[A-List] UK state: Iraq crisis

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

Is "Dr" John Reid working for MI6? That would offer a rational explanation
for his otherwise poorly-judged outburst this morning. Unless he is a "rogue
element" within the Cabinet.

Poor Tony must have assumed that he had put this at least temporarily to bed
by sanctioning the official inquiry into government use of intelligence
reports. Now "Dr" Reid, whom Private Eye has tipped to unseat George
Galloway at the Glasgow Central selection battle in September (as a result
of internal Labour Party chicanery), enters the fray in his usual
bull-in-a-china-shop fashion. It's difficult to see what such
heart-on-the-sleeve loyalty will do to bolster Blair's position, however.
And it's a really sick joke to hear anyone remotely associated with this
tawdry administration complaining about "rogue elements" in the secret state
working to undermine the "democratically elected" government. Considering
all that has been done by Blair, Straw and co. to silence the very few
people courageous enough to ask the awkward questions concerning the Wilson
plot, Northern Ireland and other scandals (Ken Livingstone, Tam Dalyell,
George Galloway), it's utterly grotesque to hear the pathetic bleating of
"Dr" Reid bemoaning the dark forces at work. The beautiful irony of it is
that, having worked so hard to rubbish the legacy of Wilson, and having
connived with the spin-meisters to perpetuate the image of Wilson as a
"Walter Mitty", Reid's outburst now plainly casts him in the same light -- a
figure to be ridiculed or, at best, pitied, on account of his evident
paranoia. His credibility lies shattered.

Meanwhile how long will it be before the men in suits quietly approach Mr
Blair behind closed doors and convince him to resign for the good of the
party/country/nation/whatever? This was the pretext by which Thatcher was
unseated in 1990, as Heseltine took his cue from disastrous opinion polls.
Now Tony's electoral appeal is on the line over what most people believe to
have been a deliberate fabrication of intelligence reports to suit the
warmongering agenda. Not even the thick smog of chauvinism that normally
cloaks British "public opinion" on such matters is enough to compensate for
the gulf that lies between that opinion and the likes of Richard Perle,
Donald Rumsfeld, and President Bush himself. And the BBC, having very
cleverly given so much unadulterated coverage to the Bush/neocon clan (who,
in their puffed-up stupidity believe they have received a wonderful
propaganda gift when in fact the last thing they need for winning friends
and influencing people is unexpurgated exposure), have given British viewers
plenty of opportunity to be further alienated from these self-styled
crusaders. Thus Blair gains nothing domestically by appearing to stand
side-by-side with them.

With Blair having worked so hard to disconnect the Labour leadership from
the party grassroots and have done so much to neuter all the checks and
balances that once made the Labour Party's internal debates a matter of
public record, he is now more vulnerable than ever to the possibility of a
discreet putsch of the kind once associated with the Conservative Party,
when that was the state party. Now that New Labour occupies that position,
we see a similar transfer of leadership-removal method.

Michael Keaney

-----

11am update
Reid hits back at security sources

Guardian online

Matthew Tempest, political correspondent
Wednesday June 4, 2003

John Reid, the leader of the Commons, today accused news organisations of
taking the word of "rogue elements" within the security services over that
of the prime minister, putting the government on a collision course with the
media.

After first airing his claim that "rogue elements" in the security services
were conspiring against the government in an interview with the Times,
Labour's self-proclaimed "bruiser" forced the BBC Radio 4 Today programme
presenter John Humphrys to admit that he too had had discussions with senior
intelligence officials expressing disquiet at alleged government
manipulation of MI6 intelligence.

Mr Reid's accusations come ahead of the prime minister's showdown in the
Commons this afternoon, when he will face questions on his now notorious "45
minutes" claim at prime minister's questions and at a special statement on
the G8 summit in Evian.

The open row has now rumbled on for the best part of a week, with the BBC's
defence correspondent, Andrew Gilligan, elucidating his claim that the
government allegedly hyped up the evidence against Saddam Hussein, saying
that four separate security personnel had confirmed his story with one
claiming that No 10 had "sexed up" the September dossier.

