|
 |
July 22, 2003 "SEXED UP"....I wrote a longish post last night about the whole Andrew Gilligan/David Kelly/"sexed up" dossier affair over in Britain, but I ended up deleting it. It just turned out to be too hard to figure out any kind of reasonable point to make about the whole thing. However, today the Guardian answered a trivial — but eminently blogworthy! — question that piqued my curiosity while I was doing some of my research: where did the term "sexed up" come from? First, here's what BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan originally said on the Today show on May 29:
The words "sexed up" were never used, and yet every single news articles uses them, and even puts them in quotes. Why? Here is the Guardian's explanation:
I guess that answers that. There's really not much meat to the whole controversy, by the way. Gilligan says that in his May 29 broadcast he accurately quoted Kelly, a Ministry of Defense official who was involved in writing the September dossier that had allegedly been "sexed up." When questioned, Kelly said he didn't really say exactly that, but since he's now dead there's no way of proving it one way or the other. On the other hand, one thing this kerfuffle shows, yet again, is that coverups and shifty explanations are usually worse than the initial misdeeds themselves. Nobody can ever prove that Gilligan misquoted Kelly, but thanks to a raggedy defense by the BBC they can prove that the BBC lied about several specific claims: among other things, prior to Kelly coming forward, the BBC said that Gilligan's source was a "senior intelligence official," denied that he worked for the Ministry of Defense, and implied that he had been one of the primary writers of the dossier. All of those things are false. Best guess at this point? (1) Gilligan probably quoted Kelly accurately. (2) Kelly tried to downplay it when he was questioned. (3) The government acted abysmally in fingering Kelly and putting him under an unnecessary spotlight after he came forward. (4) The BBC shot itself in the foot very badly in their various defenses of Gilligan. Of course, none of this matters, since the entire affair is simply a proxy for whether you think the BBC is either (a) inexcusably biased against the Iraq war and this is just one of a thousand examples, or (b) the BBC was the only news outlet with the integrity to report the war honestly, free of the propaganda spewed forth by the U.S. military. Take your pick. POSTSCRIPT: By the way, other news outlets have also reported that the September dossier was beefed up under political pressure. What really made the difference in this case was that Gilligan also claimed that Kelly told him the name of the person who insisted on the beefing up: Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's director of communications. It was this allegation that really started the war between Blair and the BBC. Posted by Kevin Drum at July 22, 2003 07:25 PM | TrackBackComments
"Sexed up" is a pretty common expresson in the Commonwealth...or "tarted up", the east coast Canadian version. Posted by: Jane at July 22, 2003 07:44 PM | PERMALINKYour best guess on Gilligan being accurate may not be such a good guess. He was the BBC reporter who claimed Iraq still held Baghdad airport, based on his being there, long after the US had captured it. See http://www.davidsteven.com/archive_etc/2003_07_01_archive.html#105884753727643557 Posted by: Pat D at July 22, 2003 08:20 PM | PERMALINKNobody can ever prove that Gilligan misquoted Kelly... This turns out not to be true. Or rather, what seems to be true is that Gilligan can in fact prove that he didn't misquote Kelley. The BBC has tapes of the interviews, which they will give to the inquiry. And they are also saying that all quotes were cleared with Kelly before being used. Posted by: Canadian Reader at July 22, 2003 08:32 PM | PERMALINKThe first paragraph of this post is the most honest thing I've read for weeks. I know the phrase "prettied up" has been used in England for at least thirty years, so I guess "sexed up" is just the MTV-age version. There used to be a jingle: "Come pretty-up, come buy your clothes at Richard Shops." Posted by: Graham Lester at July 22, 2003 08:38 PM | PERMALINKIgnoring the rest: "they can prove that the BBC lied about several
specific claims: among other things, prior to Kelly coming forward, the
BBC said that Gilligan's source was a "senior intelligence official,"
denied that he worked for the Ministry of Defense, and implied that he
had been one of the primary writers of the dossier. All of those things
