[agricola]

for those who are interested:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3147309.stm

the key part:

SW: Ok just back momentarily on the 45 minute issue I'm feeling like I ought to just explore that a little bit more with you the um, er, so would it be accurate then, as you did in that earlier conversation, to say that it was Alastair Campbell himself who...

DK: No I can't. All I can say is the Number 10 press office. I've never met Alastair Campbell so I can't (SW interrupts: They seized on that?) But I think Alastair Campbell is synonymous with that press office because he's responsible for it.

the same transcript from a non-BBC source:

ttp://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2003/08/13/sjw_1_0037-0043.pdf

Interestingly her oral evidence to the inquiry states that she does not believe that Alistair Campbell, or anyone else in Government inserted the "45 minute claim" - which contradicts the above transcript and her contemporaneous notes from an unrecorded meeting with Kelly, with whom she described having a relationship that was progressively "more gossipy and less technical".

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1017558,00.html

http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqdossieraffair/story/0,13754,1017745,00.html

One wishes Ms. Watt all the best in her new job at No. 10. :rolleyes:

[edit: they are no longer enjoying a riverside view]

[agricola]

I missed this bit, right at the start:

SW: But what intrigued me and which made, prompted me to ring you, was the quotes yesterday on the Today programme about the 45 minutes part of the dossier

DK: Yep. We spoke about this before of course.

SW: We have.

DK: I think you know my views on that.

SW: Yes, I've looked back at my notes and you were actually quite specific at that time - I may have missed a trick on that one, but er .

SW:[b] You were more specific than the source on the Today programme - not that that necessarily means that it's not one and the same person . but, um in fact you actually referred to Alastair Campbell in that conversation.

DK: Er yep yep with you?

SW: Yes.

DK: I mean I did talk to Gavin Hewitt yesterday - he phoned me in New York, so he may have picked up on what I said because I would have said exactly the same as I said to you.

SW:Yes so he presumably decided not to name Alastair Campbell himself but just to label this as Number 10 .

DK: Yep yep.

[agricola]

CNN's take on this:

But he did not back up claims that Campbell was responsible for "sexing up" a Government dossier on Iraqi arms by demanding the inclusion of a claim that biological and chemical weapons could be launched within 45 minutes, the inquiry heard.

On the tape, Watts asks Kelly: "Can you confirm that Campbell sexed up the dossier and that he was the source?"

Kelly replies: "No, all I can say is that it was the Number 10 press office."

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/08/13/uk.hutton/index.html

Please note that nowhere in the transcript are those quotes found - which is strange as the quotes as reported exonerate Campbell, but then states that in fact No. 10 did sex-up the dossier. As CNN arent reporting "BBC proved correct" one imagines that this is in error.

Looks like your man Arnett's ways are alive and well at his former employers.

[Art Eatman]

What has bothered me from the git-go about this and other parts of L'Affaire Iraq is that leaders like Bush and Blair are having to make decisions based on information from lower-echelon people who have their own agendas.

Then, in news reporting, information comes up the chain, filtered by staffers with agendas of their own. The final problem is that all this information is reported or interpreted by one with his own agenda.

I use the word "agenda" in a broad sense, including political viewpoint as well as a pre-determined personal desire for some national action.

Funny-odd. TPTB focussed on WMD, when Saddam was known to have committed more genocidal crimes than Milosevic. The same people who now are carping and nit-picking about our actions in Iraq were silent during our bombing of civilian targets in Serbia...Well, except Hackworth.

Art

[Iain]

Art - first bit of your post, try and get to see a programme called ''Yes Minister'' if you can. It is a brilliant comedy based around Whitehall in the UK and provides many comic examples of the system either not working or being abused by civil servants.

Second part - absolutely true in most cases, I wasn't silent at the time but many many people were. They did pick the WMD angle with Saddam as that was the action most easily justifiable.

If my government and yours had gone before the UN and said ''Saddam is nasty nasty b****** who kills his own people for fun - we want to do something about it'', and then said that to the public and not thrown some ''sexed-up dossier'' at us - my support would have been more forthcoming.

The Kelly affair could well be Blair's Watergate.

[Leatherneck]

Exactly, Art; on both points.

The folks with agendas are of the Senate-confirmed appointee variety, as well as lower-level non-appointees who "advise" their friends.

