We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Silent witness The political storm over the government’s ‘Iraq dossier’ seems to have taken a rather macabre twist:
Police searching for the weapons expert suggested by the government as the possible source for a BBC story on Iraq say the body they have found matches Dr David Kelly’s appearance.
In fact, the TV news is now reporting that the recovered body is that of Dr.Kelly.
Let the conspiracy theories commence.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I’m betting heart attack, more or less coincidence. But, boy, is this going to stir up nut soup.
First loon
I am interested to note that HMG will hold an official judicial enquiry into the circumstances surrounding his death. Is this not a smokescreen?
Surely a police investigation should do for the circumstances leading up to his death? But still there is no official independant enquiry into the circumstances of the “dodgy dossier”.
Kelly was going to meet his contact. Who that was and who he represented — false flag nor not — is anyone’s guess. There’s not enough data to conclude who the beneficial perp was, but there is enough data to be reasonably certain that huge subterranean currents are moving beneath the surface. This game is for keeps.
David
The conspiracy theories have started over on Free Republic which already has over 100 comments.
Suggested perpetrators include the Labour Left, the Iraqis, the French, Clintonistas, the BBC, Mossad but specifically not Iain Duncan Smith. The most common reference is to Vince Foster. My favourite was the observation that a dead body in Oxfordshire needs Inspector Morse to investigate.
George Galloway killed him!
It hasn’t taken long for the Grauniad to claim that Tony and Alastair drove him to take his own life for the “temerity” of speaking to the BBC.
Tony Blair’s luck is really running out. This issue will now run and run and run…
Ah well.
There is no longer any advantage to the BBC and Andrew Gilligan in remaining coy about whether Dr Kelly was or was not the man in question. Of course, the dilemma for the BBC has suddenly become immeasurably worse. Morally, it would be completely unacceptable for them to lay the blame at Dr Kelly’s door. Yet if they do not, heads – and important heads – must roll. It will be fascinating to see how they comport themselves.
There is no longer any advantage to the BBC and Andrew Gilligan in remaining coy about whether Dr Kelly was or was not the man in question.
Apart from the idea that a journalist must protect his sources even if he goes to prison for it.
How about this anti-conspiracy theory: The sort of person who succeeds as a Civil Service scientist thrives on tedium, predictability, secrecy, and trust–their lifestyle is calculated precisely to avoid any form of stress or public performance. Being publicly named as a mole and interrogated by a hostile committee, even if–or particularly if–the allegations are untrue, would be quite enough to kill someone of such a retiring disposition… Cause of death: he accidentally became interesting.
Hmmm don’t you find it a bit suspicious that Tony Blair just HAPPENED to be in the US when this happened? How convenient.. a little TOO convenient perhaps 😛
(this is a joke, in case you missed it)
All the people at work seemed to think he was murdered and were really quite alarmed by it, I found this quite suprising since I thought I was the cynical one.
Being a helpful sort I speculated that he might have been pressured into commiting suicide by threats to his family or something like that, sort of like what happened with Field Marshall Rommell. I don’t thing it helped.
my monies on that he told porkies to everyone – he did say sexed up despite the fact he had no knowledge that this occured and then denied it in the Commons. I suspect it was probably the BBC that was threatening him with say tapes or something else if the worse came to the worst.
Notice who has not yet commented in this thread? Where was Kodiak and what does he know?
I’m a mere Yank, but I don’t see what Blair & Co. had to gain by killing this guy. He denied having spoken to the BBC, which appears to have been a lie, and I think any inquiry into the truth of Blair’s WMD claims would necessarily have involved calling this guy on the stand and making him hold forth on what he knows.
If he was truthful and accurate in his discussions with the BBC, then Blair & Co. would remain in the same light of skepticism which currently bathes them, perhaps a few lumens moreso.
If he overstated his case against Blair, then he would be discovered, discredited, and the entire movement against Blair would be dealt a serious blow.
The general circumstances suggesting a suicide, along with the apparent lack of a suicide note, and the various incentives of the actors here, lead me to tentatively suspect that he killed himself to avoid exposure as a fraud.
