Posted on 01/28/2004 5:50:35 PM PST by blam
BBC in crisis, Blair in clear
By George Jones, Political Editor
(Filed: 29/01/2004)
The BBC was plunged into the biggest crisis in its history last night when Gavyn Davies quit as the chairman of governors after the corporation was heavily criticised and the Government cleared unequivocally by the Hutton report.
Lord Hutton said the BBC's central allegations that the Government inserted intelligence into its dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction probably knowing it to be wrong and had ordered the dossier to be "sexed up" were "unfounded".
The political world was astonished by the way in which Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell, his former spin doctor, were exonerated of acting dishonourably in the events that led to the death of Dr David Kelly, the Iraq weapons expert.
In his 328-page report, Lord Hutton said there was no "underhand" Government strategy to make Dr Kelly's name public in its battle with the BBC over the allegations about the dossier made by Andrew Gilligan on Radio 4's Today programme. The full force of his censure was reserved for BBC chiefs, who were accused last week by the BBC's Panorama programme of "betting the farm on shaky foundations".
Mr Davies said people at the top of organisations should accept responsibility for their actions. He said he would write to Mr Blair to tender his resignation with immediate effect.
"I have been brought up to believe that you cannot choose your own referee and that the referee's decision is final," he said.
But he appeared to question whether Lord Hutton's report fairly represented the balance of evidence to the inquiry last summer on the role played by Mr Blair and Mr Campbell in the preparation of the dossier claiming that Iraq's WMD could be deployed at 45 minutes' notice.
Mr Davies also asked whether Lord Hutton's conclusions on restricting the use of unverifiable sources in journalism constituted a threat to the freedom of the press.
The sweeping vindication of the Government, which has gained a reputation for spin and media manipulation, caused genuine astonishment at Westminster. While it had been expected that the BBC would be censured for mistakes in its reporting, there was a widespread belief that No 10 and the Ministry of Defence would be criticised over the naming of Dr Kelly.
Michael Portillo, a former Tory defence secretary, said the Hutton report had been "very generous" to the Government and that Downing Street "could not be more satisfied if Alastair Campbell had written it".
A senior Cabinet minister underlined the relief in the Government, confiding to journalists at Westminster: "We could not believe it when we got it."
The publication of the report was overshadowed by the leaking of its central conclusions to The Sun, which backs New Labour and has been given many Government leaks, including the date of the last general election. Mr Blair angrily rejected Conservative accusations that Downing Street was behind the leak. Lord Hutton said he was urgently considering whether to launch a formal investigation and take legal action against the newspaper.
While the BBC faced humiliation, Mr Blair's position was transformed after a make-or-break 24 hours in which he was not only cleared of wrongdoing over Iraq but survived a tense Commons vote on tuition top-up fees.
He was given a hero's welcome by Labour MPs in the Commons. At the start of the week he faced the possibility of having to resign if he lost the top-up fee vote and was censured by Lord Hutton.
Looking rejuvenated after the strain of the past few weeks, Mr Blair said he had been cleared of the central charges of deception, duplicity, deceit and deliberately falsifying intelligence about Iraq's weapons.
"The allegation that I or anyone else lied to this House or deliberately misled the country by falsifying intelligence on WMD is itself the real lie. And I simply ask that those who have made it and repeated it over all these months now withdraw it, fully, openly and clearly."
Lord Hutton's verdict on the BBC was damning and shocked its journalists with its ferocity. He said the corporation had a "defective" editorial system that allowed Gilligan to make "unfounded" claims questioning the Government's integrity.
The BBC governors, while vigorously defending the accuracy of the story and the right to broadcast it, failed to give the Government's complaints full consideration.
Greg Dyke, the BBC's director-general, accepted that "certain key allegations" reported by Gilligan on Today on May 29 last year were wrong and said the BBC apologised for them.
"However, we would point out again that at no stage in the last eight months have we accused the Prime Minister of lying and have said this publicly on several occasions."
The Government's Iraq dossier had raised issues of great public interest.
Mr Dyke said: "Dr Kelly was a credible source. Provided his allegations were reported accurately, the public in a modern democracy had a right to be made aware of them. The greater part of the BBC's coverage of the dossier fulfilled this purpose."