TC
TFL Survivor

[Duncan Idaho]

Dr David Kelly? The one who committed suicide?

Do you believe that he did commit suicide? British law enforcement claims he did.

If he did, then how much credence do we give to one who was obviously on the verge of suicide at the time of the interview?

[grampster]

Duncan,

On several other posts on THR I have read that British law enforcement are also the guys who close cases "nothing suspicious" when someone is beheaded and body parts are scattered about the countryside.

As a peripheral fan of history, it is not much of a stretch to wonder about things like "suicides" etc of political figures especially if an "agenda" is furthered or stopped as a result.

:scrutiny:

[agricola]

Grampster,

Those stories were fabrications, an invention by someone who has steadfastly refused to evidence them.

[Duncan Idaho]

Those stories were fabrications, an invention by someone who has steadfastly refused to evidence them.Be that as it may, what of Dr. Kelly? Should we lend credence to the words of a man who killed himself not long after the interview?

[agricola]

Duncan,

There are a number of problems with that question:

i) to accept it as a question, one must accept that Kelly said something more than the HMG position dictates - otherwise there is no point in attacking his credibility (because if one accepts the HMG position which is the BBC made up the comments attributed to him, so his mental condition wouldnt come into it).

ii) assuming Kelly was not all there in mental terms, one must then ask whether or not the BBC journalists concerned would have picked up on it, and then whether they were justified in reporting his comments. I would suggest the opinions of Britains premiere weapons inspector and his belief that the dossier was flawed and that HMG had inserted unreliable data would always be newsworthy, and they were correct to report it as such.

iii) One then has to ask whether the stress of the BBC reporting his views anonymously was less than, or greater than, the stress of the MoD exposing him to public scrutiny to take some of the heat off Campbell and the PM. Again, from the transcript Kelly seems calm, far more calm than he was when he gave evidence to the Select Committee - where one MP )(correctly IMHO) identified him as the fall guy, and put it to him as such.

In short Duncan, the debate is not about the truth or falsehood of what Kelly said. Its about the way in which this Government operates, and the way in which the BBC has been (very successfully) attacked by HMG and its cronies for the crime of reporting Kellys views accurately, and then refusing to name him in the face of massive pressure.

[JitsuGuy]

No way the guy committed suicide. I mean think of the stance he held and who would be hurt with his opionions and what he himself saw. He committed suicide? How convenient.

Jits

[Duncan Idaho]

No way the guy committed suicide. I mean think of the stance he held and who would be hurt with his opionions and what he himself saw. He committed suicide? How convenient.Think of what may have happened if he knew that the "stance he held" was BS and lies. Maybe he had a moment in his life when his conscience got the better of him.

There are a number of possibilities. Of course the "How convenient" possibility would fit better with your agenda. You are, after all, the author of this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35148

I never got any evidence to support your assertions off of that other thread. Perhaps you have some evidence that you would like to submit concerning the "real" cause of death for Dr. Kelly. Or not. :scrutiny:

[Mk VII]

this whole case is about the fate of the Prime Minister's Press Secretary, Alistair Campbell, whose head the press corps would like to see on a pole (and good riddance too, he is a most unpleasant man). However, Campbell is not James Carville, and Kelly is not Vincent Foster. Politics doesn't work like that in this country.

[Khornet]

Actually, I saw several news stories on this matter in the last few days, every one of them describing one or another of the BBC side saying that, well, maybe we exaggerated, maybe Kelly didn't exactly say that, we didn't mean to say it was Mr. Campbell, maybe Mr. Gilligan sexed things up a bit, etc. etc. Those stories, in my opinion, are every bit as weak and circumstantial as this one you posted. I didn't bother to post them, being a bit sick of the whole thing. But now that it's been raised again, it must be pointed out that we still don't have much but inferences. How much you weight one inference or another depends, I suppose, on your beliefs pre-event. I still must conclude that we don't know, and while I cannot prove that the govt didn't lie, It's up to the accusers to make their case.

St Johns, you can't mean that. Don't tell me you think there was good reason for the war, but you opposed it because they didn't make the sales pitch you wanted! And besides, HMG and my govt. DID go before the world and say that Saddam was a nast b*****d who kills his own people for fun.

[Khornet]

www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003884

See what I mean? Who knows?

[Keith]

More interesting is the second reporter who claims BBC tried to "mould" her story.


