Article

2003-07-22 Britain

Blair may be quizzed as Kelly crisis deepens

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-07-22 12:34:24 AM|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The Financial Times and the Blitz Bros as authors of this Cover-the-BBC's-Ass story should be whacked, too. I note that there is no direct link to comment on the story - but I'll send the FT editors an email anyway. What whores.

Posted by PD 2003-7-22 1:04:56 AM|| 2003-7-22 1:04:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Lord Hutton should oversee a rigorous and impartial inquiry; I wouldn't expect kid glove treatment for either party. It seems at the moment as if both sides here will be apportioned blame. The BBC for its trumpeting of an anti-war story based onthe allegations of one man, and possibly either embellishing that source's information or reporting what may have been said off the record. Kelly may, of course, have indeed said exactly what the BBC reported and thus lied to the Commons inquiry (hence the apparent suicide).

For the Government, the stakes are higher. Blair himself will testify at the inquiry, and there will no doubt be hard questions concerning the validity of Kelly's original allegations.

Those of you who don't live in the UK no doubt regard Blair as a great international statesman. Clinton was considered to be a great statesman outside the US in his time, too. Domestically, Blair's policies are considerably worse for this country than Clinton's were for the US.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-7-22 4:18:01 AM|| 2003-7-22 4:18:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I don't understand how either party can be held resposible for Kelly's suicide.If anybody(and I am reaching)it would be his family for not getting the guy help.
From what I heard reported Kelly had been terrablly depressed for weeks,he walked outside in a very cold rain with no foul weather gear.But his family were not concerned enough to even follow him,let alone call emergecy services.

Bulldog,I do consider Tony a great man,I'll leave opinions on his domestic pollocies to those who live in Britain.

Posted by raptor 2003-7-22 7:15:15 AM|| 2003-7-22 7:15:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Raptor, the inquiry won't simply be looking into why Kelly topped himself, but to investigate the "circumstances surrounding" his death. If it is found that he did indeed take his own life, there may be be a range of factors, both personal and professional, which influenced his decision. You can read Lord Hutton's short statement regarding the terms of his inquiry here.

I had not heard that Kelly had been depressed for a long time. In fact, I have heard that his wife never considered him to be depressed, merely stressed. His actions until he left the house did not suggest suicidal intent, and nor has there been any mention of a suicide note.

And it's not possible he walked out in very cold rain. On Thursday and Friday, I was less than 20 miles from where his body was found, it never rained, and it hasn't been "cold" here in the south of England for months! In fact, this has been one of the warmest Julys on record. He was a keen walker, and often passed by the wood in which he was discovered. It is odd that his family (probably only his wife was 'at home') didn't report him missing until almost midnight when he'd left the house in the mid afternoon, but this doesn't mean no one cared what happened to him.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-7-22 8:40:46 AM|| 2003-7-22 8:40:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 I listened on C span radio to Blair's address to Congress. I wish, I wish, I could vote for him. (and i think some of Clintons multilateralism and nation-building would do us some good now - and that his domestic policies of welfare reform and balanced budgets have left us stronger= perhaps Blair is less competent than Clinton in implementing 3rd way domestic policies - I cant speak to the EU questions, we have no equivalent here)

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-7-22 9:22:05 AM|| 2003-7-22 9:22:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 and let me say further - i understand that the Bulldog and his fellow Conservatives have every right to vote against Blair based on his european and domestic policies, especially since they beleive Ian Duncan Smith will follow similar policies in the War on Terrorism (though its unlikely he will be as effective politically on that front in the UK, and certainly in the US as Blair has been) JUST AS I HAVE THE RIGHT to vote for a Democrat based on domestic issues, given that i will only do so if its a Dem who will follow a hardline in the WOT. However I will also say that i disagree with those in my party who are attempting to make a big issue of the WMD/intell story - they are missing the point on Iraq - 1. Iraq was in violation of 1441.
2. That given the danger of the Iraqi WMD post 9/11, it would have been unwise to wait for perfect intell 3. That even if we were wrong, we have eliminated a terrible regime, and taken the first step to "draining the swamp". And if I criticize the Democratic party for such misunderstanding, I see no reason to give the UK Conservative party a pass. And if one wishes to defend the UK Conservative party as merely concerned with the Blair admins tendency to spin and "lie", then I see no basis for not making a similar defense of US Dems, who have the further excuse that this admin came to power attacking Al Gore for quibbles like "no controlling authority". I see no basis for defending the Tories that doesnt apply at least as strongly to the Democrats, and no basis for justifying the attacks on Tony on this issue that dont equally justify the attacks on Bush.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-7-22 9:38:31 AM|| 2003-7-22 9:38:31 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 BTW kelly was found with his wrists slashed. If that was soemthing done TO him, one would expect signs of struggle, which AFAIK were not found. This can't be an accident - if its not suicide its a homicide - and if its a homicide, its a VERY Professional operation - AFAIK no covert operatives in the cold war ever managed to fake a suicide by wrist slashing (as opposed to jumping, pills, gunshot, etc) I'll look forward to the inquiry, but innuendo that this was not a suicide strikes me as in the Oliver Stone category right now.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-7-22 9:46:32 AM|| 2003-7-22 9:46:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Fred and LH, It's not only the left who are gunning for Blair, though they are more brutal in their approach and their motivation. To the left, Blair 'sold out' to the US and took Britain to an 'unjust' war, an act which ultimately confirmed him in their eyes as a traitor in their midst. They've forgotten they owe their party's success to him, and desperately wish to retake the wheel of the Labour party and turn their ship hard a-port. To the right, Blair's support for the US before and during the Iraq war was applauded, in the main, but nothing more in substance than the Tories would have done had they been in power. Yes, Tony did good, but only would have expected from a patriotic PM. However, Blair has no intention of standing for another term, in two years' time, so there's no rush to push him out by the Tories. With Blair gone, a new leader would have two years' grace in which to establish him or herself and exorcise the Labour party of Blair's increasingly unpopular ghost. Don't expect the Tories to be baying as loudly as the Left.

