Blair's War

[ardcarp]

I happened on one of the best, most acrimonious debates on R4 at 9am this morning.

The Hutton Inquiry
Duration: 45 minutes
First broadcast: Sunday 05 May 2013
On 29 May 2003, the Today programme broadcast a report criticising the government's use of intelligence in the lead up to war with Iraq.

At the heart of the report was the allegation that Number 10 had "sexed up" an intelligence dossier to make a more convincing case for war. More specifically, that the government probably knew that one of the key claims in the dossier was wrong before they put it in: the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be "ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them".

The government, and specifically Director of Communications, Alastair Campbell, were furious. The row that followed was one of the bitterest in BBC history, and was fuelled in part by the death of the story's source, government scientist, David Kelly. The Hutton Inquiry was set up to establish what went wrong and exposed the inner workings of the BBC, secret services, civil service and government machinery. Its findings, when published in January 2004, caused reverberations throughout the British establishment.

Sue MacGregor reunites some of the people who were caught up in that row: Andrew Gilligan, the Today programme reporter whose broadcast was the cause of the argument; Geoff Hoon, Defence Secretary, who was accused of leaking David Kelly's name as the source of the story; Tom Kelly, who as Tony Blair's spokesman was at the heart of the storm and Greg Dyke, who resigned as Director General when Hutton's conclusions were so critical of the BBC.

IMV, no doubt who is telling the truth and who is, very convincingly, spinning. A first-rate programme, ably chaired by Sue MacGregor.

[Barbirollians]

Gilligan most certainly was not telling the truth . The Government were not either .

[DracoM]

Agreed, ardcarp, a riveting programme.

Whether Gilligan was telling the specific truth or not about his WMD + dossier story, one thing he DID say at the very end of the prog was that the whole process of taking Britain to war in Iraq has effectively poisoned the entire relationship between politicians, the civil service, the media and above all the electorate for a generation and maybe more. I thought Geoff Hoone's hectoring, even bullying behaviour in the discussion was appalling.

Many will never forget taking part in passionate demos in their many, many hundreds of thousands all over the nation to protest and being ignored by a man who 'knew it was right'. Blair IMO will never be forgiven for the ongoing and colossal damage his actions have done to the polity of the UK.

[Barbirollians]

Gilligan clearly behaved much the worst in the programme. His recklessly inaccurate and deliberately political journalism - which was grossly inappropriate at the BBC - allowed Campbell and Blair to make the story be about the BBC rather than the Government.

I have no doubt that the Government put 2 and 2 together and made 5 . Gilligan on the other hand overplayed his hand atrociously- he sexed up what was already a serious error of judgment in government.

[ardcarp]

Gilligan admitted on today's programme that his first comments were a bit OTT (not the first journalist to be hyperbolic) but he was clearly on to the truth of the matter. In my view Alastair Campbell's propaganda machine was far more reprehensible. It was awful that the BBC copped it and that heads rolled...the wrong heads IMO. But whatever one's view, the great thing about the programme was having Hoon, Dyke and Gilligan there together slogging it out in person.

[amateur51]

Gilligan admitted on today's programme that his first comments were a bit OTT (not the first journalist to be hyperbolic) but he was clearly on to the truth of the matter. In my view Alastair Campbell's propaganda machine was far more reprehensible. It was awful that the BBC copped it and that heads rolled...the wrong heads IMO. But whatever one's view, the great thing about the programme was having Hoon, Dyke and Gilligan there together slogging it out in person.

I haven't heard this programme but the comments here have spurred me on to listen soon.

For me the terrible outcome was that the BBC was demonised and its reputation trashed while Blair and Campbell got off largely untouched. Blair's growing egotism and Campbell's increasingly paranoid bully-boy tactics proved a democratically noxious mix.

And there is still so much much that we don't know or understand about how/why we went to war. It saddenms me that these issues may not be resolved in my lifetime.

[Barbirollians]

Exactly the BBC mishandled matters terribly . They had a good story but sexed it up !

It was to me just as reprehensible that they put in evidence that they ought to have known was unreliable and ought to have been utterly frank about than the story which suggested they knew it was not true .

[Flosshilde]

Barbi, you seem to be following in Blair/Campbell's footsteps by focusing on / blaming the BBC/Gilligan for perhaps exagerating the truth (I don't believe that they/he was), while Blair et al were deliberately lying about the 'wmd'.

Why is political journalism inappropriate for the BBC? &, more to the point, why is a piece exposing government lies 'political'? I would have thought that it's one of the things serious investigative journalism should do. I've no doubt that if it had been a Tory government doing the same thing Gilligan would have reported it in the same way.

[Barbirollians]

Flosshilde - i have great doubts . Gilligan's more recent journalism makes it very clear IMO that he is right wing .

My point is this , the error was that Gilligan completely overplayed his hand . The allegation was that the dossier had been deliberately sexed up with information that the Government knew was false . There simply was no evidence to support that .

The BBC by seeking to defend the indefensible ( not because it was necessarily wrong but because they did not have the evidence _ allowed Blair and Campbell to obscure a scandal that was just as serious namely the use of unreliable evidence - that they knew or ought to have known was unreliable and they failed to be frank about its reliability .