are false." The story gets uglier as time goes on. The man kills himself because of the unbearable shame, but he writes casual e-mail notes to perfect strangers about his plans for the near future. Whatever. My tinfoil hat is in the shop from overuse, so I'm going to assume it's a suicide. Here's the real scoop: the government fingered him (perhaps because he stupidly denied to them that he had been the source) and he went bravely on with the show, up to a point, and then it became too much. I simply cannot see how the BBC is going to lose here, especially if they have (as they claim) tapes of the interview. If the thing turns on whether he was a 'senior' official, forget about it, it's all on Tony. For comparison, imagine the source for the Wilson/CIA story turns out to be the next level down from chief deputy. Do you think the media will focus on the fact that, usually, the 'senior' title is reserved for deputy level and above, or on the fact that this WhiteHouse guy did this unbelievable thing? Y'know, as far as I can see, it's starting to look like the British Government would be smart to paint this thing as foul play. At least that way, they won't OBVIOUSLY have helped to kill the man to save their own skins. Posted by: epist at July 22, 2003 09:56 PM | PERMALINKPat D: yeah, I know. I'm sticking with my guess that he didn't make up the quotes. I just don't think he had much reason to. After all, if you're going to pipe quotes, why go to the bother of actually interviewing someone? Canadian Reader: there are tapes? I hadn't heard. The last thing I read said Gilligan had notes on his PalmPilot, or some such, which can be faked so easily they'd be worthless. Tapes would be good. John: I don't agree. Refusing to say where he works is fine, but specifically lying about where he works isn't. Especially since that lie was in service of the other lie that he was an "intelligence source." That said, I agree with epist that this story also reflects pretty badly on the government. I suspect that both Blair and the BBC are going to come out of it looking a bit the worse for wear. Posted by: Kevin Drum at July 22, 2003 10:05 PM | PERMALINKBah. At one point in time, I had a huge amount of respect for both Blair and the BBC. I still think that both have a lot going for them, but the past few months have hardly made either look their best. I suspect that the BBC will do better than Blair does, since it takes a lot to ruin a great institution but not a lot to do in a good man...I'm still hoping that Blair will view something the Bushies do as the last straw and turn his bus around before his own caucus dumps him, dammit... Posted by: Eric at July 22, 2003 10:41 PM | PERMALINKThe Guardian reports (hopefully I'm not repeating) that the BBC will release the tapes. Now they are looking better. They would not release the tape unless it really will exonerate the reporter. (1) The BBC seemed to be pretty overzealous; (2) BBC's cover-up was sloppy but not that egrigious (ultimately illustrating your point that the cover-up is almost always worse); (3) BBC bears some responsibility for the Dr.'s death; (4) The govt. leaked the Dr.'s identity (seems like a bad call); and (5) So far no one really disputes the "sexing up" claim. Everyone screwed up but what bugs is no one seems to point the finger at the govt. Not even partially. Typical NYT style haters. Posted by: Balasubramania's Mania at July 22, 2003 10:43 PM | PERMALINKI'm trying to understand what it is you think the Beeb should have done differently, Eric. Not have lied about the source's job? Perhaps, but hardly worth bothering with, eh? They did the right thing in both important instances, they accurately quoted the source in an important story, and they went to the wall (perhaps over it) to protect the identity of the source. Or am I missing something? Posted by: epist at July 22, 2003 10:45 PM | PERMALINKMatters are confused somewhat because John Humphrys claims to have a second source which he did not share with Andrew Gilligan. He's not revealing the name of this source, but it's an open secret in media circles (I believe it's been published in either the Guardian or Private Eye) that it's Sir Richard Dearlove, who is both a "senior intelligence official" (he's something big in MI6, IIRC) and "not an employee of the Ministry of Defence". The BBC is at worst guilty of confusion between the BBC's sources and those specifically attributable to Andrew Gilligan. It's only got into this mess by defending an article published by Gilligan in the Daily Mail. Posted by: dsquared at July 22, 2003 11:27 PM | PERMALINKSir Richard