right... like the Brits couldn't make these POS's dissappear let alone die if they wanted them to??? please
Posted on 10/17/2004 4:52:49 PM PDT by DeaconBenjamin
Greg Dyke, former director general of the BBC, has claimed that the British Government "tried to kill" Andrew Gilligan.
Reporter Gilligan broke the story that British intelligence had "sexed up" a dossier on Iraq that sought to justify Britain's support for US-led invasion of the country.
"The Government tried to kill him," claimed Dyke about Gilligan, who was forced out of his job at the BBC in January in the wake of the Hutton report that inquired into the death of scientist David Kelly. Kelly was the main source for Gilligan.
Dyke was speaking at the Cheltenham Festival of Literature in Gloucestershire on Saturday night.
According to The Independent on Sunday, Dyke also told the audience that he was twice offered a deal by the Government.
this is spin spin spin ..... try and keep the conservatives from getting a leg up... this is the pre beating in britian
Is the "director general of BBC" equivalent to what we would call the "CBS Evening News anchor"?
Apparently not all recycled garbage is usefull. Oh well leave it to beeber.
Bad aim????
I see a movie deal!!!
Jesus, how many idiots are there out there? Who believes this crap? X Files are a TV show, not the real thing!!!
the story makes something beautiful... look so cheap and distasteful.
What was that phrase?
I don't think he would be alive if they really tried to kill him. I mean he is a reporter after all, and this is not the movies.
I'm not a Brit, but it sounds like he is a suit and given the Government involvement in BBC, maybe it is equivalent to a civil service job here.
They also tried to kill Skipper, Mary Ann, and Thurston Howell the 3rd. These attempts failed because MI6 was spending too much time on the assassination of Princess Diana.
Unlike here, defamation laws in Britain have some real teeth. Could Mr. Dyke be subject to suit for slander here?
They tried to kill him, but the Professor fended them off using a coconut-based defense system.
right... like the Brits couldn't make these POS's dissappear let alone die if they wanted them to??? please
If the Brits wanted to get rid of Galligan he would have been gone a long
time ago.
I'm still waiting for someone to point out that Gilligan's story was discredited, and disavowed by the BBC, and led to Dyke being sacked, yet this story makes it sound like Gilligan's story was nonfiction.
LOL! That was the episode where they almost got off the island but Gilligan screwed everything up, right? :)
I know he kept fouling up everyone's plans to get off the island, but really, this is going way, way too far...;)
Toss it. The BBC and those associated with it have no credibility.
Oh brother.
That was a good one! I also like the one where Gilligan outwitted the two Soviet cosmonauts, played by John Kerry and John Edwards starring as themselves.
LOL.....
"They also tried to kill Skipper, Mary Ann, and Thurston Howell the 3rd."
Actually, Thurston escaped the MI6 and moved to Boston, where he became a Senator and ran for President!
Voters didn't like him, though...he was a pansy wind-surfer, too effete for the folks of the US!
Ed
Whats up with Dyke? it sounds really unlikely that the British Government would try to kill Gilligan...
Why bother to kill someone that ended up making an ass of himself? There was no "sexing up" of any intelligence.
A remarkable article by Dr David Kelly, published for the first time today (8/31/03), reveals the government scientist's true views ahead of the war on Iraq and his expert assessment of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In a development which could have a major influence on the Hutton inquiry, Kelly said that, although the threat was 'modest', he believed military action was the only way to 'conclusively disarm' the country.
He also argued that there was evidence Saddam still had chemical and biological weapons and regime change, the policy of the United States, was the only way to stop the Iraqi dictator.
The article was written for a major report on Iraq being compiled a few weeks before the war. Kelly had agreed to write it anonymously, but the piece was never published.
It will be sent to the Hutton inquiry this weekend and provides one of the few direct pieces of evidence of Kelly's views since the row between the Government and the BBC broke out at the end of May.
Kelly apparently committed suicide last month after he was 'outed' as the source for claims by Radio 4's Today programme that the Government had 'sexed up' intelligence against the Iraqi dictator to make a stronger case for war. More
''Only regime change will avert the threat'
Here we reprint Dr David Kelly's article, written days before the Iraq war, in which he assessed the threat from Saddam
Sunday August 31, 2003 The Observer
In the past week, Iraq has begun destroying its stock of al-Samoud II missiles, missiles that have a range greater than the UN-mandated limit of 150 kilometres. This is presented to the international community as evidence of President Saddam Hussein's compliance with United Nations weapons inspectors. But Iraq always gave up materials once it was in its interest to do so. Iraq has spent the past 30 years building up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Although the current threat presented by Iraq militarily is modest, both in terms of conventional and unconventional weapons, it has never given up its intent to develop and stockpile such weapons for both military and terrorist use.
Today Iraq shows superficial co-operation with the inspectorates. Weapons such as 122mm rockets specific for chemical and biological use have been discovered and the destruction of proscribed missiles and associated engines, components and gyroscopes has begun.
