the BBC is biased beyond any reason lately.Well, I and most people disagree with you on this.Almost everyone accepts the government lied, including a large % of Blair's own party. People who never watch the BBC, like the ussian and German leadership also say it was all lies.You cannot level such serious accusations at your government on the basis that they did. I cannot follow your position at all.The allegations against the government are that they sexed up information. Since Alistair Campbell is Director of Communications, he and his department are thus responsible. It is of course hard to work out which individual did it, Campbell as Director is responisble either way.It is of course possible that Capmbell was deceived into emitting reports which were false, however the government denies this.Taking student essays from 10 years ago, and claiming it as proof that Iraq had WMD is a cock up of awesome proportions. The BBC reported this, as did every other form of media.

To my understanding the BBC reported that they spoke to a senior official who was responsible for preparing the dossier and defended that claim against denials from the governement. The gov then leaked the name David Kelly, saying that Kelly was not senior and was not invilved at all in preparing the dossier nor had even seen it. The BBC then refused to aknowledge David Kelly was their source leading you and me and everyone else to beleive someone more senior had admitted the dossier had been sexed up when in fact no such thing had happened. I understand that Kelly has said he did not say the things the BBC are atributing to him and that he is woudl be amazed that they coudl come up with the story they have been running based only on what he said. I am not saying the government did not sex up whte dossier but the BBC was wrong to imply they had someone who had proof. If I am wrong I will take back what I said of course.

from the washington post:Kelly told the committee he had spoken to Gilligan, but said he did not believe he was the main source for the BBC report, or for a follow-up article in the Mail on Sunday. That article said the source had accused Alastair Campbell, Blair's top aide, of insisting the intelligence dossier, which was published last September, include a dubious claim that Iraq could deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes. "I don't see how [Gilligan] could make the authoritative statement [he] was making from the comments I made," Kelly told the panel. But in comments made to journalist Tom Mangold, a friend, Kelly said he believed he was the source for about 60 percent of Gilligan's report.The BBC statement raised several possibilities: that Kelly lied to the committee about what he told Gilligan; that Gilligan hyped or otherwise distorted what Kelly had said; or that Gilligan had another source for the specific allegations against Campbell.In a statement today, Gilligan said that "I want to make it clear that I did not misquote or misrepresent Dr. David Kelly." and from the nyt:The announcement further undermined the authority of the hotly contested report in that Dr. Kelly, 59, a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq and an adviser to the Ministry of Defense, was not a senior intelligence official involved in preparing the dossier, as the network had called its anonymous source.

To my understanding the BBC reported that they spoke to a senior official who was responsible for preparing the dossier and defended that claim against denials from the governement. The gov then leaked the name David Kelly, saying that Kelly was not senior and was not invilved at all in preparing the dossier nor had even seen it. My understanding as well. Having worked as a journalist, the technical term for the government's statement is "lie".The government like any other large outfit does not let juniors talk to the press. Dr. Kelly's job involved this frequently. Like many others he would have seen the dossier after publication, (or before), and as an authority on this subject was possibly the single most authorative British source on this subject. This is why the Beeb were talking to him.The BBC then refused to aknowledge David Kelly was their source leading you and me and everyone else to beleive someone more senior had admitted the dossier had been sexed up Standard practice to protect your sources. Dr. Kelly did not hold high executive rank, and was all the more credible for that, since he was junior enough to actually do the work himself, not rely upon others work exclusively.when in fact no such thing had happened.Sorry, perhaps I misunderstand you ?Are you seriously claiming that the "dodgy dossier" was true and honest report ? Even Labour ministers are admitting that it was bollocks publicly, and with enthusiasm. I understand that Kelly has said he did not say the things the BBC are atributing to him and that he is woudl be amazed that they coudl come up with the story they have been running based only on what he said. No big news story is based upon a single source. You do checks, and these turn up extra information. Even if he had made exactly these statements other input would have been sought.but the BBC was wrong to imply they had someone who had proof. Dr. Kelly was an eminent scientist who had studied Iraqi WMD for a decade, in a court of law an expert witness of that standing would have sufficient weight to convict. At no time has the BBC said it relied solely upon a single source.In my opinion they had sufficient proof, and the fact that they would have talked to many sources rather than relying upon one adds weight.If I am wrong I will take back what I said of course. An honourable position.Of course, we are unlikely to get hard evidence. Conversations are ephmemeral, as was the mindset of the speakers.

