Namecalling won’t change the fact that the BBC is now blaming Kelly, but that they did not do so when Kelly was alive. What was the BBC’s motive? You may be right that the BBC was protecting Kelly.
But, let’s review the situation: The BBC reported that the Blair administration had “sexed up” their intelligence. That report was formally found to be false by a committee of Parliament. The embarassing for the BBC. So, the question is:
Did a reliable source give the BBC false information OR did the BBC make their accusation without sufficient evidence?
A few days ago, Kelly testified said that although he had given some information to the BBC reporter, he had NOT supported their accusations of monkeying with intelligence info. At that time the BBC left open the question of whether they had another source. They didn’t dispute Kelly’s testimony. If he were still alive, would the BBC have admitted that they didn’t have another source? Probably not.
But, now that he’s dead, the BBC is able to state that they “accurately interpreted and reported the factual information obtained by us during interviews with Dr. Kelly.” How convenient.
I second jjimm’s suggestion for a poll as to whether to believe the BBC or Dr. Kelly. I tend to believe Kelly’s testimony. He’s a scientist, not an intelligence officer. He probably wouldn’t have been in a position to confirm the handling of intelligence. He had a reputation for integrity, more so than the BBC reporter, according to one article I read. The BBC has been attacking the Bliar over the war in Iraq. They had an axe to grind, moreso than Dr. Kelly. Of course, we’ll never know.