Doubts were raised on Blair's Iraq WMD claims as well

[Trion]

Ha! I’ll have you guys know that we’re finally getting some reliable information on those WMD.

[Martiju]

And to think that evidence was there in the ground all along!!

I hear Lyme Regis (someone needs to tell me how to do hyperlinks on this board) is next in line for Bush’s wrath!

[elf6c]

*Originally posted by december *
**I was struck by the two different spins put on this first day. The Sun had an interpretation totally opposite from Bloomberg’s, as quoted in the OP. The Sun said **

The Sun vs. Bllowberg, hmmm who to go with. . . .

Unless you’re looking for T&A, I suggest Bloomberg. What where you looking for?

[elf6c]

Bllowberg

What the hell are my fingers doing?

Here are some more links for you december. Sorry, no T&A.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030812_712.html

The BBC reporter testified that Kelly told him May 22 that Blair’s communications director, Alastair Campbell, transformed the dossier and that a claim that Iraq could deploy chemical and biological weapons in 45 minutes was included against the wishes of intelligence chiefs.

Seven days after meeting Kelly, Gilligan repeated those claims in a BBC radio report, citing an unidentified official. He named Campbell in a subsequent newspaper article.

and

Asked about that, Gilligan read aloud notes he made from his meeting with Kelly.

“Transformed a week before publication to make it sexier, a classic was the 45 minutes, most things in the dossier were double-sourced but that was single-sourced,” part of the notes said.

On Campbell’s alleged role in rewriting the dossier, he said: “Campbell, real information but included against our wishes … he asked if anything else could go in.”

Gilligan insisted that it was Kelly who first raised Campbell’s name.

Yep, december things are going real well.

In direct contradiction to evidence given yesterday, Gilligan made the dramatic claim that Ministry of Defence scientist David Kelly had said Mr Campbell asked if anything else could go in to the September dossier because the real information in the original dossier was unusable and dull.

Dr Kelly also told Gilligan, the BBC Radio 4 Today programme’s defence correspondent, that most of the claims in the dossier were double sourced but the 45 minute claim was based on a single source.

Gilligan asked Dr Kelly: “Did Campbell make it up?” To which Dr Kelly replied: “No. It was real information but it was included in the dossier against our wishes.”

The reporter stressed it was Dr Kelly who first raised both the claim Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes and Mr Campbell’s name.

Gilligan said Dr Kelly pointed out a classic example of the transformation of the dossier was the 45 minute claim and the reporter said he was inclined to believe the weapons expert.

Real smooth, indeed.

Gilligan claims reopen controversy

:dubious:

[London_Calling]

I’d like the full text of the e-mail sent to Gilligan by his boss on the Today progamme after the broadcast on 29 May, if anyone comes across it ?

[yojimbo]

*Originally posted by London_Calling *
**I’d like the full text of the e-mail sent to Gilligan by his boss on the Today progamme after the broadcast on 29 May, if anyone comes across it ? **

Some of it is here

[London_Calling]

I thang yew, Yojimbo.

Hmmm, two e-mails from Gilligan’s boss (Marsh) to Gilligan: One soon after the 29th May broadcast (“Great work, great stories, well handled and well told” – but full context unknown) and the one on 27th June in which - imho – Marsh covers his own arse.
Btw, Gilligan reported more than once on Today on 29th May, and what he said varied a little on each occasion. The most troublesome broadcast was, I believe, the first (6.07am), after which, he seems to have toned/calmed down a little. If he needed to, that is.

[elucidator]

What if George Tenet takes responsibility?

[december]

This is getting to be fun and exciting.

Watts: 'BBC tried to mould my story’

…“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 [Newsnight reporter Susan] 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’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.

So, this BBC reporter says Gilligan’s allegations were inaccurate but the BBC pressured her to support them.

The plot thickens…

[december]

cite was the Guardian http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1017869,00.html

[Eolbo]

*Originally posted by december *
**I was struck by the two different spins put on this first day. The Sun had an interpretation totally opposite from Bloomberg’s, as quoted in the OP. The Sun said **

Quoting the Sun!!! Now there’s a true sign of desperation, it will be the National Enquirer next.

[Martiju]

December, you are bending the article you cited to suit your argument. Nowhere does the article say that Gilligan’s report was inaccurate. What it is saying is that Susan Watts, who still had Kelly as her source, which is the reason for the whole article, felt that her story was ‘moulded’ so as to corroborate Gilligans. Neither was inaccurate. Susan is making it clear that despite Kelly’s claim that he was not her source, he was. She is also concerned that her revealing him as a source is not taken out of context.

What this shows is the BBC covering their backs after Govt intervention. They were clearly concerned that Gilligan had overstepped the mark and needed to provide background evidence.

None of this comes close to saying that Gilligan’s report was inaccurate. Maybe judgemental - but not inaccurate!

[Martiju]

And of course, when mocking the reference to The Sun yesterday, we shouldn’t forget that a certain billionaire businessman would absolutely love to see the BBC get a good kicking. I expect Sky News et al to follow shortly…

[Gary_Kumquat]

*Originally posted by Martiju *
December, you are bending the article you cited to suit your argument. Nowhere does the article say that Gilligan’s report was inaccurate.

Erm, actually I have to side with December here (ow,that hurt)

Have a look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3147979.stm

Ms Watts told the inquiry she believed Dr Kelly was “specifically denying” that Mr Campbell played a role in the use of the 45-minutes claim.

How else can that be interpreted as anything but contradicting Gilligans claims?

[yojimbo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3147309.stm

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.

So while Kelly didn’t name Campbell he did say that No. 10 press office was involved in the 45min issue.

She never said the BBC tried to change any story just align hers with Gilligans to cover the BBC’s arse. She was unhappy with this approach.

All this BS and the main point remains. Seriously high up experts in the field were unhappy about how the Gov. used intel. reports to convince the parliament to go to war.

[Martiju]

Thanks yojimbo - you got to that one before me this morning.

As has been said before, no one comes out smelling of roses but I can’t believe anyone has any doubt that Campbell was involved. He’s obviously astute enough not to make the phone calls himself but I heard on Radio 5 last night that the BBC was inundated with calls from the Downing St Press Office on the morning of Gilligan’s report. I don’t think you need an expert to either a) predict that and b) think that the unelected spokesman for spin wasn’t behind it.

[yojimbo]

My guess is that Kelly in a unguarded moment said Campbell’s name to Gilligan. If you read the transcript in the link above he does seem very careful about how he puts things. He may also have had a better with Gilligan.

Either that or Gilligan was lying (I don’t think so)

[Martiju]

“He may also have had a better ? with Gilligan” (discussion? relationship?)

But yes, I think you’re spot on. Given that the transcript makes it abundantly clear that he had lied to the Parliamentary Committee what followeed begins to make a lot more sense.

[London_Calling]

Today is an HMG day. Two from the MOD and one from the Foreign Office.

Apparently it’s not that difficult to get into the Inquiry as a member of the public. Only 40 or so a day but if you get there for 8.00am you should be fine. Love to see Campbell or Blair himself . . . tempted to pop up there . . . .
Next weeks witnesses not yet listed on the Official site. Oh, and just noticed the Inquiry site Mon-Thurs, not on Fridays.

[yojimbo]

relationship was the missing word.