By "no such thing happened" i mean the BBC implied they had someone who knew for a fact that the dossier had been sexed up (as he was inolved in the process of sexing it up) instead of simply the theory of an expert from within the governement. I think it is possible to argue the governement made bad choices about what to emphasize from their intelligence but it is their job at the end of the day; to interpret the intelligence. The BBC's job, on the other hand, is to report the truth. They shoudl have run a story that said "scientist within ministry of defence thinks dossier has been sexed up based on his knowledge of Iraq's arsenal" or whatever. They misrepresented him. Then the governement started a MASSIVE row over it and he finds himself in the position of possibly bringing down the prime minister of his country when that surely wasn't his intention. horrible.

I heard the initial report, and though I wasn't listening closely, the report was of the form "the government bloke we talked to said it was made up". To me it was ambiguous, which given we are dealing with people in the know bad mouthing their masters is to be expected.but it is their job at the end of the day; to interpret the intelligence. Agreed, and there is always room for error. However to me an honest error cannot explain the "45 minutes from armageddon" statement, or the lifting of support materiel from old student theses.We were told there was absolute proof of WMD. We were told of the lorries of death carrying evil factories. We were told of chemical warfare plants. We see no weapons, nor of programmes, and not one official from Iraq admitting to them.One error ? Hardly. They shoudl have run a story that said "scientist within ministry of defence thinks dossier has been sexed up based on his knowledge of Iraq's arsenal" No they should not. That would be to compromise a source.They misrepresented him. you may be right.Then the governement started a MASSIVE row over it and he finds himself in the position of possibly bringing down the prime minister of his country when that surely wasn't his intention. horrible. Horrible indeed. However, being involved in large scale events is hardly ever nice.

A cartoon character, partner of butthead wrote this...The difference between Christian fundamentalists and Islamic ones is that the Christians at least had the balls to draw their swords and meet their oponents in combat where the best man wins. The Muslims take the pussy way out and kill themselves. They behave like animals and wonder why most civilized countries treat them as such. October 7th, 1571 Battle of Lepanto. Look it up. Get back to us.

Clinton said some interesting stuff on TV last night. These quotes are from CNN. I wonder how much he is being paid by Halliburton? It seems like every time the Democrats get something to use against the Bush administration Clinton comes in and defends Bush! It's bizarre in general in he US (as opposed to Britain) how partisan bickering is has been so subdued since Sept 11th (it's been 2 years already!) whereaes in Britain the opposition demand that Blair step down every time he farts! I guess it all has to do with public support at the end of the day. Democrats are too afraid of alienating voters, the same reason Gore refused to allow Clinton to be associated with his campaign in the first place."I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying 'we probably shouldn't have said that,'" Clinton told CNN's Larry King in a phone interview Tuesday evening. "You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. You can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now." Former President Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for " in Iraq. "At the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what [Saddam] had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes, and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. "But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'" Clinton also told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

I wonder how much he is being paid by Halliburton?Whatever it is, a fraction of what other Democrats are being paid by vested interests.Democrats are too afraid of alienating voters, So what's new ? Fact is Americans want a variety of stupid and nasty things. the same reason Gore refused to allow Clinton to be associated with his campaign in the first place.Not what I heard, nor do I believe you heard that either.Whatever you think of clinton, he was very very popular, I saw polls that said that if he'd been allowed a 3rd run Americans would haver voted him in. I'm not saying he was a good President, but I'd want him on my team."You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. You can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now." Mr. Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar.You are not.As such he is capable of subtlety and is smart.What I read in all this being what Brits call "damning with faint praise". Americans are stupidly loyal to their leaders during war, so if Clinton had slagged Bush, he would have looked disloyal. However he has got the message across that as an export in the domain of running a supoerpower he judges Bush to be a failure.Clinton also told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." This is well known to be true, since Clinton never had the balls to do anything about it, and Saddam was using them on his own people.

