UK

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 13° London Hi 16°C / Lo 8°C

Damning new evidence

Secret emails show Iraq dossier was 'sexed up'

Intelligence chiefs criticised 'iffy drafting' of key document

By Nigel Morris, Deputy Political Editor

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."

Post a Comment

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.

Comments

Page 1 of 4
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] >>
Very old news
[info]berewic wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 01:24 am (UTC)
There can't be a living, breathing person in the country that isn't already fully aware NuLabours claims on Iraq have all been fairy tales from the beginning. Doctor Kelly was aware of NuLabours lies and could have exposed them all if he hadn't mysteriously died.
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!
murder
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 06:52 am (UTC)
is not a capital offence in Britain, but there is reason to believe that conspiracy by our "valiant man" (spit) to wage aggressive war might still be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKUSoRFVrQI

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
Re: murder - [info]cronyblatcher - Friday, 13 March 2009 at 06:59 am (UTC) Expand
Re: murder - [info]vhawk1951 - Friday, 13 March 2009 at 11:37 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Very old news - [info]augie983 - Friday, 13 March 2009 at 06:12 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Very old news - [info]fakhry - Friday, 13 March 2009 at 09:36 pm (UTC) Expand
When
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 01:57 am (UTC)
can we expect to see arrests?
Re: When
[info]andrewholt wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 08:58 am (UTC)
Maybe of the person who pressed this FoI request. Luckily they are planning to close Guatanamo bay or we could have had another case of "Extraordinary Rendition".

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.
Re: When - [info]rants_a_lot - Friday, 13 March 2009 at 09:03 am (UTC) Expand
Re: When - [info]cronyblatcher - Friday, 13 March 2009 at 09:46 am (UTC) Expand
Re: When - [info]nick_of_oz - Friday, 13 March 2009 at 06:57 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: god is watching them ! - [info]fakhry - Friday, 13 March 2009 at 09:49 pm (UTC) Expand
Re; Very old news
[info]colincarr99 wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 02:00 am (UTC)
Yes, we already know what happened and don't need another rigged public inquiry to tell us that the politicians weren't the blatant liars we know they were.

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'.
Re: Re; Very old news
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 02:34 am (UTC)
In English law a jury is able to tell a judge to stuff his "beyond reasonable doubt"
and we wonder why there were 20 protestors in luton holding placards up and showing there emotion
[info]maradona_786 wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 03:05 am (UTC)
funny how the same robots come out trying to put postive spin and muslim bashing when 20 protestors showed there emotion in trying to bring about change in the ilegal invasions in iraq and afghanistan where women and kids have been killed based on lies and spin the public were duped in by with the dodgy dossier that was sexed up and where told by the media that the people protesting are the enemy within you couldnt make it up
Call a lie a lie
[info]leunnamme wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 05:30 am (UTC)
You can use all the metaphors you want: 'sexed up', 'doctored, 'spun', tweaked', all it comes down to is that the govrnment lied. Is Tony blair's character so sacro-saint that it is impossible to call him what he is? He IS a liar. And the Tories can gesticulate all they want, when they supported the government when they vetoed the release of the cabinet meetings minutes prior to the Gulf war, they became accomplices to this lie.
'accomplices'
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 06:34 am (UTC)
include the entire population of bloodstained snouts. Wonderone, being a slippery rogue, managed it so that the burden of guilt was shifted from his shoulders and those of a small cabal, to the lot of them. Are they the stuff that "every man in arms should wish to be"? I think not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKUSoRFVrQI
BLAIR ON THE PHONE
[info]44_yearsago wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 06:16 am (UTC)
He's explaining that the four letter word obsessed bloke behind him is a real asset cos he has mental health problems.
Oh What a Surprise!
[info]49niner wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 06:26 am (UTC)
So, we were told half-truths and porky-pies. Surprised? As a fully paid up member of the Cynical Tendancy, we knew this all along.
Dossier was sexed up
[info]militantsisidf wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 06:43 am (UTC)
Greg Dyke and Andrew Gilligan need to visit their lawyers may be if they demand that this issue is revisited for their redress, Govt attempts to kick any inquiry into the long grass will be fustrated. In addition, more of the truth will come out than in any so called 'inquiry'.
Good old British Justice.
[info]rojaws wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 07:04 am (UTC)
I suppose it would be too simple.
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?
Re: Good old British Justice.
[info]ddraig_ddu wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 03:22 pm (UTC)

