- The report by Lord Hutton has exonerated the British
government of any responsibility for the death of whistleblower Dr. David
Kelly and cleared Prime Minister Tony Blair of having manipulated and falsified
intelligence in order to drag the country into an illegal war against Iraq.
-
- Hutton has produced a whitewash, delivering a ruling
that is virtually bereft of criticism of the actions of Blair, his Director
of Communications Alastair Campbell, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, and
the Ministry of Defence, the civil service, the Joint Intelligence Committee
and the intelligence services. Yet his report was made public at a time
when all the lies used to justify war with Iraq have unravelled.
-
- In the week leading up to its publication, the United
States own chief weapons inspector, David Kay, resigned his position after
stating that he did not believe Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
And his admission has been all but accepted by the Bush administration.
Even the group responsible for providing the intelligence which Blair used
to make the case that Iraq represented an immediate danger to world security,
the Iraqi National Alliance, has now admitted it was false (See: <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/wmd-j29.shtml>Blair's
45-minute WMD claim refuted by Iraqi group that supplied the intelligence).
-
- In order to avoid any political embarrassment for the
government and Britain,s security services, Hutton proclaimed that the
veracity of the intelligence on which the government made its case for
war and the failure to uncover evidence that Iraq possessed any weapons
of mass destruction were "not within my terms of reference.
-
- The government,s claim in its September 2002 intelligence
dossier that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes
was also "not within my terms of reference, the judge stated.
-
- Having ruled out any consideration of the objective truth
of the case for war, Hutton said that all that need be proved was that
the government and the security services believed their intelligence to
be true at the time. No case could be made refuting such a claim without
examining the mountain of misinformation leading up to the war and measuring
this against what is now known about Iraq,s lack of WMDs. But this would
bring into question not only the actions of the government, but those of
the entire state apparatus and the media which conspired to legitimise
a predatory war of conquest waged by British and US imperialism.
-
- Hutton insisted that the government must be judged to
have acted honestly because it used intelligence that had been accepted
as solid by MI6, MI5, and the Joint Intelligence Committee. And he rejected
any allegation that "impugned the integrity of the JIC, which he described
as "the most senior body in the United Kingdom responsible for intelligence.
-
- Hutton found that the government had not embellished
the September dossier and that Campbell and the head of JIC, John Scarlett,
had acted correctly in discussing between them its formulations. It was
not improper for the JIC to take into account suggestions made by the government
to strengthen the dossier. It could not be ruled out that "the desire
of the prime minister to make the dossier as strong as possible may have
subconsciously influenced the JIC to make it stronger than it would have
been. Nevertheless the dossier was "consistent with the intelligence
available and had been signed off on by the JIC. It was this body, representing
all the heads of the security services, that had fully approved the dossier,s
findings, Hutton said.
-
- He levelled his fire exclusively at the BBC and its reporter
for the Today programme, Andrew Gilligan. Kelly,s death on July 18 came
after he was named as the source of a report by Gilligan that there was
widespread disquiet within the intelligence services as to the quality
of the government,s September 2002 intelligence dossier. In May 2003 Gilligan
had said that his source (Kelly) had said the government had included the
45-minute claim, "probably knowing it to be false, in order to "sex
up its dossier, and that Campbell was responsible.
-
- On every issue, Hutton found the BBC at fault and the
government blameless. It was not possible to draw a definite conclusion
as to what Kelly had told Gilligan, Hutton said, and he may have told him
that Campbell was responsible. But, "I am satisfied Dr Kelly did not
say the Government probably knew or suspected the 45-minute claim was wrong
before the claim was inserted in the dossier. He added, "the allegation
reported by Mr Gilligan that the government probably knew the claim was
wrong or questionable was unfounded.
-
- The BBC was "remiss for not having checked Gilligan,s
story and responding to the complaints made by Campbell and the government.
Its editorial procedures were "defective and both its managers and
governors were at fault.
-
- Kelly was criticised for having spoken to Gilligan and
breaching civil service rules, and was partly responsible for creating
a grave situation.
-
- The government was cleared of any responsibility for
Kelly,s death and Blair of playing any "deceitful, underhand or duplicitous
role in identifying the scientist as a whistleblower.
-
- Hutton was satisfied Kelly took his own life and that
no third party was involved. He was also satisfied that none of those involved
in the events leading up to his death would have believed that anything
they did would lead Kelly to commit suicide.
-
- The decision to name Kelly as the source of Gilligan,s
reports was judged to be correct, as otherwise the government could have
been accused of a cover-up. Geoff Hoon and the MoD, for which he is responsible,
had behaved properly.
