After Hutton

[blufive]

I actually watched a large part of Hutton's summary live on TV, before turning it of in disgust once it became clear that he had accepted virtually all the government's evidence without question and dismissed everyone else's out of hand.

So it's been reassuring to see that, after a brief stunned silence, at least some of the press has come out all guns blazing. What's more, it appears much of the public agrees - current polls are likely to make unpleasant reading for Downing Street.

Some juicy bits:

Dr Brian Jones, former head of the Nuclear, Chemical and Biological branch of the Defence Intelligence Staff, writing in Wednesday's Independent:

In my view the expert intelligence analysts of the DIS were overruled in the preparation of the dossier in September 2002 resulting in a presentation that was misleading about Iraq's capabilities.

Robin Cook, speaking in the Hutton Report debate last Wednesday:

I shall pick up on the exchange between the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister earlier this afternoon. If I heard it correctly—I may have misheard it—the hon. Gentleman asked my right hon. Friend whether he was aware by March that we were considering battlefield weapons rather than wider long-range weapons of mass destruction.

If I heard him correctly, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said no. I am bound to say that I was surprised by that answer. The House will recall that in my resignation speech [made shortly before the March debate] I made the very point that we were considering battlefield weapons and that Saddam probably had no real weapons of mass destruction. I invite my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who will reply to the debate, to consider with his advisers whether it might not be wise to qualify the Prime Minister's answer when he replies. I find it difficult to reconcile with what I knew, and what I am sure my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister knew when we had the vote in March.

In between all the parliamentary language, Mr Cook just accused Mr Blair of lying to parliament. Later in his speech, he accused the government as a whole of withholding relevent information from parliament before the war vote. I can't find any official Government response to those accusations - it appears they can't even be bothered to deny it.

The Independent, reporting on leaked BBC legal advice:

The BBC report says: [in June 2003] "Campbell falsely told the [Foreign Affairs Committee of the House Of Commons] that all the drafts on the 45-minute claim remained the same from the time they were first submitted to him. Campbell falsely told the FAC he had not suggested any change to the 45-minute claim.

"Campbell excluded that point in his memorandum to the FAC. Campbell also excluded other changes he suggested from his memorandum to the FAC. The only sensible conclusion was he was deliberately selective in what he disclosed to the FAC, despite having the original drafts in front of him."

In other words, Campbell lied to parliament about his role in the drafting of the September 2002 dossier. Or he lied to the Hutton enquiry, which seems unlikely given how unpalatable his Hutton evidence was.

Having read much of the reported evidence to the Hutton enquiry in the press at the time (during one particularly controversial week, I was on holiday with friends, and getting through up to 3 broadsheet newspapers a day) I was expecting at least some criticism of the government in the report. As such, I was prepared to stay fairly relaxed and await Hutton's conclusions. Suffice to say I was somewhat disappointed.

It now appears that my views are shared by a great many people, who patiently heeded the government's calls to "wait for Hutton". Blair obviously (mis)interpreted this silence as disinterest. However, in the aftermath of what the majority of the public regard as a whitewash, he is getting 6 months' worth of bottled-up anger.