Pending the results of the investigation, that is.
Evidently he did tell the truth in his comittee appearence. Sky News has been interviewing all the people that know him, and at least some of them said the MI5 and military intelligence had been putting a lot of pressure on Dr Kelly and had been making threats towards him after his comittee appearence.
I note that the goverment is already spinning this issue talking about an enquiry in several weeks, I predict what will happen is that they shall say that isn’t it very sad that this man chose to kill himself, and that it was nobodys fault really…and Blair shall continue to reign.
Best of the Web leads with this story and has an interesting US angle.
“Last night CNN’s Aaron Brown interviewed Matt Frei, the BBC’s Washington correspondent, about Tony Blair’s speech to Congress. Frei made mostly disparaging comments about Blair, President Bush and Iraq’s liberation. In introducing Frei, Brown made no reference to the adversarial relationship between Blair’s government and the Beeb. At least with respect to the Iraq war, the BBC is a political player, not merely a disinterested conveyor of information. One may hope the tragedy of David Kelly will make this impossible for journalists on this side of the Atlantic to ignore.”
What I find strange is that all the media reaction, including Sky’s, has focused on the role of Campbell, Blair, the MoD and the Select Committee — while avoiding any mention of the role the BBC has played in placing this man under what was apparently intolerable pressure.
However, Dr Kelly’s local MP, asked about all these suspects rounded up by Sky, replied instead that he blamed the BBC for its bizarre refusal to concede it was wrong to impugn Alastair Campbell even while admitting it could not stand up the allegation against him, thus pushing the whole affair to the point where something had to give, with tragic results.
In the light of what has happened, there has to be a possibility also that Dr Kelly was the source, despite all the denials, for Gilligan. Adam Bolton pointed out on the day Dr Kelly was questioned that he fitted the profile, the meeting place, etc.
This could mean, in fact, as some suspect, that the quotes about Campbell as attributed to the source were distorted or fictitious. If that comes out as a result of the almighty scandal now erupting, Gawd help the Beeb.
I don’t see any way that everything the Beeb has concerning its “secret” source doesn’t get laid on the table. If it was suicide, then the question becomes what drove him to suicide, which in turn opens the door on how the Beeb contributed to the pressure he was under. Once the question is framed this way, all bets are off.
Some random ‘John le Carre’ type phrases keep popping into my mind:
He’s a troublesome priest, Bill…
Why is he called the Sandman, George? He puts them all to sleep…
The ends seldom justify the means…
I couldn’t possibly comment, Minister…
The wise owls say, no private enterprise…
Gerald the mole, George, who is Gerald the mole?…
There is something rotten at the heart of this terrible tragedy. I suspect we will never know exactly what it is, except via the tangential meanderings of a nom de plume covert MI6 novel, in ten years time.
But the smell grows ever more nauseous by the day.
My money is on suicide. I read that he was very upset and depressed with testifying and the publicity surrounding it.
Miss “Capt” Scarlet in the “Green room” with the “WMD piping” !
I suspect that the enquiry will have as its main focus whether Kelly was the source.
More interstingly the BBC cant refuse to say yes or no to that question since the man is now dead and so they can no longer claim to be protecting the source.
But I expect they’ll then protest that its a breach of journaistic standards to speak ill of the dead and refuse again.
Della: I’m not sure which committee appearance you’re referring to, but this article in the Guardian indicates that the journalist who handled the revelations which probably came from Dr. Kelly “changed his testimony mid-interrogation” and was an “unsatisfactory witness.”
I’m betting that somewhere between the two of them, some unsubstantiated charges got created, and Dr. Kelly was mortally concerned about the reckoning.
My opinion only.
Jonathan writes:
“….indicates that the journalist who handled the revelations which probably came from Dr. Kelly “changed his testimony mid-interrogation” and was an “unsatisfactory witness.”
