Tim Blair

Here's the Media Watch transcript:

But this was the core of Gilligan's story and it's looking better and better.

AG: ...our source says that the dossier, as it was finally published, made the Intelligence Services unhappy, erm, because, to quote erm the source he said, there was basically, that there was, there was, there was unhappiness because it didn't reflect, the considered view they were putting forward...
- BBC Radio Today, 29 May 2003

Here Gilligan and the BBC were right on the money. Last week, the Defence Department's former chief intelligence analyst of Saddam's weaponry, wrote in London's Independent newspaper, that his experts working on the dossier were 'very disgruntled' and 'right to be concerned' as the deadline for its publication loomed.

In my view the expert intelligence analysts of the D[efence] I[ntelligence] S[taff] were overruled in the preparation of the dossier in September 2002 resulting in a presentation that was misleading about Iraq’s capabilities.
- The Independent, 4 February 2004

Tim then argues that:

Media Watch didn’t point out that the intelligence staffers cited were unhappy with their superiors rather than the Blair government, which was the impression created by Media Watch.

I would contend that Tim's argument is irrelevant. Does it matter who the experts in the intelligence staffers were disappointed with?

The point raised by Media Watch is that Andrew Gilligan's core argument is that the intelligence services were not happy with the final dossier, which, according to Gilligan's sources and confirmed by Brian Jones, was "misleading about Iraq’s capabilities".

Media Watch acknowledged that Gilligan "accusing the government of knowing the intelligence was dodgy were Gilligan's own conclusion and he made a serious mistake putting them into mouth of his source, David Kelly."

So it's not a story about the Government misleading the media. It's about Gilligan's argument that the experts within the Intelligence Services did not believe that the final dossier squared with the expert's opinion.

So Peter McEvoy's comment that "Check the transcript to find that we quote Jones' comments as supporting Gilligan's claim that the intelligence services were unhappy with the dossier" is true, rather than the "weasel words" you claim it to be.

Jethro,

Talk about weasel words.

The question behind the Hutton Inquiry was whether there had been improper political interference with the dossier. Hutton found, without reservation, that there had not. Media Watch is quite clearly trying to take a putative fact ("some intelligence analysts were unhappy with the dossier") and turn it into an outright falsehood ("some intelligence analysts were unhappy about political interference with the dossier"). Since this is the key question behind the whole "scandal", of course it matters who they were unhappy with.

Banal fact: you never have to look very hard to find someone unhappy with any report, piece of legislation, dossier, or whatever. It's a complete non-story, made interesting only by the misleading implication that Hutton was wrong.

Timbo .obviously you have no idea of how the public serive works.
Start with Max Weber!

Why would I start with a large barbecue?

I have no idea how the "public serive" works either. I have no idea what a "serive" might be. Did you mean sieve?

it is a big sieve at the moment and getting bigger both here and the UK

A big sieve on the Weber, a fat juicy slice of tender Angus beef, two minutes each side, serve with barbecued onions and some garlic mash. Pour a Penfold's Cabernet or a very cold beer. God, I love summer.

Tim, have a look at the letters from the ABC Panjandrums in the Australian today, and give them what they deserve!

Weasel words. Weasel. Words. Weasel's words. Weasel. Words. Weasels. Blogmire.

LOL. Guess the DTs have set in.