This is a third page of your comments.
The following opinions represent the balance of views we have recieved:
This is democracy in action. But I wonder about the effects this is going to have on the global war on terrorism with this pressure on the two leading political figures who have led the campaign against Saddam Hussein and recent terrorist attacks and threats in Iraq. Is the timing right?
Imani, Sierra Leone We really are a put down Britain and the media yet again have caused upset and distress which this time have led to a terrible tragedy. I don't pretend to know who is 'guilty'; what I do know is that we voted for this government for the right reason and we must maintain our support and faith in them when things go wrong as well as when they go right.
Hayley, UK
 |  Had military action not been taken, the message to Saddam would have been clear  |
I find it incredulous that the news media seem intent on saying that the dossier was simply 'the case for war'. Some people seem to suggest that we went to war for no other reason other than the content of that document. That is a ridiculous simplification of the events. Has anyone actually read the dossier? If they had, perhaps they would note that it concludes that there is a need for full compliance by Saddam; it did not advocate war! Once the UN had failed to back up its 1441 position, had military action not been taken, the message to Saddam and all other dictatorial states would have been clear. I think that would have been a very dangerous message to send out.
Tony, England Whatever will come out of the Hutton inquiry, UK will be reinforced as an example of democracy because it has allowed the inquiry to take place. I fear this sort of inquiry would never have existed in France. I wish that part of the truth will come out and will show that the anti-war countries were not entirely wrong despite what has been asserted in the British and American tabloids (which are all but an example of democracy).
Jean-Claude Jesior, France
This inquiry is pointless, a smokescreen, to divert attention away from the occupation, which is bringing misery to the people of Iraq.
Tim Hunt, England
| We are forgetting that the important issue here is sorting out the mess that is post- Saddam Iraq |
The Hutton Inquiry seems to me to be a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. With all the media focus and public attention devoted to pointing accusatory fingers, we are forgetting that the important issue here is sorting out the mess that is post- Saddam Iraq. As for the 45 minute weapons claim, I was under the impression we went to war because Saddam had flouted International and UN Law for the past twelve years. Because the noble and responsible members of the UN Security Council (France, please stand up!) threatened to veto resolutions, war was the only option.
Marty, UK I hardly think today's questioning of Mr Blair was rigorous enough to show anything. In Parliament Mr Blair gave the most impassioned speech of his entire career, to wage war on Iraq and yet he seems to say that the report was only the work of the JIC. Something just doesn't ring true.
David Weight, UK
Dr David Kelly was a top civil servant. He should have never spoken to any media source. The BBC used the war to prove it was not a mouthpiece of the government. With Tony Blair willing to speak at the inquiry is it possible that he and the government were being honest?
Richard, London
Tony Blair convinced his party to take this country to war on the basis that Iraq had WMD that could be launched in 45 minutes. We now know that this was single sourced information from a second hand informant, namely an Iraqi. Why are the Government so concerned that Gilligan's report also had a single source. It would appear even more so, that a decision was made to support Bush, who was going to wage war anyway, and the flimsiest of cases was put together to justify it. Blair should now resign.
Alan, England
| Why did it have to take the death of Dr Kelly for the truth of this debacle to come out? |
If it wasn't for the BBC exposing what most of the population cynically thought then the so called 'democratic liberation' of Iraq would have been passed of as another great accomplishment from our beloved leader 'Tony'. As we now know it was all a sham and the government should understand that they have been found out at last. Why did it have to take the death of Dr Kelly for the truth of this debacle to come out?
Dave H, Scotland The death of one man has led to so much investigation. If Dr Kelly was the source then I see no reason why that should have been kept secret - the government should accept individual and collective responsibility and accountability. How about investigating the actions of those who said "YES" to war and caused the death of so many innocent lives? Or is this a case of removing attention from unanswered questions that say we really should not have gone to war. Yes, put Blair and Bush on trial, and let us lead by example by destroying our own mass weapons of destruction first.
Emma C, UK
I'm tired of all the people claiming there was a moral basis for attacking Iraq. Yes, Saddam was a cruel dictator, but an attack would only have been moral if we didn't support other cruel dictators through selling them arms or loaning them money. We always have done, and we still do. Morality is not born from hypocrisy. Attacking a regime because we don't like it sets a dangerous precedent which can be used by every other country on the planet. That's not what I call moral.
Gez Smith, Bristol, UK
People seem to be moving to the opinion that it was right to invade Iraq to topple Saddam, regardless of all the fuss about WMD and "45 minutes" etc. They could be right, but that is not the point, our PM's first instinct was to spin and mislead, in order to make his point instead of presenting a true reason to the British public.
Ken, UK
No one will be to blame, "It's not my fault." "I can't recollect saying that." "I don't remember ever meeting him." Just the normal wriggling and writhing you would expect from people trying to cover their backs and protect their positions. How can anyone have any faith in these people?
Nick brown, UK
| Mr Blair misled the country with his reasons for going to war |
Whatever the rights and wrongs of going to war are there is one thing that is clear. Mr Blair misled the country with his reasons for going to war. If he had used the moral ground such as to protect Iraq's population from a tyrant then he may well have received more support. However he did not and chose to use WMD as his reason. Since then he has been found wanting as has his own government. They will be brought down by their own lies and incompetence and it will serve them right.
Tom Cox, England This inquiry isn't about whether the Government 'sexed up' the September dossier and it isn't about the reasons for attacking Iraq. It's about why this man felt it necessary to take his own life. From what I have read, it was because of the intolerable pressure that was on him as a result of being publicly named and that was the responsibility of the MOD. Whether Geoff Hoon sanctioned it or not, it is his Department and he is responsible for it. If he had a shred of decency, he would resign. But he hasn't, so he won't.
Rob, Bournemouth, UK
What I want to know is, in the event of the Hutton Inquiry's report being critical of the BBC's standards of reporting and journalism, can we rely on the Governors of that organisation to dismiss Mr Gilligan from his post, and for the senior news management to offer their resignations? In my opinion this is the only way in which any kind of faith in the impartiality of your news service can ever be restored.
Iain, UK
It seems to me that the only person speaking the truth was Dr. Kelly. He states that Downing Street took a single uncorroborated fact about Iraq's WMD capability, and exaggerated it 'for impact'. All the evidence shows this to be the case. Even Mr Scarlett admits the weapons referred to were not in fact 'long-range missiles' and that there may have been 'confusion'. Clearly the PM wished us all to be 'confused', if not directly misled. Andrew Gilligan clearly embellished Dr. Kelly's words; so he was quite within his rights to deny having said some of the things attributed to him.
I only hope that what happened to him at the hands of government and the BBC doesn't deter other's from letting us know their concerns. The sight of our government scuttling around for more and 'stronger' intelligence on which to base their case for war is horrifying, and it is thanks to Dr Kelly we are seeing the truth of what went on, even if every government minister and spin doctor continues to deny it.
Julia Russell, New Zealand
| The US & UK failed to provide solid evidence to support WMD claims |
What we've seen in the run up to the war was that the US & UK failed to provide any sort of solid evidence to support WMD claims, and to compensate for this failure they went on to intimidate anyone who questioned the WMD assertions. The UK Government applied the same policy to the BBC when they ran the story on over hyped evidence; this backfired and tragically a good man caught in the middle of it lost his life. I think that the British and American public, who continue paying for the war with their blood and money, deserve to know the truth and hopefully the Hutton inquiry will shed some light on that.
Sergei, Russia
When are the boys and girls working in the news media going to understand that the Hutton inquiry is boring, boring, boring, boring? Yes, the nation does understand what it's all about, honest! And yes, the nation does know who is responsible for going to war with Iraq, and that our soldiers are still being killed. And for what?
And yes, the nation does see all involved bending over backwards to deny responsibility Now get on and report the REAL news and put this one on a backburner where it belongs. Get this... we're bored sick with the amount of time and interest that YOU the media are devoting to this boring Hutton inquiry.
Keith Kettlewell, England
There is only one person responsible for Dr Kelly's death and that's Dr Kelly himself. After all is said and done he took his own life. If his wife and children did not foresee it, is it right to expect any one at work to have been in a position to prevent it?
Anthony, Wales
To go to war was the right thing to do. Saddam had been thumbing his nose at the international community for many years. His behaviour towards his own people has been dreadful. However that does not excuse the government from the charge that they greatly hyped up the threat that Iraq posed to its neighbours and this country. From all I have seen and read, they are guilty whichever way you look at it.
