[moki]

Everyone who is so freely calling Bush/Blair "liars" will need to add Kelly to that list, along with numerous other intelligence agents, Colin Powell, Condeliza Rice, Bill Clinton, Jack Straw, etc, etc.

from: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/polit...032698,00.html

.....

Revealed: How Kelly article set out case for war in Iraq

A remarkable article by Dr David Kelly, published for the first time today, reveals the government scientist's true views ahead of the war on Iraq and his expert assessment of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

In a development which could have a major influence on the Hutton inquiry, Kelly said that, although the threat was 'modest', he believed military action was the only way to 'conclusively disarm' the country.

He also argued that there was evidence Saddam still had chemical and biological weapons and regime change, the policy of the United States, was the only way to stop the Iraqi dictator.

The article was written for a major report on Iraq being compiled a few weeks before the war. Kelly had agreed to write it anonymously, but the piece was never published.

It will be sent to the Hutton inquiry this weekend and provides one of the few direct pieces of evidence of Kelly's views since the row between the Government and the BBC broke out at the end of May.

Kelly apparently committed suicide last month after he was 'outed' as the source for claims by Radio 4's Today programme that the Government had 'sexed up' intelligence against the Iraqi dictator to make a stronger case for war.

He insisted to the Ministry of Defence that he was not the source of claims that Number 10 deliberately inserted intelligence into the dossier, even though it knew it was 'probably wrong' and against the wishes of the intelligence community.

The Observer obtained the article from the editor of the report, the journalist and Middle East expert Julie Flint, who writes in today's paper about the man she came to know as a friend.

Its publication comes the day before the appearance of Kelly's wife, Janice, before the inquiry. She is likely to testify by video link to avoid the media scrum created by other witnesses' arrival at the Royal Courts of Justice. Her evidence to the inquiry, set up to find out the cause of her husband's death, has the potential to undermine fatally the evidence of both the BBC and the Government.

Last week Tony Blair admitted he was 'fully responsible' for moves to name Kelly, believing it was inevitable the weapons expert would eventually be unmasked.

Kelly's article reveals a hawkish stance on Iraq which will come as some comfort to Number 10. 'Iraq has spent the past 30 years building up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction [WMD],' he wrote. 'Although the current threat presented by Iraq militarily is modest, both in terms of conventional and unconventional weapons, it has never given up its intent to develop and stockpile such weapons for both military and terrorist use.'

Kelly argues that any co-operation with UN weapons inspectors was superficial and that rockets specifically for chemical and biological use had been found.

'Amer al-Saadi - formerly responsible for conserving Iraq's WMD, now its principal spokesman on its weapons - continues to mislead the international community,' Kelly said before the war. 'It is difficult to imagine co-operation being properly established unless credible Iraqi officials are put into place by a changed Saddam.

'Yet some argue that inspections are working and more time is required; that increasing the numbers of inspectors would enhance their effectiveness. Others argue that the process is inherently flawed and disarmament by regime change is the only realistic way forward.' Kelly said the UN had been trying to disarm Iraq since 1991, but had had no success in what he described as an 'abject failure of diplomacy'. He argued that diplomatic splits had only served to exacerbate the problem.

'The threat of credible military force has forced Saddam Hussein to admit, but not co-operate with, the UN inspectorate,' he wrote. 'So-called concessions - U2 overflights, the right to interview - were all routine between 1991 and 1998. After 12 unsuccessful years of UN supervision of disarmament, military force regrettably appears to be the only way of finally and conclusively disarming Iraq.'

'War may now be inevitable,' he wrote. 'The proportionality and intensity of the conflict will depend on whether regime change or disarmament is the true objective. The US, and whoever willingly assists it, should ensure that the force, strength and strategy used is appropriate to the modest threat that Iraq now poses.'

'The long-term threat, however, remains Iraq's development to military maturity of weapons of mass destruction - something that only regime change will avert.'

Flint says Kelly was incredibly discreet, casting doubt on whether he would have told Andrew Gilligan, the BBC reporter who initially claimed that Downing Street had tried to manipulate intelligence, anything of significance.

'Getting secrets from David was like getting blood from a stone,' she said. 'But his knowledge was encyclopaedic. In the quicksand of reporting on Iraq, he was a completely safe house.'

[Zimphire]

Good post, I wonder what other members of the forum have to say about it.

[lil'babykitten]

The guy is dead forgodsake and you want us to call him a liar?!! Anyway I don't see why there would be any need to call him a liar either. I would be more inclined to believe such a report by him, since he certainly had a lot of experience. I would be more inclined to not dismiss him as quickly as I would a politician, simply because he was an expert on these matters and wouldn't have a separate agenda.

War may now be inevitable,' he wrote. 'The proportionality and intensity of the conflict will depend on whether regime change or disarmament is the true objective. The US, and whoever willingly assists it, should ensure that the force, strength and strategy used is appropriate to the modest threat that Iraq now poses.'

This is still the sticking point for me in that it does not look to me as if disamament was the main objective. If Kelly has shown there was indeed a weapons program, where is it? and why are we hearing more about contracts being given to American companies than we are about the supposed reason for war?

There are still questions that need answering.
Still why are we supposed to be calling Kelly a liar again?

[Spliffdaddy]

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that Kelly killed himself because he felt guilty for misleading so-called 'world leaders'.

[boots]

A couple of the statements bolster everything I said about this whole affair:

Originally posted by moki:
[snip]... 'Although the current threat presented by Iraq militarily is modest, both in terms of conventional and unconventional weapons, it has never given up its intent to develop and stockpile such weapons for both military and terrorist use.'

[snip]

'War may now be inevitable,' he wrote. 'The proportionality and intensity of the conflict will depend on whether regime change or disarmament is the true objective. The US, and whoever willingly assists it, should ensure that the force, strength and strategy used is appropriate to the modest threat that Iraq now poses.'

'The long-term threat, however, remains Iraq's development to military maturity of weapons of mass destruction - something that only regime change will avert.'

1) (without getting hung up on the legalism of the language) The timing of the war was sold (to the US and UK) based on the immediacy of the threat. This statement acknowledges that the "immediacy" was moderate...not an imminent threat.

2) It may have had to come to open military action regardless of the diplomacy, but the basis of the timing was bogus.

Call it lies, or call it hyperbole, but the end effect is the same.

[Troll]

He did not lie! He never said that war wasn't a good way to disarm Iraq. He never said that Iraq's ability to produce weapons wasn't a threat. No one doubted that. Anyone with the ability to produce WMD is a potential threat and the best way of dealing with anyone in that position is to wipe out the capability with force. Calling him a liar is disrespectful at best.

In fact, Kelly supported the war, even if he didn't agree with the reasons for waging it.

What he said was that the UK government had exaggerated the risk. That is now clearer than ever. He said that Iraq was not an immediate threat.

I enjoyed today's testimony - Alistair Campbell essentially admitting that he used Kelly to "f*ck" Gilligan. Since Blair employed that bastard, the buck should stop with him. He should resign immediately. They tried to save their own asses by making Kelly the fall guy. They lied to Parliament, they lied to the public; they have to go. That's how it works in the UK.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Troll:
I enjoyed today's testimony - Alistair Campbell essentially admitting that he used Kelly to "f*ck" Gilligan. Since Blair employed that bastard, the buck should stop with him. He should resign immediately. They tried to save their own asses by making Kelly the fall guy. They lied to Parliament, they lied to the public; they have to go. That's how it works in the UK.

Yup. Campbell has resigned, of course that had nothing to do with the War or the Kelly affair, he had decided to leave long before.....

Only the rest of the Blair government need to go now, then all will be much better.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Yup. Campbell has resigned, of course that had nothing to do with the War or the Kelly affair, he had decided to leave long before.....

Only the rest of the Blair government need to go now, then all will be much better.

Better?? Who do you suppose will make things better? Iain Duncan Smith or Charles Kennedy?