The entire proceedings of this committee have been a farce, since day one. Headed by a party lackey (the deeply unpleasant Donald Anderson) and packed with Labour stooges, the second hearing to which you are referring was one of those rare occasions where I actually felt sympathy for a BBC man. Andrew Gilligan was indeed, stitched-up, as was the minority Conservative contingent, at least one of whom, John Maples, was unable to attend. How very convenient. Indeed, only a single opposition MP was present.
The party hacks’ foregone conclusion, that Mr. Gilligan had changed his testimony, was strenuously denied by both by the journalist and Mr. Maples. Clearly, the Labour apparatchiks had been told which verdict to come to. Good party men, they knew their duty.
Whether the unfortunate Dr. Kelly suffered a heart attack, or took his own life, the perpetrators of his downfall were the Labour stooges who treated this apparently inoffensive and retiring man with the sort of hostility usually reserved for war criminals.
If there any justice (which there will not be) it is they who should be standing trial following the judicial enquiry into Dr. Kelly’s death.
Whether the unfortunate Dr. Kelly suffered a heart attack, or took his own life, the perpetrators of his downfall were the Labour stooges who treated this apparently inoffensive and retiring man with the sort of hostility usually reserved for war criminals.
I think it’s easy to consider him “inoffensive” if you’re not the one he’s accusing of doctoring data.
I don’t care if you’re 3′ tall with brittle bones and a colostomy bag, if you’re going to accuse the leader of the nation of having lied to his constituents, you had better freeking well have incontrovertible evidence of the act. And if you do have said incontrovertible evidence, you’re on the side of the angels and should ostensibly be able to sleep peacefully.
If Mr. Gilligan didn’t change his testimony, then what are the Labour party members referring to? I mean, there had to be some delta between what he said before and what he said later, for them to make the claim, right?
You’re confused Jonathan, it wasn’t Mr. Gilligan who died, it was Dr Kelly, a man who seemed to say in his testimony that he generally agreed with the prime ministers dosier.
However, you seem to be saying that it is OK that people who oppose the prime-minister die suddenly…which other opponents of the prime-minister do you wish to see die suddenly?
Err Della you’re confused – that allegation is in quotes.
The point is that by failing to deny that Kelly was the source, the BBC indicated that he might be the source and hence that the witch hunt should continue. If the BBC had been prepared to say yay or nay about whehter Kelly was the source the story ends and no more committees and problaby still a Mr Kelly.
NB – before we lay all out love on Mr Gilligan, do you think he warned Dr Kelly, that he planned to write and article and of the possible consequences of his lunch with him. I doubt it. some guy.
Jonathan writes:
“I think it’s easy to consider him “inoffensive” if you’re not the one he’s accusing of doctoring data. ”
Who, aside from the ‘New’ Labour establishment says he did?
Why are you so ready to believe the Campbell spin?
“If Mr. Gilligan didn’t change his testimony, then what are the Labour party members referring to? I mean, there had to be some delta between what he said before and what he said later, for them to make the claim, right?”
Really? Why? Mr. Gilligan denies changing his testimony. John Maples agrees.
Again, I ask – why are you so willing to believe parrty line? And on what evidence?
I expect that the judge will find that David kelly WAS Andrew Gilligan’s so-called “source.” There is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing that way.
The BBC would then be in very deep doo-doo. It has steadfastly refused to confirm that Kelly was the person who Gilligan was “quoting”. The BBC would shown to have exposed Kelly to continuing pressure and doubt.
Worse, if Kelly is the sole source for the 29 May report, there is deep conflict between what Gilligan alleged was said and what Kelly claims to have said. Kelly denied to the Committee – and to probably more stringent and structured questioning by the MoD – that he had made the allegations about No 10 sexing-up the September dossier. If Kelly was speaking the truth, whcih most people will now assume, then Gilligan embellished his story – or rather he largely invented his story.
If this is what the judge concludes, Alastair Campbell is vindicated. And Gilligan would have to go, but so would his boss Richard Sambrook and so, I think, would Greg Dyke, the Director General of the BBC.
Giles writes:
“NB – before we lay all out love on Mr Gilligan, do you think he warned Dr Kelly, that he planned to write and article and of the possible consequences of his lunch with him. I doubt it. some guy.”