Treffry Thompson, England
| Iraq's non-compliance posed a genuine threat to the UK national interest |
As Kelly said, the September dossier was of a piece with the institute Of Strategic Studies findings re: Iraq and broadly compatible with the various reports made by UN weapons inspectors up to '98. The wonder is how few people actually read the dossier or the background material before pronouncing judgement on Iraq's supposedly non-threatening status. It needs to be restated that Iraq's long-term non-compliance with UN resolutions triggered the conflict. It's simple - unless near every weapons inspector was making stuff up, Iraq's non-compliance posed a genuine threat to the UK national interest.
David, UK Lots of people seem to think the 45 minutes and WMD are "Clearly the reason to attack Iraq". The media may wish this but it is a very minor reason. Attack on Iraq is amply justified on moral grounds. As to those who keep saying the UN didn't support etc, let us not forget that many of the UN countries are run by evil dictators who rule by terror just like Saddam. What a laugh that they want a vote!
A Agarwal, England
The BBC misused and misquoted an informant who was career was at a dead-end and who was emotionally fragile if not disturbed. One should never trust the government or the press--each has its own agenda and its own, sometimes dark, intentions.
Joe Lewelling, USA
Whilst the events surrounding Mr Kelly's death are indeed tragic, the central issue is that a person in the governments employ briefed against the government. The BBC has reported the contents of these as fact. I can only imagine the ferocity that the Thatcher government would have dealt with this issue - and is it really any less than anyone should expect? The accusations raised by the BBC/Dr Kelly bring the credibility of the government into question on the most pressing current international issue - I want a strong government that will vehemently defend themselves in the face of (what they see at least) as inaccurate reporting on such.
Craig H, UK
There is only one conclusion that the Hutton inquiry can come to and that is that the media are responsible, they are supposed to report the news not make it!
Neil Price, UK
Clearly whatever evidence there was of WMD was faulty, and misinterpreted. What we need is evidence that the government was acting in good faith, believing that evidence. It would be terrible to think that our leaders simply chose to believe it because it suited their purpose at the time. I don't think that we will ever know the truth.
C.M.Sheard, UK
| There never was a clear and present danger, a fact which becomes more apparent as time passes |
Yesterday's comments from Mr Scarlett were most revealing. He confirmed that the 'evidence' of an imminent threat from Iraq was based on a single uncorroborated source, we knew that this source was quoting (or not) second hand information, we knew that this information related to a theoretical threat in the future (to quote David Kelly from the Susan Watts transcript: "it was not so much what [the Iraqis] have now but what they would have in the future.) and now we find out that the 45 min claim didn't even relate to SCUD missiles or WMDs in any size shape or form but rather "battlefield mortar shells or small calibre weaponry." There never was a clear and present danger, a fact which becomes more apparent as time passes.
Des, Ireland I have 2 questions: is there anybody in government that is in any way trustworthy and are the BBC now a rule unto themselves. This whole affair has made me feel sick and saddened that the government felt they needed a document to get the approval they needed and this has not only cost Dr. Kelly's life but the lives of all of the servicemen lost so far.
Larry, UK
Some time ago on a similar BBC forum I said we needed an inquiry to establish whether we can trust the Prime Minister and his government. The longer this inquiry goes on, the more despair I feel that we have a government that we simply can not trust.
Ali, UK
As has been said, but looks like it needs to be almost endlessly repeated, the issue was about the existence, or not, of an Iraqi threat to other countries. There clearly wasn't one, to the extent that when the leaders of the regime faced not only the end of their power and wealth, but also the end of the lives and they used all that they had, it was just bluster. Don't give us so-called WMD, or delivery systems, or instruction manuals, or workshops - all self-respecting countries have a military - give us any evidence at all of a real threat.
Steve, UK
All this talk of "spin" confuses the reality of modern communication. The Government does not "lie", it presents its facts in the way most favourable to its own aims. As does the BBC, as do we all. The difference is that the aims the government serves to support are in the country's best interests. The BBC however, is concerned with its market share and Gilligan with preserving his name as a journalist. If you disagree then please tell me why the PM, a man apparently obsessed with image, spin and not wanting to appear unpopular, would enter into such a clearly unpopular war? Could it be he felt it was the right thing to do for the country he serves?
Chris, UK
| The interrogation of Dr Kelly did not give him the respect that is due to any human |
There is no place for the kind of uncontrolled anger displayed by the MP who was supposed to be an investigator seeking the truth. The interrogation of Dr Kelly did not give him the respect that is due to any human, regardless of what he may have done. To ask someone aggressively a question that he could not possibly answer ('chaff' does not volunteer to be thrown out into the face of the enemy) was designed simply to elicit an emotional response of spurious value other than to 'win points'. As for his meaningless apology to the family - it is hard to forgive those who do not acknowledge their errors.
