NewsMine — war-on-terror — iraq — pretext — wmd — Viewing Item

British doctored wmd dossier { May 29 2003 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)    http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,966208,00.html http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,966208,00.html 10.30am update -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Official explodes key WMD claim Read the No 10 dossier in question Tom Happold and agencies Thursday May 29, 2003 Downing Street doctored a dossier on Iraq's weapons programme to make it "sexier", according to a senior British official, who claims intelligence services were unhappy with the assertion that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were ready for use within 45 minutes. Despite a No 10 denial that "not one word of the dossier was not entirely the work of the intelligence agencies," the revelations are likely to cloud Tony Blair's visit to Iraq today. Critics of the war are expected to claim that the document shows it was one of conquest, not pre-emptive self-defence or liberation. It is understood that the parliamentary intelligence and security committee is set to launch an enquiry into the claims made by the government about Iraq. And the former foreign secretary, Robin Cook, who resigned over his opposition to the war, last night called for a more independent select committee to investigate the matter. The unnamed official told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Most people in intelligence weren't happy with the dossier because it didn't reflect the considered view they were putting forward." Describing how it was "transformed" in the week before it was published to make it "sexier", he added: "The classic example was the statement that weapons of mass destruction were ready for use within 45 minutes. "That information was not in the original draft. It was included in the dossier against our wishes because it wasn't reliable. Most things in the dossier were double-source but that was single-source and we believe that the source was wrong." The unnamed official was, however, keen to state that he believed Iraq did have WMD. "I believe it is about 30% likely that there was a chemical weapons programme about six months before the war and considerably more likely that there was a biological weapons programme," he said. The 50-page document drew on intelligence material from MI6, MI5 and GCHQ and outlined Iraq's attempts to acquire nuclear weapons and to develop long-range ballistic missiles capable of hitting Israel or British bases in Cyprus. It claimed that Saddam Hussien did not regard his WMD as "weapons of last resort" but was ready use them against his enemies and own people. The defence minister, Adam Ingram, today denied that Downing Street had ordered the doctoring of the dossier. "There was no pressure from No 10," he told the Today programme. "That allegation is not true." But he did admit that the claim that WMD could be used within 45 minutes was based on a single source. "It wasn't corroborated. I think that has already been conceded." Mr Ingram also refuted suggestions that the war had been prosecuted on the basis of fanciful and unsubstantiated allegations. "The war was fought on the basis of all of the allegations, much of which was substantiated, not just by a security document produced by our security services, not concocted by No 10 or under pressure from No 10 to produce it in a particular way, but their best knowledge and their best assessment of what they could declare into the public domain, based upon the knowledge of what was out there." "The whole world knew what Saddam Hussein was up to in terms of weapons of mass destruction. That's why we prosecuted that war. That's why we were right," he added. And Mr Ingram echoed Mr Blair's claims yesterday about the doubtless "existence of weapons of mass destruction", saying that "extensive searching" was under way to find the weapons, while a wide range of Iraqis with knowledge of the programmes were being interrogated. "The jigsaw is now beginning to come into place," he said. The Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, Menzies Campbell, said today's claims "corroborated" rumours that the intelligence services were "generally unhappy" with the government's use of their information. "What I think it demonstrates is that if you start to turn the intelligence into a means by which to achieve your political objective then of course it becomes propaganda and is no longer as reliable," he told Today. Today's allegations follow US defence secretary Donald Rumfeld's comments yesterday that Saddam Hussien may have destroyed his weapons before the start of war and that . They also follow the revelation that part of the government's February document on Iraq's intelligence network was cut and pasted from a PhD student's dissertation.

tubes uranium weapons-declaration Blair admits weapons may never be found { January 12 2004 } Blair admits wmds may never be found { July 6 2004 } Blair decided regime change april 2002 despite rhetoric { May 2 2005 } Blix accuses fabricating evidence { April 12 2003 } Blix report doubts wmd { June 2 2003 } British doctored wmd dossier { May 29 2003 } Bush declines to back call for intelligence probe Bush jokes about finding wmds Bush says war worth it despite no wmds Bush says weapons will be found Chemical weapons plant created after invasion { August 14 2005 } Children play with uranium tubes Cia condemned for flawed intelligence Cia operative asked to falsify wmd report { December 9 2004 } Classified study doubts weapons in 2002 Documents concerning uranium came from italy { October 25 2005 } Fbi says profit motivated italian uranium forgery Germ trailer evidence rejected { June 7 2003 } GWB_WMD_Memo [pdf] Inspector reports iraq had no WMD Iraq declared al samoud missiles { April 29 2003 } Iraq destroyed wmd 1995 Iraq may have destroyed wmd { May 27 2003 } Kay blames cia for no wmd Kurds help find wmd lab { May 7 2003 } Mccain picked for iraq intelligence probe Might have to be planted New inspections to plant weapons { April 8 2003 } New reports on us planting wmds in iraq No firm evidence banned weapons { April 7 2003 } No reliable evidence of iraqi weapons { June 6 2003 } No reliable information wmd { June 6 2003 } No weapons found in iraq says report No wmd found but { February 14 2003 } No wmds found in iraq { September 24 2003 } Nuclear program materials still buried { June 26 2003 } Officer refused falsify wmd reports Panel assails CIA for failure on iraq weapons { March 29 2005 } Powell says new data may have affected war decision { February 3 2004 } Powell says wmd stocks wont be found Powell says wmd un speech blot on record Presidential report is critical of intelligence agencies Questions on blair intelligence { April 21 2003 } Report says intel on wmd was dead wrong { March 31 2005 } Rockefeller says weapons should been found { May 29 2003 } Saddam had no weapons in 2003 { October 6 2004 } Saddam says wmd excuse for war Scientist says arms kept till war { April 21 2003 } Scientist surrenders says no wmd Search for wmds in iraq ended last month { January 12 2005 } Sen Durbin jan 26 06 on iraq wmds [mp3] Sen Durbin jan 26 06 on iraq wmds Senate panel blames bad iraq intelligence on CIA Senators told iraqi weapons could hit east coast Seniors sources ruled out finding wmds { July 10 2003 } Skepticism on bushs weapons claims grow { May 22 2003 } Smoking gun wmd site just pesticide Task force unable find wmd { May 11 2003 } Team hunting iraq WMD ends its search { January 12 2005 } Test barrels nerve agent Us adds teams hunt { April 27 2003 } Us not inspected iraq nuclear facility { April 25 2003 } US team concludes saddam had no wmd { April 26 2005 } Us withdraws team of weapons hunters { January 8 2004 } Usa and uk lied war pretext Usa will falsify wmd Weapons hunter quits says doubts they exist Wmd intelligence was falisified { February 15 2004 } Wmd proof [jpg] Files Listed: 69

Correction/submissions

CIA FOIA Archive

National Security Archives

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purpose of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.