Dearlove, who is both a "senior intelligence official" (he's something big in MI6, IIRC) He's actually the head of MI6. Here's the BBC story on his appointment back in 1999. Posted by: SKapusniak at July 23, 2003 12:13 AM | PERMALINKQuite. Kelly was not the only source for this story. But there is a further confusion. the tape you're talking about was not made by Gilligan (whose Campbell story I don't believe) but by Susan Watts (an ex-Independent colleage of mine, whom I do trust). Her reports, on Newsnight, said the same in substance as Gilligan's, but were much less personalised. This is less of a problem with the BBC as a whole than it is with one particular radio programme, Today, which had last autumn got itself into a similar mess about allegations of child abuse in the Catholic church. Posted by: Andrew Brown at July 23, 2003 01:32 AM | PERMALINK"Of course, none of this matters, since the entire affair is simply a proxy for whether you think the BBC is either (a) inexcusably biased against the Iraq war and this is just one of a thousand examples, or (b) the BBC was the only news outlet with the integrity to report the war honestly, free of the propaganda spewed forth by the U.S. military. Take your pick." No time to look it up now, but in the last three or four weeks a researcher (from Bristol University, I believe) published a widely reported analysis of the British television channels' war coverage. By his reckoning, the BBC was the most pro-war (or least anti?) of the lot. If I remember correctly, this analysis was based at least in part on stations' dependence on government sources, and also included a look at how frequently each station showed Iraqis suffering. Posted by: Reuben Sportsbar at July 23, 2003 01:47 AM | PERMALINKTo a great extent, the sense I've gotten is that Gilligan had 4 sources for his pieces: one who was the specific source on the Campbell story and the who provided other information. We know that one of the four was Dr. Kelly. IIRC, the government has acknowledged that at least 2 of the 3 main allegations Gilligan made about the dossier are true: The "45 minute" claim was NOT included in the original version of the dossier and was only added close to the end of the project; and the intelligence service had only a SINGLE source for the "45 minute" claim. What's in dispute is if Gilligans "specific source" (now identified as Kelly) actually named Campbell as the driving force behind adding the claim to the dossier or not. One thing that has occured to me, but which I think is maybe a bit too conspiratorial for my tasts and is probably rather unlikely: It may be possible that, since Dr. Kelly himself seemed uncertain about his role in the actual story (as demonstrated by his having testified in the committee hearing that he did not believe he was the source of that story, as well as his telling a friend of his, Tom Mangold, that he was concerned that he might be), the BBC has identified him since he's dead, and thus can neither cry foul or confirm their allegation. This would then allow the BBC to continue protecting the real source. Like I said, probably not likely at all, but potentially plausible. Thought I'd throw it out at any rate :) Posted by: Kriselda Jarnsaxa at July 23, 2003 01:57 AM | PERMALINKTo a great extent, the sense I've gotten is that Gilligan had 4 sources for his pieces: one who was the specific source on the Campbell story and the who provided other information. We know that one of the four was Dr. Kelly. IIRC, the government has acknowledged that at least 2 of the 3 main allegations Gilligan made about the dossier are true: The "45 minute" claim was NOT included in the original version of the dossier and was only added close to the end of the project; and the intelligence service had only a SINGLE source for the "45 minute" claim. What's in dispute is if Gilligans "specific source" (now identified as Kelly) actually named Campbell as the driving force behind adding the claim to the dossier or not. One thing that has occured to me, but which I think is maybe a bit too conspiratorial for my tasts and is probably rather unlikely: It may be possible that, since Dr. Kelly himself seemed uncertain about his role in the actual story (as demonstrated by his having testified in the committee hearing that he did not believe he was the source of that story, as well as his telling a friend of his, Tom Mangold, that he was concerned that he might be), the BBC has identified him since he's dead, and thus can neither cry foul or confirm their allegation. This would then allow the BBC to continue protecting