Tweet
As I see it, it's supposed role is to invesitage the case of the "Campbell" Irai WMD Protfolio and the events leading to the death of Dr. E. Kelli.
Now I udnerstand that obviously the truthfulness of the "campbell" portfolio must be established, and that a single 'victor' in the "government vs. BBC" case must arise.
But from the evidence gathered so far (and I follow it quite closely on SKY) I see that the BBC practically admits the reporter was biased, jumped to conclusions and infact "sexed up" his own report.
From the evidence of Dr. Kelli himself, and other people who interviewed him, it is obvious that he never thought the government was lying, nor did he think that the BBC report could have possibly be based on his leaksm since the BBC report was exagurated, inexact and over-confident.
The BBC accused the government of knowingly presenting fake data or data which the government was sure was incorrect.
The inquiry has so far shown the government to be clear of such blame. Even the source, Dr. Kelli supposedly did not usggest any of that, but rather was unpleased that info such as the 45 minute claim, was presented, since it was not double-sourced.
So infact, the so called 'intelligence expert' (which he wasn't) only claimed that the info was less than 99% correct. Not that it was 100% incorrect.
So why are there still demonstration by dumbasses on the streets, who call Blair, Campbell, and the Minister of Defense (forgot his name) "liars" and "spin doctors" when it is by now clear that the only lie or spin was the part of BBC reporting?
Furthermore, since it is obvious that Dr. Kelli had commited suicide, most probably following the media pressure on him, following his own decision to leak out things to BBC, what is there to investigate about his death?
Was Dr. Kelli unaware that leaking such things would undoubtedly lead to very high media attention? Was he not aware that it will cause him troubles in his employment with the MoD?
I fail to see the point of establishing who or why was his name published. For what reason is there not to publish his name?
If he was the source of the information leaked to the BBC (as it is accepted), on what grounds does he have a right to avoid public attention and cross-examining, and defend his point of view?
I'm sorry, but if he felt "threatened" by the questioning by the ministerial committe, maybe he should have thought of that before he went on talknig to the press. And if he's so damn shy that fear of the media drove him to suicide, what the hell got him talking to journalists in the first place?
If he was unstable and took his own life, having been exposed as a source of a leakage, well I'm sorry, but it's no ones fault or responsability other than his own.
I see no reason be it legal or moral, for his identity to be kept secret. Infact only the revealing of his identity could have shed light on the question whether there was truth in the BBC reprot, or (as we are wittnessing) there wasn't.
So could someone living in Britain explain to me what the whole damn fuss is all about?
Now I udnerstand that obviously the truthfulness of the "campbell" portfolio must be established, and that a single 'victor' in the "government vs. BBC" case must arise.
But from the evidence gathered so far (and I follow it quite closely on SKY) I see that the BBC practically admits the reporter was biased, jumped to conclusions and infact "sexed up" his own report.
From the evidence of Dr. Kelli himself, and other people who interviewed him, it is obvious that he never thought the government was lying, nor did he think that the BBC report could have possibly be based on his leaksm since the BBC report was exagurated, inexact and over-confident.
The BBC accused the government of knowingly presenting fake data or data which the government was sure was incorrect.
The inquiry has so far shown the government to be clear of such blame. Even the source, Dr. Kelli supposedly did not usggest any of that, but rather was unpleased that info such as the 45 minute claim, was presented, since it was not double-sourced.
So infact, the so called 'intelligence expert' (which he wasn't) only claimed that the info was less than 99% correct. Not that it was 100% incorrect.
So why are there still demonstration by dumbasses on the streets, who call Blair, Campbell, and the Minister of Defense (forgot his name) "liars" and "spin doctors" when it is by now clear that the only lie or spin was the part of BBC reporting?
Furthermore, since it is obvious that Dr. Kelli had commited suicide, most probably following the media pressure on him, following his own decision to leak out things to BBC, what is there to investigate about his death?
Was Dr. Kelli unaware that leaking such things would undoubtedly lead to very high media attention? Was he not aware that it will cause him troubles in his employment with the MoD?
I fail to see the point of establishing who or why was his name published. For what reason is there not to publish his name?
If he was the source of the information leaked to the BBC (as it is accepted), on what grounds does he have a right to avoid public attention and cross-examining, and defend his point of view?
I'm sorry, but if he felt "threatened" by the questioning by the ministerial committe, maybe he should have thought of that before he went on talknig to the press. And if he's so damn shy that fear of the media drove him to suicide, what the hell got him talking to journalists in the first place?
If he was unstable and took his own life, having been exposed as a source of a leakage, well I'm sorry, but it's no ones fault or responsability other than his own.
I see no reason be it legal or moral, for his identity to be kept secret. Infact only the revealing of his identity could have shed light on the question whether there was truth in the BBC reprot, or (as we are wittnessing) there wasn't.
So could someone living in Britain explain to me what the whole damn fuss is all about?
Comment