Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Will Kelly's Death Help Salvage the Blair Administration?
Aired July 21, 2003 - 09:08 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Now to London. The latest now on that investigation into the death of a British scientist said to be reaching the highest levels of the British government and probably the highest levels of the BBC as well.
The BBC admits that David Kelly was the source of a very damaging report of the Blair administration. That report challenged the claim Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes' notice. Kelly was found dead Friday afternoon, a slit wrist.
Jeff McAllister is "TIME" magazine's London bureau chief, to talk more about where this story may go now. Jeff, hello, good afternoon there.
I don't know the latest over the last few hours. Has something changed on this just yet?
JEFF MCALLISTER, "TIME" LONDON BUREAU CHIEF: No. I think the big news was yesterday when the BBC admitted that Kelly was his (ph) source. And since then we've just been seeing things sorting out from there.
HEMMER: Is it possible right now that we're seeing a reversal? At the end of last week, these fingers are being pointed at Tony Blair. Is now happening that it's now pointed back at the BBC? And if so, why is that the case, Jeff?
MCALLISTER: Well, they're pointing back at the BBC because it does appear now that Kelly was the source, because the BBC says so. But there is a discrepancy between what Kelly said he told the BBC reporter and what the BBC says he told the BBC reporter.
That's still -- of course, we don't know who's at fault for that discrepancy. It could be that Kelly overstated the thing to the BBC reporter who faithfully did reported what was said. Or it could be that the reporter made up or sort of conflated things and didn't get it right.
But in any event, it's good for Blair because it means that no longer is -- possibly, depending on how it comes out, it's no longer that Blair's government lied about the 45-minute claim, but that there's been a mistake made by others, namely either Kelly or the BBC.
HEMMER: Tell us as we go through this, if he was -- Dr. Kelly was the only source for the BBC, what does that mean to help them buffet their argument one way or the other? MCALLISTER: Well, they did say from the beginning that it was a solo source, although there was backing for it. But now it becomes very much a question of what this one source did say.
When this -- when Dr. Kelly appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee last week, he said he did not say the things the BBC said he said. And so if it turns out that, in fact, it can be proven, say, through e-mails or other notes or anything else that can be now put, pulled together by a judicial inquiry, that he did not tell the BBC reporter these very damning things about the Blair government, then the BBC is really hung out to dry because there is no other source for these claims.
HEMMER: Is this likely -- is this going to end the argument, do you believe? Or is this just going to allow more fuel to be thrown on the fire?
MCALLISTER: It really depends, of course, how it comes out. There's now a judicial inquiry that's appointed. The judge says he wants to get to the bottom of things relatively quickly. But you know, when these sorts of mini scandals erupt, you never quite know. I mean will there be e-mails off his computer, the scientist's computer that point the fingers at somebody else?
One of the interesting questions is -- how did Dr. Kelly's name get into the public domain? When he came back from Iraq, where he'd been doing weapons inspections, he heard about the flap that this reporter caused, he wrote his own superiors in the Ministry of Defense saying, I think I might be a partial source. I don't think I said all these bad things, but I think I might be a partial source.
Then his name was leaked to the media by government officials because I think they felt he would be a good weapon against the BBC. But if he been promised anonymity, then it looks like he was essentially thrown to the wolves by the government.
So this could be something still that could come back and hurt the government and we haven't heard the end of the story.
HEMMER: You bring up 100 questions that don't have answers for just yet...
(CROSSTALK)
MCALLISTER: I'm afraid so. Yes.
HEMMER: Jeff, thanks. Jeff McAllister, "TIME" magazine working that story in London.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired July 21, 2003 - 09:08 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BILL HEMMER, CNN ANCHOR: Now to London. The latest now on that investigation into the death of a British scientist said to be reaching the highest levels of the British government and probably the highest levels of the BBC as well.
The BBC admits that David Kelly was the source of a very damaging report of the Blair administration. That report challenged the claim Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes' notice. Kelly was found dead Friday afternoon, a slit wrist.
Jeff McAllister is "TIME" magazine's London bureau chief, to talk more about where this story may go now. Jeff, hello, good afternoon there.
I don't know the latest over the last few hours. Has something changed on this just yet?
JEFF MCALLISTER, "TIME" LONDON BUREAU CHIEF: No. I think the big news was yesterday when the BBC admitted that Kelly was his (ph) source. And since then we've just been seeing things sorting out from there.
HEMMER: Is it possible right now that we're seeing a reversal? At the end of last week, these fingers are being pointed at Tony Blair. Is now happening that it's now pointed back at the BBC? And if so, why is that the case, Jeff?
MCALLISTER: Well, they're pointing back at the BBC because it does appear now that Kelly was the source, because the BBC says so. But there is a discrepancy between what Kelly said he told the BBC reporter and what the BBC says he told the BBC reporter.
That's still -- of course, we don't know who's at fault for that discrepancy. It could be that Kelly overstated the thing to the BBC reporter who faithfully did reported what was said. Or it could be that the reporter made up or sort of conflated things and didn't get it right.
But in any event, it's good for Blair because it means that no longer is -- possibly, depending on how it comes out, it's no longer that Blair's government lied about the 45-minute claim, but that there's been a mistake made by others, namely either Kelly or the BBC.
HEMMER: Tell us as we go through this, if he was -- Dr. Kelly was the only source for the BBC, what does that mean to help them buffet their argument one way or the other? MCALLISTER: Well, they did say from the beginning that it was a solo source, although there was backing for it. But now it becomes very much a question of what this one source did say.
When this -- when Dr. Kelly appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee last week, he said he did not say the things the BBC said he said. And so if it turns out that, in fact, it can be proven, say, through e-mails or other notes or anything else that can be now put, pulled together by a judicial inquiry, that he did not tell the BBC reporter these very damning things about the Blair government, then the BBC is really hung out to dry because there is no other source for these claims.
HEMMER: Is this likely -- is this going to end the argument, do you believe? Or is this just going to allow more fuel to be thrown on the fire?
MCALLISTER: It really depends, of course, how it comes out. There's now a judicial inquiry that's appointed. The judge says he wants to get to the bottom of things relatively quickly. But you know, when these sorts of mini scandals erupt, you never quite know. I mean will there be e-mails off his computer, the scientist's computer that point the fingers at somebody else?
One of the interesting questions is -- how did Dr. Kelly's name get into the public domain? When he came back from Iraq, where he'd been doing weapons inspections, he heard about the flap that this reporter caused, he wrote his own superiors in the Ministry of Defense saying, I think I might be a partial source. I don't think I said all these bad things, but I think I might be a partial source.
Then his name was leaked to the media by government officials because I think they felt he would be a good weapon against the BBC. But if he been promised anonymity, then it looks like he was essentially thrown to the wolves by the government.
So this could be something still that could come back and hurt the government and we haven't heard the end of the story.
HEMMER: You bring up 100 questions that don't have answers for just yet...
(CROSSTALK)
MCALLISTER: I'm afraid so. Yes.
HEMMER: Jeff, thanks. Jeff McAllister, "TIME" magazine working that story in London.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