Mr Reid's attack appears to be an echo of the paranoia and conspiracy
surrounding the Harold Wilson government of the mid-1970s, where the prime
minister stood down complaining he was being bugged by MI5.

Mr Reid told BBC Breakfast: "What has happened over the past week has been
as big an attack on the leadership of those security services and
intelligence services as it has on the prime minister."

"We have now had five days during which the allegation is made that not only
has the prime minister and people like myself and the cabinet been dishonest
and duplicitous in deceiving our cabinet colleagues or parliament ... but
also that the chairman of the joint intelligence committee, and the joint
intelligence committee itself ... allowed their integrity to be impeached,
allowed evidence to be misrepresented ... these are scurrilous attacks on
people who have served this country."

Mr Reid said he was amazed that serious news organisations took the word of
"such obviously rogue isolated individuals" rather than the leadership of
the intelligence community. The "hugely serious" accusation against the
government and intelligence chiefs "comes down to, apparently, one or two
unnamed, unappointed, anonymous people with uncorroborated evidence", he
said.

"They should either put up or shut up, these are such serious allegations.
Up until this morning they were small in number. One of them was certainly
the person who was briefing Andrew Gilligan.

"It now appears he has three others that have appeared that he didn't tell
us about last week.

Mr Reid denied he was the unnamed government minister who had made
accusations of "skulduggery".

He again said there would be no new inquiry, saying it was the job of
parliamentary select committees to examine such things.

"The way we do things in this country is through select committees and I no
more dictate what the select committees do than the prime minister dictates
what the intelligence services will choose to discover, analyse and produce
as information," he added.

His attacks came as a poll suggested Mr Blair faces a mighty blow to his
electoral chances if he cannot persuade the public he told the truth about
the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Almost a quarter (23%) of those responding to the YouGov survey for Sky News
said Mr Blair would forfeit their trust on other political issues if no WMDs
were found in Iraq, while 18% said they could change the way they vote as a
direct result.

The influential Commons foreign affairs committee announced last night it
would carry out its own inquiry into the way in which evidence was presented
by the government.

Mr Blair was expected to confirm today that a second investigation by the
parliamentary intelligence and security committee, chaired by Labour former
cabinet minister Ann Taylor, would look into the issue.

A congressional inquiry was launched yesterday in the US into the way
President George Bush's administration handled the run-up to war. Its
hearings will be transmitted on live TV.

But any ISC inquiry would take place behind closed doors, and many MPs
believe the body cannot satisfactorily settle the matter, as it is appointed
by the prime minister, reports to him and allows its reports to be censored
by him before publication.

The chairman of the foreign affairs committee, Donald Anderson, said last
night: "We are a different animal to the ISC. There would be a credibility
problem with them which there would not be with our inquiry."

MPs were also debating a Liberal Democrat motion today demanding an
independent inquiry into ministers' handling of information from MI5, MI6
and the GCHQ surveillance centre.

At the centre of the debate are allegations that information included in a
government dossier last September were spiced up on the orders of Downing
Street to make them more compelling.

A key issue is whether intelligence officers were unhappy over the inclusion
of a dramatic warning that Saddam could launch chemical or biological
attacks within 45 minutes - which the defence minister, Adam Ingram, has
already conceded was based on a single, uncorroborated piece of evidence.

Mr Blair's spokesman yesterday urged those who doubted the existence of WMD
in Iraq to be patient.

"We have said throughout that the report is based on intelligence, it hasn't
been 'got up' either by politicians or by the intelligence community," he
said. "It hasn't been doctored, it hasn't been invented.

"All we are saying is that how many weeks we are after the conflict ended,
it is not unreasonable for people to exercise a little bit of patience."

The Liberal Democrat leader, Charles Kennedy, described Mr Reid's remarks as
"quite extraordinary", and said they now raised the need for an independent
inquiry with full access to the relevant individuals and to the information
supplied to the government.