the real source. Like I said, probably not likely at all, but potentially plausible. Thought I'd throw it out at any rate :) Posted by: Kriselda Jarnsaxa at July 23, 2003 01:57 AM | PERMALINKRod Liddle hit the whole sorry 'dodgy dossier' mess on the button this morning in his Guardian column, when he called it "The War of Alastair's Hubris", which is exactly right. There is no doubt that, just as in the USA, the British government 'leaned' on the intelligence agencies in the autumn of 2002 to start coming up with alarmist information with which to justify the forthcoming war against Iraq (a war Clare Short said was already decided on by then). Alastair Campbell was at the centre of that effort, and his head will be required to get Blair off the hook, probably along with Minister of Defence Geoff Hoon, whose department deliberately 'leaked' Prof Kelly's name to the press. Posted by: John Owen at July 23, 2003 02:31 AM | PERMALINKKevin, I think that the 'cover-up is worse than the crime' thing that we and the UK have going is an indicator of corruption. In this war, it's clear that either (a) the Bush and Blair admininstrations lied through their teeth about WMD's in Iraq or (b) both countries had one of the biggest screw-ups in intelligence in a number of years. We know that: both administrations have been leaning on their intelligence agnecies, have lied, have presented only their favorite bits of the data (like that defector who said ~1995-6 that Saddam's programs were effectively shut down by US bombing/UN inspections), and, in the US, that Rumsfield set up his own shop to give intelligence reports that were both more to his liking and further from reality than the CIAa's reports. That leads very strongly to the conclusion that both Bush and Blair lied to and deceived their people on matters of war. This is a serious charge, meriting impeachment and removal from office. But the mass media is reluctant to say what is clear, so they focus on misdemeanors. Posted by: Barry at July 23, 2003 04:08 AM | PERMALINKKevin, I think you have a point about specifically lying about where a
source works, but it seems to be answered by the other commenters. "Of course, none of this matters, since the entire affair is simply a proxy for..." Similarly, the entire "16 words" kerfuffle doesn't matter either, since the entire affair is simply a proxy for whether or not you support the war. So anyway... as to the BBC: We should all remember that the BBC LIED and David Kelly DIED! (Gee, something about a shoe and the other foot...) Posted by: Al at July 23, 2003 08:16 AM | PERMALINKSimilarly, the entire "16 words" kerfuffle doesn't matter either, since the entire affair is simply a proxy for whether or not you support the war. Yeah, right. And, and, the whole kerfuffle over the war is only a proxy for whether or not you hate GW Bush. Isn't that the truth? I guess it all comes down to that people are just jealous of this guys great achievements. Right?
Re the 'links' question. Here's the example (with one important difference): test [a href="http://makeashorterlink.com/?N48923D55"] test [/a] only instead of square brackets, use angle brackets (found above the comma and period), and you get this: test test (Note that this is a cheap way of directing the unwary reader to my "Useless Invasion Sketch." Like I couldn't come up with a better way of injecting it into the conversation.) Posted by: Kip W at July 23, 2003 09:16 AM | PERMALINKOh gosh Kevin--this a bit of a leap. Nobody can ever prove that Gilligan misquoted Kelly, but thanks to a raggedy defense by the BBC they can prove that the BBC lied about several specific claims: among other things, prior to Kelly coming forward, the BBC said that Gilligan's source was a "senior intelligence official," denied that he worked for the Ministry of Defense, and implied that he had been one of the primary writers of the dossier. All of those things are false. Strange you seen utter to fail to mention this fact that the BBC reveals it has key tape of dead scientist whose contains could be so damning as to warrant the resignation of not only Alastair Campbell but maybe even Tony Blair too at the very least a full bipartisan investigation that Robin Cook is extremely concern about. What do you know--thanks to technology, dead man do speak and speak he shall. BBC may yet be exonerated and since I'm sure it wasn't the BBC misrepresentations that caused Dr. Kelly to feel the need to commit suicide but rather the repercussions of angry government officials that caused the good doctor to take his own life. Posted by: Cheryl at July 