[A-List] UK state: Iraq crisis

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

Campbell goes on offensive with ultimatum to the BBC
MICHAEL SETTLE
The Herald, 27 June 2003

THE government's battle with the BBC over claims it "sexed up" its Iraq
documents intensified last night when No 10 demanded answers to a raft of
questions "by the end of the day".

Alastair Campbell, the prime minister's communications director, sent a
letter to Richard Sambrook, the corporation's head of news, demanding to
know if the BBC still stood by its story that "the government, from the
prime minister down, misled parliament and the public about the case on
which he had led the country into conflict".

Mr Campbell also questioned the basis on which BBC correspondents, including
Andrew Gilligan, the BBC defence correspondent who made the original claim,
wrote articles for other media.

Earlier, Mr Sambrook accused the prime minister's chief spin doctor of
"seriously misrepresenting" BBC journalism, and rejected his call for the
corporation to apologise, insisting: "We have nothing to apologise for." He
said he was "entirely satisfied" Mr Gilligan's source was "senior, credible,
and reliable".

The latest escalation in the war of words underscored the high stakes the
government and the BBC are engaged in.

It was noted at Westminster that by taking on the corporation in this way,
Mr Campbell had successfully moved the focus of the debate away from the
integrity of the government and its Iraq reports to that of BBC journalism.

At the morning Downing Street briefing - notable for its lack of BBC
journalists - Tony Blair's spokesman listed a number of questions No 10
wanted the corporation to answer, some of which referred to the claim that
Iraq could launch a chemical or biological missile within 45-minutes.

"Does it still stand by the allegation made . . . that both we and the
intelligence agencies knew the 45-minute claim to be wrong?"

The spokesman also asked: "Why did the BBC's journalist not check the story
with us before broadcast? Is this now normal BBC practice for all stories?"

The spokesman explained the questions were being put through the press
because a stream of private correspondence had failed to elicit a
satisfactory response.

"I don't think this is a public whinge," he insisted, adding: "This is
simply us trying to get the record set straight."

The BBC later refused to be pressured by Mr Campbell. Mr Sambrook said: "We
stand by our entire story. In my experience, this is an unprecedented level
of pressure on the BBC from Downing Street.

"The BBC will respond properly to these matters, but not to a deadline
dictated by Mr Campbell."

At the afternoon Downing Street briefing, reporters were handed Mr
Campbell's letter to Mr Sambrook, which demanded No 10's questions be
answered by the end of the day to enable fresh evidence to be given to the
Commons foreign affairs committee (FAC), which sits today.

Asked if the government might consider legal action should the BBC fail to
respond, Mr Blair's spokesman did not answer the question directly and
contrasted how the BBC was relying on "one anonymous source" for its story
against the prime minister, the foreign secretary, the head of the joint
intelligence committee and the heads of the intelligence agencies, who
agreed the story was false.

Mr Campbell's letter added more questions to the original list, some of
which were directed specifically at Mr Gilligan, whose story about the
45-minute claim sparked the whole row, and his freelance activities.

"Could you tell me what rule governs what BBC correspondents may or may not
write in a freelance capacity to boost their BBC earnings?" he asked.

Earlier in the day, Mr Sambrook said the BBC's claim that intelligence
officials were unhappy with the prominence given to the 45-minute claim was
"credible and reliable".

Last night, more pressure was exerted on the BBC when Phil Woolas, the
deputy leader of the Commons, wrote to Mr Gilligan, rubbishing his evidence
to the FAC.

"It is now clear," wrote the Oldham MP, "you and the BBC are in full retreat
from the original allegations because you know them to be untrue."

Meanwhile, Downing Street insisted it would not get into "petty
manoeuvring".

However, at the joint Blair- Putin press conference, the prime minister took
questions from Sky TV, ITV and the Washington Post and ignored the BBC
correspondent.

By convention, Mr Blair always takes a question from the BBC. His spokesman
said: "Time was short."
Questions to the BBC
"Does the BBC still stand by the allegation it made on May 29 that No 10
added in the 45-minute claim?" This was a reference to a passage in the
dossier that said Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were
deployable within 45 minutes.

"Does it still stand by the allegation made on the same day that we did so
against the wishes of the intelligence agencies?"

"Does it still stand by the allegation made on that day that both we and the
intelligence agencies knew the 45-minute claim to be wrong?"

"Does it still stand by the allegation on the same day that we ordered the
September dossier to be 'sexed up' in the period leading up to its
publication, that it was 'cobbled together at the last minute', with some
unconfirmed material that had not been approved by the security services?"

"Does it still stand by the statement made on June 6 that the Joint
Intelligence Committee is not part of the intelligence community, but a No
10 committee whose job is

to arbitrate between government and the intelligence agencies?"

"Does it stand by the claim on June 3 that the chairman of the JIC only
'kind of bureaucrati-cally signed off this report'?

"How many sources was the original allegation about 45 minutes being added
based on? Was it one source or more than one source? Is that source on the
JIC? Because only the JIC has the full picture?"

"Why did the BBC's journalist not check the story with us before broadcast?

"Is this now normal BBC practice for all stories? If so, would it broadcast
a story, for instance, alleging financial malpractice by a member of its
board of management without checking first?'"

"Does the BBC believe that its one anonymous source outweighs the combined
weight of the prime minister, foreign secretary, the chairman of the JIC,
the security and intelligence co-ordinator and heads of the intelligence
agencies?"