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!
Re: Good old British Justice. - [info]fakhry - Friday, 13 March 2009 at 10:34 pm (UTC) Expand
Irag Dossier
[info]sumsim wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 07:59 am (UTC)
I guess messrs Campbell and Bliar will be off to the Hague some time soon then.
Oh, forgot it is one rule for them and another for those who live outside the EU and US.
Re: Irag Dossier
[info]michaelrhooper wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 04:59 pm (UTC)
Pleased that you have mentioned the name of Ian Campbell, I think he was the person who was egging on Tony Blair to take the stand he did. Responsible for Greg Dyke and Andrew Gilligan to be fired from the BBC, not to mention the poor Doctor who was found dead in a field, or perhaps I should say murdered
[info]mr_scummy wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 08:06 am (UTC)

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.?
Not News
[info]sheumais wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 08:22 am (UTC)
If you read the Hutton Inquiry report, you would have known the wording of the dossier was materially changed, but that Lord Hutton dwelt upon the definition of "sexed-up". I do not agree with his conclusion as to its meaning and doubt many would, but that is why he concluded the dossier was not "sexed-up" not that it was not altered.
now there's a surprise!
[info]jaffgyp wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 08:25 am (UTC)
disgraceful that what was obvious to almost everybody can only now be publicly confirmed; now i wonder when the true tale of that good man kelly will be finally released?; how do we get ourselves lumbered with people like blair who revel in being religious while being prepared to sell their grannies to be able to stay in the political centre stage: and how do they manage to live with themselves so happily ( and profitably) ever after?- come on tony, tell us!
Hutton
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 08:43 am (UTC)
'Doing a Hutton' and 'a Hutton job' have fallen into disuse. Pity, because they arguably pointed to misconduct in public office as a red light to others in the same trade holding similar values and equally unconcerned about rule of law who also obligingly twist words CPR and statute to suit a particular interest.
The Eyes have it
[info]dkayedon wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 08:28 am (UTC)
The Blair body language of sheer enjoyment ; must be receiving a phone call from Bush, and poor old Alastair, "Oh god, whats he doing now".

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
[info]thomasth wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 08:39 am (UTC)
... but we knew the government was lying at the time: the question remains; why did the whole establishment (apart from a couple of noble exceptions) go along with it; and why did the British public allow itself to be fooled into a war?
The hypocracy of teh West
[info]raymondjamal wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 08:44 am (UTC)
This shows you how the western World preaches something and act differentley. This what created the distraust that the whole Middle East have to the West,
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
Labour/Tory Plot
[info]hodgeey wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 08:59 am (UTC)
The Tories knew that Blair was lying through his teeth, but they went along with his murderous plot to aid and abet the Bush gang. Without their complicity, it would not have happened

With a few honourable exceptions, the whole of Westminster should be on trial for treason.
Expect Blair to push for EU President...
[info]ancientoneuk wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 09:08 am (UTC)
... the way this is going, Blair knows full well that as long as he is in a diplomatic or envoy post this country will do little to touch him and the manner in which he is seeking the EU presidency alone makes me suspicious that this toad is looking to cover his hide.

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.
Liars scroungers and despised tony blair
[info]bowesy wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 09:13 am (UTC)
Surely this no surprise to anyone - they knicked half of it from the internet.

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
Sudan next !
[info]fakhry wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 09:23 am (UTC)
this is the past sickness ! what about the present and the future misleading that take the innocent to death,leaving the real criminal "FREE".

disgusting ans disgraceful.!
next !
repeating the same with Sudan now.
Enough is enough !
next !
[info]antipholus wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 09:27 am (UTC)
Britain will remain a shamed rogue state until we insist that Blair and his henchmen are on trial for their crimes against humanity. We do not need an enquiry - Blair, Campbell, Straw and Hoon deliberately lied in order to plan and wage aggressive war! They have committed both high treason and the supreme international crime.
My Pefect World
[info]1jeohtf wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 09:51 am (UTC)
In my 'perfect world' Bush, Blair, Rumsveldt, Madoff, etc, etc, would be in cages on Guantanamo.

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
next
[info]fakhry wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 09:32 am (UTC)
Sudan and Afghanistan ?next to show us who was behind Ben-ladden without him knowing ?
Another lie in the mind of sick Ganges.
will they get free again ?
iraq and the weapons of mass destruction
[info]abharrisson wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 09:32 am (UTC)
I think it has been clear to most people for a long time that while a tyrant Saddam was not:
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.
[info]indi1 wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 09:44 am (UTC)
Will they issue an apology over poor Dr Kelly - and the BBC controller who felt the wraith of their free speech against Blair and the Labour government
An inquiry and an inquest please.
[info]ptstroud wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 09:45 am (UTC)
This is just the latest of a stream of evidence that certainly supports the sexing up view and should lead to two courses of action.

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.'
Re: An inquiry and an inquest please.
[info]cronyblatcher wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 12:37 pm (UTC)
and an open enquiry into how military explosives and planning went into '7/7'
Re: An inquiry and an inquest please. - [info]infangthief - Friday, 13 March 2009 at 06:21 pm (UTC) Expand
Page 1 of 4
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] >>

Most popular in UK News



Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date