Re: BBC 'Learning the Lessons of the Kelly Affair

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Pat Kohli at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 29/11/03 1:07 am:
>
> > Barney says the meeting at the Kingdon's did address weapons inspection in
> > Iraq, but a) did not address the dossier, and b) it was not a Baha'i meeting,
> > though there were Baha'is there.
>
> So the secretary of the UK NSA told Lord Hutton that  30 Bahai's, many
> who were members of the UK NSA all met in a Bahai's house, in October
> 2002 to listen to another Bahai Dr Kelly give a talk about WMDs in
> Iraq was not an **Administrative** Bahai organised meeting. Barney and
> you Pat can go tell that one to the marines.  Its a porky pie.
>

I've been a Baha'i for a few years.  I've been invited to various Baha'i meetings.
They tend to be categorized very easily.

Feasts - these are held every nineteen days

Firesides - these are held in various places at various times; their purpose is to
present information on the faith to seekers, etc.

Election meetings - these include regional convention, the community meeting in
Rizwan, and the "Day of the Covenant" meeting for the LSAs to elect the RSAs.

Pep rallies - there is some new-fangled initiative, and some Baha'i is representing
the AO and telling us to dig deeper, tighten our belts, etc.

...

Do note, seminars on WMDs in the middle east, is _not_ on my list list.  Though
_your_ list may vary, you were a Baha'i for a few years, too.  I don't think you are
going to find geo-political seminars being given by internationally recognized Bio
weapons experts.

'Porky pies' out your curley tail.

>
> > As to the question of whether the meeting at the Kingdon's addressed the
> > dossier, both Barney and Roger agree that David Kelly spoke from slides.
> > Therefore, his slides from the talk would resolve whether or not 'the dossier'
> > was on the agenda.  It seems to me to be quite possible that David Kelly had
> > privately expressed some reservations about the dossier to Roger Kingdon, such
> > that this may have been completely correct, "Kelly expressed his unhappiness
> > with how the document was being interpreted, saying the intelligence
> > information supplied was accurate, but indicating that he was uncomfortable
> > about how it was being represented" w/o this unhappiness being expressed at
> > this meeting in Abingdon, or wherever it was.
>
>  The meeting was very much organised by the Bahai AO. Dr Kelly would
> not have imposed himself on all those Baha'is unless he had been
> *requested* to do so by the Bahai AO to give the talk at a Baha'i
> fireside.

Anyone might have aksed him to provide some background information at that time.  I
wouldn't be surprised if his boss at the day job asked him to do this.

> Now

Then

> because the subject which he also discussed with a BBC
> journalist over the september dossier and WMD's in Iraq, eventually
> led to his suicide,

Perhaps.

> became *EMBARASSING* so Barney  decided to twist
> the story a bit  about what actually happened.
>

Not only do you not know that, it takes you _nowhere_ down your pledged path of
repudiation.  Somebody's keyboard wrote a check that the facts can't clear,
    "the bahai administration has clearly decided to repudiated and scapegoat him."

>
> > Do let me know when you find the repudiation and scapegoating,
> > George.  I'll try to remember to breathe through the suspense of the wait.
>
> The Bahai AO acted no different than BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan.

Show me "Repudiation and Scapegoating".

>
> They like Gilligan requested to meet DR Kelly, not the other way
> round.

Not only, show me "Repudiation and Scapegoating", but, also, show me that the AO
wanted to meet with Dr. Kelly on this matter.

> Now

Then?

> the Bahai AO  want to distance themselves from that October
> 2002 meeting by repudiating and scapegoating Kelly

By saying he enrolled in _California_ rather than _New_York_?  New York might have
been a bit neater, less linkage to that American Air Force woman.

As I said, the slides will show what he talked about, and my guess is that they were
still in his computer when the investigators got it.  They could also interview
Roger Kingdon to sort out the presence of non-Baha'is, who passed out the invites,
etc.

> that it was Kelly
> who approached them and acted all on his own  and the 30 Baha'is were
> all innocent (Three monkey) bystanders who heard no secrets, about the
> dossier,

Let me reiterate, the Autumn 2002 dossier was unclassified, regardless of whether or
not someone did ask a question over tea and crumpets.

> seen nothing wrong about the political situation. and said no
> things for or against Tony Blair and the British Government's actions
> in going to war with Iraq....................Errol

I don't recall that the initial Kingdon interview had word zero on
approval/criticism of the New Labour government being attributed to David Kelly.

No scape-goating, no repudiation, just new baseless charges from Mr. Porky Pie.