John M, London, England The 'conspiracists' amongst us will always believe that this (and any other) government is plotting to deceive us all for their own devious means and it doesn't seem to have any effect on the conspiracists what evidence is produced to the contrary. This is because they are fundamentally suspicious of all government. To a degree this is healthy scepticism, but when taken to extremes it becomes crankiness and rather boring. Dr Kelly's story is fast becoming lost in the miasma of detail and the BBC seems to be particularly adept at focussing on only those details that reinforce its basic conspiratorial belief that the government was lying. So far I have heard nothing to suggest the government was doing anything underhand and only Gilligan seems to have been doing anything wrong.
Peter, UK
One of Britain's senior intelligence advisers has defended the claim that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes. Former MI6 chief John Scarlett, now chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, said the 45 minutes claim came from a single source quoting a senior Iraq military official - suggesting the information was second-hand. Is this really the best our intelligence service can do? Why was it not corroborated?
Jim, UK
| Are people saying that they would have been perfectly happy to sit back and let Saddam continue in power? |
Who cares if the Saddam regime really did have WMDs or not? He was an evil dictator who oppressed his own people nonetheless - with or without WMDs. That is reason enough for his regime to have been destroyed. Are people saying that they would have been perfectly happy to sit back and let Saddam continue in power, just as long as he didn't have WMDs? That's like saying you don't care about the Iraqi people as fellow humans - you only care if there are actually weapons capable of hurting us in the West!
Chris Melville, UK It's been coming for some time, but the government spin machine is proving to be it's downfall. As long as somebody else takes the blame the cost matters not. If Mr Blair has had any consultation on the matter then he should resign. The buck stops with him and he blatantly cannot plead ignorance.
Phil Glover, United Kingdom
I am staggered by those who still feel that Andrew Gilligan and the BBC are the villains of the piece. It is patently obvious to anybody who has been keeping in touch with this sorry saga that Dr Kelly was desperately worried that intelligence was being misused.
Michael, UK
| This investigation is just another attempt to divert attention away from the key issues |
Firstly I think it was correct for the BBC to question/ investigate the government's wild claims, which obviously were not true. This investigation is just another attempt to divert attention away from the key issues i.e. the question of where are these weapons. This clearly was their reason (given to the public) to attack Iraq. It is sad that we lost Mr Kelly, but what about the innocent Iraqis and our soldiers? I am ashamed to have a Government like this.
Miles, UK The inquiry is to find out why someone took the tragic decision to end his life. The process has got nothing to do with determining the rights and wrongs of going to war as some quarters are trying to use it for. Nor has it got much to do with clearing the names of those being interviewed by piling blame on the other party.
Matt, UK
The BBC and other media cannot accept that they have made a mistake and continue to throw as much muck around as possible to try and get the spotlight off them.
Peter B, UK
| What emerges from Hutton is no more than the predictable cut and thrust of politics |
Some people find it self-flattering to support the most complex, sinister theories about what the government did and why. What emerges from Hutton is no more than the predictable cut and thrust of politics, which people can interpret as they choose. But if dark motives are ascribed to what look like reasoned decisions, such fevered criticism needs more explanation than many critics of Blair and the government seem able to share with the world. The pity of Hutton is that the media - having pursued the Kelly story in a vehement way - now wants to be blameless. You could choke on the hypocrisy.
David, UK This Inquiry is losing its way. There are so many different agendas being aired that the basic facts are being bypassed. Fact 1: Kelly was employed by the M.O.D. Fact 2: He, without authorisation, was speaking to the media. Fact 3: He was quite correctly reprimanded by his line manager and interviewed by the select committee. Fact 4: His evidence varied.
Ron Crowhurst, England
I admire the British for the lengths they go to prove a point about the truth and to get the guilty. Most of all the benefits of having a free press, as I read the postings on the website, it gave me goose bumps to think if such a thing can happen in the East, and how governments get away with wrong doing - by denials, and with their cover using the OSA, and I wonder when the East will learn. You're truly Great Britain.