I know Clinton was popular but Gore's advisors really kept him away frm the campaign until the very end. They didn;t want to "taint" Gore on morals. A huge mistake in a a campaign of blunders my view. Cost them the presidency. Bush shoudl have been destroyed by Gore. What a waste. Worst campaign ever. What is a lockbox anyway?

It was indeed an official spin that Clinton is tainted and Core needed to distance himself. Not clear if it was really the reason. Undoubtedly Bill would have been a great help in money raising and generally in rallying the dems under Gore's banner. They wouldn't care if the dress was stained, grand jury was lied to, or what is the real meaning of "is". What it came down to in the 11th hour was dems showing at the voter booths in Florida which could have been greatly affected by Billy Bob. Instead, I think Billy had been raising money for Hilly. In terms of who americans vote for, i nominate George Cloney. If he could take some time off his career he'd beat anyone handily, no matter from which party he runs. Popularity of US public figure is based on the basis of how good an actor he is. How he looks, how well he speaks, etc. Good looking, well-spoken, and popular actor should defeat anyone, which Arnold hopefully will demonstrate in CA.

Is it really the opposition that's demanding that Blair step down? I had the impression that it was almost equally his own party.Arnold Schwartzenegger is well-spoken? (I have the impression that he is playing with running for governor mostly to keep his name in the papers while he has a movie out. I doubt he's in any way serious about it -- who would really want to step in as governor of Cali while they have a $38 kazillion deficit staring them in the face? There's probably at least two more terms of brutal beatings waiting for California Governors based on the state's fiscal woes. You'd either have to believe your own press releases or have a masochistic streak if you wanted to be the governor of California.)

Is it really the opposition that's demanding that Blair step down? I had the impression that it was almost equally his own party.Have you read "Yes minister" ? The opposition sit oposite you, your enemies are in your own party. Arnold Schwartzenegger is well-spoken?not being American, I can't judge how is received, but he can deliver a line without stuttering, learn his lines without Autocue, and comes across as honest. Yes he plays malevolently evil entities bent on destroying the world, but he does that with integrity and one feels when watching Terminator that he genuinely feels that all humans should die, and one must respect others beliefs.I have read his platform, and it appears on the rational end of Republicanism, including the facts that he is not "pro-life", possibly more so than most people have a masochistic streak if you wanted to be the governor of California.) The secret to success is low expectations.Everyone knows that California is in deep shit, merely stopping it getting deeper can be spun as success.The incumbent is suffering from the fact that things got worse on his shift, even though most of it wasn't his fault. He's paid the price and T3 may get the benefit.

QuoteOriginally posted by: DCFC<br"You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. You can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now." Mr. Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar.You are not.As such he is capable of subtlety and is smart.What I read in all this being what Brits call "damning with faint praise". Americans are stupidly loyal to their leaders during war, so if Clinton had slagged Bush, he would have looked disloyal. However he has got the message across that as an export in the domain of running a supoerpower he judges Bush to be a failure.Clinton also told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." This is well known to be true, since Clinton never had the balls to do anything about it, and Saddam was using them on his own people.As did I. Clinton was being casually condescending to a man who is clearly in a different IQ dimension than Clinton

he judges Bush to be a failure.I was disappointed that King didn't ask how the Juanita Broderick rapeallegation is coming along, and if he believes that this distracted him fromhis duties to fire missiles into the Sudan to destroy Osama's camel and tent.