Damning new evidence
Secret emails show Iraq dossier was 'sexed up'
Intelligence chiefs criticised 'iffy drafting' of key document
Secret Whitehall emails released yesterday provide damning new evidence that the notorious dossier making the case for invading Iraq was "sexed up".
They disclose that the intelligence services were sceptical over the "iffy drafting" of government claims that Saddam Hussein could mount a missile strike on his neighbours within 45 minutes of ordering an attack.
Officials privately mocked assertions that the Iraqi president was covertly trying to develop a nuclear capability and wisecracked that perhaps he had recruited "Dr Frankenstein" to his supposed crack team of nuclear scientists.
The release of a series of confidential memos and emails, following a protracted Freedom of Information battle, reignited the controversy over accusations that Tony Blair's government "spun" Britain into war.
Last night both the Tories and the Liberal Democrats renewed their demands for a full public inquiry into the decision to join the US-led invasion of Iraq.
The 45-minute claim – presented to MPs in a notorious dossier on 24 September 2002, six months before military action began – was central to the Blair government's justification for war.
But a memo sent 13 days earlier by Desmond Bowen, head of the Cabinet Office defence secretariat, to John Scarlett, who was head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, suggested he had grave reservations over the threat. His comments were copied to Mr Blair's press secretary Alastair Campbell and to his chief-of-staff Jonathan Powell.
Mr Bowen wrote: "The question we have to have in the back of our mind is: 'Why now?' I think we have moved away from promoting the ideas that we are in imminent danger of attack and ... intend to act in pre-emptive self-defence."
He argued instead that the Government should stress Saddam's disregard for international law and his continuing drive to obtain weapons of mass destruction.
Another memo, dated 16 September 2002, from an unnamed official, also suggests exaggerated claims were being included in the about-to-be-published report. It said: "I note that the paper suggests that Saddam's biotech efforts have gone much further than we ever feared. Page 4 Bullet 4: '[Iraq] has assembled specialists to work on its nuclear programme' – Dr Frankenstein I presume? Sorry. It's getting late."
A further email released yesterday, arguing for amendments to the report, says: "We have suggested moderating the same language in much the same way on drafts from the dim and distant past without success. Feel free to try again!"
A fourth email, sent by the then foreign secretary Jack Straw's private secretary, makes clear he wants language that can be conveyed very simply by the media. He wrote: "This should be brief enough to get on to the Sky wall – ie no more than five bullets."
Last night William Hague, the shadow Foreign Secretary, said: "This is the latest in a steady stream of damaging revelations about the events leading up to the Iraq war. These minutes shed interesting light on the process by which the caveats in the Joint Intelligence Committee's original assessment of Iraq's WMD programmes were stripped out of the dossier that was presented to Parliament and the British people.
"Now British troops are coming home, there is no longer any excuse for delaying a full-scale inquiry into the origins and conduct of the Iraq war, other than the Government's concern that its own reputation might be damaged."
Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said: "This confirms the widely-held suspicions that leading officials and political advisers close to Tony Blair were deliberately tweaking the presentation of the intelligence to bolster the case for war on Iraq. The jigsaw of how the public and some MPs were duped nears completion with this crucial revelation, and further strengthens the case for a full public inquiry."
The emails: How 'sexing-up' was achieved
11 September 2002 Desmond Bowen: "The question we have to have in the back of our mind is: 'Why now?' I think we have moved away from promoting the ideas that we are in imminent danger of attack and intend to act in pre-emptive self-defence... In looking at the WMD sections, you will clearly want to be as firm and authoritative as you can be. You will clearly need to judge the extent to which you need to hedge your judgements with, for example, 'it is almost certain' and similar caveats."
11 September 2002 Mark Sedwill: "I would expand the history of weapons inspections. It is an interesting story and would give the media a better feel for the difficulties they faced and the persistence of the Iraqi obstruction... We need a very simple table somewhere... This should be brief enough to get on to the Sky wall – ie no more than five bullets."
16 September 2002 Unnamed official (thought to be intelligence agent): "I note that the paper suggests that Saddam's biotech efforts have gone much further than we ever feared. Page 4 Bullet 4: '[Iraq] has assembled specialists to work on its nuclear programme' – Dr Frankenstein I presume? Sorry. It's getting late... We have suggested moderating the same language in much the same way on drafts from the dim and distant past without success. Feel free to try again!... Lots of 'ranges' close together – iffy drafting."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Comments
Several years ago Tony Blair was recorded and televised, standing alongside George Bush when George Bush stated that the real reason they went to war was to oust Saddam Hussein.
The thing is nobody has done a thing about it. Neither have been indited for war crimes or conspiracy to commit murder.
YET!
and btw, the purpose wasn't "to oust President Hussein" it was a corporate welfare op., the secondary objective of which was to demolish a socialist State before it commenced selling its oil in Euros
The odds of any of these liars being charged with anything is so small it makes the national lottery look like a safe bet.
The pressing question is, how do we deflect an elected government, in mid term, from a particular course of action ? Once the election is out of the way, so is democracy. We have no say until the next election.