23, 2003 09:47 AM | PERMALINKCheryl The BBC have already indicated that though the tape backs up their story, it doesn't contain anything explosive. As Andrew Brown mentioned above, it's actually a recording of the other interview that Kelly did with a BBC reporter (Susan Watts off Newsnight) rather than the Gilligan one. See bottom half of article here . If you're really wanting a conspiracy theory, of course, then you can point out that Gilligan used to write for the Telegraph and still does for the Mail on Sunday, two organs that are implacably hostile to the BBC and would like nothing better than to see it hit by a scandal like this. Particularly so, given that the point which really narked the government (specifically fingering Campbell for adding the 45 minute quote) first appeared in a Gilligan article for the MoS rather than in his BBC report. (I'd just like to emphasise that's not a serious theory...) The whole media circus aspect does add another layer to the story though - you've got the BBC having to report on itself; you've got the Telegraph and Mail desperate to attack both the Government and the Beeb, but holding back a little on the one because they supported the war, and on the other because of their own Gilligan connections; while of course the Murdoch agenda makes the Times fundamentally untrustworthy whenever it mentions the BBC, and that's even before you get onto the basic spectacle of media types being pious and judgmental about the media, which is rarely an edifying sight. Must go and get hold of Private Eye - probably going to be the most reliable source in this situation... Posted by: Duncan at July 23, 2003 11:21 AM | PERMALINKGUARDIAN: Matthew Tempest, political correspondent Tony Blair was faced with the prospect of a long, hot and troubled summer today, as it was reported that Lord Hutton has requested that his judicial inquiry into the death of David Kelly be broadcast live on TV. Posted by: Felix Deutsch at July 23, 2003 11:38 AM | PERMALINKA televised inquiry would be good for Blair's opponents if he had something to do with Kelly's death, but I wonder if they have considered how very bad a televised inquiry would be if Kelly actually committed suicide. Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at July 23, 2003 12:59 PM | PERMALINKThe contention that Dr. Kelly was a lowly cog in the British defense-intelligence apparatus may be sorely misplaced. For if the following story in the Observer is correct then Dr. Kelly was very big and important fish indeed. Up to now what we have heard about Dr. Kelly's intelligence credentials have mainly come from the British government and may be nothing more than a Blairite damage control operation. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1001737,00.html Posted by: AllyCat aDave at July 23, 2003 01:08 PM | PERMALINKA televised inquiry would be good for Blair's opponents if he had something to do with Kelly's death, but I wonder if they have considered how very bad a televised inquiry would be if Kelly actually committed suicide. You don't seem to have been paying attention. It's quite clear by now that Kelly committed suicide. What's interesting here is the involvement of No10 (Blair/Campbell) in the fingering of Kelly and serving him up as a scapegoat to bolster their case against the BBC. If it emerges that they willigly exposed his name (which seems apparent even by now, with the strange policy of "if you come up with the correct name, we will confirm it") and put him under pressure the week before the comittee hearing to deny he said what Gilligan reported, then indeed Hoon/Campbell/Blair are in deep doodoo. Blair "having something to do with his death" isn't restricted to sending his dossier-wielding wrists-with-papercuts-slitting New Labour minions after him. Furthermore, Lord Hutton has repeatedly said that he alone will decide what the inquiry will touch in addition to the direct circumstances of Kelly's death. This leads straight into embellished WMD claims territory. Posted by: Felix Deutsch at July 23, 2003 01:35 PM | PERMALINK>>It's quite clear by now that Kelly committed suicide I do not yet regard this as a settled fact and would prefer to hear a coroner's word on it. Any suicide which does not leave a not is prima facie suspicious, according to normal police procedure. Or I have been sorely misled by "Cracker", "The Midsomer Murders", "Jonathan Creek" and all the other crap I watch on TV. Posted by: dsquared at July 23, 2003 11:22 PM | PERMALINKI do not yet regard this as a settled fact and would prefer to hear a coroner's word on it. That's