I watched the Panorama progamme on Wednesday night about the Hutton enquiry and whilst I thought it wasn't a bad programme I did wonder why they had made and aired it one week prior to the publication of Huton's report. I, along with others, wrote to Panorama with my views and they published part of what I said here. Scroll down to find my incisive comments! What worries me far more than anything the programme said about anything was the aftermath: how the programme has been treated by the media. Here's an example. On this page they say His [David Kelly's] view was at odds with the claim in the government's Iraq dossier that "military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes and to support this assertion they report, later on, Describing Iraq's weapons, Dr Kelly told Panorama: "Even if they're not actually filled and deployed today, the capability exists to get them filled and deployed within a matter of days and weeks. Notice what they have missed out. Kelly started by saying that he agreed that Iraq posed an immediate threat: no doubt, no equivocation, Iraq posed an immediate threat. What journalists have highlighted. however, is what he then said: "Even if they're not actually filled and deployed today ..." Note the Even if qualifier. Isn't it as plain as the nose on your face? There is then this piece of nonsense from the above page Originally, the penultimate draft of the Iraq dossier had also suggested Saddam Hussein was likely to use WMD only in self defence. However, the Hutton Inquiry was told that a paragraph was re-written at the request of Mr Blair's Chief of Staff, Jonathan Powell, who e-mailed Alastair Campbell and others in Number 10 that it could be "a bit of a problem. It is true that a draft of the dossier did say that if under threat Iraq is likely to use its WMD and they did change the wording to make the phrase more direct. However, what the BBC has reported is tantamount to a lie: I think they have grossly misrperesented what happened. Overall, I thought the programme was interesting and both Andrew Gilligan and Greg Dyke came out of it astonishingly badly: I never trusted Gilligan to be honest and now I think Dyke should resign. Panorama made a relatively impartial programme that should, however, have been aimed at a post Hutton scenario rather than a pre Hutton scenario. DW