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

hmmmm ...

we await Chilcot


...all politicians, all humans even, lie .... he went to war to triangulate his reputation as pro American, a labour Atlanticist; and defend himself and his party against right wing attack ... [on the grounds he stated we should have invaded Libya] ...

i must say i do not want to listen to this programme; i would much rather wait for Chilcot and the ensuing discussions [and please not Hoon, not Hoon]

Gilligan ensured that the BBC was one of the second casualties of this war, after its victims

what condemns Blair imv much more than his case for starting it, is his exculpation of the US Administartion's post invasion actions and policies which were inestimably incompetent and corrupt [we await the accounts for the suitcases of cash with curiosity]

[eighthobstruction]

When will Chilcot Report be ready??.... >>>"Chilcot has yet to commit the inquiry panel to be ready to hand a completed report to David Cameron before the end of the year. The prime minister and his official advisers will consider the report before it is published."<<<

>>>"Chilcot first suggested that his report would be completed by early summer 2011. He then said he hoped it would be completed by autumn last year. Then, last summer, he said he hoped the inquiry team would be in a position to begin the "Maxwellisation" process by the middle of this year. Under this process, those whom the inquiry intends to criticise are given a copy of passages of the draft report to enable them to respond. The process derives from Companies Act investigations."<<<<

Guardian March 12 2013

The long-delayed Chilcot inquiry report will be published without crucial evidence that would reveal what Tony Blair promised President George Bush in the runup to the invasion of Iraq 10 years ago, Whitehall sources have indicated to the Guardian.

Sir John Chilcot and his four-member panel have been at loggerheads with the Cabinet Office, the chief protector of government documents, over the disclosure of evidence they have described as of central importance in establishing the circumstances that led to war. In sharp exchanges with the former cabinet secretary Lord O'Donnell last year over the refusal to disclose details of correspondence and conversations between Blair and Bush, Chilcot said their release would serve to "illuminate Mr Blair's position at critical points" in the runup to war.

O'Donnell consulted Blair before suppressing the documents. Chilcot, who has seen the documents, told O'Donnell last year: "The question when and how the prime minister made commitments to the US about the UK's involvement in military action in Iraq, and subsequent decisions on the UK's continuing involvement, is central to its considerations."

Chilcot referred to passages in memoirs, including Blair's autobiography, A Journey, and disclosures by Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff, and Alastair Campbell, his former head of communications.

Those publications, and the refusal to disclose Blair's notes, Chilcot said, "leads to the position that individuals may disclose privileged information (without sanction) whilst a committee of privy counsellors established by a former prime minister to review the issues cannot".

O'Donnell told Chilcot that releasing Blair's notes would damage Britain's relations with the US and would not be in the public interest. "We have attached particular importance to protecting the privacy of the channel between the prime minister and president," he said. Sir Jeremy Heywood, O'Donnell's successor, is believed to share O'Donnell's approach to the release of the documents. It may be decades before the notes are released.

Chilcot first suggested that his report would be completed by early summer 2011. He then said he hoped it would be completed by autumn last year. Then, last summer, he said he hoped the inquiry team would be in a position to begin the "Maxwellisation" process by the middle of this year. Under this process, those whom the inquiry intends to criticise are given a copy of passages of the draft report to enable them to respond. The process derives from Companies Act investigations.

Chilcot has yet to commit the inquiry panel to be ready to hand a completed report to David Cameron before the end of the year. The prime minister and his official advisers will consider the report before it is published.

Whitehall sources make it clear that Downing Street intends to keep tight control over the manner in which the final report is published.

The Chilcot inquiry says on its website that it has not yet begun a "dialogue with the government on the treatment of discussions in cabinet and cabinet committees, and the UK position in discussions between the prime minister and the heads of state or government of other nations".

However, it goes out of the way to stress that Whitehall's refusal to declassify records of Blair-Bush conversations is not a reason for any delay in completing the report.

Given Chilcot's frosty exchanges with the Cabinet Office specifically over notes of those conversations, the implication is that the inquiry team may have given up kicking against what appears to be a brick wall.

Chilcot also made it clear in a letter to Cameron last year that he and his fellow panel members are deeply frustrated by Whitehall's refusal to release papers that reveal which ministers, legal advisers and officials were excluded from discussions on military action. The papers kept secret include those relating to MI6 and the government's electronic eavesdropping centre, GCHQ.

Despite his refusal to release the Blair-Bush papers, O'Donnell said in evidence to the inquiry that the cabinet should have been told of former attorney general Lord Goldsmith's doubts about the legality of invading Iraq before Blair went to war. "The ministerial code is very clear about the need, when the attorney general gives written advice, the full text of that advice should be attached [to cabinet papers]," O'Donnell said.

The inquiry held 18 months of public hearings between the end of 2009 and early 2011. Witnesses, including former cabinet secretaries and military commanders, strongly criticised the way Blair and his close advisers in Downing Street took key decisions without consulting senior ministers and the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith.


Sorry I cannot link at mo....lost my browser box

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Guardian March 12 2013

[eighthobstruction]

Thanks Calum ....we must have crossed re Chilcot info....

[Serial_Apologist]

I haven't heard this programme but the comments here have spurred me on to listen soon.

For me the terrible outcome was that the BBC was demonised and its reputation trashed while Blair and Campbell got off largely untouched. Blair's growing egotism and Campbell's increasingly paranoid bully-boy tactics proved a democratically noxious mix.

And there is still so much much that we don't know or understand about how/why we went to war. It saddenms me that these issues may not be resolved in my lifetime.

Nor probably mine, Amsy. This whole political system needs overthrowing, it has nothing to offer humanity any more other than the rich getting ever richer presiding over no future until they're swept aside, something only younger generations can sort out once they've woken from the collective slumber; we'll all probably have to go through an unpleasant unnecessary learning process yet again in the meantime.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Bush’s us-versus-them mentality was manifested in religious terms—biblical terms, in fact. “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East,” he once urged a bewildered French President Jacues Chirac to support the War in Iraq in a private call. “Biblical prophecies are being fulfilled. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase His people’s enemies before a new age begins.” (Chirac asked his staff after, “Do any of you know what he is talking about?”)

Blair obviously did know what he was on about ...

from an article about something else as interesting though