The future under Blair (and that's what's important) is bleak. How long would you applaud Blair once the EU constitution was ratified and the UK's foreign policy was subsumed to a common attitude formulated by consensus in Brussels? At best, Europe's influence will be neutralised; at worst, the US will have lost its highest profile and most effective international ally.

The Tories are emerging as a viable alternative geverning party one again. Their leader, IDS, is opposed to the EU constitution and the organisation's political direction and is calling for a referendum on the issue before ratification. Tony Blair wants to ratifiy without public consultation. Ask yourselves: if you were a UK resident, who would you be supporting?

Posted by Bulldog 2003-7-22 9:47:08 AM|| 2003-7-22 9:47:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 LH, Little detail has been released about Kelly's death, so "innuendo" is fair game at the moment... I wouldn't expect anything less than extreme professionalism from those who would benefit from Kelly's silencing, so I'm happy to indulge my imagination. Especially regarding the case of a man reportedly convinced of the existence of "many dark actors playing games"... ;)

Posted by Bulldog 2003-7-22 9:59:12 AM|| 2003-7-22 9:59:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 And LH, I'm not technically a "Tory", but I think you guessed correctly where my loyalties lie at the moment.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-7-22 10:02:37 AM|| 2003-7-22 10:02:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 extreme professionalism - well yes, but the ability to fake a suicide by wrist slashing??
Many dark actors playing games - evidence of a conspiracy, or evidence to Mr. Kelly's mental state?

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-7-22 10:04:42 AM|| 2003-7-22 10:04:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 IIUC, for a struggle-free wrist-slashing, all you'd need is an unconscious subject. I'd suggest it's premature to rule out non-suicide as a possibility.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-7-22 10:16:20 AM|| 2003-7-22 10:16:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 "To the right, Blair's support for the US before and during the Iraq war was applauded, in the main, but nothing more in substance than the Tories would have done had they been in power. Yes, Tony did good, but only would have expected from a patriotic PM"

Well given the nature of public opinion in UK throughout, I certainly think its unlikley a Labor PM other than Blair would have done so, and I note that there were a few tories opposed as well. Smith might have supported the war,but i dont know if we would have been as relatively successful in swinging British fence sitters as Blair was. I am quite sure he would have been far less influential in the US. Blair made a big difference in US opinion, especially elite US opinion, at several key points. You wont hear that in this forum, where the lack of confidence many Americans have in Dubya as a statesman is either not taken seriously, or is expressed by trolls.

As for Europe - I dont know - as an American Im not at all sure we have decided what we want - do we see Europe as an ally, with a UK voice within it making it more genuinely one, or do we see Europe as necessarily a rival, and want it as weak as possible? If UK remains independent, but Italy, Spain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland, Hungary, and Czecho are subsumed within it is that a victory for the US? I think not. And those nations are NOT going to stand aside from Europe, whatever the UK does. OTOH if UK is IN Europe, they may collectively have enough clout to make the EU something other than a Franco-German consortium - and indeed give Germany a more viable alternative to France. So if the EU question is about geo-politics, and not about the socio-economic policies likely to come from Brussels, Im not at all sure the issue is clearcut. Thats from a US perspective - i might have a different perspective as an Brit - i might be British nationalist - or I might be a "good European" or I might be a Scottish nationalist - so i dont know what perspective i might have. I am however an american, and not a unilateralist/Jacksonian, and so my perspective is shaped by that.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-7-22 10:19:25 AM|| 2003-7-22 10:19:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Ok,Bull.You are there on the scene(so to speak)and would certainly know more than I.But I could swear I read about the depression and rain somewhere.