Mr Campbell, whom Gilligan had accused of "sexing up" the dossier, said a stain on the integrity of the Prime Minister and the Government had been removed.
A story that should never have been broadcast had been compounded by the subsequent failure to face up to the fact that it was wrong.
Mr Campbell, who left his No 10 job last summer, said that if the Government had been criticised as fiercely as the BBC "there would clearly have been resignations".
Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, who had been expected to be forced to resign, was cleared by Lord Hutton of impropriety. But the judge criticised his ministry for failing to tell Dr Kelly that his name would be confirmed by the MoD if it was put to press officers by reporters as Gilligan's source.
Lord Hutton said he was satisifed that Dr Kelly had killed himself, probably because he feared he would lose his job after being named. Despite considerable evidence at the inquiry that Mr Campbell, Mr Blair and Mr Hoon had wanted Dr Kelly's name made public, Lord Hutton concluded that there was no "dishonourable, underhand or duplicitous strategy" to leak his name.
Michael Howard, the Tory leader, was booed and jeered by Labour MPs when he pointed out that Lord Hutton had said Mr Blair's wish for the dossier to make a persuasive case might have "subconsciously influenced" John Scarlett, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee.
Mr Howard and Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, called for an inquiry into whether Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Mr Blair refused to hold a further investigation but for the first time appeared to admit that the intelligence might have been wrong.
He said it was "absolutely right" that people could question whether the intelligence was right "and why we have not yet found WMD". But he believed that removing Saddam had made the world a safer place
Check in, MadIvan!
I only know that there's a big hole in FR where MadIvan used to be, posting on the UK and Europe.
I hope its nothing bad... like that last one.
Why in the world would George W.Bush want to force the democrats to change their tactics now?
People like you are always saying that the Democrats are not fooling you for a moment. That must be because you think are a superior being and other people are a lot dumber than you.
Take a clue.
Ordinary Americans are rarely fooled. They see though men like Dean, Kerry, and the rest. You are not the altime superior being.
Right now over 70 percent of the population disagrees with the crap the Democratic candidates are putting out. Why in hell would Bush want to stop them.
Get a clue... in New Hampshire where Bush only won the state by 7,000 votes, only 60 percent of the Democrats agree with Kerry and Dean.
That means nearly 70 percent of the population does not agree with Kerry and Dean.
When the Democrats are ticking off 70 percent of the voters, why would bush want to stop them.
Oh and hte polls. Those newsweek polls are very interesting if you examine them. They were conducted by a company headed by a pollster in the clinton administration.
Some of the analysis of their polls show that they used a sample containing 47 percent Democrats to 30 percent Republicans and 23 percent indpendents. Then they only defeat Bush 49 to 46.
Every indicator I can find shows that in 2000 Gore vs Bush should have been teh mirror image of 1988. Clinton in 2000 had the same job approval ratings as Reagan did in 1988. The econmy was good and Clinton was still very popular. Gore should have won as easily as Bush 41 did in 1988.
Bush out smarted Gore at ever turn. Then presidents do not gain senate seats in the first senate election after they are elected. But Bush did. Americas most popular Republican presidents could not do it. Reagan certainly could not.
Now people who never won an election try to say that Bush and Rove don't know what they are doing.
The election returns in Texas in 1994 and 1998 and the federal returns in 2000 and 2002 tell us who knows what the heck they are doing.
You wouild think that the critics would wait for Bush to lose one before saying he does not know what he is doing. Their problem is it may be a long wait.
Thanks.
His last post: Sesame Street breaks Iraqi POWs
BBC News ^ | May 21, 2003
Bush & Rove have outsmarted liberals at every turn. It's a good bet that they'll do it again in 2004.
However, it'll be fun to see how Bush and Rove outsmart the extreme right-wing minority in the upcoming election. I know it ain't gonna be pretty, but I just may enjoy it.
What are you talking about? Whew!!!!!! If you jump at conclusions like that, I pity those around you.
I am just speculating, but that is what has usually happened to our 'long lost friends.'
PAGING MAD IVAN!
You're kidding. Mad Ivan was a great poster. I can't imagine this happening.
Actually, I am rather ashamed that I did not notice his absence a long time ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.