This is grotesque. Dr. Kelly was fingered by the MOD (aka Labour’s ‘political advisors’) not Andrew Gilligan. It was they who exposed him to the savage treatment he received from the kangaroo court, not the BBC.
For heaven’s sake, it is Mr. Gilligan and the BBC who have refused to even confirm that it was Dr. Kelly in the first place. He was put directly in the frame by Alastair Campbell’s bootboys, the Labour placemen on the committee, not the BBC.
I must add that I am twisting on a spike here, defending the BBC, which I loathe, but seeing this travesty of justice, where Labour stooges are exonerated despite clear evidence that they have manipulated, abused and distorted the system in service of their master, Blair.
By all accounts Dr. Kelly was a frequent source for journalists, so the suggestion that he was unaware what the consequences of speaking with one might be is absurd.
What he probably was unaware of was the degree of vicious ruthlessness of a morally bankrupt government that would whore its own grandmothers to stay in office.
JohninLondon writes:
“I expect that the judge will find that David kelly WAS Andrew Gilligan’s so-called “source.” There is a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing that way.”
Interesting.
So why do you suppose the Blairite-packed special affairs committee came to the opposite conclusion?
What I mean is that Kelly is likely the only “source” that he can claim – the date of the meeting tallies, other aspects tally. By source, I mean the person he spoke to.
But I believe that Gilligan embellished what Kelly had told him. Kelly was not involved with the continued work on the dossier during September – so he could not have made the claims of tampering that Gilligan alleged his source made.
The Committee merely agreed that Kelly was not the source of these allegations.
Either there is another source – even though Gilligan has always said that he had only one source – or Gilligan has invented material and let David Kelly be the fall-guy. If the latter, the consequences for the BBC are dire.
“This is grotesque. Dr. Kelly was fingered by the MOD (aka Labour’s ‘political advisors’) not Andrew Gilligan. It was they who exposed him to the savage treatment he received from the kangaroo court, not the BBC.”
He himself admitted that he gave an interview with the BBC so he’s hardly been fingered – unless of course you think that there’s something wrong with exposing the truth.
He was a source, hes admitted it, the BBC refused to deny it so what choice did the comittee have but to call him?
Also interesting to note that Dr Kelly was a member of the Iranian founded Bahai faith:
“Dr Kelly was said to be a practising member of the Baha’i Faith and a former treasurer of the Oxfordshire Spiritual Assembly.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/07/19/nhunt19.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/07/19/ixnewstop.html
On sources.
If I were the BBC I would still refuse to confirm or deny. If there is another source, the doubt protects him; if not, it keeps the MoD off balance and may generate more evidence, indeed more sources…
I note that the enquiry is being headed by a judge–a former Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, who may be presumed “security cleared”–and is being set up by the MoD. It is guaranteed to be very scary for those inside the organisation who are investigated.
Hoo boy. According to The Telegraph: A police source ruled out natural causes and indicated that he had not hanged himself, taken a drugs overdose or shot himself.
Which doesn’t leave a lot of possibility other than murder.
Yes, it does Steven…
How about accident? Or suicide by falling, or hypothermia, or bleeding–any of which might be hard to distinguish from accident. Or anoxia. Or non-drug poisoning. (Or microbe, even, given he was a leading expert in pathogens.)
Then there are a range of available miscellaneous misadventures: food poisoning, snake bite, aircraft debris…
Giles
Also interesting to note that Dr Kelly was a member of the Iranian founded Bahai faith:
How so?
Eamon Brennan
Giles writes:
“He himself admitted that he gave an interview with the BBC so he’s hardly been fingered – unless of course you think that there’s something wrong with exposing the truth..”
According to what we have been told, he voluntarily informed the MOD that he had given Andrew Gilligan an off the record briefing. It is clear that this was something Dr. Kelly regularly did with a wide range of journalists.
It was Blair and Campbell’s thugs who immediately trumpeted they had ‘found the source’ and it was these self-same thugs who dragged Dr. Kelly before Labour’s kangaroo court to be mauled by Anderson and his cronies.
