Further Inquiries…

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.




Try as they might, the Blair administration and British Ministry of Defense are having a hard time scapegoating BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan as a cause of nuclear scientist David Kelly’s apparent suicide. In the past few days of British lawyer Lord Hutton’s inquiry into Kelly’s death, Gilligan has stood by his story and received backing from his editors and one notable colleague, Susan Watts. While maintaining that she felt pressure from her BBC bosses to reiterate the findings of Gilligan’s report, Watts, who also used Kelly as a source in her reporting, validated some of Gilligan’s most controversial claims against the MOD.

For some time, the British government has attempted to paint Gilligan as an irresponsible reporter who took advantage of Dr. Kelly and misrepresented the information he gave. Most notable was Gilligan’s allegation that Alastair Campbell, Blair’s director of communications, had inserted an incorrect claim into the now infamous “sexed-up” dossier that largely constituted the British rationale for invading Iraq. The claim charged that Saddam Hussein had the ability to deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes.

Gilligan reported on British radio’s May 29 Today program that the claim was inserted into the dossier by Campbell, and that British intelligence originally left the claim out because it was attributable to only one source. While the British government insisted that Gilligan had come up with Campbell’s name arbitrarily, both Gilligan and Watts’ testimonies revealed that it was Kelly who originally dropped the media chief’s name, the Associated France-Presse reports:

“BBC journalist Susan Watts provided the tape recording in which David Kelly, a respected defense ministry expert on Iraqi weapons, said that a desperation for evidence had led to arguments between the government and the intelligence services.”

“The inquiry in London heard that Kelly said the government had over-played a claim in its September 2002 dossier that it had evidence Iraq could deploy chemical or biological weapons in as little as 45 minutes.”

“‘It was a statement that was made and it just got out of all proportion. They were desperate for information which could be used,’ Kelly told Watts, the science editor of BBC televison’s Newsnight program.”

Just Saturday, London’s Guardian learned that the 45 minute claim was indeed “based on hearsay information.” The BBC’s role in Kelly’s suicide seems less apparent than that of the Ministry of Defense and Blair administration. The MOD played a process of elimination game with journalists as a way of publicizing Kelly’s name without naming him directly, and Defense Secreatry Geoff Hoon chose to subject Kelly to a grilling by the public Commons Foreign Affairs Committee despite a senior advisor’s request that Kelly be interrogated in private.

Kelly’s leaked names aren’t the only items under scrutiny by Lord Hutton. The facts that he presented to Gilligan as the actual “sexing-up” of the dossier are being addressed almost surreptitiously. The language used in the 45-minute claim, for example, was lengthily mused over by the inquiry. In the midst of the media mayhem, one wonders if the inquiry’s true focus is on the British government’s case for war — and if so, what it would take to get an inquiry started in the US.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate