The Hutton Report
Posted: Jan 22nd 2004, 6:00 am
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3400303.stm
Tony Blair's future is on the line... the issue is whether he lied to the House of Commons when asked whether he had authorised the leaking of Dr. Kelly's name to the press. (Dr. Kelly was the government's weapons expert who, it had been suggested, came up with the '45 mins' claim. He killed himself)
Blair says he didn't lie. He 'stands by the totality of what he said', whatever that means. Basically, the arguments are two-fold.
1. Blair claims that 'the totality' of what he said is what matters. He was apparently not the one who authorised the 'leak' of Dr. Kelly's name. He claims he had no knowledge. The fact is, that he was in the meeting (chairing it I think but I could be wrong) where the decision was taken.
2. What is the definition of a 'leak'? Is it a bona fide positive 'let's go to the press and release his name', or is it enough to (as happened in this case) make it known to the media that if they can come up with a name, the government will confirm that it is the correct one? I'm failing to see the distinction here really. Apparently, given the information at the fingertips of most journalists, only the most inept would not have picked Dr. Kelly very quickly. Ring the government offices, 'was it Dr. Kelly?', 'yes'...
I fail to see the practical difference, but Blair claims that he thinks a 'leak' only covers the first situation, and not the second. When asked whether he 'leaked' the name, his honest answer was 'no'.
I don't know about you, but this sounds like BS to me.
Could this be the end of Blair? I don't know. I sort of hope so because I think he panders to Bush WAY too much, and is dishonest, and has broken his manifesto pledges. But when I look at the right-wing fascist alternative of Michael Howard, frankly I'll take Blair.
Who knows... maybe the Liberal Democrats may finally have their day...
Tony Blair's future is on the line... the issue is whether he lied to the House of Commons when asked whether he had authorised the leaking of Dr. Kelly's name to the press. (Dr. Kelly was the government's weapons expert who, it had been suggested, came up with the '45 mins' claim. He killed himself)
Blair says he didn't lie. He 'stands by the totality of what he said', whatever that means. Basically, the arguments are two-fold.
1. Blair claims that 'the totality' of what he said is what matters. He was apparently not the one who authorised the 'leak' of Dr. Kelly's name. He claims he had no knowledge. The fact is, that he was in the meeting (chairing it I think but I could be wrong) where the decision was taken.
2. What is the definition of a 'leak'? Is it a bona fide positive 'let's go to the press and release his name', or is it enough to (as happened in this case) make it known to the media that if they can come up with a name, the government will confirm that it is the correct one? I'm failing to see the distinction here really. Apparently, given the information at the fingertips of most journalists, only the most inept would not have picked Dr. Kelly very quickly. Ring the government offices, 'was it Dr. Kelly?', 'yes'...
I fail to see the practical difference, but Blair claims that he thinks a 'leak' only covers the first situation, and not the second. When asked whether he 'leaked' the name, his honest answer was 'no'.
I don't know about you, but this sounds like BS to me.
Could this be the end of Blair? I don't know. I sort of hope so because I think he panders to Bush WAY too much, and is dishonest, and has broken his manifesto pledges. But when I look at the right-wing fascist alternative of Michael Howard, frankly I'll take Blair.
Who knows... maybe the Liberal Democrats may finally have their day...