Thus it was, ultimately, Blair’s decision to expose Dr. Kelly to the forces which, one must assume, killed him.
Had Blair and Campbell not been so keen to extricate themselves from the mess they had got themselves into, they could have treated Dr. Kelly’s indiscretion (assuming that is what it was – this is unclear) as a private, MOD disciplinary matter.
“He was a source, hes admitted it, the BBC refused to deny it so what choice did the comittee have but to call him?”
It is not for the BBC to deny or prove anything. Start robbing journalists of the right to protect their sources and you will soon be back in the land of Pravda at its lovely best.
As for Anderson’s committee, did that give them the right to attack Dr. Kelly like a pack of outraged baboons?
Gilligan and the BBC have maintained that he derived the sexing-up allegations from a single interview, from a single meeting with a person connected with the September dossier.
Kelly met Gilligan, at Gilligan’s request, at a central London hotel on the date Gilligan has stated.
It therefore appears that either Kelly made the allegations attributed to “the source”, or Gilligan invented them. But Kelly has totally denied making the allegations. Kelly’s entire record shows him to be an honourable man, with nothing to gain and lots to lose by making such allegations. Even the BBC concedes that Gilligan likes a headline story.
Most people will believe Kelly’s evidence, which will have been probed also by the Intelligence Committee and by internal MoD enquiries.
This looks like leaving Gilligan way out on a limb. If Judge Hutton concludes that Gilligan invented the allegations, senior ople at the BBC will have to resign.
But meanwhile the BBC continues to spin on its own behalf. Its selection of press comments have mostly been anti-No 10, it gave the discredited Scott Ritter the prime slot on this morning’s Today programme, all four panellists on last night’s “Any Questions” had a known anti-war stance. Most of its commentators raise questions about the politicians, but fail to raise questions about the central role of the BBC. Only Andrew Marr has shown any sense of balance – “a plague on all their houses”. Plus some poignant comments by Tom Mangold, as a friend of Kelly and a former BBC reporter.
For the most part the BBC continues to act as judge and jury in its own case. This continued hubris will probably all end in tears when Judge Hutton reports.
“It is not for the BBC to deny or prove anything”
You’re right Gary, requiring them to prove anything would undermine their entire ethos – they just make up the news.
As for your assertion that Kelly’s purported revelation was an “indiscretion”, I agree. Set against this government record of hype, the sexing up allegation, even if true, looks pretty tame.
However it was Gilligan and the BBC that hyped it up to being a groundbreaking story that would bring down the government. The government not unnaturally responded. Dr Kelly was caught in the middle.
So it seems to me that the BBC choose to make this story and asserted that is was based on a single source. Dr Kelly said he was the source, his friends say that he believed he was the single source but the BBC refused to confirm or deny whether he was the source. If he was the single source then by refusing to confirm or deny, the BBC weren’t protecting a source but rather their own credibility. The cost of this was to cast doubts on Dr Kelly’s honesty since, as the single source, either he was lying when denied saying that Campbell sexed the dossier up or else the BBC made it up. By refusing to come clean the BBC kept open the former as a possibility and therefore implicitly impugned Dr Kelly’s honesty.
Of course if Dr Kelly wasn’t the source, I still think the BBC wouldn’t have breached any principle by confirming this – although I do accept there is a valid argument that once you start confirming who isn’t your source, when do you stop.
Eamon
Probably not relevant but since he has a “middle eastern” religion it would seem to me that he had a genuine concern about what happened there; this may have added to the pressure he was under.
Giles writes:
“You’re right Gary…”
Who he?
Then: “… requiring them to prove anything would undermine their entire ethos – they just make up the news.”
I’ll give ground to no one in my contempt for the BBC and, as I’m sure you realised, I was not trying to defend their news values – such as they are.
However, the BBC is (for once) upholding a very important principle – that a writer must protect his or her sources. However much disdain I have for the corporation, I’m not going to be a hypocrite by attacking them for doing the right thing, whatever the circumstances.
