I found this article about UK intel reports before the Iraq war.
This is The Sunday Telegraph link to the original story.
The intel reports in the UK might have been tweaked. What do you think? They are calling it the "dodgy dossier" in the UK. Is it OK to use a "dodgy dossier" to convince a nation to go to war?
Iraq Arms Report Mishandled, Blair Aide Concedes in Letter
By WARREN HOGE
LONDON, June 8 ? A top aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote to the head of Britain's intelligence service earlier this spring conceding that the government's presentation of a report on Iraqi arms was mishandled and promising that "far greater care" would be taken with files in the future so as not to discredit the spy agency's work, a British newspaper said today.
The government admission that Alastair Campbell, Mr. Blair's director of communications, had written a letter of explanation to Sir Richard Dearlove, chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, known as MI6, came as the use of intelligence findings to muster support for the war on Iraq has increasingly come under questioning.
The apologetic letter was reported today by The Sunday Telegraph and confirmed by a Downing Street spokesman. He said that Mr. Campbell had told intelligence chiefs that procedures for handling information would be tightened and that "far greater care would be taken in dealing with anything that might impact on their reputation or their work."
The report, "Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation," was made public in February as Mr. Blair tried to persuade the dubious British public of the need to forcefully disarm Saddam Hussein.
It is now referred to in the British news media as the "dodgy dossier" because of evidence that part of it was downloaded from the Internet ? complete with typographical errors ? from an American student's thesis that relied on 12-year-old public information.
An earlier report, published in September, is now under review by two parliamentary committees because of doubts raised about its central claim: that Iraq's chemical and biological weapons were in such a state of readiness that they could be launched within 45 minutes.
The controversy over that claim obliged Mr. Blair to reassure Parliament on Wednesday that his government had not embellished spy reports to exaggerate the threat of unconventional weapons and justify the war.
At the time, Britain took on the assignment of disclosing intelligence findings because, the thinking then went, the information would be more credible and trustworthy to critics of the war and in the Muslim world if it came from London rather than Washington.
Various newspapers have reported that intelligence officers here were pressured to produce positive evidence of unconventional weapons in the period leading up to the war. Those reports were backed up today by Robin Cook, a former foreign secretary who quit his cabinet position as leader of the Commons after Britain decided to enter the war without United Nations approval.
Speaking on the BBC, Mr. Cook, who resigned on March 17, said government officials had been selective in searching espionage files. "When they looked at intelligence," he said, "they weren't looking at intelligence to try to get a balanced judgment, a guide to policy, out of it, they were looking to intelligence to support a conclusion they had already come to ? which is that they were going to go to war."
Concerning the intelligence files, the Downing Street spokesman said today that there had been "an error of omission in the dossier, where we should have made the attribution clearer ? those elements which came from intelligence sources and those elements which came from publicly available sources."
The spokesman added, "What did happen in the wake of the controversy surrounding the dossier was that Alastair Campbell spoke to those responsible for its production and demanded a tightening of procedures."
Mr. Blair, the United States' principal ally in the war, has been under attack from opponents of the conflict and dissidents in his own party because of the failure to find chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in Iraq.
Similar concern has been expressed in the United States about the Bush administration's use of intelligence data. Still, the pressure on Mr. Blair is particularly intense since he had emphasized the threat of a potential terror strike using Iraq's unconventional weapons as the sole basis for going to war.
The British public was more dubious about the war than Americans were, and many Britons are aggressively pressing their concern about possible manipulation of information. They have been joined by the opposition Conservatives, who backed the war, in calling for an independent judicial inquiry, a move the government is resisting.
Tam Dalyell, a Labor parliamentarian who is the longest-serving member of the House of Commons and a persistent critic of Mr. Blair and the war, said in a statement today: "The implication of what Campbell said is that Britain went to war against Iraq on the basis of carelessness. I do not see what other conclusion can be drawn."
This is The Sunday Telegraph link to the original story.
The intel reports in the UK might have been tweaked. What do you think? They are calling it the "dodgy dossier" in the UK. Is it OK to use a "dodgy dossier" to convince a nation to go to war?
Iraq Arms Report Mishandled, Blair Aide Concedes in Letter
By WARREN HOGE
LONDON, June 8 ? A top aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote to the head of Britain's intelligence service earlier this spring conceding that the government's presentation of a report on Iraqi arms was mishandled and promising that "far greater care" would be taken with files in the future so as not to discredit the spy agency's work, a British newspaper said today.
The government admission that Alastair Campbell, Mr. Blair's director of communications, had written a letter of explanation to Sir Richard Dearlove, chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, known as MI6, came as the use of intelligence findings to muster support for the war on Iraq has increasingly come under questioning.
The apologetic letter was reported today by The Sunday Telegraph and confirmed by a Downing Street spokesman. He said that Mr. Campbell had told intelligence chiefs that procedures for handling information would be tightened and that "far greater care would be taken in dealing with anything that might impact on their reputation or their work."
The report, "Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation," was made public in February as Mr. Blair tried to persuade the dubious British public of the need to forcefully disarm Saddam Hussein.
It is now referred to in the British news media as the "dodgy dossier" because of evidence that part of it was downloaded from the Internet ? complete with typographical errors ? from an American student's thesis that relied on 12-year-old public information.
An earlier report, published in September, is now under review by two parliamentary committees because of doubts raised about its central claim: that Iraq's chemical and biological weapons were in such a state of readiness that they could be launched within 45 minutes.
The controversy over that claim obliged Mr. Blair to reassure Parliament on Wednesday that his government had not embellished spy reports to exaggerate the threat of unconventional weapons and justify the war.
At the time, Britain took on the assignment of disclosing intelligence findings because, the thinking then went, the information would be more credible and trustworthy to critics of the war and in the Muslim world if it came from London rather than Washington.
Various newspapers have reported that intelligence officers here were pressured to produce positive evidence of unconventional weapons in the period leading up to the war. Those reports were backed up today by Robin Cook, a former foreign secretary who quit his cabinet position as leader of the Commons after Britain decided to enter the war without United Nations approval.
Speaking on the BBC, Mr. Cook, who resigned on March 17, said government officials had been selective in searching espionage files. "When they looked at intelligence," he said, "they weren't looking at intelligence to try to get a balanced judgment, a guide to policy, out of it, they were looking to intelligence to support a conclusion they had already come to ? which is that they were going to go to war."
Concerning the intelligence files, the Downing Street spokesman said today that there had been "an error of omission in the dossier, where we should have made the attribution clearer ? those elements which came from intelligence sources and those elements which came from publicly available sources."
The spokesman added, "What did happen in the wake of the controversy surrounding the dossier was that Alastair Campbell spoke to those responsible for its production and demanded a tightening of procedures."
Mr. Blair, the United States' principal ally in the war, has been under attack from opponents of the conflict and dissidents in his own party because of the failure to find chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in Iraq.
Similar concern has been expressed in the United States about the Bush administration's use of intelligence data. Still, the pressure on Mr. Blair is particularly intense since he had emphasized the threat of a potential terror strike using Iraq's unconventional weapons as the sole basis for going to war.
The British public was more dubious about the war than Americans were, and many Britons are aggressively pressing their concern about possible manipulation of information. They have been joined by the opposition Conservatives, who backed the war, in calling for an independent judicial inquiry, a move the government is resisting.
Tam Dalyell, a Labor parliamentarian who is the longest-serving member of the House of Commons and a persistent critic of Mr. Blair and the war, said in a statement today: "The implication of what Campbell said is that Britain went to war against Iraq on the basis of carelessness. I do not see what other conclusion can be drawn."
Facebook
Twitter