Vindication for Tony Blair

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 19, 2003
Messages
2,290
Location
Arlington, VA
The leftist anti-war extremists at the BBC clearly overstepped all bounds of integrity and common decency in this matter. It's good to see the truth win out in the end.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109693,00.html
_____________________________________________________
Blair Cleared in Kelly Flap; BBC Chairman Resigns
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
5_44_010404_blair_iraq2.jpg
LONDON (AP) — A judge cleared Prime Minister Tony Blair's administration Wednesday of any direct involvement in the suicide of a government expert on Iraqi weapons, but criticized the BBC for its reporting of the scandal that shook the British leadership.

The chairman of the British Broadcasting Corp.'s (search) board of governers resigned hours after the report was issued by appeals judge Lord Hutton (search), who was appointed by Blair to investigate the death of weapons expert David Kelly (search).

Hutton concluded the government did not act in a "dishonorable, underhand or duplicitous" way in revealing Kelly's identity.

Hutton said he was satisfied that nobody involved in the matter could have foreseen that Kelly would take his own life. He killed himself after being identified as the anonymous source of the BBC report accusing the government of exaggerating claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to bolster support for war.

Blair welcomed Hutton's "extraordinary, thorough, detailed and clear" report and demanded the BBC withdraw its allegation he misled the country over Iraqi weapons.

"The allegation that I or anyone else lied to this House or deliberately misled the country by falsifying intelligence on WMD is itself the real lie," Blair said in the House of Commons. "And I simply ask that those that made it and those who have repeated it over all these months now withdraw it, fully, openly and clearly."

BBC chief executive Greg Dyke (search) accepted that "certain key allegations" in its report were wrong and the BBC apologized. But he said the network had never accused the prime minister of lying.

Gavyn Davies (search), chairman of the BBC's board of governors, announced his resignation, and the governors said they accepted it "with great reluctance and regret."

"I have been brought up to believe that you cannot choose your own referee, and that the referee's decision is final," Davies said.

The nationally televised report by Hutton after gathering months of evidence appeared to exonerate Blair after the biggest crisis of his seven years in office. The BBC report had challenged his integrity and the case he had made for British forces to join the war in Iraq. The scandal also damaged the BBC's reputation.

Hutton said the BBC report that Blair's government had manipulated its intelligence in an official dossier about Iraq's weapons was unfounded. He specifically rebutted the BBC report that the government had "sexed up" the dossier to bolster its argument for the war in Iraq.

"I am satisfied that none of the persons whose decisions and actions I later describe ever contemplated that Dr. Kelly might take his own life. I'm further satisfied that none of those persons was at fault in not contemplating that Dr. Kelly might take his own life," Hutton said on national TV as he read from his 328-page decision.

"Whatever pressures and strains Dr. Kelly was subjected to by the decisions and actions taken in the weeks before his death, I am satisfied that no one realized or should have realized that those pressures and strains might lead him to take his own life," Hutton said.

In his report, BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan (search) said a government statement that Iraqi forces could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes was based on false intelligence that officials knew was unreliable.

"Whether or not at some time in the future the report on which the 45-minute claim was based was shown to be unreliable, the allegations reported by Mr. Gilligan on 29 May 2003 that the government probably knew that the 45-minutes claim was wrong before the government decided to put it in the dossier was an allegation that was unfounded," Hutton said.

Hutton sharply criticized the publicly funded BBC's "defective" handling of Gilligan's story, saying editors had failed to properly check the reporter's allegations and did not properly investigate the government's complaints about his report.

The judge criticized the BBC's Board of Governors for failing to fully investigate the criticism of Gilligan's report and would have probably discovered it to be unfounded if they had.

"If they had done this, they would probably have discovered that the notes did not support the allegation that the government probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was probably wrong," Hutton said.

Hutton criticized the board "for failing to give proper and adequate consideration to whether the BBC should publicly acknowledge that this very grave allegation should not have been broadcast."

The judge also said that Kelly had acted improperly by privately meeting with Gilligan and had breached rules regarding government employees contacts with the media because he hadn't been given permission from his superiors for such a meeting.

Critics had accused the government and Blair personally of cynically exposing Kelly to massive media scrutiny, thereby contributing to his death. Kelly's body was found near his home in a rural area in July, his left wrist slashed.

