has allowed his prejudices to overcome his judgement. In his world politicians ? and Campbell ? are all honourable gentlemen who speak nothing but the unvarnished truth. Anyone who has ever had anything to do with Whitehall and Westminster can't believe this. It is simply ridiculous. Ministers don't usually lie, but they do present highly partisan accounts. And in this case, the Government did lie about WMD and the reasons we went to war.

Blair being grilled by committee on Radio5 Live (NOW).

Bloss, there is a huge amount of evidence that Bush had decided to invade Iraq long before September 11 - and for reasons utterly unconnected with any humanitarian instincts. He is influenced (a very mild word) by powerful oil interests as well as by his own family history and his father's humiliating retreat. Likewise, there is also evidence that Bliar also agreed to join the invasion before any evidence of WMD. The 'evidence' for WMD was got up to present an entirely spurious case for war to justify a decision that has already been made (which is why the proposed inquiry into the intelligence servics is yet another smokescreen - their information is NOT why we went to war). This secret plan was utterly immoral and totally undemocratic. Naturally, if there had been any intention to defend human rights action would have been taken much earlier in Iraq - human rights are being used utterly cynically as a smoke screen. I see no evidence that the Iraqi people are better off. Certainly those killed and maimed by the bombing aren't. And given the British and US's record on installing puppet governments, I suspect that whatever replaces Saddam could even be worse. I think the combination of sanctions and the presence of the UN seemed to be to be a far better way of protecting everyone's interests in the region.
Just as seriously, I am genuinely frightened at what is happening to the world since the invasion. The 'war against terror' is being used for what I think are terrifying clamp downs on human rights and ancient freedoms. From open-ended imprisonment without trial in Guantanamo Bay to the shipping of 'suspects' to countries like Syria to be tortured in our name, and David Blunkett's wicked proposals to reduce the burden of proof in criminal trials and impose more secret courts (and we all know how they furthered the cause of justice in the family court esp when Meadows got involved) are very sinister. Does anyone actually feel safer now? I also suspect that it is very much in this authoritatian's government's interest for us all to feel scared all the time and to jump at shadows so that draconian legislation can be pushed through.