Rajadorai, Singapore
| How can we use data from the intelligence services to make decisions ever again? |
The entire argument between the Government and BBC is a distraction from the important point. While the exact '45 minute' claim is in dispute, no-one denies that our intelligence services said that there were WMD capabilities in Iraq. They were wrong. How many millions of pounds a year do we pay the intelligence services, and what is the value we get from that if they cannot say "Does Iraq have WMD: yes or no?" How can we use data from the intelligence services to make decisions ever again?
Ned Lowe, UK The government is unable to hide the fact that they fitted the evidence to the desire for war. Same in the US. Same in Australia. We should be getting rid of this government - it is clearly not working for us, it is using our money to create war and instability.
Freddy, US
This is all becoming a bit like 1984. I was sure that Mr Blair replied "Emphatically not" when asked whether he had authorised the leaking of the late Dr. Kelly's name. A great deal was made of the unambiguous nature of the reply at the time - now I can't find any reference to it anywhere. I also see that in fact Mr. Blair chaired the various meetings when the strategy for disclosure was discussed. One has to be frank: does this not make Mr. Blair a liar?
David Halliday, Scotland
It is quite likely that Blair will survive this debacle, by sacrificing Alistair Campbell, Geoff Hoon, and possibly Jack Straw. The parallels with Harold Macmillan in 1962 are remarkable. Like Macmillan, Blair is unlikely to retain electoral credibility, and we can expect a change in the Labour leadership before, or immediately after, the next election. About time too, this government is rotten to the core.
Tom, UK
We are now told that Mr Gilligan released Dr Kelly's name as the source of the Newsnight story, via his emails to committee members. Yet the BBC says that journalists must keep there sources identities secret. Do they mean only keep them secret when it helps the BBC?
Gary Gatter, UK
Where is the very silent and extremely clever Mr Brown? He's been rather distant of late. Waiting to become our future PM?
Christopher Brookes, UK
The Hutton enquiry is an expensive waste of time - and just another level of spin. It diverts attention away from looking for the real reasons why we went to war with Iraq hinted at by Dr. Kelly's "Many dark actors"... The motives of Tony Blair and the shabby people who surround him are much darker and deeper than anybody has so far speculated.
Mike Richards, Saudi Arabia
| I feel that it is highly likely the whole strategy of 'outing' Dr David Kelly was approved at the highest level |
I work for a large organisation with a hierarchical structure. All matters which I deal with which I feel the chief executive should be aware of are reported properly within that structure. On that basis, given the importance of the issue to the government, I feel that it is highly likely the whole strategy of 'outing' Dr David Kelly was approved at the highest level. Nevertheless attempts are being made to indicate that Mr Hoon (for example) did not fully consult with the Prime Minister and that he should be the one to resign. The trend of throwing ministers to the wolves to avoid damage to the prime minister is one for which Mrs Thatcher's government was noteworthy. I thought New Labour was different?
Tim, UK It is becoming clearer with each passing day and each witness that this government has been more lied about than lied itself!
Lucy, UK
I am horrified to see the UK intelligence service made to look so foolish because of the power given to the unelected people in the communications office who are altering documents that have influenced our involvement in this disastrous war
Anne O'Connor, Canada
As the Hutton inquiry proceeds it becomes more and more clear the what has killed Dr David Kelly is the collapse of his system of values. After having worked for more than twenty years for the cause of true peace and disarmament, he could not live anymore with the evidence that these goals were nothing but words in the mouth of the most senior political leaders. Like Dr Kelly, who happens to be only a couple of years older than me, I have accumulated much evidence over the 24 years that I have been working on Iraq's WMD..... At no point between 1979 and 1991 did Western governments really object to Iraq's development and use of WMD.
Dr Andre Gsponer, Switzerland
In my opinion it was not Gilligan report that undermined Blair's administrations credibility. It was Blair himself who destroyed his credibility when (knowingly or without knowledge) presented to the parliament a plagiarized thesis as further intelligence and afterwards chose not to punish the ones responsible for it. If these events hadn't take place before I believe that the BBC would be more careful before running a single source story.
Dominikos Konstadinidis, Greece
| Blair is in trouble if no WMDs are found, regardless of the outcome of the Hutton enquiry |
Public confidence in the Blair government is at an all-time low and not surprisingly. Forget all the smoke screen about who said what, when, relating to Dr Kelly. Prior to the 'dodgy dossiers' around 75% of the UK population were against invading Iraq. After publication, the number against dropped to around 50%. Now that we all know the truth about Iraq's WMD threat, the number against Bush and Blair's war in Iraq has risen back to 75% Blair is in trouble if no WMDs are found, regardless of the outcome of the Hutton enquiry.