Watts: 'BBC tried to mould my story'

Jason Deans and Julia Day
Wednesday August 13, 2003


Watts: appointed her own QC to remain independent

Newsnight reporter Susan Watts today denounced the BBC's "attempts to mould" her stories in what she believed was a "misguided strategy" to "corroborate" Andrew Gilligan's controversial report on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

In an extraordinary development at the Hutton inquiry today, Watts revealed she felt compelled to seek separate legal representation because of pressure from her BBC managers to reveal David Kelly as her main source in order to corroborate Gilligan's story - a move she felt "was misguided and false".

When the inquiry counsel, James Dingemans QC, had completed his questioning of her today, Watts said she wanted to explain why she had appointed her own QC.

"I felt under some considerable pressure from the BBC. I also felt the purpose of that was to help corroborate Andrew Gilligan's allegations, not for any news purposes," said Watts.

Mr Dingemans then asked Watts whether she thought her Newsnight stories corroborated Gilligan's allegations, including whether Alastair Campbell had inserted the 45 minute claim into last September's Iraq dossier.

"No I don't," she replied. "I felt there were significant differences between my reports and his reports."

"I felt the BBC was trying to mould my stories so they reached the same conclusions [as Gilligan]. That's why I sought independent legal advice. I'm most concerned about the fact there was an attempt to mould [my stories] so they corroborated [Gilligan's stories] which I felt was misguided and false," Watts said.

She described how at two separate meetings with her Newsnight editor, George Entwistle, on Monday June 30, with and the BBC's news director, Richard Sambrook, three days later, she had been pressed to reveal whether Dr Kelly was the source of the stories she broadcast at the start of that month.

Watts said she refused to name him because she felt she had a duty to protect his identity.

She changed her mind following Dr Kelly's appearance before the foreign affairs select committee on July 15.

"When he gave evidence to the foreign affairs select committee I formed the view that he would have relieved me of my duty of confidentiality to him and I would have revealed my source if I had been called before the committee," she added.

Watts said she took her decision when she read Dr Kelly's response to a committee question asking him directly whether he was the source of one of her Newsnight stories and he had responded: "No".

"It was hard to discern his response immediately but, when I saw the transcript the next day, he appeared to deny he was the source. This factor relieved me of my obligation to protect," she added.

She then revealed Dr Kelly's identity as her main source on Friday July 18, the day the weapons inspector's body was discovered near his Oxfordshire home.

That day she spent most of that day in a BBC news suite along with her solicitor and other BBC executives and journalists.

The day was spent working on the statement, published on Sunday July 20, in which the BBC finally admitted Dr Kelly was the source of its stories about the Iraq dossier.

"For the whole of that day I was in the news suite where that process was taking place. I sat separately, with my solicitor, from the other people involved in a separate room," Watts said.

"I wouldn't complain about that process. Everyone was very upset. But I was concerned it might appear that it was Dr Kelly's death that prompted me to reveal his identity," she added.

In a morning full of extraordinary revelations, Watts also accused Dr Kelly of being "less than frank" when he gave evidence to the FAC.

Watts said she viewed Dr Kelly's evidence to the committee on the internet and also read his transcript the following day.

In his evidence, Watts said, he appeared to distance himself from the quotes he had given her and which she had used in her broadcast.

She added: "On listening to that evidence... I would have felt he had relieved me of my obligation of confidentiality to him."

She insisted she did not name Dr Kelly because of his death but because of his evidence to the FAC.

[JitsuGuy]

Think of what may have happened if he knew that the "stance he held" was BS and lies. Maybe he had a moment in his life when his conscience got the better of him.

There are a number of possibilities. Of course the "How convenient" possibility would fit better with your agenda. You are, after all, the author of this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthre...&threadid=35148

I never got any evidence to support your assertions off of that other thread. Perhaps you have some evidence that you would like to submit concerning the "real" cause of death for Dr. Kelly. Or not.

Looks like you're not doing the research... HR 2038 is the bill and it does in fact exist. As for an "agenda," the only agenda I have is to expose the facts.

As for Dr Kelly, they waisted no time on an investigation to see if he was really killed... "Looks like he committed suicide boys." Are you kidding me?! With all the controversy he was causing they rule it a suicide because his wrists are slit? Again, how convenient.

