WS Journal editorial explaining BBC role in fudging info supplied by Dr. Kelly


PDA






emc
July 23, 2003, 09:54 AM
Wall St. Journal Editorial - July 21, 2003

The Campaign to Bring Down Blair

If history doesn't go your way, rewrite it. That's the way demagogues have operated through the ages and, while it seldom works in the long term, it can succeed in the short run, where elections are won and lost. This strategy is now being fully deployed on both sides of the Atlantic in an attempt to nullify the victory in Iraq.

In Britain, the battle to erase the war's gains has so far succeeded better than in the U.S., where scandal-hungry media are obsessed with half-baked accusations on yellowcake. Tony Blair is more exposed than President Bush in large part because the British Prime Minister's foes have a powerful megaphone; it's called the British Broadcasting Corporation.

It's not every day that a government is caught in a life-and-death struggle with a state broadcaster. What started as tendentious BBC reporting before and during the war has turned, in its aftermath, into what can only be comprehended as a campaign to bring down Mr. Blair. Last week, this clash claimed an unintended victim with the suicide of a Defense Ministry adviser who was the source on which the BBC based one of its most controversial claims. This tragic event is already looming as the biggest crisis in Mr. Blair's seven-year-old government.

Dr. David Kelly, a microbiologist, was by all accounts an honest, straightforward scientist who took seriously the threat of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein. When Mr. Blair's director of communications, Alastair Campbell, took issue with a report by the BBC's Andrew Gilligan that he had "sexed up" intelligence reports, and challenged the broadcaster in public, Dr. Kelly came forward and informed his bosses that he had met with Mr. Gilligan.

But Dr. Kelly denied having told the reporter that Mr. Campbell had inserted, against the wishes of the intelligence services, unreliable evidence that Saddam had the ability to deploy WMDs toward the British Isles within 45 minutes. In fact, Dr. Kelly told a parliamentary investigating committee in testimony two days before his death, "from the conversation I had, I don't see how [the BBC reporter] could make the authoritative statements he was making from the comments I made."

For days Mr. Gilligan insisted on his reporter's right not to reveal his source, a point we understand. But yesterday the BBC finally fessed up and admitted that, yes, Dr. Kelly had been the source of what it continues to maintain was an accurate report. Dr. Kelly's testimony, however, clearly indicates that the BBC story misrepresented what he told the reporter. In that light, it was the BBC that "sexed up" its reports and then refused for days to set the record straight.

The Prime Minister would not be half as beleaguered were his enemies all arrayed on the left. But the Conservatives, smelling blood early on, have joined the BBC-led chorus questioning whether the government exaggerated intelligence claims on Iraq. And they have their own media megaphones, the highbrow Daily Telegraph and the tabloid Daily Mail among them. The latter on Saturday grotesquely ran a headline with the story about the Kelly suicide that read "Proud of Yourselves?" above photographs over Messrs. Blair, Campbell and Defense Minister Geoff Hoon. Mr. Bush can thank his lucky stars that he does not have problems of this magnitude.

We believe Britons will be able to make up their own minds about this affair, Mr. Blair and Iraq no matter how the BBC spins events. It would also be a good moment to consider privatizing the BBC , which is funded by a $180-a-year license fee that every Briton who owns a television set is required to pay whether or not he watches BBC channels.

In any event, Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush can have the satisfaction of knowing they have liberated 25 million Iraqis and removed a terrible threat to the rest of civilization. Whatever the short term deals them in politics, history will take this view.

If you enjoyed reading about "WS Journal editorial explaining BBC role in fudging info supplied by Dr. Kelly" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
foghornl
July 23, 2003, 11:22 AM
Tony Blair is more exposed than President Bush in large part because the British Prime Minister's foes have a powerful megaphone; it's called the British Broadcasting Corporation.

In the USA, the megaphone is simply called 'The Media'.

Mk VII
July 23, 2003, 11:39 AM
this has very little to do with the merits of the war and everything to do with the fate of the Prime Minister's press secretary, who is widely hated by the press corps - and by many in his own party. The ultimate spindoctor, many would welcome his fall.
Campbell's relationship with Blair is a strange one, he has been seen ordering him around and telling him to "get a f___ing move-on". He knows where many of the bodies are buried. He is reported to have kept voluminous diaries.

agricola
July 23, 2003, 12:34 PM
an article that neglects to mention so much. In addition to MkVII's comments, one should also add that HMG has not opposed an article by Susan Watt of the Newsnight programme, which says much the same thing as the Gilligan article AND for which the BBC has a tape of Dr. Kelly's comments.

The reason so many groups are aligned against Blair and Campbell is because they have slipped up, lied and been caught out again. Last time they did it (the "execution" of two servicemen) the media was more distracted on the war (aside from the Mirror who ran the story) and the Tories didnt make political capital out of it, probably on moral grounds.

One should also note that, while Blair called for restraint after the death, one of his closest allies (Mandelson)has been continously attacking the BBC (on BBC programmes no less), together with lesser ministers and party figures. It seems "restraint" applies to the BBC only here.

GSB
July 23, 2003, 01:02 PM
So agricola, if there's a tape of Kelly that supports the original accusation, was Kelly lying that he was misrepresented, or was he lying on the tape?

rrader
July 23, 2003, 01:16 PM
It would also be a good moment to consider privatizing the BBC , which is funded by a $180-a-year license fee that every Briton who owns a television set is required to pay whether or not he watches BBC channels.

Our own NPR /PBS is just as grindingly partisan, and is it ever galling to hear the endless taxpayer funded spew of hard-left agitprop from the likes of Noah Adams (NPR), Nina Totenberg (NPR), Garrison Keillor (NPR), and Jim Lehr (PBS).

Privatization? Makes one wonder why, if we have a Republican majority in the House and Senate and a Republican President, we never see any progress on that and elimination of the Nat. Endowment for the Arts / Humanities as well.

agricola
July 23, 2003, 01:16 PM
the tape is for the Susan Watt article, which (briefly) states that the 45 minute claim was included in the dossier against the wishes of the Intelligence Services after 10 Downing Street had discovered its existance and seized upon it as "evidence".

The existance of this tape is a possible reason why the Watt article has been left alone by HMG.

IMHO Kelly said something along the lines of "the 45 minute claim was mentioned, it wasnt supported by much but No.10 included it anyway". This was then taken by Gilligan to mean "No.10 (in reality Campbell) was responsible for its inclusion in the actual dossier" wheras Watt reported it as described above. At the time the claim seemed absurd, and its hard to think that anyone with as much knowledge of Iraq as Kelly had would have accepted it.

agricola
July 23, 2003, 01:17 PM
rrader,

its nice to know you took so much notice of the locking of that thread that you've added one of your "comments" on it as a sig line. :barf:

Mk VII
July 23, 2003, 01:20 PM
on the face of it, Kelly was less than frank to the committee about his involvement - unless he believed that there was another source out there (and there could have been).
American readers will probably have little interest in this essentially domestic piece of politics - and less understanding of the subtler nuances of it. The arguement about this Government's obession with spin and news management has been going on since 1997.
On September 11th one political advisor notoriously wrote, in a subsequently leaked email, "this is now a very good day to bury bad news; councillors' expenses, anyone?"

If you enjoyed reading about "WS Journal editorial explaining BBC role in fudging info supplied by Dr. Kelly" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!