Iraq dossier drawn up to make case for war – intelligence officer

A top military intelligence official has said the discredited dossier on Iraq's weapons programme was drawn up "to make the case for war", flatly contradicting persistent claims to the contrary by the Blair government, and in particular by Alastair Campbell, the former prime minister's chief spin doctor. In hitherto secret evidence to the Chilcot inquiry, Major General Michael Laurie said: "We knew at the time that the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care." His evidence is devastating, as it is the first time such a senior intelligence officer has directly contradicted the then government's claims about the dossier – and, perhaps more significantly, what Tony Blair and Campbell said when it was released seven months before the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Laurie, who was director general in the Defence Intelligence Staff, responsible for commanding and delivering raw and analysed intelligence, said: "I am writing to comment on the position taken by Alastair Campbell during his evidence to you … when he stated that the purpose of the dossier was not to make a case for war; I and those involved in its production saw it exactly as that, and that was the direction we were given."

He continued: "Alastair Campbell said to the inquiry that the purpose of the dossier was not 'to make a case for war'. I had no doubt at that time this was exactly its purpose and these very words were used." Laurie said he recalled that the chief of defence intelligence, Air Marshal Sir Joe French, was "frequently inquiring whether we were missing something" and was under pressure. "We could find no evidence of planes, missiles or equipment that related to WMD [weapons of mass destruction], generally concluding that they must have been dismantled, buried or taken abroad. There has probably never been a greater detailed scrutiny of every piece of ground in any country."

www.guardian.co.uk...

Just one question.

When is Blair, Campball,(anyone!) from the former New Labour government going to be indicted on the charges of war crimes? Namely 'War of Agreesion' as evidence continues to accumulate that there was no grounding in international law for the invasion of Iraq

There was no threat to neighbouring countries, no genocide, nothing to justify it.

reply to post by Peruvianmonk
Then they need to arrest, Bush, Chaney and Rumsfield. There are a lot of people that know the truth about it all and they need to stand up. We need some real Heroes to stand up to all the wrongs this country and Great Britian did. The thousands, that died on all sides we victims of these lies. Thank you for bringing this up. F&S ATS has a strong voice and we need to use it.

reply to post by coolottie


Yes of course they need arresting to, but it will not happen in the U.S.A.

Bush, Rumsfield know they cannot enter a lot of european countires for fear of being arrested on tortue allegations.

Justice for George W’s torture violations jumped much closer this weekend. Ex-President George W Bush was supposed to fly to Switzerland to speak in Geneva February 15. But his speech was cancelled over the weekend because of concerns about protests and efforts by human rights organizations asking Swiss prosecutors to charge Bush with torture and serve him with an arrest warrant.

Two things made this possible. Switzerland allows the prosecution of human rights violators from other countries if the violator is on Swiss soil and George W admitted he authorized water boarding detainees in his recent memoir. Torture is internationally banned by the Convention Against Torture.

www.counterpunch.org...


Although these crimes of torture are obviously illegal, they pale in comparison to the war of agression committed on Iraq. Under the crime of war of agression all other war crimes fall in to, this is why it is important to recognise it as such.

I am sooooo not voting for Bush next election!

Invading Iraq based on lies? How come no one is talking about this?

Unacceptable.

Wait...

reply to post by GringoViejo


Irony and sarcasm are both most welcome on my threads

I voted for Blair and Labour to be re-elected following the Iraq War, that was when I was ignorant and shall tkae that embarrasment to my grave.

Chilcot said: "Writing a report covering so wide and complex a time period necessarily takes time.

Whilst writing the report, we are also simultaneously seeking the declassification of much relevant material so the public will understand why and how the inquiry has reached its conclusions.

www.google.com...

I get the feeling the final report is going to be pretty daming, mabye even to the point where the inquiry concludes that it was not clear at the time to the New Labour government whether the invasion was illegal or not.

This could open the door to the courts.

Naive optimisim?

reply to post by Peruvianmonk




I smell a character assassination on Laurie.

reply to post by GringoViejo


I already heard on BBC Radio 4 an apoligist for the war from the MOD trying to claim that Laurie was not of high importance and did not have a huge amount to do with the dossier.

From the Guardian

Laurie, who was director general in the Defence Intelligence Staff, responsible for commanding and delivering raw and analysed intelligence, said: "I am writing to comment on the position taken by Alastair Campbell during his evidence to you … when he stated that the purpose of the dossier was not to make a case for war; I and those involved in its production saw it exactly as that, and that was the direction we were given."

www.guardian.co.uk...

Clearly he was a vital link in the chain who looked at ALL the intelligence avaliable on Iraq as Director General.