Russian Colleague Doubts Kelly Committed Suicide
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2003/08/13/013.html

Jits

[bountyhunter]

And here I thought David Kelly was the guy who made the Ally McbEal show and gets to bonk Michelle Pfeiffer every night (he married her).

[agricola]

Keith,

When you get down to the bare bones of the story you find that all in fact that happened was Sambrook asked her to reveal her source, and when she refused, he stated that he would name a name and asked her to confirm that name. She felt that this was an attempt to corroborate Gilligans story (as indeed it would have - despite her doubts, the transcript would appear to suggest that Gilligan was very close to the truth in the Today report)

It is however important that she specifically states that Kelly lied to the FAC about contact between himself and the BBC. Since HMG stated that Kelly's evidence was factual and proof that the BBC had lied, this actually defeats HMG's position - as does their increasing sniping at the character of the dead man (which in itself should show who are the bad guys here).

Without wishing to resurrect the interminable "was the war justified" argument, I would state that I begin to doubt people when they lie, or obscure the truth. That seems to have been done here by HMG.

[Keith]

When you get down to the bare bones of the story you find that all in fact that happened was Sambrook asked her to reveal her source, and when she refused, he stated that he would name a name and asked her to confirm that name.

Not true.

from the story posted above: "I felt the BBC was trying to mould my stories so they reached the same conclusions [as Gilligan]. That's why I sought independent legal advice. I'm most concerned about the fact there was an attempt to mould [my stories] so they corroborated [Gilligan's stories] which I felt was misguided and false," Watts said.

[Duncan Idaho]

Looks like you're not doing the research... HR 2038 is the bill and it does in fact exist.And your point is what?


The video that you presented as "evidence" shows Ari Fleischer saying that the President supports the renewal of the current ban. Since you seem unable to understand that important distinction, then I have no reason to think that you might be able to understand that I can not find the things that you say credible, but - out of a sense of fairness - I went ahead and said it anyway.

[JitsuGuy]

Duncan Idaho,

Here's the quote from the video about 3 minutes into it... "Is the president willing to fight for this, to fight for the EXTENSION of the uhh assault weapons ban?" Ari Flescher replies with, "Well, the president has made his position known....."

So tell me Duncan Idaho, what exactly are you not getting out of that?

Jits

[agricola]

Keith,

Not really - the quote immediately after that quote states:

She described how at two separate meetings with her Newsnight editor, George Entwistle, on Monday June 30, with and the BBC's news director, Richard Sambrook, three days later, she had been pressed to reveal whether Dr Kelly was the source of the stories she broadcast at the start of that month.

Watts said she refused to name him because she felt she had a duty to protect his identity.

Jitsguy,

while i think Kelly probably did kill himself (albeit only after being deliberately placed under immense pressure by HMG naming him), the decision not to have an Inquest for his death is a disgrace, and its very very rare that this should happen.

[Duncan Idaho]

"Is the president willing to fight for this, to fight for the EXTENSION of the uhh assault weapons ban?" Ari Flescher replies with, "Well, the president has made his position known....." His "known" position is to maintain the current ban.

[JitsuGuy]

Duncan Idaho, I do see your point and I hate to play the game of splitting hairs, but I do believe that response Ari Flescher gave could go both directions... Anyway, should lead to some interesting things in the future.

Jits

[Keith]

Not really - the quote immediately after that quote states: blah, blah blah...

The two quotes are not mutually exclusive. You are ignoring the bulk of her statements to support your narrow view of the matter.

Keith

[agricola]

Keith,

Not really, because that quote is the evidence that she cited that the BBC were trying to corroborate Gilligans' story by asking her to name her source (which of course HMG did, publicly, over the space of a week). But since you wont believe me, please tell me where else in that article does she state what they did to alter / change her story (which of course had already been broadcast on the Newsnight programme).

She felt that by her telling the BBC that she had the same source as Gilligan would (as it does) strengthen the BBC / Gilligan case (the more so because of the existance of the taped conversation, which not only corroborates the Hewitt story, but also largely confirms the Gilligan one), which she considered was inaccurate (though reading the transcript one would wonder exactly why she would think that).