Posted by raptor 2003-7-22 10:19:45 AM|| 2003-7-22 10:19:45 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 would he know more than you, Raptor? (other than about the weather, i mean) the BBC article he linked to cited an email quoted by the NEW YORK TIMES, which was an American paper last I heard.
The Beeb did not quote the email in full - Im not sure if the Times did. Given my level of confidence in the Beeb and in the (NY)Times, I'd call this a weak reed. They focus on his "combative" tone - well let me tell you, some one suffering from depression can have swinging moods, including combativeness, and suicide can come as a sudden impulse. And no secret agencies need be involved for that to be true.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-7-22 10:26:50 AM|| 2003-7-22 10:26:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 let ma add some innuendo - if its possible that some in the UK govt might have wanted Kelly dead, its virtually certain that there are some in the BBC (and its allies in the NYT) who would like the focus now to be on the possibility that Kelly was murdered, and not on the BBC's actions.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-7-22 10:59:18 AM|| 2003-7-22 10:59:18 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 LH, Your attitude is, as you acknowledge, different from mine. You see Blair as an asset to the US. He has been. A short term asset. He's been a short term asset to global common sense, but his time of usefulness is over. If you desire to see Blair remain in power in the UK ad infinitum (diminishing power though that will be), solely for the benefit of the US and the WoT, whilst he continues to wreak havoc with his home country, I hope you will understand that we will have to agree to differ.

Your suggestion that the UK wade deep into the muddy waters of EU federalism in order to try to wrestle for influence makes no sense whatsoever to me. Would you be happy for the US to surrender its independence and sovereignty, its dollar, its government, its laws and its foreign policy, by joining a union with all the Americas, in a one-way gamble to try to exert more influence on them?

Public opinion in the was not anti-war throughout. Soon after combat began opinion polls revealed a majority in support of the action. AFAIK, that hasn't changed. Of course, had Blair not stood firm and pressed ahead, public opinion probably wouldn't have changed. The Tories were far more supportive than Labour, and had the UK had a Tory government, the position of the (probably) less charismatic Tory leader would have been stronger at home. For the US to have as an ally: a weak Blair or a strong Tory leader - balances out somewhat, I think.

And I am well aware the Beeb link referred to an NYT story - I tried to trace the NYT article but the search engine they use is a piece of c***. I didn't have the time to track it down when my search string pulled out just about every available online article. His wife doesn't claim he suffered mood strings - she says he was never depressed, in her opinion! I am not saying I believe MI5 or anyone else was responsible for Kelly's death, in fact I think it's far less plausible than the straightforward suicide: I'm just saying it's a possibility!!! Why do you refuse to countenance it as a posibility?

Raptor, the depression aspect was noted by some, although I have not heard it mentioned by those closest to him. It was obvious from his performance at the Commons committee immediately before his death that he seemed subdued, indeed so quiet he was incomprehensible to the panel, who repeatedly asked him to speak up. Was this abnormal behaviour for the man? I don't know! Would I have been depressed? Probably. Depressed enough to commit suicide?

Posted by Bulldog 2003-7-22 12:43:07 PM|| 2003-7-22 12:43:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 LH, In reference to your thoughts on Europe, If the UK remains out of a European superstate (as is my absolute desire), I would hope that those other nations you mention would have the sense to do likewise. Let the EU be a Franco-German club - a club with as few members as possible. Would you move into a house inhabited by perverts and sociopaths in order to try to balance out the behaviour?! Would the US be prepared to sign up to the EU constitution if the UK refuses to? If the answer is no, don't be surprised when the UK rejects such a ludicrous idea and the man who wants it to happen.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-7-22 1:02:09 PM|| 2003-7-22 1:02:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 "Your suggestion that the UK wade deep into the muddy waters of EU federalism in order to try to wrestle for influence makes no sense whatsoever to me. Would you be happy for the US to surrender its independence and sovereignty, its dollar, its government, its laws and its foreign policy, by joining a union with all the Americas, in a one-way gamble to try to exert more influence on them? "

I suppose it would depend on a number of things, among which would how much my trading patterns made me dependent on such a union anyway, and the details of the union, and the real prospect that it was one way. I have not followed the EU debate in enough detail to make a call on those things, and I wouldnt challenge you on them, although I note that many of your countrymen feel differently than you (of course many of your countrymen, and mine, are idiots, so thats no proof of anything, but im sure there is an argument at least worth looking at from the other side).

Kelly's wife says he was never depressed - i wonder if she knows the symptoms of depression? was she looking for crying fits and the like - depression doesnt manifest itself the same way in everyone - its not always easy for a trained Psychiatrist to determine it. Nothing is impossible, but I think to float an accusation of such seriousness requires a high degree of plausibility.

