[A-List] UK state: Iraq crisis

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

Considering the amount of leakage that occurred during the spring, when MI6
was clearly telling journalists everything they could to point the finger of
blame at the government, leading "Dr" John Reid to make the fantastic claim
that, just as with Harold Wilson 30 years ago, a cabal of secret agents was
"trying to bring down a Labour government", it is preposterous for "Sir"
Richard Dearlove to single out David Kelly for a "serious breach of
discipline", unless that relates to the fact that Kelly's press briefings
were unauthorised. In which case did Dearlove authorise the hatchet job done
on Blair and co. earlier this year? How tenable would that make his
position? How tenable is it in any case when his underlings were clearly
briefing against the "democratically elected government", and therefore,
presumably, committing a serious breach of discipline?

This is the problem with the Hutton inquiry -- it is going to raise ever
more questions and answer precious few. But it is obvious that Dearlove's
position is far more tenable than that of Saint Tony himself, who,
apparently, would have resigned had it been proven that Andrew Gilligan's
single report, broadcast a little after 6am one morning on Radio 4, were in
any way true. Now Gilligan is being set up as the fall guy, and only in part
because he made it easy for others to do just that. Sacrificial blood will
be required in order for Tony to be absolved, once again, although his death
by a thousand cuts is well on its way to completion, regardless of the
outcome of this particular charade.

-----

Gilligan accused over changes in notes
DEBORAH SUMMERS, Political Correspondent
The Herald, September 19 2003

ANDREW Gilligan was accused yesterday of doctoring computer notes of his
fateful meeting with David Kelly, the government weapons expert.

The BBC journalist at the centre of claims that Downing Street "sexed up"
the government's Iraq dossier was summoned back to the Hutton inquiry for a
third time yesterday to explain "anomalies" on the handheld computer used to
record his May 22 briefing with Dr Kelly.

Computer experts revealed the Sharp ZQ770 personal organiser contained two
different accounts of the meeting. A reference to Alastair Campbell,
the-then Downing Street press chief, appeared only in the second version.
Mr Gilligan has always maintained that it was Dr Kelly who first mentioned
Mr Campbell's name in connection with the government's Iraqi dossier being
"sexed up" to strengthen the case for war.

The Today programme defence correspondent yesterday insisted that both
versions were made during the course of his meeting with Dr Kelly at
London's Charing Cross Hotel.

However, in his most hostile questioning yet, James Dingemans QC, counsel to
the inquiry, asked: "An obvious explanation for the notes having different
dates would be this, would it not, Mr Gilligan: it is a day out. Day one is
what you note with Dr Kelly, and day two is your revision when you are
producing your handwritten note. Is that what happened?"

Mr Gilligan replied: "No, that is not the explanation. The organiser was not
a day out, in my belief it was 16 or 17 hours out."

The journalist insisted that the first version was saved during the course
of his conversation with Dr Kelly and at the end of their meeting he checked
the quotes with the scientist and made a number of revisions which he then
re-saved.

William Wilding, a computer expert who examined the personal organiser, told
the inquiry there was evidence the computer clock could have been "a day or
so out of kilter" at the time of the meeting.

The date could have changed during the meeting if the clock "crossed
midnight" while Mr Gilligan and Mr Kelly were at the Charing Cross Hotel.

Mr Wilding, who had been instructed by Mr Gilligan's solicitors, admitted he
had not followed best practice when he had examined the personal organiser.
Mr Gilligan, who had previously refused to allow a laptop containing
sensitive contact details to be examined, said he would submit it for
analysis by the inquiry.

Mr Gilligan's account of his meeting with Dr Kelly has already been
challenged once during the inquiry.

Olivia Bosch, a former colleague of Dr Kelly's, said he had told her the
journalist had elicited Mr Campbell's name from him by way of a "name game".

The latest development comes the day after Mr Gilligan admitted a series of
"errors" in his original report on the Today programme, claiming the Iraq
dossier had been "sexed up".

Earlier, Richard Hatfield, MoD director of personnel, told the inquiry Dr
Kelly had brought his public exposure upon himself. If he had known then
what he had subsequently learned from the inquiry, he would have suspended
Dr Kelly and instigated disciplinary procedure, he said.

The inquiry is investigating how Dr Kelly apparently came to take his own
life after being publicly identified as the source of Mr Gilligan's report.

Mr Hatfield said he saw no reason to have informed Dr Kelly that the MoD was
going to confirm his identity to journalists if they came up with the right
name.

"The public identification followed from his own act of talking to Mr
Gilligan," he said.

Previously, government witnesses have been reluctant to criticise Dr Kelly
openly. Only Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6, accused the scientist of
a "serious disciplinary breach" in discussing secret intelligence with a
journalist.

Mr Hatfield said he had been surprised by earlier evidence to the inquiry
from Dr Kelly's widow, Janice, who said he had felt "betrayed" by his
treatment by the MoD.

"I was very surprised to hear that he thought that way if that means the
people dealing with this crisis betrayed him, because I think we gave him a
lot of support," he said.

In a series of heated exchanges, Jeremy Gompertz, QC for the Kelly family,
challenged Mr Hatfield over that claim.

Pam Teare, MoD director of communications, defended the department's
strategy for confirming Dr Kelly's name to journalists.

She also admitted it was "highly likely" that Geoff Hoon, the defence
secretary, was told of the controversial question-and-answer document that
contained crucial clues to Dr Kelly's identity.