We cannot change the past, but this must not be allowed to happen again.
For the future though, we need honest politicians and senior officials. (Sorry, that's an oxymoron!) Perhaps a law with meaningful custodial punishments for politicians who lie and dissemble, coupled with the civil law, 'balance of probabilities' standard of proof rather that the criminal law's, 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKUSoRFV
Why not have Ex-President Blair arrested, put in the dock & tried as a war criminal, along with all the lick-spittles that aided & abetted him?
Oh, silly me, I forgot.
Such people are above the law!
Anyway it's not as if it's something serious like non-payment of council tax, is it?
Sorry, I know it's completely off theme - but that name and picture of yours sure bring back some memories!
And you're absolutely right too, as they say here in Mexico - it's justice for the rich and powerful, jail for the poor!
Oh, forgot it is one rule for them and another for those who live outside the EU and US.
The tongue-in-cheek comments by the unnamed official says it all, expressing weary cynicism over the language and spin used by politicians in such reports "from the dim and distant past" and frustration over trying to get it corrected. I wonder how his/her career is doing now, in comparison to those worthies who happily did the politicians' bidding and have since been rewarded with promotions, knighthoods etc.?
Will there now be an open, an open inquiry.
Frankenstein only messed around with a few bodies. Also, a thought, can we toss soft slippers at Blair
So all the international laws that you talk about , only applies to teh weak countries such as Sudan ,Libya ,Liberia >? but oofcourse not to the Criminal George Bush & Tony Blair and the Gangestors of ISRAEL ,Sharon , Barak <LIpintzi , Olmert and all their predesessors Shame , really it is shame,the double standards that the western societies lives in
With a few honourable exceptions, the whole of Westminster should be on trial for treason.
This does put a damnation on anything the government tries to resort to in defence of their behaviour and it moves Blair, Straw, Hoon, Brown, Campbell and others that step closer to possible war crime trials.
Nothing can happen until Iraq ratifies its ICC application, this will not happen all the time the US is still parked in its yard and can call the shots, other countries can take the lead on Iraq's behalf though, Britain should be, Spain is looking to, as is Italy, I heard a rumour too that there are people at Cherie's office that will be queuing up and offering pro bono to nail Tony Blair.
And once we got Blair... then we can go get Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld because the Teflon Tosser will sing to save his own skin when put under the light.
Hey, wouldn't it be ironic if Tony and crew were extradited to Iraq in some future time, interrogated using waterboarding and scalpels and then publicly strangled... its not likely to happen but it is a remote possibility that some point in the future Iraq will seek justice for its own people and our soldiers that have died need justice too.
Perhaps a serious inquiry would be a good thing, and at that point a decision could be made a to whether Blair should be tried for war crimes - which on the back of the info we have i think he should. Perhaps then his pension fund war may look less appealing to him along side his faux christianity.
All these guys ever did was lie and cock up - and one of them should be hung out to dry for that.
If this was in a jeffrey archer novel you would not believe it, and worryingly he seems to have more integrity that most of this lot. Still cant blame Brown for this one - he did not have the balls to stick up to Blair, and as we know could not make a decision about which way to go if he was driving down a one way street
disgusting ans disgraceful.!
next !
repeating the same with Sudan now.
Enough is enough !
next !
The brave, honest man who threw his shoes at Bush should be released immediately and awarded the
Congressional Medal of Honour.
Unfortuneately, only in my 'perfect world'. Shame. Have a nice day. - Grandad
Another lie in the mind of sick Ganges.
will they get free again ?
1/ Involved in terrorism in any way.
2/ Not linked to Alquaeda in any way
3/ In possession of anything resembling a nuclear weapon.
4/ In possession of any biological weapons
5/ In possession of any reliable delivery system that could go further than say 500 miles.
This war was driven by an "they tried to assassinate my daddy" approach from George Bush, in fact all it achieved in the positive (and there were and are many negatives) was the removal of Saddam.
This removal is now being used by the labour government and blair in a heinous rewriting of history as the reason they went in the first place.
Looked at in the cold light of day... Saddam was a pretty cruel dictator, but did he do more damage than Mugabe (no), was he potentially a greater threat than KimIl jung (no). Even on a justification of removing a dictator this war was pretty ill judged.
That other (spurious and doctored) reasons were used is lamentable..... will Blair, Campbell , Bush ever be brought to jsutice for deliberately misleading the population, I doubt it... In fact I suspect Blair may well be Lord Blair fairly soon dressed in ermine robes rather than the prison garb that would better suit the damage he has done to this country with his spurious war on iraq and the way he mismanaged the economy and the country in such devasting fashion...... his was the worst government I suspect this country has ever seen , and thats saying something.
1, A proper in-depth inquiry into this and everything else leading up to the war with evidence taken under oath.
2. A proper inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly because there are too many unanswered questions about the way he died.
Incidentally, maradonna_786, you are totally wrong about the venomous Muslims who demonstrated against our troops. Yes they have the right to protest but to the government, not our troops. And I think you meant to write 'showing THEIR emotion' 'not showing THERE emotion.'