Hutton said the government acted "reasonably" in confirming Kelly's identity after he told his superiors he was probably the source of Gilligan's story. Kelly, however, denied telling Gilligan the 45-minute claim was false.

The judge said the government would have been guilty of a coverup if it had tried to conceal Kelly's identity.

"The issuing of the statement was not part of a dishonorable or underhand or duplicitous strategy to leak Dr. Kelly's name covertly in order to assist the government in its battle with the BBC," Hutton said.

While largely exonerating the government's handling of the matter, Hutton said Defense Ministry officials could have given Kelly more help when they confirmed his identity to the media. But Hutton said Kelly was an intensely private man and "not easy to help."

The judge agreed with an expert witness that a loss of self esteem and feelings of despair might have contributed to Kelly's suicide.

Hutton also dismissed as inaccurate a claim by Gilligan that Alastair Campbell (search), then Blair's director of communications, had been responsible for allegedly hyping the intelligence dossier.

"What the report shows very clearly is the prime minister told the truth, the government told the truth, I told the truth," Campbell said. "The BBC, from the chairman and the director-general down, did not."

Hutton pored over documents, e-mails, official minutes and extracts from Campbell's personal diary, which provided insights into the interplay of politics and policies at the highest level.

Hutton's hearings, lasting most of August and September, transfixed the country, which remains deeply divided about Blair's decision to back the U.S. attack on Iraq.

The retired chief U.S. weapons inspector, David Kay (search), said last week that he concluded that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, which were the basis of Blair's case for war.

__________________________________________________________

They had to get that shot in of course, ignoring Kay's extensive comments on how it was reasonable to believe that Saddam had WMD's prior to the wars onset, etc.
 
Last edited:
with their Official Secrets Act, the government is under no obligation to tell the people anything.

It's nice that he was vindicated from "suiciding" Mr. Kelly, I doubt Blair would ever give that order anyway. But, the Brits have denied being involved in political assassinations before, been vindicated by "investigations" only to have the truth come out many years later. For example, after years of denial, wasn't it the Stevens Commission who found evidence of British intel participating and committing murders of Irish citizens and IRA members? I'm pretty sure it was Stevens Commission.
 
with their Official Secrets Act, the government is under no obligation to tell the people anything.

I don't know the UK law too well, but it seems like the particulars of the Kelly matter were all on the public record. It was really a matter of the BBC misreporting Kelly's statements and refusing to own up to it.

It's nice that he was vindicated from "suiciding" Mr. Kelly, I doubt Blair would ever give that order anyway. But, the Brits have denied being involved in political assassinations before, been vindicated by "investigations" only to have the truth come out many years later. For example, after years of denial, wasn't it the Stevens Commission who found evidence of British intel participating and committing murders of Irish citizens and IRA members? I'm pretty sure it was Stevens Commission.

There's the matter of proportion here. This isn't a matter having the same grave seriousness as the fight against IRA terrorism. I doubt the British Intel services would take the considerable risk associated with offing Kelly for a matter of such little importance, especially where the purported "sexing up" alleged by the BBC was so easily disproved by other means.
 
my poitn is it's tough to belive anything they say when they have carte blanche to lie under the official secrets act.

It remains to be seen if Blair will be vindicated for the WMD claims.
 
I read an article in the Times yesterday that Saddam may have been misled about whether or not he had WMDs.

Seems his own weapons scientists may have been exaggerating, and even out-right making up reports about how advanced their weapons programmes were, in order to get extra funds and recognition.
 
I read an article in the Times yesterday that Saddam may have been misled about whether or not he had WMDs.

Seems his own weapons scientists may have been exaggerating, and even out-right making up reports about how advanced their weapons programmes were, in order to get extra funds and recognition.

Yeah, I heard something about that too. It seems that the funds were diverted to other projects or even for the scientists personal gain without Saddam's knowledge. That's what Kay says, at least.
 
Time magazine is so full of propaganda BS... Anything to take the focus off of the leaders and their lies to support an all out attack on Iraq... It's funny though... I remember Powell showing pictures of these WMD trucks and facilities that were taken by satellite and we were so sure they were WMD's... Here we are , what, 6 months in the war and we still can't find the dang things we had enough proof to start a war over? Umm yeah.

