Whitewash - Dr. Kelly Evidence
Not Included In Hutton's Report

The Scotsman - UK

11 August
"As probably the most senior intelligence community official working on WMD, I was so concerned about the manner in which intelligence assessments were being presented in the dossier that I was moved to write ... recording and explaining my reservations.
"The existing wording is not wrong but has lots of spin on it." - Martin Howard, chief of Defence Intelligence, on what a senior official had written.
14 August
The inquiry heard of Tony Blair's request to bring back David Kelly from a training day before a trip to Iraq for a second interview. Geoff Hoon overruled Sir Kevin Tebbit and ordered Dr Kelly should appear in public before the Commons, foreign affairs committee because a private hearing would be "presentationally difficult". Sir Kevin had said there should be "some regard for the man himself" (Dr Kelly). "He is not on trial."
John Scarlett, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, said Dr Kelly should face a "security-style interview", evidence which went against claims that normal MoD disciplinary procedures were followed.
Memo from Sir David Omand, Cabinet Office intelligence and security co-ordinator ... "recorded the Prime Minister's view that before we decided on the next steps that should be taken, it would be sensible to go into a bit more detail into the difference between what Dr Kelly had said and what Andrew Gilligan had claimed."
18 August
An e-mail of 5 September, 2002 showed Alastair Campbell ordered a "substantial rewrite" of the WMD dossier after a meeting with Mr Blair.
Jonathan Powell, Mr Blair's chief of staff, later wrote of the dossier: "The document does nothing to demonstrate a threat, let alone an imminent threat, from Saddam."
Tom Kelly, one of the Prime Minister's spokesmen, wrote in an e-mail: "This is now a game of chicken with the Beeb (BBC) - the only way they will shift is if they see the screw tightening."
19 August
In a memo to Alastair Campbell, John Scarlett said that changes had been made to the text (of the dossier) "as you proposed": "We have strengthened the language on current concerns and plans, including the executive summary."
An e-mail from Philip Basset, one of Mr Campbell,s advisers: "Very long way to go, I think. Think we're in a lot of trouble with this (the dossier) as it stands now."
20 August
Alastair Campbell floated the idea to Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, that Dr Kelly's name be leaked to a friendly newspaper - he was later persuaded this was not a good idea.
Sir Kevin Tebbit said: "I was told the Prime Minister was following this very closely indeed ... the intelligence was that he wanted something done about the individual (Dr Kelly) coming forward."
26 August
An e-mail showed Downing Street made a desperate final plea for stronger evidence for the dossier: "No 10 wants the document to be as strong as possible within the boundaries of the available intelligence. this is therefore a last (!) call for any items of intelligence that the agencies think can and should be used."
27 August
Geoff Hoon, having heard an official had admitted talking to the BBC, said: "It did appear that this perhaps was an opportunity to demonstrate that unauthorised contacts with journalists would be looked at seriously."
1 September
Janice Kelly, Dr Kelly's widow, said the Ministry of Defence told her husband he would not be named and he felt betrayed when he was.
3 September
Dr Brian Jones, head of the Defence Intelligence Staff analysing WMD, said the "shutters came down" before the reservations about the dossier in the intelligence community - especially the 45-minute claim - had been discussed. "Our reservations about the dossier were not reflected in the final version."
Dr Jones also said a chemical weapons expert said there was a "tendency to over-egg certain assessments".
4 September
Geoff Hoon's special adviser, Richard Taylor, said Mr Hoon was present at a meeting to discuss a "naming strategy" for Dr Kelly. Mr Hoon had not mentioned this in his evidence.
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




This Site Served by TheHostPros