Sunday, June 29, 2003
5:17 pm
The Sin of Omission - 29th June 2003, 17.13
The unexpurgated exchange between Alistair Campbell and the Foreign Affairs Committee can be found here. Campbell comes across as a disengenuous sophist who attempts to decouple the importance of the dossier published in February from that published in September 2002. For example, Alistair Campbell explains that the dossier in February was originally prepared for six journalists.
I explained to the Prime Minister the purpose of the briefing paper, which was to give it to six Sunday newspaper journalists on a flight to Washington. I explained where there was new intelligence which had been cleared for public use and I explained that there was other material within the document about the nature of Saddam's infrastructure of concealment and intimidation. I certainly did not say to him, for example, that this was taken from a Middle East journal because I did not know that to be the case.
At a key point in the debate to persuade parliament that a war in Iraq was necessary, Blair stood up in the Commons and stated on the subject of the dossier:
"We issued further intelligence over the weekend about the infrastructure of concealment. It is obviously difficult when we publish intelligence reports, but I hope that people have some sense of the integrity of our security services. They are not publishing this or giving us this information, making it up, it is the intelligence that they are receiving and we are passing it on to people".
The issue here is that any member of Parliament or member of the public, hearing these words, would infer that a dossier, referred to as "further intelligence" would have been approved by the security services through the Joint Intelligence Committee. However, the man in charge of government communications and spin did not check a document designed to guarantee a majority for Blair in Parliament:
Q946 Sir John Stanley: He made the statement today, absolutely rightly, that he was left completely in the dark at the time he made his statement on 3 February that the greater part of this document had been culled off the internet and there were these two significant inaccuracies in it.
Mr Campbell: Can I just say on that at that point, neither he nor I nor anybody in a senior position on my Iraq Communications Group was aware that that was the case. That is the point I keep coming back to. In relation to the changes, I have explained those changes were made by experts within the government commenting upon what they did not know to be Dr al-Marashi's work.
Whenever this government or its representatives fail to take responsibility for anything undertaken in their name, they shift the blame to civil servants or "experts" who will never be able to defend themselves.
Update: To add to Bob's comments, it would be fair to say that Alistair Campbell is demanding that the BBC substantiate their sources when the government was neither willing or careful enough to check the sources in their February dossier.
The unexpurgated exchange between Alistair Campbell and the Foreign Affairs Committee can be found here. Campbell comes across as a disengenuous sophist who attempts to decouple the importance of the dossier published in February from that published in September 2002. For example, Alistair Campbell explains that the dossier in February was originally prepared for six journalists.
I explained to the Prime Minister the purpose of the briefing paper, which was to give it to six Sunday newspaper journalists on a flight to Washington. I explained where there was new intelligence which had been cleared for public use and I explained that there was other material within the document about the nature of Saddam's infrastructure of concealment and intimidation. I certainly did not say to him, for example, that this was taken from a Middle East journal because I did not know that to be the case.
At a key point in the debate to persuade parliament that a war in Iraq was necessary, Blair stood up in the Commons and stated on the subject of the dossier:
"We issued further intelligence over the weekend about the infrastructure of concealment. It is obviously difficult when we publish intelligence reports, but I hope that people have some sense of the integrity of our security services. They are not publishing this or giving us this information, making it up, it is the intelligence that they are receiving and we are passing it on to people".
The issue here is that any member of Parliament or member of the public, hearing these words, would infer that a dossier, referred to as "further intelligence" would have been approved by the security services through the Joint Intelligence Committee. However, the man in charge of government communications and spin did not check a document designed to guarantee a majority for Blair in Parliament:
Q946 Sir John Stanley: He made the statement today, absolutely rightly, that he was left completely in the dark at the time he made his statement on 3 February that the greater part of this document had been culled off the internet and there were these two significant inaccuracies in it.
Mr Campbell: Can I just say on that at that point, neither he nor I nor anybody in a senior position on my Iraq Communications Group was aware that that was the case. That is the point I keep coming back to. In relation to the changes, I have explained those changes were made by experts within the government commenting upon what they did not know to be Dr al-Marashi's work.