“However it was Gilligan and the BBC that hyped it up to being a groundbreaking story that would bring down the government. The government not unnaturally responded. Dr Kelly was caught in the middle.”
But who was Dr. Gilligan caught between? The press on the one hand (including the BBC) no doubt, but clearly the greater pressure on the man came from the MOD (and who knows what security goons) and the Labour appartchiks on the committee – one of whom, albeit in a typically mealy-mouthed way, has at least had the grace to apologise.
Finally, I still see no reason to conclude that Dr. Kelly was the sole source – regardless of what Gilligan or ‘sources close to Dr. Kelly’ have said. I think this part of the story remains deeply clouded and that any conclusions reached at this point are extremely premature.
“However, the BBC is (for once) upholding a very important principle – that a writer must protect his or her sources.”
You’re right – if there were other sources and they were anonymous then its fair enough that they should be protected.
But in this case it doesn’t appear that Dr Kelly needed to be protected or even ever wanted to be since it appears he admitted that he regularly briefed the press, I’m sure his employers knew it and perhaps that was why they were able to find him so quickly – that he met with the BBC seems like it was a bit of an open secret in the MOD.
Instead it seems to me that the BBC, not Dr Kelly were keenest to designate him an anonymous source so that they could “sex up their scoop” by claiming he was a “senior source”. So again, when allocating the blame between the rock that started it and the hard place, that responded as expected, I accuse the rock.
The main mistake Dr Kelly seems to have made is not realising that, as someone pointed out earlier, this government does have a record of hanging out to dry civil servants who’ve outlived their usefulness. However what is more surprising is that the BBC seems not to have taken any action to look after their source as a person– by issuing the simple denial that he said that Campbell sexed up the dossier. If it turns out that this was the case then their dogged refusal looks not principled but immoral and callous.
Giles writes:
“But in this case it doesn’t appear that Dr Kelly needed to be protected or even ever wanted to be…”
If you are able to find it, I’d commend to you today’s analysis by the Daily Telegraph – also no friends to the BBC. From this (and assuming it is to be believed) it would appear that Dr. Kelly had, as I’d suggested earlier, received pretty rough treatment from the MOD’s ‘police’ and had also received threats to his imminent pension.
As things turned out, it seems he most certainly did need protection – not least from his employers.
While I don’t disagree with you in the least about either Mr. Gilligan’s motives or those of the anti-war BBC as a whole, I suggest you are letting off the hook the real villains of this piece – Messrs Hoon, Campbell and, of course, Blair.
“As things turned out, it seems he most certainly did need protection – not least from his employers.”
When I said protection, I meant of the sort the BBC was arguing – i.e. not being revealed as the source – its seemed to me he was happy to be named as the source as long as the truth came out. Unfortunately the BBC, on principle, prevented that, leaving him unable to exonerate himself. Which then left him at the mercy of the MOD discplinary system.
Regarding thinking something must be true just because the telegraphs says so it is pretty naïve – the Telegraph hates both but hates the Blair government the most, and correctly reasons that the only way the BBC is going to be reformed is under a Tory government so, as always I wouldn’t take its copy as gospel.
Clearly since neither party is innocent, choosing who is most guilty is always going to be influenced by predjudices. A source that was pro Blair and pro BBC would be the best judge. Unfortunately there aren’t any news sources, or even many people that are.
Giles writes:
“Regarding thinking something must be true just because the telegraphs says so it is pretty naïve…”
You might try reading the piece, first. Condemning it unseen is not a very productive approach.
“A source that was pro Blair and pro BBC would be the best judge. Unfortunately there aren’t any news sources, or even many people that are.”
Andrew Marr and Andrew Rawnsley spring readily to mind. There are many others in the BBC.
I still fail to see why you are so ready to let Blair and his vicious, partisan henchmen off the hook, but can’t see any point prolonging the disagreement.
.I don’ t want to let them off the hook I just think that in this case the BBC has more blood on its hands. To a large extent people are only going for Campbell and co on this one because they let them get away with it so many times before.