They're both as laughable as each other. As much as I hate to admit it, Blair is still probably the only credible politician/leader in British politics at the moment - and that is a very sad state of affairs.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Better?? Who do you suppose will make things better? Iain Duncan Smith or Charles Kennedy?

They're both as laughable as each other. As much as I hate to admit it, Blair is still probably the only credible politician/leader in British politics at the moment - and that is a very sad state of affairs.

I absolutely positively knew someone would pick up on that very open comment of mine! I don't actually care who takes over from Blair & Co. as long as they are out. Politicians that stay in office for more than two terms become 'cosy liars'. I call for Regime Change™ at home!
Charles Kennedy would be a good replacement IMHO, I just wish he would learn to speak out when the government is vulnerable, like NOW!

[moki]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
The guy is dead forgodsake and you want us to call him a liar?!! There are still questions that need answering.
Still why are we supposed to be calling Kelly a liar again?

No, I don't think he was a liar -- I think he told the absolute truth, to the best of his knowledge. I believe the same of Blair, Powell, Bush, Clinton, etc, etc...

[Troll]

Originally posted by moki:
No, I don't think he was a liar -- I think he told the absolute truth, to the best of his knowledge. I believe the same of Blair, Powell, Bush, Clinton, etc, etc...

I think the difference between you and me is the point at which you are prepared to classify massaging the truth as lying. For me, anything other than telling the whole truth is lying. You seem to have some middle ground, where you can change the focus, manipulate the truth to serve your purposes without actually lying. Let's move away from the definition of lying then and let's just ask ourselves whether what Blair did here was wrong (we can deal with Bush later).

Blair realises that Parliament is not going to support sending troops to Iraq. He also knows that the British public doesn't support a war. He decides that the way in which he will sway opinion is to present intelligence suggesting that Iraq is an "imminent" threat (in the common rather than legal sense - to Simey if you're still watching). This is something that has never been done in the UK before. Indeed for most of the MOD's history, names weren't even put to people who worked in intelligence.

People start complaining about the role the intelligence services are being required to play. The first dossier is an utter embarassment using plagiarised, out of date information amongst other things. In September, Blair asks for a second report. The MOD already has a report but it contains no new information. So Blair chucks it and tells the MOD to look for more information and to start again. They find bits of unreliable information including a single-source third hand claim that Iraq could launch missiles within 45 minutes. The Downing Street press office is involved in the drafting of the dossier (even though it is ostensibly an MOD document) and "suggests changes" including ones that change the nature of the 45 minute claim such that they imply that within 45 minutes of an order, WMD could be on their way to targets. They also fail to mention that the source is not at all trustworthy. On top of it all, they are selective with the information they present, choosing for example, to not mention official reports suggesting that attacking Iraq would increase the risk of terrorists acquiring WMD.

The BBC reports, reasonably accurately it seems, what intelligence officials are saying. Downing Street has a grudge against the BBC for the way in which it is reporting on the Iraq crisis generally and decides to go after the BBC, specifically Gilligan. Blair is part of a strategy which relies on getting the BBC by having the supposed source for the BBC's information deny the veracity of what they report him as saying. The government does this by threatening Kelly with losing his work privileges, losing his pension, by instigating high level investigations against him for treason and by publicising his name. These dark forces drive Kelly to his death. He knows what he said. He believes it, but he also likes his job and wants to secure his future. Suicide is probably the only way out.

Now, as it turns out, the intelligence community has confirmed that they had a problem with parts of the dossier. The proceedings have confirmed that Kelly said to others too that he blamed Downing Street for getting involved in the drafting of the dossier. Clearly Downing Street engaged in a process of massaging the truth so that it might support a decision to go to war. If you understand the rudiments of the British Parliamentary tradition, you should understand that that kind of behaviour is indeed considered to be wrong in the UK.

Now you might not consider that massaging to be lying. I do. I think public officials like Blair or Powell have a higher obligation than you or I to find the truth and to present it with the same tilt that the original source presented. But even if you don't think Blair is a liar, can you agree that Blair behaved improperly here. A man died because they wanted to discredit the public news service. A man died because of their obsession with spin.