They never cease to amaze

Oh, my word. Apparently I was a fool to give him as much credit as I did. The Daily Telegraph for February 5 tells us that

Tony Blair admitted yesterday that when he asked MPs to vote for war he had been unaware that the claim that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes referred only to battlefield weapons, not missiles.

That is, he admitted having no clue what the hell he'd been talking about.

I mentioned on January 30 in discussing the Hutton inquiry that the government's dossier on Iraq's supposed possession of illegal weapons wasn't clear on that point - but perhaps because I knew from the context that battlefield weapons (artillery shells, mortar rounds, and the like) were what was being referred to, I assumed that even if the public was confused on the point, Tony Blair wasn't. I thought he was duplicitous; now I learn he was instead appallingly ignorant. My bad.

But if Blair was confused, it doesn't mean others were.

The Government did nothing to correct the impression given by the September 2002 dossier that the claim referred to longer range weapons, including ballistic missiles....

Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, told the Hutton inquiry he knew that the 45 minute claim referred only to chemical shells, but did not think he had a duty to correct the public misconception.

Or Blair's, it would seem.

I expect it would have been demanding too much of Lord Hutton to have asked Hoon why he thought was Defense Secretary that it wasn't his duty to insure the public had accurate information in the wide debate about a defense issue. In fact, a great deal seems to have been beyond Hutton's ability to absorb information, as noted by Henry Porter, described as "a leading writer and journalist specializing in intelligence affairs," in a "searing indictment" of Hutton's work in the February 1 Observer. Among Porter's comments:

- "[E]ven the intelligence services are open-mouthed at Hutton's credulity when it came to assessing the motives and methods of the political establishment. Hutton's inquiry and report are so distant as to appear unrelated."
- "a mysterious lack of logic"
- "the comparison between the report and the transcript published reveals an editing process that is every bit as good as Campbell's"
- "There is no adequate explanation for Hutton's omission, other than that his inquiry was unconsciously skewed in favour of the Government."
- "It is astonishing that Hutton includes much evidence in his report to expose the behaviour of Ministers, spin doctors and civil servants, but then refuses to draw conclusions which stare him and us in the face."
- "Time and again Hutton lets the political and Whitehall establishments off the hook."
- "the fanatical atmosphere of the Number 10 cabal"

Meanwhile, the BBC's spine appears to be stiffening, perhaps in the wake of clear public feeling that it was given too much of the blame by Hutton's report.

A confidential briefing document taking to task key findings by the Ulster judge reveals that executives throughout the BBC believe that the inquiry report was blatantly one-sided and took little account of the corporation's evidence. ...

The BBC briefing document once again backs large parts of the controversial reports by Andrew Gilligan, claiming that the Government 'sexed up' intelligence to make a stronger case for war against Saddam Hussein.

That again from the February 1 Observer. The brief also charges that Hutton's report was "wrong as a matter of law" in its criticism of press procedures and that it ignored evidence critical of the government.

Blair and his gang aren't out of the woods yet. But does he know it?

Footnote: The Telegraph article ends by noting that protesters dressed as judges threw white paint at the gates of Downing Street while calling the Hutton report a "whitewash." Anything equivalent to that going on in the streets of our own great bastion of free speech? Anything?