and he let the misleading claim spread through all the press. So now it looks like he misled the PM as well as the press and public. Do you think Tony will ask for his resignation?
Transcript of his appearance before Hutton (
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans39.htm):
16 Q. Did you know that the 45 minute claim in the dossier was
17 taken from a JIC assessment which does not in fact
18 identify any particular weapon?
19 A. Well, I recall at the time having some discussion in the
20 Ministry of Defence about the kinds of weapons that
21 could be deployable within 45 minutes; and I think the
22 assumption was made that they would be, for example,
23 chemical shells, which were clearly capable of being
24 deployed, as I think Mr Scarlett has indicated to
25 the Inquiry, in a time even less than 45 minutes;
81
1 I think he suggested 20 minutes.
2 Q. So you knew, did you, that the munitions referred to
3 were only battlefield munitions?
4 A. I was certainly aware that that was one suggestion, yes.
5 Q. Was there any other suggestion that they were not
6 battlefield munitions but strategic munitions?
7 A. I recall asking what kind of weapons would be deployable
8 within 45 minutes; and the answer is the answer that
9 I have just given to you.
10 Q. Which was shells, battlefield mortars, tactical weapons
11 of that kind?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Would your Department be responsible for correcting any
14 false impression given by the press on an issue of this
15 importance?
16 A. I think on an issue of this importance it would not
17 simply have been the Ministry of Defence that was solely
18 responsible. There would have been an effort across
19 Government.
20 Q. Are you aware that on 25th September a number of
21 newspapers had banner headlines suggesting that this
22 related to strategic missiles or bombs?
23 A. I can recall, yes.
24 Q. Why was no corrective statement issued for the benefit
25 of the public in relation to those media reports?
82
1 A. I do not know.
2 Q. It must have been considered by someone, must it not?
3 A. I have spent many years trying to persuade newspapers
4 and journalists to correct their stories. I have to say
5 it is an extraordinarily time consuming and generally
6 frustrating process.
7 Q. I am sorry, are you saying that the press would not
8 report a corrective statement that the dossier was meant
9 to refer, in this context, to battlefield munitions and
10 not to strategic weapons?
11 A. What I am suggesting is that I was not aware of whether
12 any consideration was given to such a correction. All
13 that I do know from my experience is that, generally
14 speaking, newspapers are resistant to corrections. That
15 judgment may have been made by others as well.
16 Q. But, Mr Hoon, you must have been horrified that the
17 dossier had been misrepresented in this way; it was
18 a complete distortion of what it actually was intended
19 to convey, was it not?
20 A. Well, I was not horrified. I recognised that
21 journalists occasionally write things that are more
22 dramatic than the material upon which it is based.
23 Q. Can we forget journalists for the moment and concentrate
24 on the members of the public who are reading it? Will
25 they not be entitled to be given the true picture of the
83
1 intelligence, not a vastly inflated one?
2 A. I think that is a question you would have to put to the
3 journalists and the editors responsible.
4 Q. But you had the means to correct it, not them. They
5 could not correct it until they were told, could they?
6 A. Well, as I say, my experience of trying to persuade
7 newspapers to correct false impressions is one that is
8 not full of success.
9 Q. Do you accept that on this topic at least you had an
10 absolute duty to try to correct it?
11 A. No, I do not.
12 Q. Do you accept that you had any duty to correct it?
13 A. Well, I apologise for repeating the same answer, but you
14 are putting the question in another way. I have tried
15 on many, many occasions to persuade journalists and
16 newspapers to correct stories. They do not like to do
17 so.
18 Q. Can I suggest to you a reason why this was not done? It
19 would have been politically highly embarrassing because
20 it would have revealed the dossier as published was at
21 least highly capable of being misleading.
22 A. Well, I do not accept that.
23 Q. So your suggestion is that this was a disgraceful
24 exaggeration by the press of what was clear in the
25 dossier as a reference to battlefield munitions?
84
1 A. I am certainly suggesting that it was an exaggeration,
2 but it is not unusual for newspapers to exaggerate.
3 Q. Can you tell me, if you happen to have it to hand, where
4 in the dossier it is made clear that the CBW weapons
5 which were the subject of the 45 minute claim were only
6 battlefield munitions?
7 A. Well, I do not have it to hand; and I do not know
8 whether it was made clear.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