Whenever this government or its representatives fail to take responsibility for anything undertaken in their name, they shift the blame to civil servants or "experts" who will never be able to defend themselves.
Update: To add to Bob's comments, it would be fair to say that Alistair Campbell is demanding that the BBC substantiate their sources when the government was neither willing or careful enough to check the sources in their February dossier.
Links
- Ishtar Talking
- Korea Life Blog
- Toothing
- Academic Secret
- Genius Duck
- Hairstyles and Nails
- Home Tips
- Health Talk and You
- Beadle Beads
- Glass Beads Supplies
- Paquet Full of Glass
- Native American Jewelry
- Blogopoly
- Second String Swap
- Work at Home News
- Bashhh
- Click Here
- Click Here
- Just Another Opinion Blog
- Dip Dot
- Awryt
- Zacquisha
Blog Archive
-
▼
2003
(696)
-
▼
June
(50)
- Basra: Just Another Manic Monday - 30th June 2003,...
- Global Monitoring for the Environment and Security...
- The Sin of Omission - 29th June 2003, 17.13 The u...
- A World Peacekeeping Force - 29th June 2003, 11.46...
- I do not remember the BBC being biased against the...
- Mini Me's Foreign Policy - 28th June 2003, 20.48 ...
- From Red to Green: The Common Agricultural Policy ...
- Our Reward Six more British troops die at the han...
- Cato on the Withholding Tax - 25th June 2003, 23.3...
- Ten Pence for a cup of Tea Is there any kind soul...
- Delian Delights John Laughland says that NATO is ...
- State Funding for Political Parties - 24th June 20...
- An Unequal Partnership - 23rd June 2003, 22.59 Th...
- A Common Policy on Space - 23rd June 2003, 22.49 ...
- Thanksgiving - 23rd June 2003, 22.41 One of the e...
- Catch the Pigeon - 22nd June 2003, 20.04 Tony Bla...
- United Nations: Reform - 22nd June 2003, 17.28 A ...
- The Government's Position on the Euro - 22nd June ...
- Thessalonika - 19th June 2003, 23.23 The EU leade...
- Sanity Prevails - 19th June 2003, 23.07 It appear...
- Zimwatch: Blair and Bush will be tried as war crim...
- HMV - 18th June 2003, 23.26 Peter Mandelson write...
- A Consensus on North Korea - 18th June 2003, 23.01...
- Emotional Over Europe. 18th June 2003. I find it...
- Most Reliable European Ally - 16th June 2003, 23.1...
- Festering Perry de Haviland mentions this website...
- Basic Benevolence - 15th June 2003, 22.07 One of ...
- Missile Defence: A Secret Agreement - 15th June 20...
- How successful was the Daily Mail referendum? - 15...
- A Technical Oversight - 14th June 2003, 23.43 It ...
- The Publication of the Constitution - 14th June 20...
- Rapprochement - 12th June 2003, 22.38 Having warn...
- Paying the Price - 12th June 2003, 22.33 Belgium'...
- Matthew Barganier makes the point that the antiwar...
- The Press Conference - 11th June 2003, 22.35 In a...
- Have you voted yet? The Daily Mail's referendum i...
- Best of the Blogs I've been avoiding other blogs ...
- Welcoming Party The Tory MEP Dan Hannan writes "S...
- Freedom ain't Free The Chronicles web-log "Winds ...
- The Neville Chamberlain Fan Club Those of us who ...
- Support from those that count - 10th June 2003, 22...
- Will this be ready in forty five minutes as well? ...
- What do the Europhiles think? - 9th June 2003, 22....
- No News - 9th June 2003, 20.07 The announcement b...
- Free Life Commentary Issue Number 106 Thursday, 5 ...
- New York: The Intrepid - 6th June 2003 (I Think) ...
- Zimwatch: Still There Although it's getting hot i...
- Tony Ulbricht? Srdja Trifkovic thinks that Britai...
- Zimwatch: Kicking Off? Both myself and Mr Chaston...
- Will the Tories oppose the war now it's over? Mic...
-
▼
June
(50)
0 comments:
Post a Comment