[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 112 (Friday, July 25, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1659-E1660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       TRIBUTE TO DR. DAVID KELLY

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JIM McDERMOTT

                             of washington

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, July 25, 2003

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced a House Resolution 
extending the condolences of the United States House of Representatives 
to the family of Dr. David Kelly.

[[Page E1660]]

  Dr. Kelly died on July 18th in an apparent suicide. The day before, 
he appeared in front of the House of Commons' Foreign Affairs committee 
where he was questioned about the role in the controversy between the 
British Broadcasting Corporation and the government of the United 
Kingdom over a British intelligence dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass 
destruction.
  Dr. Kelly's professional integrity and dedication to finding the 
truth earned him great respect both at home in Great Britain as well as 
among his international colleagues. Between 1991 and 1998, Dr. Kelly 
played an essential role in the efforts of the United Nations Special 
Commission to dismantle Iraq's banned chemical, biological, and 
ballistic programs.
  His professional integrity and dedication to finding the truth made 
the world safer for all of us.

                   [From The Guardian, July 24, 2003]

   What David Kelly Knew: the killing of Saddam's sons won't divert 
  attention for long from the specious reasons given for invading Iraq

                       (By Richard Norton-Taylor)

       Uday and Qusay are killed and the delighted British and 
     American governments suggest that Iraq will be a safer place. 
     Yes, Iraqis may well feel safer. And--with the dictator's 
     brutal sons out of the way for ever--more confident about 
     continuing the resistance against the American occupiers.
       Shortly before their deaths were announced, Richard 
     Gephardt, Democrat presidential hopeful, delivered a 
     blistering attack on Bush's foreign policy which was driven, 
     he said, by ``machismo'' and ``arrogant unilateralism''. 
     Bush, he continued, had treated US allies ``like so many 
     flies on America's windshield''. He added: ``Foreign policy 
     isn't a John Wayne movie.''
       The attack on the villa where Saddam's sons were hiding 
     might be seen as driving home the point. Instead, the 
     announcement that they had been killed by US troops in a 
     shoot-out is welcomed by Tony Blair as ``great news''.
       Jack Straw was more circumspect. He said the death of what 
     he called ``extremely unpleasant psychopaths'' would bring 
     relief for the Iraqi people. But he added: ``I am not 
     rejoicing. I mourn the death of anybody, but it has to be 
     said that it is a very great relief for all Iraqis.''
       Both the prime minister and the foreign secretary seized 
     the opportunity to remind us about the brutality of Saddam's 
     regime. This was something many of us pointed out more than 
     15 years ago. But then, Straw says, there was a Conservative 
     government and, anyway, Iraq was at war with Iran. It was as 
     though they were mightily relieved that attention had been 
     diverted away from the increasingly damaging controversy over 
     what weapons of mass destruction, if any, Iraq possessed when 
     Bush and Blair decided to invade the country, and from the 
     death of David Kelly in particular.
       And it was another welcome opportunity to remind us of the 
     nature of the Saddam regime. Uday and Qusay, Blair told 
     journalists yesterday, were responsible for the torture and 
     killing of thousands of Iraqis. That is not, of course, what 
     we were told we were going to war for and is not the legal 
     justification the attorney general gave for it. Never mind; 
     let's milk the deaths of Saddam's sons as much as possible 
     and hope the dictator soon shares their fate.
       But Dr Kelly's death will continue to haunt the government. 
     The man described by Blair after his death as a ``fine public 
     servant'' was dismissed, before it, by those in Whitehall 
     battling with the BBC as some kind of middle-ranking expert, 
     pretty marginal in the general scheme of things.
       In fact, he was a central figure in the government's 
     continuing quest for evidence of banned weapons in Iraq. He 
     had recently been to Iraq to advise the US-led Survey Group 
     of scientists (including former UN inspectors damned so 
     recently by Washington as incompetent), which Bush and Blair 
     so desperately hopes will come up with credible evidence 
     which could give them a post-hoc justification for war. It is 
     a tragic irony that Kelly will not be able to continue the 
     work. A fellow expert on biological and chemical weapons 
     familiar with Iraq described Kelly yesterday as a ``real 
     loss--he knew the place so well, the individuals so well, 
     he's not somebody you could easily replace''.
       Kelly was one of the toughest and most effective Unscom 
     weapons inspectors in Iraq in the 1990s. He was convinced 
     Saddam Hussein had possessed weapons of mass destruction. As 
     a senior adviser to both the Ministry of Defence and Foreign 
     Office on the threat posed by chemical and biological weapons 
     he had to have access to up-to-date intelligence to do his 
     job.
       So when he told journalists he had misgivings about the 
     government's now largely discredited September dossier it was 
     extremely significant. If MPs on the Commons foreign affairs 
     committee had bothered to listen to the substance of what he 
     told them instead of scoring points in the battle between the 
     government and the BBC--of which Kelly was a victim--they too 
     would have heard important evidence.
       Kelly told the committee there was only a 30 percent chance 
     that Iraq had chemical or biological weapons. That Iraq could 
     deploy them within 45 minutes of an order to do so--``ready'' 
     was the word Blair used in the dossier's foreword--was 
     ``highly unlikely'', Kelly told the MPs. Between issuing 
     orders and firing the weapons was a ``long process'', he 
     said. He should know.
       We are now told that what MI6's agent, an Iraqi brigadier-
     general, said when he was reactivated--conveniently, shortly 
     before the September dossier was published--was that the 
     Iraqis had a command, control and communications system 
     (presumably bombed out of existence in the first days of the 
     war, if not before) that would have enabled Saddam or his 
     close military associates to contact commanders in the field 
     within 45 minutes authorising the use of WMD. That does not 
     mean deploying them, let alone having them ``ready''.
       Kelly was a serious and senior source highly respected by 
     his peers. These did not include the armed forces minister, 
     Adam Ingram, who--after Kelly took the conscientious decision 
     to admit to a senior MoD official that he had talked to the 
     BBC reporter, Andrew Gilligan--told the world that ``action 
     has been taken against him accordingly''. Challenging the BBC 
     to rule out the scientist as the source, Ingram said: 
     ``Hopefully, that would allow Dr Kelly to carry on with his 
     career in the MoD.''
       With such threats hanging over him, it is scarcely 
     surprising if he was under stress before he gave evidence to 
     the committee--even more so after he told the MPs he was not 
     Gilligan's main source. That, too, was not what the MoD 
     wanted him to say.
       The world, let alone Iraq, would really have been a safer 
     place had David Kelly been allowed to do his job. Some people 
     in Downing Street and the MoD have a lot to answer for.

                          ____________________