Mr Kennedy told BBC's Good Morning Scotland radio programme: "I think we've
now moved actually even beyond what we as a party were saying only this time
yesterday, that we wanted a cross-party select committee set up.

"I think we've gone beyond that as a result of John Reid's comments, and we
will have to have some form of judicial inquiry into this entire issue." The
shadow foreign secretary, Michael Ancram, branded Mr Reid's comments as
"rather silly remarks".

Mr Ancram said: "I think they are rather silly remarks which are likely to
exacerbate the wrangling at a time when instead of wrangling, we should be
getting full and comprehensive answers to the very serious allegations that
have been made."

The Tory leader, Iain Duncan Smith, set out a number of questions in a
letter to Mr Blair yesterday "which require more urgent answers than even a
select committee of parliament are likely to get", he added.

Mr Duncan Smith, who received intelligence reports in the run-up to the war,
did not believe the intelligence services were against the war, Mr Ancram
added.

Mr Anderson said his select committee's investigation would go "as far as we
can". He said the committee would want to see the "raw intelligence or the
senior people in the security services or both".

-----

Transcript: John Reid v John Humphrys

Transcript of this morning's interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme
between the leader of the Commons, John Reid, and John Humphrys

Wednesday June 4, 2003

John Humphrys: These rogue elements within the intelligence services. Who
are they?

John Reid: Well, first of all can I just correct, because it is absolutely
essential here as you keep saying that we have not only honesty but
accuracy, let me just correct some of the things in your introduction.

First of all, the implication that I referred at any stage, or we did, to
spies, we didn't, or an MI6 plot, we didn't.

JH: Neither did I, incidentally.

JR: Well, they were included in the allegations that were apparently made
this morning. Thirdly, you said last week you had made allegations based on
intelligence sources, plural. You didn't. You based it on an intelligence
source.

JH: The quote came from a source. The allegations were based on four
different sources.

JR: No, they weren't last week, until this morning when Andrew Gilligan
conveniently found three other unnamed sources.

JH: Well, for the first time this morning a senior minister made allegations
about rogue elements within the intelligence services, which is why we are
pursuing the story.

JR: John, you were wrong in saying last week you made allegations based on
sources. Will you please accept that?

JH: No. I won't. I have just talked to...

JR: Last week you made allegations based on a source.

JH: You heard what Andrew Gilligan said a moment ago and I am having to rely
on Andrew Gilligan just as you are having to rely on your own information
and Andrew Gilligan has been consistently right over his reporting of Iraq.

Let me answer the question since you have asked it, if I may, and that is
that the quote, the specific quote that he used, came from a single source.
He has talked to four different sources connected with or actually within
the intelligence agencies.

JR: Let me read to you from a transcript of last Thursday. "But what I have
been told is that the government knew that claim was questionable even
before the war" - this is the eight o'clock transcript - "even before they
wrote it in the dossier. I have spoke to a British official who was involved
in the preparation of the dossier."

Up until this morning, last week's allegations were based on one quote. Now,
it is only one source.

Secondly, there were two more serious allegations which actually Andrew
Gilligan misrepresented this morning again.

The first is he said the other dossier had been presented by the
government - this is the so-called 'dodgy one' - as being from intelligence
sources. That is untrue, completely untrue. The front page of that said that
the information had been collated from a range of sources including
intelligence sources.

JH: Was it not presented to the nation as the prime minister's view of what
was going on?

JR: John, I am talking about the dossier which was called the dodgy dossier
... Andrew Gilligan said not more than five minutes ago that was presented
as - his actual words were - the dossier had claimed to be from intelligence
sources.

JH: You are not putting up a bit of smoke here, are you, Dr Reid? I'd love
you to answer the question I asked you.

JR: Sure. I just want accuracy and truth.

JH: Well, that is what I am trying to get from you as well.

JR: Right, well, let me give you the final untruth this morning. The final
untruth this morning from your reporter was that his central claim was that
we had sort of over-emphasised the information put into the dossier last
week. That was not his central claim. At 6.07am last week when this story
started, Andrew Gilligan said this: 'The government probably knew that the
45-minute figure was wrong even before it put it in.'