Look at the start of the article:

Newsnight reporter Susan Watts today denounced the BBC's "attempts to mould" her stories in what she believed was a "misguided strategy" to "corroborate" Andrew Gilligan's controversial report on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

In an extraordinary development at the Hutton inquiry today, Watts revealed she felt compelled to seek separate legal representation because of pressure from her BBC managers to reveal David Kelly as her main source in order to corroborate Gilligan's story - a move she felt "was misguided and false".

and from the Guardian, which establishes my case:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1018342,00.html

Maybe you should re-read the articles and adapt your opinion? Its clear no BBC attempt was made (indeed could have been made) to adapt or change her story (because that story was already in the public domain). All they did was request her sources name, which she refused to do, which they respected. Compare and contrast with HMG..........

[agricola]

keith,

oh, and documents have been released stating that the 45-minute claim was hearsay evidence!

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1020034,00.html

[Keith]

Watts: "I felt the BBC was trying to mould my stories so they reached the same conclusions [as Gilligan]."

What did Gilligan conclude? He concluded that the spokesman for #10 Downing street had "sexed up" the story by adding the 45 minute claim - that the claim did not come from intelligence sources. And he attributed that to his source - Kelly.

Kelly denied making that statement.

Watt denied he said it to her as well, then goes on to state that BBC had pressured her to mould her story to support the claim. So much pressure that she felt compelled to engage an attorney (at her own expense) to protect her from her employer - BBC!

Keith

[Keith]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F08%2F14%2Fnbeeb114.xml

What they said
(Filed: 14/08/2003)


I mean they wouldn't think it was me, I don't think - Dr Kelly to Susan Watts on whether he was suspected as Andrew Gilligan's source.

They were desperate for information, they were pushing hard for information which could be released. That was one that popped up and it was seized on and it was unfortunate - Dr Kelly to Watts on the 45-minute claim, words he subsequently denied saying to the foreign affairs select committee.

I may have missed a trick on that one - Watts to Dr Kelly on him naming Alastair Campbell to her prior to Gilligan's broadcast.

I think he was clarifying what he was saying. he was talking about the Number 10 press office generically, almost as a tribe, rather than Alastair Campbell as an individual - Watts on Dr Kelly.

He didn't say to me that the dossier was transformed in the last week and he certainly didn't say that the 45-minute claim was inserted either by Alastair Campbell or by anyone else in Government - Watts on Dr Kelly.

I am more convinced than I was before that he is on the run or gone bonkers or worse. - Kevin Marsh, the editor of the Today programme, on Campbell.

I don't think they're being wilfully dishonest. I think they just think that that's the way the public will appreciate it best - Dr Kelly to Watts on wording of dossier.

Firstly, that I felt under some considerable pressure [from the BBC] to reveal the identity of my source. I also felt the purpose of that was to help corroborate the Andrew Gilligan allegations and not for any proper news purpose. - Watts on why she sought legal advice.

There was an attempt to mould my stories to corroborate ... which I felt was misguided and false - Watts on BBC pressure on her.

A gold standard of a source - how Dr Kelly was described to Gavin Hewitt by another reporter.

I cannot begin to think why he got that wrong. He may have had a lot of interviews within that period - Hewitt on Dr Kelly's denial to the select committee that he had spoken to him.

We certainly had not anticipated anything on this scale. He had broadened this out to an attack on all the BBC's general editorial values - Richard Sambrook, the BBC director of news, on Campbell

To my mind he specifically denies that Alastair Campbell was involved personally by saying 'No, I can't' - Watts on Dr Kelly.

You have a history of complaints, I think, from Alastair Campbell about BBC reporting? - Inquiry question to Sambrook.

[Gilligan] continued to display an extraordinary ignorance about intelligence issues - Campbell to Sambrook

[agricola]

keith,

What did Gilligan conclude? He concluded that the spokesman for #10 Downing street had "sexed up" the story by adding the 45 minute claim - that the claim did not come from intelligence sources. And he attributed that to his source - Kelly.

sorry, but that is wrong. Here is the transcript of the report on the Today programme that started the row:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/radio/story/0,12636,994893,00.html

specifically:

John Humphrys
Are you suggesting [the dossier] was not the work of the intelligence agencies?

Andrew Gilligan The information which I'm told was dubious did come from the information agencies, but they were unhappy about it because they didn't think it should have been in there. They thought it was not corroborated sufficiently and they actually thought it was wrong. They thought the informant concerned had got it wrong. They thought he'd misunderstood what was happening. Let's go throughout this. This is the dossier that was published in September last year, probably the most substantial statement of the government's case against Iraq. You'll remember that the Commons was recalled to debate it, Tony Blair made the opening speech. It is not the same as the famous dodgy dossier, the one that was copied off the internet, that came later. It was quite a serious document that dominated the news agenda that day, and you open up the dossier and the first thing you see is a preface by Tony Blair that includes the following words:

"Saddam's military planning allows for some WMDs to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to deploy them."

