September 03, 2003
"OVER-EGG"....Some fine drama today at the Hutton inquiry.
For the first time, the inquiry heard evidence — via audiolink — from a
mysterious "Mr. A," who
read a couple of email messages that he had sent to David Kelly shortly
after the infamous dossier was published last September: "Mr
A" had suggested to his friend and colleague that including claims
about Iraq's Al-Qa'qa chemical plant in the dossier was "a pretty stupid
mistake".
What's more, the email went on, it was "an example to support our
view that you and I should have been more involved in this than the spin
merchants of this administration".
Spin merchants? Like, say, Alastair Campbell?
Sadly, Mr. A refused to take the bait, saying only that he and Kelly
were making "a general comment from the working level....about perceived
interference."
OK, he's not naming names, but it's pretty clear he's talking about someone at No. 10 sexing up the dossier. And he wasn't the only one: [Brian
Jones, a retired branch head of the defence intelligence analysis
staff] said they had been particular concerned about the infamous
45-minute claim, which sparked the war of words between Downing Street
and the BBC.
....Dr Jones told Lord Hutton that Dr Kelly, who had regular contact
with his department and had the security clearance to come and go as he
liked, was certainly aware of concerns among staff about the use of
intelligence in the dossier.
Dr Jones told the inquiry his department had been concerned about
"the tendency ... to, shall we say, over-egg certain assessments,
particularly in relation to the production of chemical weapons".
Is
"over-egg" the same thing as "sex up"? Methinks this may be yet
another of those delightful British expressions that will soon grace
headlines worldwide.
There's been other evidence like this already, and when you put it
all together the bottom line is pretty clear: several senior
intelligence officials did have misgivings about the wording of
the dossier, Kelly was well aware of these concerns, the 45-minute claim
was one of them, and he passed all of this along to Andrew Gilligan.
It's too bad that Gilligan overplayed his hand, but in the end maybe
it's a good thing he did. After all, if it weren't for Alastair
Campbell's hysterical reaction to Gilligan's reports the Hutton inquiry
never would have been held and we never would have gotten to see all
this remarkable evidence about how Tony Blair's team spun the case for
war. In death, Dr. David Kelly continues to do a service to his
country.
Posted by Kevin Drum at September 3, 2003 02:20 PM
| TrackBack
Of course, as you write below, the CHIEFS of the intelligence
agencies were fine with putting the 45 minutes claim in the dossier. In
fact, as the earlier emails make clear, they were the ones who brought
up the 45 minutes claim. So the essence of Gilligan's lie - that No 10
inserted the claim against the wishes of the intelligence service - is
not corroborated by this testimony.
It seems pretty clear that the allegations that No. 10 "sexed up" the dossier are turning out to be true.
So, in the light of these comments :
"If it were true it would mean we had behaved in the most disgraceful way and I would have to resign as Prime Minister."
"... but if the allegation had been true, it would have merited my resignation."
How long before Tony resigns?
If he had any sense of integrity he'd be writing his resignation
speech right now. Of course, if he had any sense of integrity he
wouldn't be in the fix he's in at the moment.
Tucker Carelson may be able to get away with reneging on his promise
to eat his shoes, but can Tony renege on his promise to resign?
Is "over-egg" short for "over-exaggerate"?
Is mere exaggeration OK?
"over-egg" comes from a phrase "to over-egg the pudding" or "over-egging the pudding" meaning of course to wreck the pudding.
The implication of using this phrase, of course, is that too much
emphasis was placed on all the wrong points, to put it politely.
This seems to be a pretty traditional English usage, where "sex-up"
certainly sounded slightly odd to my ears (I'm from Belfast, Northern
Ireland) and I hear English people on the TV and at work all the time.
What's this fascination with eggs, Kevin?
Were you anywhere near the Ahnuld rally today?
Al--
So the essence of Gilligan's lie - that No 10 inserted the claim
against the wishes of the intelligence service - is not corroborated by
this testimony.
Please.
Gilligan never claimed that No10 inserted the 45min part; he reported
what his source told him: That it "was inserted against our wishes"
("our" being Dr. Kelly and other intelligence personnel, because it's
Dr. Kelly speaking here) on behest of No10.
Great last line, which his widow would probably come to appreciate. I
agree that this is news. Later Hutton chooses whom to call back. Maybe
he'll take Blair up on some of the new inconsistencies.
Not to be too OT, but the Plame scandal is married in myy mind with
this one, perhaps because of their contemporaneuos occurance, or perhaps
because thay are both cases of honest civil servants coming to grief
over an act of conscience. Anyway. . .
It appears that Wilson named Karl Rove as the source (at least he
said that he is waiting to see Rove frog marched out of the whitehouse
in handcuffs) at an apperance on the 21st of August.
If Rove really is the source of Novak's claim, then we have a Dreyfuss-sized scandal brewing. . .
As for the Beeb-Blair thing, it's looking more and more like the BBC
will have to trade Gilligan's career for ending Blair's. Sound like a
good deal to you? Me too.
Lessee- Gilligan sexed up the comments of David Kelly, while Blair
and co. sexed up one official government report after another. Hmmm. I
wonder which is worse? Pardon me, I seem to be overcome with liberal
moral eqiuvalence recently. I'll try to do better in future. . .
I think that the testimony today was the first partially to exculpate
Gilligan. It's been clear for ages that the government was guilty, and
knew that it was guilty, of exagerrating the evidence. It wasn't
Campbell, however, it was the JIC. So, while Kelly may have told
Gilligan what Gilligan claimed he did, there was no real reasonfor
Gilligan either to believe it, or to broadcast it. Lots of trusted,
secret sources tell us lots of things that are untrue; sometimes by
accident. It's part of our job to make allowances, as Susan Watts
correctly did. But the evidence of Mr A shows that Kelly had some reason
-- beyond the general suspicion of any educated citizen -- to believe
that the dossier was being spun, though he was wrong about where it was
happening.
I think that the testimony today was the first partially to
exculpate Gilligan. It's been clear for ages that the government was
guilty, and knew that it was guilty, of exagerrating the evidence. It
wasn't Campbell, however, it was the JIC.
And as we know from published emails, Campbell suggested and demanded
important changes (not just of a "presentational" nature) from Scarlett
(head of JIC), with which the latter complied.
Does seem to match Gilligans reporting.
Felix: 15 changes, say I think the documents, including changing "may
be" to "are" on the 45 minute claim, IIRC. The smoking gun. Campbell
claimed 11.
Andrew, thanks for that thought on what reporters get told.
|