The central original allegation was that we deceived intentionally the
people of this country and the second allegation ...

JH: That is your interpretation, that is your interpretation.

JR: Well, listen, your listeners can listen to the quote again: 'The
government probably knew that the 45-minute figure was wrong even before it
decided to put it in.'

If any of your listeners can interpret that as anything other than an
allegation of dishonesty, of putting in information we knew to be wrong,
that it would confound me if they can decide that.

The second thing ...

JH: Sorry, but if you are making a serious accusation like that - and I do
want to repeat the question that I asked you ...

JR: Check the transcript.

JH: I am not disputing your transcript, Dr Reid. Of course I am not, that
would be foolish of me because I am sure you have that right. What I am
disputing is your interpretation of it.

He used the word "probably". Since then we have had absolutely not a single
shred of evidence to prove that that 45-minute claim was right.

JR: John ...

JH: Now if you can provide that for me on this programme now, I have no
doubt that Andrew Gilligan would be very happy to come on the programme and
say "Well, that is terribly interesting. Let's have another look at it".

JR: John, that is a lovely sleight of hand.

JH: Well that's what you have been doing for the last eight minutes, if I
may say so.

JR: Well, you can say anything you like. It doesn't make it correct. It is a
sleight of hand because this is the question at issue. Not whether we are
capable of making judgments that are right or wrong. Of course anyone,
indeed even journalists John, are capable of making judgments that are
wrong.

We were not accused of that. We were not accused of something maybe right or
maybe wrong. We were accused of dishonesty, John. We were accused of forcing
the security services to produce information in a public document in an
attempt to dupe the people of this country by putting in false information.

JH: Now you are using language that we did not use at any time - unless you
have transcripts of that as well.

JR: Well, I have just used it.

JH: Forced you? Forced the security services to provide information to dupe
the people of this country?

I don't remember me saying that. I don't remember Andrew Gilligan saying
that.

JR: Do you not? Well, I have got Andrew Gilligan's quotations here from last
week. Do you want me to go through them?

JH: Well, you have already done that.

JR: That is because I believe in arguing on the basis of the facts.

JH: Well, I'd love you to answer a couple of questions that I have got lined
up for you this morning, if that is possible. Can I do that?

JR: Of course you can.

JH: Let me ask you the first one then again and that is who do you think are
these rogue elements within the intelligence services who are using this row
over weapons of mass destruction to undermine the government? Who are they?

JR: Well, first of all they are anonymous, their position is not known, they
have uncorroborated evidence. Up until this morning they were small in
number. One of them was certainly the person who had been briefing Andrew
Gilligan. It now appears he has three others that have appeared that he
didn't tell us about in the past week. So there is four.

And the tragic thing about this is that I have the greatest respect for our
intelligence services.

I know from working with them in Northern Ireland and defence, as well as
during Iraq, that they are courageous, honest, professional, loyal people,
the vast majority from top to bottom.

And it is quite frankly a disgrace that the leadership of those intelligence
security services - from the chairman of the joint intelligence committee
through all of the leaders who sit in that committee - should have had their
integrity impugned over the last week by one or two unnamed individuals who
claim to be associated. Even this morning ...

JH: You want to return to Andrew Gilligan. I'd very much like to ask you
about the things you yourself have been saying, if I may. That is one of the
reasons you are on this morning, I think.

You are yourself saying there are rogue elements - plural not singular -
within the intelligence services. Another government minister unnamed, we
think we probably know who it is, or a government senior figure, says the
government has been the victim of skulduggery.

JR: I didn't say that.

JH: Do you know who did?

JR: No, I didn't ...

JH: I didn't say you did. Let's not deny things that I haven't suggested ...

JR: What I have said ...

JH: A bit of skulduggery and people are out to settle scores. Is that right?