Andrew Marr LOL is hardly “independent” since he works for the BBC – he’s very much the Blairite perfectly able to hold two opposing positions at one. Rawnsley though maybe.
Anyway thanks for your input
I’m with Rawnsley on this one
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1001727,00.html
Giles and JohninLondon: Thanks for your thoughts, I agree wholeheartedly.
The word this morning from NPR in the US is that Dr. Kelly was discovered with one of his wrists slashed and a partially-consumed package of pain relievers nearby. They are tentatively reporting it as a suicide pending further examination.
They also confirm that the BBC indicates Kelly was Gilligan’s primary, possibly only, source for what he had written about the Blair team’s alleged “sex-ing up” of the WMD intel. And they said that Kelly had indicated he “could not be” Gilligan’s primary source because Gilligan had made more sweeping accusations, and more authoritatively, than would have been supportible by Kelly’s information.
Of course, this is being reported by NPR, which is the left testicle of the BBC (or vice versa, I’m not sure how their ownerships interlock) so dishonesty must automatically be assumed, but I can’t understand why they would exaggerate the truth in a way that appears so damning to Gilligan and the BBC, and so exculpatory of Team Blair.
Today’s final admission by the BBC that Andrew Gilligan’s source was indeed Dr Kelly is going to result in a very big shakeup at the Beeb.
In hours, media and political pundits have worked out what was pointed out on this thread right at the beginning: that it appeared very likely that f there was one source, it had to be Kelly; if so, either he lied firmly and repeatedly to the select committee about what he had told Gilligan; or Gilligan had made up the claims about Campbell etc which Kelly denied very strongly.
The fact that the BBC has waited until now to let him off the hook, when it is too late, is a scandal. They are th ones who left him out to dry, because they knew once it was clear he was the source, the select committee would have torn Gilligan and his news masters to pieces.
All this because they were out to get Campbell, who is now vindicated (unless you think Dr Kelly was a liar when he denied saying anything about Campbell sexing up the dossier).
G Cooper, whose language about Blair and the LP is so extreme as to throw his/her own assertions into doubt, should go and rethink his/her position.
It should be noted that Dr Kelly volunteered to his masters at DoD that he recognised some of the statements in the Gilligan report as his. The minute he outed himself, the BBC should have released his name. But it continued to try to throw off the scent by calling him “an intelligence source” which he isn’t. Now we know why the corporation was so desperate to try to ensure no one could join up the dots.
The government’s treatment of Dr Kelly certainly was highly questionable. I don’t think they actually named Dr Kelly; that was deduced from broad hints and biography sketches by DoD. But this need never have gone so far as to produce this tragedy.
Here we go. This just in on USATODAY.com:
(…)The reporter quoted his source as saying the government had “sexed up” its evidence on Iraqi weapons in order to justify war and insisted on publishing a claim that Saddam Hussein could deploy some chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes, despite intelligence experts’ doubts.
Gilligan later said the source had accused Alastair Campbell, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s communications adviser, of insisting the 45 minutes claim be included in a government dossier on Iraqi weapons. The House of Commons Foreign Affairs committee cleared Campbell of that charge.
“I believe I am not the main source,” Kelly told the committee Tuesday. “From the conversation I had, I don’t see how (Gilligan) could make the authoritative statement he was making.”(…)
So I am left guessing that:
1) Kelly lied, Gilligan reported it accurately, and Kelly became afraid of the consequences;
2) Kelly exaggerated, Gilligan exaggerated further, and Kelly became afraid of the consequences, or;
3) Kelly told the factual truth, Gilligan embroidered/misinterpreted in a way that went beyond what Kelly felt he had stated, but he realized that Gilligan’s interpretation could reasonably have been made from his statements, and became afraid of the consequences. Or else he couldn’t bear the prospect of having to undercut Gilligan by setting the record straight.
G Cooper
No offence – but you were badly wrong about Dr Kelly being the source for Gilligan’s “story”.
But Hoon and his staff are also going to get hammered, I think.
JohninLondon: please cite your source. According to the Timesonline, he was the sole source. The link is off of Instapundit.