BRITAIN: Hoon's evidence has raised a few eyebrows, writes Deaglán de Bréadún at the Hutton Inquiry.
Rule No 1 for all moles, leakers, whistleblowers and "confidential sources". Never own up, never admit it and, no matter what the pressure, never confess to what you have done.
Dr David Kelly owned up to having briefed the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan and two weeks later he was dead. When a civil service colleague identified some of Dr Kelly's sentiments in comments Gilligan had made to a parliamentary committee, the good doctor felt it was time to come forward.
It was a naïve and foolish decision. He apparently did not believe he was the main source for Gilligan's controversial claim that the British government "sexed-up" a dossier on Iraqi weapons in order to enhance the case for war.
Perhaps Kelly thought he would just get a rap on the knuckles or maybe even some kind of kudos for helping his masters, by process of elimination, to find Gilligan's true source.
By his act of confession, Kelly placed his fate in the hands of his boss, one Geoffrey William Hoon, British Defence Secretary . Whatever his other qualities, Mr Hoon is not known for sensitivity and good political judgment, as seen in his notorious decision to attend a motor rally at Silverstone in the aftermath of Dr Kelly's death.
It was Mr Hoon's turn in the witness-box yesterday at the Hutton Inquiry, set up to investigate the circumstances leading to Dr Kelly's tragic and unfortunate demise. It was an extraordinary performance that left listeners gasping, not necessarily in admiration. Perhaps his most remarkable admission was that, despite being Defence Secretary for the last four years including the recent war against Iraq, he did not know Dr Kelly, a specialist consultant in his department who was described by another witness yesterday as "the fount of all knowledge in relation to Iraq".
Even the most benign and easygoing would have to raise an eyebrow at the fact that, though Dr Kelly was a world expert on Iraqi weapons and a former UN weapons inspector who often visited Iraq, when Mr Hoon met him in the War Office canteen in London, he did not know who he was nor make it his business to find out.
Another fascinating detail that emerged yesterday was that Dr Kelly was planning, and eagerly looking forward to, another visit to Iraq on July 25th, but was found dead a week before that date. "He doesn't sound like a man who was contemplating suicide," commented one mystified observer.
Dr Kelly was proud of the fact that he gave background briefings to journalists and apparently believed he was doing so with proper authorisation and within the rules of his employment. Therefore he may have felt perfectly safe in admitting he had spoken to Gilligan.
Mr Hoon testified yesterday that he had a dual reaction when Dr Kelly's name appeared before him. One was to punish the scientist, make him an example to others in what had been described as "a leaky department". The other was to use Dr Kelly as a kind of bait to persuade the BBC to reveal the name of Gilligan's real source, who could then be discredited for supplying false information. He said he did not realise at this stage that there was no other source.
Mr Hoon acknowledged another grave concern. The accusation, broadcast on the prestigious Today radio programme, that his government had used lies and distortions to manoeuvre the British people into a Middle East war was an extremely serious matter and it had to be dealt with and confronted. So it was that the hapless Dr Kelly found himself caught in the middle of another kind of war, between the Blair government and the BBC.
Mr Hoon told of discussions between himself and such Downing Street luminaries as Alastair Campbell and Jonathan Powell. How to use Dr Kelly and his name to win or at least settle the conflict with the Beeb, that was the issue. In the process, did they give sufficient consideration to Dr Kelly's welfare and possible fragility? That is for Lord Hutton to decide.
His Lordship did not say much as he presided over yesterday's proceedings but his occasional interventions had a certain sharklike quality, pointed and purposeful.
Mr Hoon admitted to being responsible for the "political leadership" of his department but, when it came down to nitty-gritty detail, the buck always seemed to stop somewhere else. The Kelly issue was a personnel matter, to be dealt with by a senior civil servant who would also use Kelly to correct the public record and discredit the false reportage of the BBC.
Our heads swam, but not Lord Hutton's: "Was correcting the public record a personnel matter?" Today it is Tony Blair's turn. Inquiry aficionados are predicting a success in terms of presentation, whatever about content.