Blair forever - well I understand that while you dont have a 2 term rule like we do, PMs dont last forever, and Blair intends to step down soon. However I would suggest that the next 2 years are an important phase in the WOT. And I am particularly troubled that the Tories are trying to stir things up on this particular issue - they have every right and even duty to oppose Blair - its the job of an opposition to oppose (something some folks here dont seem to get re the Dems) But unreasonably questioning the case for war (and I think it is unreasonable) is profoundly unhelpful - and just as much so when the Tories do it as when the Dems do it.

Small EU - I dont think thats in the cards. Look at say Czechos trade patterns - theyre gonna be run by the EU whether they join or not, so they might as well join to try and get some influence. Ditto, to a lesser extent, for all the others.

Perverts and sociopaths? A bit much, no?

Would the US be prepared to sign up? well thats a tad silly, since our trade patterns and other relationships dont make it advantageous to us do so. The logic for us is to expand NAFTA, possibly to all the Americas, and to incorporate the Pacific into that trade network as much as possible. ANd to deal with the EU through the WTO, and politically by direct US dealings with member states and with Brussels.

Someday when trade in goods becomes small relatively to trade in intellectual property and service delivered over the internet, UK can ignore geography. Until then UK has to deal with the fact that its economy is tied to Europe. Whether that makes it worth going into a superstate depends on the constitution of the superstate, and the balance of political power within it.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-7-22 1:25:54 PM|| 2003-7-22 1:25:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 I suspected the perverts and sociopaths analogy would raise someone's eyebrows. I don't mean to suggest that our European neighbours are such; I was stretching the point to demonstrate the fallacy of the join-to-influence argument. It could of course be argued, that the EU project itself is somewhat perverse.

Similar to the influence argument, the trade argument is unconvincing too. The options are to hold onto sovereignty with a possible detrimental effect of trade which may be noticeable, or else sign away sovereignty for promised enhanced trade. We've been through the failings of the EU before - national self-interest, corruption, senseless agricultural practices, impenetrable red tape... The EU can work as a trading bloc, but political and social harmonisation is a fool's errand and beyond a joke. It's time for the madness to stop.

Posted by Bulldog 2003-7-22 1:47:34 PM|| 2003-7-22 1:47:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 the issue, i presume, is not enhance trade but current trade. Is the EU going to UK continue to vote on trade policies, while staying out of social/political structures? I presume not. That means either staying in as an associate without voting power, or leaving the trade block. The former means losing influence over trade and economic rules that impact you. The latter means jeopardizing current trade - and still being subject to EU domination.

Right now EU rules have a big impact on whether farmers in MY county can raise GM crops. Industry has switched to metric to match EU and rest of world standards. IIUC Eu standards are impacting a number of industries. It would be desirable, ceteris paribus, for the US to have a say in those rules. Fortunately the EU is only one portion of our trade, and trade is still only a limited part of our economy, relative to other developed countries. And of course we are such a big market ourselves that we can exercise a great deal of leverage. So the tradeoff of joining the EU (even if we were invited) wouldnt be worth it. UK is smaller and has much less leverage. UK is more much more open economy than US. UK's trade is much more focused with Europe than the US. Your economy is going to be heavily impacted by Brussels whether youre in or out. So the tradeoff is much more ambiguous.

In any case, I did not start out to discuss whether UK belongs in the EU or not. I well accept that many brits, including yourself dont want to, and consider that good reason to oppose Tony. Fine. My problem is deciding thats so important its worth siding with the idiotatarians on Iraq to accomplish the goal of weakening Tony. I disagree with Dubya on much, i voted against him in 2000, and will again (assuming the Dems nominate someone whose foreign policy is acceptable) I WILL NOT however support my party in its stupid attempt to make the WMD evidence an issue. I suppose you could say that the EU issues are irreversible, as opposed to what Dubya can do domestically. Global warming may not be reversible - (are there reasonable people who disagree about global warming - well yeah, just as there are reasonable people who disagree about Europe)

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-7-22 2:33:49 PM|| 2003-7-22 2:33:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 The British press is nowhere near as sober as the American press. The tone, and sometimes the material, reads like the National Enquirer. This is just their presentation style - I wouldn't read too much into their headlines.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2003-7-22 8:59:51 PM|| 2003-7-22 8:59:51 PM|| Front Page Top

07:09 Anon1
23:28 Matt
23:23 Anonymous
23:19 Someone who did NOT vote for William Proxmire
22:52 Alaska Paul
22:49 Barbara Skolaut
22:43 tu3031
22:40 tu3031
22:27 tu3031
22:04 Igs
21:55 Rafael
21:42 Domingo
21:18 Zhang Fei
21:17 Ri'Neref
20:59 Zhang Fei
20:42 john
20:34 OldeForce
20:04 Dexter M. Duck
20:03 Frank G
19:38 Zhang Fei
19:37 Ralph
19:18 Frank G
19:08 Ed Becerra
19:02 Don