As for Blair, he's as crooked as the rest of them... Couldn't have ol' Kelly in the way, we needed someone who would support a raid on Iraq even if there were no WMD's...



J
 
JitsuGuy......

"Time magazine is so full of propaganda BS... "
************************************************************

"Time", while it is all you claim and more, is a mere piker, a rank amateur, a wanna-be sophist, when it comes to the propaganda and fabrications of the BBC.:barf:
 
coolhand,

There are a number of questionable points about Hutton - especially the revalation that Blair in fact did chair the meeting about naming him as source, as well as Hutton's strange avoidance of the supporting evidence Gilligan had (namely the two other journalists stories for which Kelly was the source) - plus of course his contention that the dossier wasnt "sexed up", but (to quote Freedland's view on Hutton):

Otherwise, the closest Lord Hutton came to laying a glove on the government was his suggestion that "the possibility cannot be completely ruled out" that the PM's desire to have a strong dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had "subconsciously influenced" John Scarlett and his joint intelligence committee.

Subconsciously! Forget all those memos from Mr Campbell to the intelligence chief asking for multiple changes in wording. There was no pressure to harden the dossier, Lord Hutton decided, just a possible twitch of Mr Scarlett's subconscious - and even that tiny "possibility" was remote. It was more likely that Mr Scarlett's sole concern had been to reflect accurately the intelligence available.

Anyway, I am still waiting for you to demonstrate how socialists "universally" espoused the Nazi cause, especially in the face of evidence presented by myself and others. Funny how you just left that thread...................

Freeland: http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/0,13822,1133932,00.html
 
"I read an article in the Times yesterday that Saddam may have been misled about whether or not he had WMDs."

Well, Saddam and Bush have yet another thing in common then eh? :)




Incidently CoolHandLuke- I was flipping thru the channels last night and caught some of the House of Commons reaction to the Hutton report on Cspan2. The conservatives ripped the liberals apart! They busted the report on all sorts of inconsistencies and tricky wording. Evidence of secret meetings with no minutes and myriad improprities and shenanigans. Basically exposed the report for the liberal lies and whitewash it was. Watching their parliment is always good political theatre, and I mean theatre. Pretty ironic that Bush is paired up with ultra liberal Blair and watching the conservatives rail on, the exact opposite of this country, but that's politics.
 
I wouldn't call Blair "liberal", by any meaning of the word.

If you mean "liberal" in the sense of "socialist", he substantially un-socialisted (is that a word?) the Labour Party, which is how it came to power in the first place* (and why so many of his back-benchers hate him).

And he's not much of a "liberal" in the classical sense, nor is he a member of the Liberal Democrats**.


*That and the Tories (Conservative Party) being a bunch of corrupt, lying, arrogant, authoratarian scumballs. (So not at all like the current government).

** Our third party, who used to have an official policy of being "equidistant" between Labour and the Tories, but since Labour became New Labour and moved to the right have decided to officially become left-wing. (Although they also seem to be the most liberal in the classical sense, i.e. least authoratarian). They still have basically no policies, other than "50% highest income tax band!", "Local government!", "EU!", "legalise cannabis!", "Proportional representation!".
 
iapetus......

"*That and the Tories (Conservative Party) being a bunch of corrupt, lying, arrogant, authoratarian scumballs. (So not at all like the current government).

** Our third party, who used to have an official policy of being "equidistant" between Labour and the Tories, but since Labour became New Labour and moved to the right have decided to officially become left-wing."
************************************************************


Good Grief! Now I see where the inspiration for the Australian Political Party
"role reversals" have come from:what: .

Our once conservative Liberal/National Coalition perfectly fits your description of the Tories.

The once-left Labour Party is now trying to do what Phony Blair did.

The Greens and 'Democrats' are dangling out there on the left-loopy fringe.:barf:
 
I wouldn't call Blair "liberal", by any meaning of the word.

I would imagine he meant 'liberal' in the sense that Blair is to the left of most mainstream American politicians. I still recall the look of pain on Bill Clinton's face when Blair stood next to him and said something along the lines of 'we are committed to the welfare state'.

"liberal" is a matter of perspective I suppose. I imagine Blair is pretty conservative by most european standards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top