why I didn't say "it's clear". Anyway, if it comes up to be murder, then No10 isn't really better off, no? I was just refuting the silly notion of Sebastian Holsclaw, that No10 would only be in trouble in case of murder. Posted by: Felix Deutsch at July 24, 2003 03:25 AM | PERMALINKThe ambiguity of the word "quite" in the English language is quite definitely quite irritating. Posted by: dsquared at July 24, 2003 10:41 AM | PERMALINKIf the government 'sexed up' the dossier, which most people think is pretty much true, then obviously its Director of Communications, and a man the PM can't (it seems) do anything without his permission, would be involved in sexing it up. The BBC can't prove it, but I imagine the Gilligan conversation went something like this, 'it was sexed up', 'By whom', 'Well I don't really know', 'Alistair Campbell, the Director of Communications and a man Blair can't do anything unless he has his permission?', 'yes, probably him'. Posted by: Matthew at July 24, 2003 12:07 PM | PERMALINKGood people strengthen themselves ceaselessly. Posted by: Camerata Julie at May 3, 2004 10:54 AM | PERMALINKonline casinos | casino bonus | casino directory | high roller casinos | casinos Posted by: doi at May 24, 2004 06:40 AM | PERMALINKMr 13 Inch - Nasty Blondies - Natural Bush Girls - Nude Celebs Revue Posted by: Free sex sites at June 21, 2004 10:19 PM | PERMALINKA brute kills for pleasure. A fool kills from hate. Posted by: Cabell Hannah at June 30, 2004 11:33 AM | PERMALINK
http://www.analgaymusic.com/domination-whips-dungeon-of-bondage-bdsm-fetish-s-m-chains-pain-warning.html domination whips dungeon of bondage bdsm fetish s m chains pain warning html http://www.analgaymusic.com/4-pictures-the-world-blowjobs-cumshots-lesbian-sex-hardcore-amateur-and-much-more-free-mp3-porn-in-different-categories-like-straight-xxx-bondage.html 4 pictures the world blowjobs cumshots lesbian sex hardcore amateur and much more free mp3 porn in different categories like straight xxx bondage html http://www.analgaymusic.com/stud-sounds-sex-girl-pussy-gay-free-thai.html stud sounds sex girl pussy gay free thai html http://www.analgaymusic.com/fucking-farms-cow-human-sex-with-animals.html fucking farms cow human sex with animals html http://www.analgaymusic.com/porno-membership-free-join-pics-blackpussy-menstruation-pictures-teenage-ass-jpg-male-gay-teen-action-pussy-hardcore-sex-black-nude.html porno membership free join pics blackpussy menstruation pictures teenage ass jpg male gay teen action pussy hardcore sex black nude html http://www.analgaymusic.com/young-girls.html young girls html http://www.analgaymusic.com/nu-nue.html nu nue html http://www.analgaymusic.com/teen-oral-clip-jpg-young.html teen oral clip jpg young html http://www.analgaymusic.com/fuck-gay-celebrity-lion-milk-sound-chat-gif-teens-shot-petsex-animalsex-teenage-pissing-moore-blond-hard-liveshow-ass-porn-cow-blowjobs-latex-ejacuation-animals-clic-close-japanese-anal.html fuck gay celebrity lion milk sound chat gif teens shot petsex animalsex teenage pissing moore blond hard liveshow ass porn cow blowjobs latex ejacuation animals clic close japanese anal html http://www.analgaymusic.com/young-celebrities-leather-cartoon-naked-pussy-cartoons-crop-topmodells.html young celebrities leather cartoon naked pussy cartoons crop topmodells html http://www.analgaymusic.com/wet-dripping-frat-samples-gay-stories-eat-black-beatiality-preview-chocolate-under-sex-teen-and-free-dana-plato.html wet dripping frat samples gay stories eat black beatiality preview chocolate under sex teen and free dana plato html http://www.analgaymusic.com/hot.html hot html http://www.analgaymusic.com/thumbnail-gallery.html thumbnail gallery html http://www.analgaymusic.com/photo-picture-animalvideo-african-livevideo-nudity-penthouse-indian-blondes-orgy-video-intercourse-playboy-real-beatiful-cindy-clicnic-vagina-hard-studren.html photo picture animalvideo african livevideo nudity penthouse indian blondes orgy video intercourse playboy real beatiful cindy clicnic vagina hard studren html http://www.analgaymusic.com/animals-sex-bestiality-with-and-100freepics.html animals sex bestiality with and 100freepics html http://www.analgaymusic.com/male-gallery-illegal-young-ass-and-suck-top-areas-gay-frat-blowjobs-cumshots-fellatio-adultcheck.html male gallery illegal young ass and suck top areas gay frat blowjobs cumshots fellatio adultcheck html Posted by: amatures interacial sex pictures girls fucking horses naked gay man tropical pussy thailand boy boy at August 4, 2004 01:26 AM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
