Aggression and certainty

Alastair Campbell, not for the first time, misses the point in his blog today. He welcomes Greg Dyke's statement in The Observer that perhaps the BBC should have held an formal inquiry into Andrew Gilligan's reporting on the Iraq dossier, which eventually led to the death of Dr Kelly; and is surprised they didn't do so at the time.

Dear Al, you can be assured sure that all the right questions were asked by BBC suits once you escalated the matter. And a good number, appropriately, were asked before the substantial claims made by Gilligan were broadcast. A range of sources beyond Kelly were clear that the dossier was contestable.  A formal inquiry would have been a good idea, but it would have only been a tactic in the process, to get heat out of the debate, through a time in the long grass.  This worked well, at least for a time, when Norman Tebbit was after BBC blood over reporting of American attacks on Libya, and many were counselling Greg to follow suit. 

However, Greg had seen evidence of the way you were consistently and routinely after his staff on a range of issues (do you remember how many other complaints you had outstanding against the Beeb at the time ?) and sought to draw a line in the sand.  That call was probably wrong, but the right intention.

Dear Al, your phraseology today sounds thought-out and rational.  "I accept I conducted myself with a certain aggression, which they failed to read as a seriousness of intent to ensure the report was withdrawn".  Only those on the other end of that "certain aggression" know what that feels like.  Wasn't there another bit in the Campbell diaries, about "getting Gilligan", an intention of yours from some time before the dossier story ?