John Farmer, UK Has no-one else spotted the wonderful irony that Gilligan's story was that the Government had at worst exaggerated a story for its own ends and at best had relied on a single, unverified source for its story, whereas in fact the Hutton inquiry has shown that Gilligan himself is guilty of precisely what he accused the Government of. If we as a country do not like or trust the Government we can get rid of it, every five years if we wish. The BBC is not so democratically accountable, even though it is publicly funded. ...........The BBC has grossly abused its position by using its status to promote an anti-government, anti-war message. As regards its news service, the BBC should exist to tell me factually what is happening in the world. It should not be so arrogant as to try to tell me what to think.
Stephen, UK
Mr Blair, with his willingness to lie and deceive about anything, even to get us into a war, has done untold damage to our nation. People are right not to trust him but sadly his dishonesty makes people less likely to believe anyone else in authority. Without trust and honesty our society cannot function. Thank God for the BBC and Andrew Gilligan. The labour party would be most unwise to enter the next election with this warmonger at their helm.
Derek, Scotland
So, er, what about all that Iraq oil? And where are the weapons that obviously weren't able to be launched in 45 minutes? And where are all these terrorist friends of Saddam who had access to all the weapons that couldn't be launched in 45 minutes? Actually, when you step outside all the spin and think about it, was anything related to Iraq that we were told before the invasion actually true?
Steve, UK
| Neither group is going to come out of this smelling of roses |
This whole thing gives as some insight into the kind of people who govern us and the kind of people who report the news to us. Neither group is going to come out of this smelling of roses. We should not forget that as PM, Mr Blair is ultimately responsible for the way that this country is run. Sadly, these days it seems that neither he nor his cabinet colleagues will have the decency to admit that they together with the BBC have hounded a good, decent man to his death. The days when politicians actually served their country and their people rather than their own self interest are long gone and I don't expect to see any resignations among those who are truly to blame.
Johno, UK Following the Hutton Inquiry (as I have done day and night in the last week and half), this is my analysis so far: The government's strategy i.e. No. 10, the allegations are completely false and we have a water tight alibi, Sir John Scarlet. The MoD strategy is that we had to name Dr. Kelly because we don't want to be accused of covering up, besides the allegations are very serious see Sir Kevin statement (copied from the BBC website), government's integrity was at stake "and in those circumstances we have to weigh that against individual considerations". However, I am not sure of the BBC's strategy - it seems a bit fragmented. On this basis I think the government is winning the argument but obviously we'll have to wait until all the evidence is out in the public domain and Lord Hutton publishes his report!
Dr. Dumbuya, UK
I think that what has come out of the inquiry has been absolutely fascinating, and has revealed some unbelievable things about the BBC, the MoD, the Foreign Office, No 10 and many other organisations. I thought the evidence from various people within the BBC was particularly insightful, and both Andrew Gilligan and Susan Watts showed the differences that there are between journalists. Watts like she's just walked out of journalism school and was absolutely meticulous and by the book - very clever with her wording in terms of giving evidence. Andrew Gilligan was quite clearly just looking for something that wasn't there and was looking for sensationalism. I think this has been and will continue to be a very interesting inquiry, and nobody will walk away blame free.
Elizabeth, England
It seems that Dr Kelly's knowledge of Iraq's WMD capability given in evidence could have made the government 'uncomfortable' at least, and could have been 'devastating' according to Gilligan. At what point will the enquiry look into the actual cause of Dr Kelly's death? When will the UK media be brave enough to question his 'apparent' suicide?
Andy, UK
So we now find via Number 10's official spokesman that Mr Campbell "floated" the idea of leaking Dr Kelly's name despite all his protestations earlier...I think we are all totally fed up with this government's obsession with "spin" and media management. I know that honesty and clarity are not words normally associated with politics, but this whole affair leaves one wishing that for once, that could be true.
John K, UK
This inquiry just shows how much the government is willing to lie to the people. The government will do anything to manipulate people into believing what they want them to believe.
Martin, England
It seems clear to me from the documentary evidence on the Hutton Inquiry web site that although Campbell may not have inserted the 45 minutes claim into the dossier he appears to have had total control over the detailed presentation and someone clearly moved it from an inconspicuous place into the Executive Summary. Campbell at least approved the move of the 45 minutes claim but did he instigate that move?