-
- The assault on the BBC is fully in line with the inquiry,s
purpose. Kelly,s discussion with Gilligan did reflect disquiet within the
security services, as the reporter had maintained. Blair,s readiness to
support the Bush administration,s drive to war had raised considerable
concern within sections of the ruling elite, who feared that he was endangering
Britain,s own interests by aligning himself too closely with Washington,s
aggressive unilateralist stance"thus alienating Europe and possibly
destabilising the Middle East.
-
- Such divisions were troubling for the British ruling
class, particularly because they erupted against a background of massive
and sustained public opposition to war that had seen millions take to the
streets in protest. The danger was that a tactical dispute within the bourgeoisie
might enable the more fundamental opposition towards war within the working
class to find expression.
-
- The Hutton inquiry, therefore, not only diverted attention
from the broader issues under dispute. It was aimed at enforcing a consensus
across the official political spectrum. This was exemplified by Blair,s
speech in parliament after the findings were issued, in which he stressed
that differences over war were entirely legitimate but there should never
again be a public questioning of anyone,s political motives or personal
integrity.
-
- Hutton,s verdict is meant to serve as a warning that
differences within the ruling class must be contained and that it is time
to close ranks. At one point in his summary he explained that he had been
concerned as to why it had not been possible to resolve the differences
between the BBC and the government and "batten down the hatches.
-
- The BBC,s defence of Gilligan,s story had threatened
to undermine not only the government, but the entire machinery of the state.
Hutton,s verdict sets out to extract a high price for this error and to
make sure that neither the BBC nor any other news outlet oversteps the
bounds again.
-
- Within two hours of the report being made public Gavyn
Davies resigned as chairman of the BBC,s governors. The government has
already made clear that the BBC,s charter will be looked at and that it
will be brought under greater official scrutiny.
-
- Blair was clearly well pleased with the inquiry, stating
in parliament that he was "immensely grateful to Lord Hutton and that
the report "leaves no room for doubt or interpretation. We accept
it in full.
-
- In the short term he may indeed have secured a political
victory, but it will turn out to be pyrrhic. Outside of the rarefied environs
of parliament, Hutton,s report will convince no one of the government,s
innocence of the charge that it led Britain to war on false pretexts.
-
- The fundamental issue"one that affects the lives
of millions of people throughout the world"is that the Iraq war was
mounted on the pretext that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Whatever Hutton says, this claim has been proved to be entirely false.
The 45-minute claim was only one example of a mass of intelligence that
has since been discredited. Lies were told on an almost unprecedented scale.
Yet the only criticism levelled by Lord Hutton is against the BBC and Gilligan
for a news item drawing attention to the liars and their lies.
-
- It is indicative that Hutton,s report was leaked to the
Sun newspaper, which is published by the billionaire Rupert Murdoch. This
meant that the first comment made on Hutton came from the most strident
supporter of the war against Iraq and Blair,s alliance with Washington,
as was clearly the intention.
-
- The Hutton inquiry is emblematic of a fundamental political
shift that has taken place within Britain. It is not the first judicial
inquiry to exonerate a government. But the brazen and naked character of
the whitewash indicates that there no longer exists any real commitment
to democracy within ruling circles. Just as in the United States, government
is no longer accountable in any form to the people. Politics has become
the exclusive preserve of a financial oligarchy whose interests are defended
by government and opposition parties alike. To this end all methods are
deemed permissible and no democratic check is considered acceptable.
-
- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/hutt-j29.shtml
-
-
- Comment
- From Gerry Frederics
-
- Dear Mr. Rense!
-
- The Hutton report clearing Tony Blair is typically British.
It reminds on the Lusitania report, the Rudolf Hess report, the Irving-Lipstadt
trial, the list of horrendously dishonest British 'reports' and trials
is endless, going back all the way to Henry the 8th, and possibly even
further. Did anyone really expect Hutton to come to an honest conclusion?
Is such man even capable of arriving at an honest conclusion? I venture
to say, NO. Had he been such a rare individual, he would have never gotten
the job. Did anyone NEED an inquiry? Isn't it obvious to anyone with even
a smidgen of brain power that Blair and his bosses Bush and Sharon are
monstrous liars? Has anyone ever heard of a British head of state who wasn't?
I think the last head of state of any nation who was an honorable man was
Admiral Doenitz and you know what they did to him.
-
- Gerry Frederics
- <http://www.germancross.com>www.germancross.com
|
