De-sexed
The fallout from the lack of Iraqi WMD is going to haunt us for a long time. Its obvious that the Hutton Inquiry has probably generated more questions than it answers. Let's take a look at the nexus of the whole matter: the phrase "sexed-up".
Here are Hutton's findings:
(viii) The term "sexed-up" is a slang expression, the meaning of which lacks clarity in the context of the discussion of the dossier. It is capable of two different meanings. It could mean that the dossier was embellished with items of intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable to make the case against Saddam Hussein stronger, or it could mean that whilst the intelligence contained in the dossier was believed to be reliable, the dossier was drafted in such a way as to make the case against Saddam Hussein as strong as the intelligence contained in it permitted. If the term is used in this latter sense, then because of the drafting suggestions made by 10 Downing Street for the purpose of making a strong case against Saddam Hussein, it could be said that the Government "sexed-up" the dossier. However in the context of the broadcasts in which the "sexing-up" allegation was reported and having regard to the other allegations reported in those broadcasts, I consider that the allegation was unfounded as it would have been understood by those who heard the broadcasts to mean that the dossier had been embellished with intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable, which was not the case.
Hutton deliberately chooses to interpret the phrase as "lacking clarity in the context"; the decision to apply two meanings to it is his alone. The Oxford Language Report for 2003 however assigns its only a singular meaning: "to enhance something to give it greater appeal or impact". No equivocation; there is no suggestion of "embellishing" with "false or unreliable" information given by the Oxford.
Hutton uses his own convenient interpretation to obfuscate the findings. Indeed he finds that, within the accepted Oxford definition, "it could be said that the Government "sexed-up" the dossier". However, to allow Blair et al to wriggle off the hook, he chooses to emphasise his own definition at the expense of accepted usage. Therefore he assumes the allegation of "sexing-up" is unfounded "as it would have been understood by those who heard the broadcasts to mean that the dossier had been embellished with intelligence known or believed to be false" - he is not only re-defining the term, he is presuming the interpretation of the term by the wider public is in line with his expectations alone, and not the common usage as documented by the Oxford.
Because of this individual peculiarity in the interpretation of a phrase, the case is closed. Currently the intelligence agencies are being blamed for providing the information, allowing their political masters to escape judgement for distorting it, on the basis of a journalist's "loose use of language and lack of judgment in some of his phraseology".
Conveniently this has allowed Australia's PM to claim vindication, due to both Hutton's apparent inability to read a dictionary and because of Australian reliance on foreign intelligence in the matter. Howard's disingenuity surely peaked when he argued "We didn't manipulate intelligence in Australia any more than Tony Blair, according to Lord Hutton, manipulated this particular piece of intelligence".
However America's former head of the Iraq Survey Group, David Kay, has further exposed the Big Lie in the debate, in stating that there clearly were no WMD, and the intelligence agencies knew it. The story thus becomes "Mi6 and CIA lied" rather than "the government lied".
Hutton himself is no outsider to matters of Intelligence and Government secrecy: his career highlights include the notorious "Diplock" courts of Northern Ireland (which denied jury trial to people suspected of "terrorism", resulting in many innocents being locked away on the word of informers), the Pinochet affair (where he helped secure the former dictator's release in Britain by questioning the partiality of the presiding judge), and the Shayler case (where 'public interest' defense was disallowed where intelligence 'secrets' were at risk of revelation).
Howard has today gone on record with the insipid revelation that "investigations could prove intelligence agencies were wrong [about Iraq's WMD]". Australia's current Parliamentary Inquiry is unlikely to produce any further illumination, especially as it's report is to be first vetted by the security services and cabinet, an extraordinary lapse of accountability and transparency.
The Hutton Inquiry was carefully designed to shield the public from the stark reality that several governments started a war based on alarming allegations that have failed to attract a single supporting fact. While no amount of political clever-talk will ever build a bomb for George, John, and Tony's edification, the security services are now set to take the blame for the lack of evidence, and the public to sacrifice more civil liberties and more tax dollars (according to precedent); because Politicians don't lie. Lord Hutton tells us so. After all, "it could be said that the Government "sexed-up" the dossier" - but we're going to say the opposite!
Item posted by AutoEditor at 12:36 pm ::