John M, LyneMeads, UK
BBC reports are far too biased. Dr Kelly was a scientist who has actually worked on biological weapons, this paragon of virtue character simply never existed. He knew Saddam had these weapons; he helped put them there in the first place! It is becoming clear to most reasonable people, that Gilligan helped by the BBC, went to air with a pack of lies, they should apologise to the government and they should apologise to Dr Kelly's family and they should apologise to the people of this country for 'intentionally' misleading them. And I bet you don't print this along with all the others from other people that you have discarded, as I said one sided, biased and deeply duplicitous, is today's BBC. I for one will start lobbying to prevent the BBC's charter from being renewed; it is time that the BBC provided its own funding instead of biting the hand that feeds it!
Lucy, UK
| Poor Dr Kelly is fed to the wolves with no help from The Spinners |
The Government and its Spin Doctors have had ample time to decide on what the likely questions would be and how the answers should be formulated. The whole thing is being Stage Managed by them. We will never know the truth as it would be too damaging going right to TB himself. Isn't it funny how nobody in Government ever takes responsibility for anything - whilst at the same time poor Dr Kelly is fed to the wolves with no help from The Spinners. Heads should have rolled by now, Geoff Hoon and Tom Kelly at least. Was the case for war made - answer NO! Not on the terms TB set out or was fed to us. Please Mr Blair resign and take Big Ally with you. It's now Gordon Browns time - at least he's honest - and the Spinners will become unspun. To the BBC; we trust you more than the UK Government.
Chris, Scotland The question on whether the BBC is providing balanced and impartial reporting on the Hutton inquiry depends very much on which national newspaper people are reading. The Telegraph, Financial Times, Guardian, Sun, Times and Express all, generally, support either the Government or the war in Iraq. So, if you read these you're likely to believe the BBC reporting is extremely biased towards itself. If you're a Mirror or Mail reader (first against the war and the second anti-Labour), then you'll believe the BBC is doing a wonderful Hutton reporting job. As a journalist, I reckon the BBC's doing a pretty fair job - and certainly better than the politically or commercially motivated newspapers or other TV media which have their own agendas to follow.
John, Somerset, The quesUK
Did anyone actually believe the forty-five minute claim and the 'imminent threat' we were presented with prior to the war? Did anyone not think it was government spin at the time?
Jason, UK
Dr Kelly stated that he 'did not think he was the main source of Gilligan's report' and also that he did NOT use the word 'Campbell' as Gilligan stated during the hotel meeting. There were other inconsistencies. Did the BBC get themselves off the hook by admitting (albeit belatedly) that Dr Kelly was their source? What easier way for them to protect the anonymity of their REAL source. They had enough evidence to convince everyone that Dr Kelly WAS their source. Would the REAL source now please step forward and put an end to this situation and say to the British public what you wanted us to know in the first place i.e. who lied, who sexed-up etc?
Rod Macleod, Scotland
Can Lord Hutton recall Campbell to the witness box to confirm verbally his comments on the discussion with Hoon which was stated and confirmed by Godric Smith today. It is obvious this was omitted from his evidence, surely not by accident! It did take place and he should have informed the enquiry. Campbell must tell the truth and will fall on his own sword if he does not. Hoon will be slated so this would benefit Blair and Campbell - 'The Untouchables'
John Murdoch, England
I don't believe the dossier was "sexed up". They would have known that once the war was over any statements they made or documents produced would be gone over with a fine tooth comb. As sad as it is the only person responsible for Dr Kelly's death is Dr Kelly. It was his decision to commit suicide nobody else's.
John Charles, UK
Having heard all details from the Hutton inquiry to date, I don't think anybody comes up smelling of roses. At the BBC, Andrew Gilligan obviously did not use the correct language in his reporting and made it sound more juicy than it warranted. However it now seems to me that the Government did harden the wording of the original dossiers to suit Tony Blair's mandate of going to War. The identification of Dr Kelly's name clearly lies with the Government - the MOD is part of that institution and I don't think without No. 10's OK they would have given his name. At the end of the day the reporting was wrong at the BBC but I would prefer to have them rather than a State run entity, we are a democracy after all with the right of freedom of speech. The Government are in a prominent position of trust - yet in this case Dr Kelly was in my view all but thrown to the wolves. We will never know Dr Kelly's version of events but we have others and it is all very sorry. And to all those who say we should just get on with rebuilding Iraq, Mr Blair saw it as his moral duty to go to War. Therefore, when are we going to take on Zimbabwe, the warring factions in the Congo, etc because the Presidents in those countries are all as bad as one Mr Hussein.