Iraq has established two commissions to search for documents and weapons under the direction of Rashid Amer, a former head of Iraq's concealment activities, and a commission has started to recover weapons from Iraq's unilateral destruction sites. (These sites, dating back to 1991, were destroyed by Iraq, illegally, without UN supervision and as part of Iraq's concealment of programmes.) Amer al-Saadi - formerly responsible for conserving Iraq's WMD, now its principal spokesman on its weapons - continues to mislead the international community.
It is difficult to imagine co-operation being properly established unless credible Iraqi officials are put into place by a changed Saddam.
Yet some argue that inspections are working and that more time is required; that increasing the numbers of inspectors would enhance their effectiveness. Others argue that the process is inherently flawed and that disarmament by regime change is the only realistic way forward.
The UN has been attempting to disarm Iraq ever since 1991 and has failed to do so. It is an abject failure of diplomacy with the split between France, China and Russia on the one hand, and Britain and the United States on the other, creating a lack of 'permanent five' unity and resolve. More recently Germany, a temporary yet powerful member of the Security Council, has exacerbated the diplomatic split. The threat of credible military force has forced Saddam Hussein to admit, but not co-operate with, the UN inspectorate. So-called concessions - U2 overflights, the right to interview - were all routine between 1991 and 1998. After 12 unsuccessful years of UN supervision of disarmament, military force regrettably appears to be the only way of finally and conclusively disarming Iraq.
In the years since 1991, during which Unscom and the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) destroyed or rendered harmless all known weapons and capability under UN Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq established an effective concealment and deception organisation which protected many undisclosed assets. In October 2002, Resolution 1441 gave Saddam Hussein an ultimatum to disclose his arsenal within 30 days. He admitted inspectors and, with characteristic guile, provided some concessions, but still refuses to acknowledge the extent of his chemical and biological weapons and associated military and industrial support organisations - 8,500 litres of anthrax VX, 2,160 kilograms of bacterial growth media, 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, 6,500 chemical bombs and 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents remained unaccounted for from activities up to 1991. (Even these figures, it should be noted, are based in no small part on data fabricated by Iraq.)
Less easy to determine is the extent of activity undertaken since 1991. In its 12,000-page 'disclosure' submitted to the inspectors in December 2002, Iraq failed to declare any proscribed activities. Today the truly important issues are declaring the extent and scope of the programmes in 1991 and the personalities, 'committees' and organisations involved.
There are indications that the programmes continue.
Iraq continues to develop missile technology, especially fuel propellents and guidance systems for long-range missiles. Iraq has recovered chemical reactors destroyed prior to 1998 for allegedly civilian activity, built biological fermenters and agent dryers, and created transportable production units for biological and chemical agents and the filling of weapons. Key nuclear research and design teams remain in place, even though it is assessed that Iraq is unable to manufacture nuclear weapons unless fissile material is available.
War may now be inevitable. The proportionality and intensity of the conflict will depend on whether regime change or disarmament is the true objective. The US, and whoever willingly assists it, should ensure that the force, strength and strategy used is appropriate to the modest threat that Iraq now poses.
Since some WMD sites have not been unambiguously identified, and may not be neutralised until war is over, a substantial hazard may be encountered. Sites with manufacturing or storage capabilities for chemical or biological weapons may present a danger and much will depend on the way that those facilities are militarily cancelled and subsequently treated.
Some of the chemical and biological weapons deployed in 1991 are still available, albeit on a reduced scale. Aerial bombs and rockets are readily available to be filled with sarin, VX and mustard or botulinum toxin, anthrax spores and smallpox. More sophisticated weaponry, such as spray devices associated with drones or missiles with separating warheads, may be limited in numbers, but would be far more devastating if used.
The threat from Iraq's chemical and biological weapons is, however, unlikely to substantially affect the operational capabilities of US and British troops. Nor is it likely to create massive casualties in adjacent countries. Perhaps the real threat from Iraq today comes from covert use of such weapons against troops or by terrorists against civilian targets worldwide. The link with al-Qaeda is disputed, but is, in any case, not the principal terrorist link of concern. Iraq has long trained and supported terrorist activities and is quite capable of initiating such activity using its security services.
The long-term threat, however, remains Iraq's development to military maturity of weapons of mass destruction - something that only regime change will avert.
Just a reminder that Gilligan "reported" from Iraq that he was at the Saddam Hussein Airport and there were no troops there as was being reported elsewhere (in other words, he was accusing the US military of lying).
Turns out (surprise!) Gilligan was lying.
Like he and Dyke are here.
Wankers.
Yes, but just a bit "more so".
The way these people work, they never let facts get in the way.
They are still trying to impeach Tony Blair for "lying" about WMD (sound familiar?).
I expect the same will be raised here soon enough.
Of course it was discredited, as was the fact over here that GWB served honorably in the National Guard is ignored while the line about "questions continue" about his service is written time and again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.