Now, that claim has come back to haunt Mr Blair because, if the weapons had been that readily to hand, they probably would have been found by now. But you know, it could have been an honest mistake. But what I have been told is that the government knew that claim was questionable even before the war, even before they wrote it in their dossier.

I've spoken to a British official who was involved in the preparation of the dossier and he told me that in the week before it was published, the draft dossier produced by the intelligence services added little to what was already publicly known. He said:

"It was transformed in the week before it was published to make it sexier. The classic example was the claim that weapons of mass destruction were ready for use within 45 minutes. That information was not in the original draft. It was included in the dossier against our wishes, because it wasn't reliable. Most of the things in the dossier were double-sourced, but that was single sourced, and we believe that the source was wrong."

Now this official told me the dossier was transformed at the behest of Downing Street, and he added:

"Most people in intelligence were unhappy with the dossier because it didn't reflect the considered view they were putting forward."

Now I want to stress that this official, and others I've spoken to, do still believe Iraq did have had some sort of weapons of mass destruction programmes.

"I believe it is about 30% likely there was a chemical weapons programme in the six months before the war, and considerably more likely there was a biological weapons programme. We think Blix downplayed a couple of potentially interesting pieces of evidence. But the weapons programmes were quite small. Sanctions did limit the programme."

The official also added quite an interesting note about the result, since the war, of the capture of some of the Iraqi WMD scientists.

"We don't have a great deal more information yet than we had before. We have not got a great deal out of the detainees yet."

Now the 45-minute issue is not just a detail. It did go to the heart of the government's case that Saddam was an imminent threat, and it was repeated a further three times in the body of the dossier. And I understand that the parliamentary intelligence and security committee is going to conduct an inquiry into the claims made by the British government about Iraq and it is obviously exactly this kind of issue that will be at the heart of their investigation.

It seems to me Keith that youre operating with faulty data, which is leading you to false conclusions.

[agricola]

keith,

also she could not (even if she had wanted to) have moulded her story to suit Gilligan because it had already been reported (on June 2nd and 4th) prior to any meetings with Sambrook or others. What she means is that she felt the fact Kelly had also spoken to her along similar lines would mean the BBC would point to any similarities (while ignoring the discrepancies) as evidence of the veracity of Gilligan's story.

[Keith]

"He didn't say to me that the dossier was transformed in the last week and he certainly didn't say that the 45-minute claim was inserted either by Alastair Campbell or by anyone else in Government - Watts on Dr Kelly."

"To my mind he specifically denies that Alastair Campbell was involved personally by saying 'No, I can't' - Watts on Dr Kelly."


Agricola,

Your brain seems to freeze whenever your eyes download data contradicting your prejudices. Simply read and comprehend the statements.

As for the 45 minute claim, I find it quite plausible given the information they had at the time the statements were made. The two components in chemical weapons require a short preparation before they can be launched via artillery or scud - 45 minutes or so.
There is little doubt that Saddam had these weapons at one time and that he failed to account for their destruction. It's only logical to conclude that he still had them - the obverse is to conclude that he had indeed destroyed them but had some nefarious reason for not documenting that destruction. And perhaps he did destroy them and had some Machiavellian reason for refusing to provide proof.
If that's the case, he's probably regretting that decision about now!

Too bad logic isn't one of your strong points!

Keith

[agricola]

Keith,

Where in the Today report does it mention Alistair Campbell (you'll find that the Campbell report was from the Mail on Sunday newspaper?

Where did Gilligan claim that Iraq did not have WMD (in fact he specifically refers to his sources belief that they did have them)?

What do you have to say to the FO documents which state that the information on which the claim was based was not only single-sourced but also second-hand information? Are you more knowledgeable than Kelly was with regards to Iraqi WMD?

Why are you arguing against an imaginary position? I havent heard you correct this statement yet:

What did Gilligan conclude? He concluded that the spokesman for #10 Downing street had "sexed up" the story by adding the 45 minute claim - that the claim did not come from intelligence sources. And he attributed that to his source - Kelly.