JR: What I have said, and it is a quote in the Times, is that there are, I
said, a rogue element because I thought there was one that was briefing
Andrew Gilligan or indeed I said indeed elements because there may be the
same source, there may be the same person, who is briefing the Independent
on Sunday and various others, I don't know. But they are very much in the
minority.

And what annoys me, John, is not that they are attacking me for my judgment
or the prime minister, of course they are entitled to do that, well, the
public are. They are supposed to be loyal and professional, admittedly.

But it doesn't hurt so much. What does annoy me is that the fact that the
integrity of the joint intelligence committee is being impugned.

JH: Let's stay, let's stay, let's stay, may I stay ... because you want to
move on again now and I am trying to hold you to this if I may, just to be a
bit clear about this, because it seems to a lot of people that if there are
these rogue elements within the intelligence services who clearly are doing
quite a lot of damage to the government if they are to look at the coverage
of the newspapers and on the BBC and other news services over the past few
weeks, clearly doing a lot of damage. This is a very serious matter. What
are you going to do about it?

JR: Obviously, the first thing we have to do about it is try and convince
people like yourself and the public that we are not guilty of the
allegations. That they are unfounded, that they are uncorroborated and that
they should be very wary of anything that comes not only from individual,
isolated sources but which stands in complete contrast to what is being said
by the whole of the rest of the intelligence services up to and including
the leadership.

JH: Do you want to find them?

JR: Sorry?

JH: Do you want to find them? Is there going to be an inquiry?

JR: Well, I mean, leaks happen in all departments. Now ...

JH: It's a leak now?

JR: Sorry?

JH: It is a leak now?

JR: No.

JH: It's a very different sort of notion if these are leaks. That's a very
different notion because leaks are usually truthful, aren't they?

JR: Not in my experience, no they are not. Are they in yours?

JH: Well, yes, to be perfectly honest. If you use the word leak and it comes
out of a department, then they tend in the end to be reinforced, don't they?

But if you don't know who these people are, this is my point, really ...

JR: John ...

JH: No, it's an important point I'm making ...

JR: If you study the history of leaks from the intelligence agencies over
the past 60 years, you will probably find that your contention that they are
accurate is way wide of the mark.

JH: That would be fine, perhaps, if it was the odd disaffected intelligence
officer, some junior figure somewhere or other who was dripping a bit of
poison into somebody's ears ...

JR: They are anonymous. It could be a man in the pub.

JH: I rather think that people like Andrew Gilligan can distinguish between
an intelligence officer and a man in the pub but there we are ...

JR: He did not actually say he was an intelligence officer. He said he was
an official connected with the process of compiling the dossier. I mean, he
could have been a printer.

JH: Look, look, this is the point isn't it? ... There are very senior people
in the intelligence services who have talked to journalists off the record
certainly and for entirely obvious reasons.

JR: I have not seen a shred of evidence ...

JH: Can I just finish the point I was trying to make?

JR: Yes, but on that premise I do not accept it because there is not a shred
of evidence ...

JH: You have not heard what I have to say ...

JR: You have already said there are very senior people in the intelligence
services speaking to journalists in this fashion. I am contesting that. Let
me see the evidence.

JH: Well, let me tell you I myself have spoken to, ah, one or two senior
people in the intelligence services who have said things that suggest that
the government has exaggerated, did exaggerate, the threat from Saddam
Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

This is not something that has been got up by a few disaffected spooks for
you seem yourself unable to explain.

JR: Well, this is a new revelation to me, John. I don't know who you have
spoken to.

All I can tell you is I have regularly spoken not only to the most senior -
in plural - but the most senior at regular intervals in our intelligence
services up to and including yesterday. And I can tell you they absolutely
refute what is being said because not only is it an attack on the prime
minister and politicians, it is an attack on the integrity of they
themselves.

JH: Are you going to have an inquiry? Final thought.

JR: Well, the way we do things in this country is through select committees.

And I no more dictate what the select committees will choose to investigate
than the prime minister dictates what the intelligence services will choose
to discover, analyse and produce as information.

JH: John Reid, many thanks.

JR: Thank you, John.