Lord Hutton clears Blair, accuses BBC

It should have been absolutely clear given recent admissions by Blair that Downing Street did indeed sex up their dossier and claims about Iraqi WMD.
 
The Lord Hutton report didn't even address the "sexing up" part, merely whether Tony Blair deliberately leaked David Kelly's name to embarrass him. And even that seems to gloss the issue over quite a bit, because it seems that aides of his were certainly involved.
 
So, how did this whole issue of sexxing up the dossier have to do with the (supposed) name leak? And since it obviously doesn't, why then was Mr. Gilligan forced to resign?
 
I believe the only comment Lord Hutton had on the actual report by the BBC was this one:

"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."

...which seems like a pretty damning quote. And it was, as that's what got printed up all over the papers. However:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ft/20040129/bs_ft/1073281393303
Intelligence concerns

Lord Hutton did not address evidence that the Ministry of Defence failed to relay to the joint intelligence committee concerns expressed by senior members of the defence intelligence staff about the content of the dossier. That failure was criticised by parliament's intelligence and security committee but Lord Hutton said: "I consider that it is unnecessary for me to express an opinion on it." The 45 minute claim Lord Hutton did not comment on the government's apparent failure to distinguish between long range and battlefield weapons when it said Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) could launch chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes. That claim referred to battlefield weapons only. Lord Hutton said only: "A consideration of this distinction does not fall within my terms of reference."

Other Kelly evidence

Mr Davies questioned whether Lord Hutton had fully taken into account the taped telephone conversation between David Kelly and Susan Watts, the BBC Newsnight correspondent. BBC executives believe Ms Watts' conversation helps to corroborate Andrew Gilligan's allegation, although Ms Watts has argued her bosses have misrepresented elements of the conversation to support their case.

Other Campbell evidence

The BBC has criticised Alastair Campbell, the prime minister's former director of communications, over evidence he gave to the foreign affairs committee. The corporation claims he had made inaccurate assertions about the drafts of the dossier. But Lord Hutton said: "I consider that it is unnecessary for me to express an opinion on this criticism."

In a late submission to the inquiry released, the BBC claimed "the outstanding FAC/ISC issues are themselves so serious that, whilst unresolved, they alone would render it unsafe to give the government an unqualified endorsement on the dossier's preparation". It claimed the issues "go to the credibility of (at least) Mr Campbell".

Plea bargain' with Kelly

Lord Hutton failed to resolve contradictions between evidence set out by Mr Campbell and Geoff Hoon. Mr Campbell claimed in his diary that Mr Hoon, the defence secretary, had said Mr Kelly could be offered a "plea bargain" - a suggestion the weapons expert might be offered some form of deal if he co-operated with the government. Mr Hoon denied any deal had been contemplated.

Lord Hutton said it was "not necessary for me to resolve some differences and areas of uncertainty arising in the evidence of Mr Campbell and Mr Hoon."

The naming of Kelly

Lord Hutton said there was no covert strategy to make public Mr Kelly's name. But in a late submission to the inquiry lawyers acting for the Kelly family said "the government made a conscious decision to cause Dr Kelly's identity to be revealed . . in order to assist it in its battle with the BBC".

So I don't think this is anywhere near resolved yet.

Edit: I also think the resignations may have had something to do with the fact that the BBC as a news organization is not completely independent of the state, and that having the approval of the incumbant government is important. However, I'm not completely sure on that one, so if any Brits feel like shedding some light on the specifics of that I'd appreciate it.
 
2 independant guys that attended the inquiry every day were interviewed on TV. They both said something along the lines of:
"After hearing the evidence, and then reading the conclusions, we wondered if Hutton was at the same inquiry as we were..."
 
Back
Top