Already a subscriber? Log in
How should we react to all this? One response would be to doubt Mr Woodward’s account. As one of the two Washington Post journalists who helped to bring down President Richard Nixon, he is disliked in some right-wing circles. But Plan of Attack is in no sense anti-war. Based on interviews with 75 participants, including three-and-a-half hours with Mr Bush, the book is an old-fashioned reporting job which is totally opinion-free. Of course, any journalist can make a mistake, but this seems to be a meticulous work. I suppose it is possible that Mr Tenet told Mr Woodward that he had passed on to the British government something he had not, though it is not easy to work out why he might do so. My instinct is certainly to trust Mr Woodward’s account.
We therefore have to ask why the British government, or No. 10, chose to ignore the CIA’s strong advice, and to repeat the 45-minute claim in the 24 September dossier. We now know from the Hutton inquiry that British Intelligence did indeed have only one source for the claim, and that there were weapons experts in the Ministry of Defence who expressed their misgivings. We also know that Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6, and Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, believed that the WMD cited in the dossier were only battlefield weapons capable of being fired a very short distance, though the dossier did not make that clear. (Mr Blair said in the House of Commons on 4 February this year, perhaps a little implausibly, that he did not appreciate the distinction as late as 18 March 2003, two days before the invasion of Iraq.) The question is this: why, given the doubts of some of its officials, and its belief that the WMD were only short-range, did the British government choose to ignore the advice of the CIA, and go ahead and repeat the 45-minute claim several times as though it related to long-range ballistic missiles?
The central allegation in Andrew Gilligan’s various reports on 29 May 2003 was that No. 10 ‘sexed up’ the September dossier. He also briefly suggested that the government had done this knowingly — a suggestion he subsequently withdrew — and a few days later he implicated Alastair Campbell in the Mail on Sunday. Lord Hutton found Mr Gilligan’s central allegation ‘unfounded’. But he did not have the benefit of interviewing American politicians and officials. Might he have come to a different conclusion if he had spoken personally to George Tenet? When the head of the main intelligence service of our major ally, which was making the running in the preparations for war, strongly warns against relying on a particular piece of intelligence, is it prudent to make repeated use of that intelligence in a dossier which seeks to make the case for war? Of course it is not prudent. It was a piece of wilful, reckless exaggeration — or, if you prefer, of sexing up.
The official deadline of 10 May for bids for the Telegraph Group may be postponed for several days. Two names should emerge by the end of the month, and the victor could be declared by the end of June.
Here is a thought. Many people say — perhaps I have done so — that those parties who bid for all the Hollinger International titles stand a better chance than those who bid only for the Telegraph Group. The reasoning is that a buyer may face tax liabilities if the Telegraph Group is sold separately from the other titles. But might Hollinger not get a better price if it sells the titles individually, on the basis that the sum of the parts is more valuable than the whole?
There is certainly evidence that the value of the Telegraph Group is being talked up — whether by Lazard, which is handling the sale, or others, I do not know. Last Sunday’s Observer claimed excitedly that the prospect of the Telegraph Group making ‘pre-tax profits of between £45 and £50 million’ is fuelling a ‘bid fever’. In fact, Lazard predicted — in its investment memorandum as long ago as January — that the group would make £47.9 million this year.
Michael Parkinson announces that he is taking his chat show to ITV. The Times tabloid clears the whole of page three. So does the tabloid Independent. The Guardian devotes most of page three, as does the Daily Telegraph, for which Mr Parkinson writes a sports column. Note that Parky has not died, nor is his programme being axed. It is merely moving channels. Need I say more?
The Daily Express’s defection to the Tories has been taken seriously in some quarters. In fact, though the paper has supported New Labour since 1997, its readership has remained obstinately Tory. Analysis of YouGov’s three most recent monthly opinion polls suggests that the voting intentions of Daily Express readers break down as follows: Tory 42 per cent, Labour 34 per cent, LibDem 16 per cent. New Labour may not stand to lose very much by the Express’s defection.
Melanie Phillips, a fellow columnist on the Daily Mail, has her own website, which I recommend to those who wish to keep abreast of British neocon thinking. Find it at melaniephillips.com. This week she mentions ‘the newly politically correct, appeasenik and imbecilic Spectator magazine’.
Trending
Also in Politics
Also by Stephen Glover
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in