Blair aide demanded dossier change

[muriel_volestrangler]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/23/ukelly1.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/09/23/ixportaltop.html

Mr Powell sent his e-mail at 3.45pm on Sept 19 last year, 45 minutes after the deadline set by Mr Scarlett for final comments from the agencies on the draft dossier before it was sent to the printers.

He wrote: "I think the statement on pg 19 that 'Saddam is prepared to use chemical and biological weapons if he believes is regime is under threat' is a bit of a problem.

"It backs up the Don McIntyre (a political columnist for The Independent) argument that there is no CBW threat and we will only create one if we attack him. I think you should redraft the para."

In the final version of the dossier, published five days later on September 24, the passage was changed to read: "Saddam is willing to use chemical and biological weapons, including against his own Shia population."

So, Number 10 did want changes to the dossier, not because of intelligence (Scarlett would have known the intelligence better, so what was in an earlier draft would have been the better summary of available intelligence), but to improve its case for war. Exactly what Kelly was concerned about.

[Barrett808]

1. broken link?

I get a 404 with this one.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. It is a registration-only site

so maybe you'd need to do that. Here's the same story from Reuters:

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3493982

[T_i_B]

8. Here's the Grauniad article

Might as well get this up the top before we get any more dupes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/0,13822,1048495,00.html

"I think the statement... that 'Saddam is prepared to use chemical and biological weapons if he believes his regime is under threat' is a bit of a problem", Mr Powell told John Scarlett, chairman of the joint intelligence committee, and Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's communications chief.

He added: "It backs up... the argument that there is no CBW (chemical and biological warfare) threat and we will only create one if we attack him. I think you should redraft the para. My memory of the intelligence is that he has set up plans to use CBW on western forces."

The email was shown at the Hutton inquiry yesterday to Mr Scarlett by Andrew Caldecott QC, counsel for the BBC. Mr Scarlett was also shown a draft of the dossier dated September 19 - the day Mr Powell sent his email - which included the phrase that Saddam was "prepared to use chemical or biological weapons if he believes his regime is under threat".

The dossier which was published on September 24 2002 omitted this passage. Instead, it said only that intelligence "indicates" Saddam is willing to use such weapons "including against his own Shia population", before adding the disputed claim that they could be deployed within 45 minutes.

[emad]

10. Scarlett is the rogue in the pack.....

He has a very messy background - was nearly kicked out of the civil service after an appalling stint in the UK embassy in Moscow, which was smoothed over after intervention by Thatcher. He's good on barefaced bluff (the Frank Bruno of the Joint Intelligence Committee) but may be the next contender for the Dr Kelly 'I'll be found dead by the bushes' prediction fulfilment....

[el_gato]

2. Is Blair in jail yet?

It's like a slow bleed over there (like in the u.s. i guess).
Every excuse he and his cabinet come up with gets shot down
with a new exposure of information.
It's like they have all they need to hang him now but the process
has to take it's course.

I just wish they'd dump his ass already.

[AP]

4. I'm not clear about this one. Does anyone really think the

dossier WASN"T about convincing Brits of the case for war?

Did they change it to something that wasn't true?

This whole thing is ugly and embarassing. But I think the real story is the one implied by last week's Democracy Now! interview with two ex-CIA agents who revealed that the CIA intended on using this thing to hurt the Labor government.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. I'd would have thought everyone knew ...

... that it was about convincing Brits of the case for war, but then again, I would have thought that under 20% of Americans still thought that Saddam was linked to 9/11 (just because 20% can always do something stupid).
At least here we have their own e-mails showing their lies.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. AP, do you have a link?

The one interview wtih 2 ex-CIA men that I can see from last week on the democracynow.org site doesn't seem to mention Britain at all.

[AP]

12. It's in the segment when they talk about why the agent resigned

I think his name is Foster. They say he was told, don't worry, we're going to blame the Brits for the 45 minute claim.

To me, it sounded like this whole thing was planned and that what's happening now is part of a CIA strategy to get Tories elected in the UK.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Thanks

I'd been listening to the 'Ex-CIA Analysts' from Friday, rather than the (misleadingly titled, since there are 2 of them in this too) 'Bush Sr. CIA Briefer' from Wednesday.

Not being the suspicious type, I'd say the 2 guys are saying the CIA attitude was just "if this gets proven wrong, don't worry, we'll just say the British were incompetent, not us" rather than "we'll plant evidence, get Blair to believe it, use it and say it's his fault when proven wrong, then no-one will trust him".

[AP]

14. I can understand why you'd see it that way, and you can probably

understand why I'd see it the way I do.

I think you put all the pieces together, and my theory makes a lot of sense. Of course Bush would want to undermine Labour and help the Tories, just as the US tried to undermine Schroeder, and ever other liberal and center left government out there. The Bush family is espeically tight with the right wing in Britian. And I doubt the CIA would have reassured this agent that they'd be blaming in Blair unless it had been something they discussed in detail, rather than an off the top of the head don't worry.

[T_i_B]

7. Tony Blair doesn't think so

Does anyone really think the dossier WASN"T about convincing Brits of the case for war?

Whilst the British people are almost unanimous in my experience of their view that the dossier was the case for war Tony Blair has testified otherwise at the Hutton enquiry

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3191515.stm

Prime Minister Tony Blair told the inquiry the dossier was not intended to make the case for war, but to share intelligence with the public.

What was the dossier for than? Scaring children? :eyes:

[Spentastic]

9. Hey AP

But Tony said the dossier wasn't about making the case for war.

[Spentastic]

11. This should be

Absolute dynamite. But I fear that the BBC especially has been suffiently cowed not to come out and call the Prime minister a liar.

This change alters the entire character of the dossier. How could there be an immediate threat to U.K interests from WMD if deployment of said weapons would only be on a causal basis? The logical conclusion is that in order to create an immediate threat, the U.K must attacks Saddam, which is what they did. Insanity.

Unfortunately I believe the public are bored of the enquiry and nothing will come of this.