Jo, South Wales, Wales
| Constitutionally Tony Blair didn't even really need that Commons vote authorising war |
OK, Tony Blair took a decision which you may or may not agree with but which he as PM had every right to take based on his assessment of the intelligence information he was receiving at the time. Indeed, constitutionally Tony Blair didn't even really need that Commons vote authorising war, although admittedly it would have been virtually unprecedented had he not sought the agreement of parliament. What all those who oppose Tony Blair really want is constitutional reform removing many of the powers that the PM has by way of the Royal Prerogative, but they either don't realise this or it's consequences, or just want a half decent Tory PM with the same powers instead. And now we have an inquiry, which lays bare the inner workings of government in a completely unprecedented way, and still many are either convinced the government is covering up or won't give it any credit at all. Lord Hutton, who is not a government collaborator and as far as I know nobody whom he has requested to appear before him has so far refused, so what's the problem? It seems to me that the spin is coming from basically one place, the media, because of its insatiable desire for a constant flow of information which cannot possibly assessed properly on the fly by anybody. I firmly believe that what the government does can be described as "counter-spin", because after all, what do you do in the face of constant demands for information, which is usually distorted in some way or another by the news medium concerned to suit it's own audience? I suggest we all wait for Lord Hutton to report his findings before coming to any conclusions.
Steve, UK
If some people believe that the BBC was not accurate in running their story they can always change the channel. What can one do when their government has, in my view, lied to them (with the dodgy dossier)? Let's not forget that Blair rushed in a war (that has left 6,000 Iraqi civilians dead, seriously undermined the U.N. authority and has so far failed to secure the wmd) although Saddam regime posed no imminent (according to Blair himself) threat but only a future one.
Konstadinos Stikos, Greece
I fear that once again Campbell and Blair will spin the truth, until it becomes a meaningless war of words. The BBC has a right to inform the public of what Government is doing or attempting to do. It maintains our fundamental freedom of free speech. This Government seems hell bent on destroying any person who is "off message". Hopefully Blair will get his dues, in the next General election. The MOD never disclose the information such as the source of a leak. Dr Kelly was in my opinion set up by Blair and co. to take the fall for a war that has achieved nothing for the people of Iraq, but everything Bush wanted in his greed for oil.
Steven Thomas, England
The BBC has behaved appallingly. Gilligan has used Dr Kelly for political reasons (hence the email to lib dem researcher) a point which has been sidelined by this websites biased reporting. Changes are needed from top to bottom in the BBC.
Steve Matthews, UK
At least there is a PUBLIC INQUIRY in the UK. We cannot expect the same in the USA and most of the media is controlled by friends of G W Bush, the most notorious being Rupert Murdoch who controls FOX TV and numerous papers. The UK press gives us Canadians a wide range of views from Left to Right.
L B Murray, Canada
| Although the Hutton inquiry is shedding more light on the dossier it is still a red herring |
It does seem that the BBC should have made an apology and some qualification of the original Gilligan report. However the evidence does seem to show that Alistair Campbell was named by Dr Kelly, the tape recording points to that. It also seems Dr Kelly was of the opinion that the 45 minutes intelligence was unlikely to be true. Although the Hutton inquiry is shedding more light on the dossier it is still a red herring. I hope that one of the recommendations is for a full inquiry in to WMD and the call to war. The BBC is likely to receive some censure, but please continue to search for the truth. No WMD has yet been found. Despite an imminent threat of USE being claimed so that the inspectors could not continue their work. But please be careful in your journalism and talk to each other. It's nonsense having bunches of BBC journalists seemingly acting independently.
Frank, UK What the government seem to forget is that they were given a mandate by the people of this country. They are accountable to US as the electorate. (I believe Mr Blair said that in one of his first speeches as PM.) Now, I'm ashamed to say I voted for them - I won't again. They would not know the truth if it jumped up and slapped them. They seem determined to rubbish anybody and everyone who opposes them. It's time they came clean and displayed some of the integrity that they famously preached to us about when they first came to power!
Rod, UK
I don't know whether Hutton plans to interview members of Dr Kelly's family, but they could well help shed light on how HE felt about it all, as alas his side of this sorry saga is no longer available.
Luke Albarin, UK
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
Hutton report: video
