Revealed: last-minute changes to Iraq dossier

[QuietStorm]

The Government's dossier on Iraq's weapons capability was hardened up in the days before its publication in a number of key respects that did not tally with the views of some of its most senior experts, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

Scrutiny of documents released by the Hutton inquiry into the death of the weapons expert Dr David Kelly reveals that not only were key claims about the nature and extent of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction strengthened in the two weeks before the dossier's publication in September 2002 but that a crucial change was made to the title.

Right up until the publication of the final draft, and as late as 19 September, the document was entitled "Iraq's programme for weapons of mass destruction". But on 24 September, when the Government published the finished version, it left out the words "programme for".

According to Dr Glen Rangwala, the Cambridge academic who exposed the Government's February dossier as having been plagiarised from a student thesis on the internet, that change is important because the inclusion of the word "programme" does not assume that such weapons existed....

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=434507

[jamesinca]

1. Plagiarised and cherry picked

Those are two things that Blair wanted on his Christmas list I bet. I still ask, will this make it to the U.S.? Will this take Bush down, along with his administration? Fair and Balanced, I bet they are not running this story!

[QuietStorm]

2. There are no checks and balances now

and the media should be taken in on RICO charges to, for without governmental checks and balances, they could be the peoples watchtower for democracy, but they have sorely missed the mark, haven't they, but for dribs and drabs those who are apt to attempt to put together for themselves.

[AP]

6. I never understood the plagiarism charge. Wouldn't you want the

government, in this circumstance, to collect all available information and present it to the public. I know, I know, the whole war was founded on bullshit. But, pretend it's a just a war, say 1938, and someone has written a paper on concentration camps for a dissertation. Who cares if the government plagiarizes it or infringes copyright or whatever? Wouldn't you want the government to do that if it meant the information was being broadly disseminated and introduced into the public debate?

Obviously, plagiarism is not the accusation you want to make. If people are wondering why Blair isn't suffering more for what he's done, I'd start looking into the logic and effectiveness of accusations like "plagiarism." They're empty accusations. It's like the whole Walter Mitty thing. Who the hell is Walter Mitty, and how can it be such a bad thing if the reference doesn't even resonate?

[T_i_B]

7. Well the second dossier WAS plagarized.

Blair tried to pass it off as up to date & first hand when in fact it was plagarized of an postgraduate thesis over 10 years old. That is deliberatly misleading and I don't have any time for those who try to mislead and decive us into war, although you obviously don't mind being lied to.

[AP]

9. But, did he change the dates? Was the thesis bullshit?

Do you see how these are accusations that really don't do much more than inflamate at first, and then wilt in the sun of a little more consideration.

Sure Blair said they had new information. But, if the report was plagiarized, and it was old, I suspect it was just like, "during the Gulf War Hussein did X" Just because it wasnt written in 2003 doesn't really matter. And this clearly wasn't the only report in the dossier. I just think if you're wondering why people are MORE angry, it's because in the quiet recesses of their minds, they're turning over questions like these.

By the way, are you going to start attacking me personally again? I'm not really interested in having that kind of 'discussion' right now.

[T_i_B]

11. The thesis was well out of date

Blair tried to pass it off as brand new info when in fact it was plagarized by somebody at Downing street. This is the "dodgy dossier" remember, the one Blair has admitted was utter shite. I'm suprised you are still clinging to this.

"mistakes have been made, lessons have been learned". That is the spin every single time Blair gets caught with his pants down, yet at no point does Blair show any sign of having learned from his mistakes. That is a worrying sign of an arrogant government.

[grytpype]

3. Read the whole article, you won't believe your eyes...

Just look at the changes that were made in the dossier by No. 10:

---

Right up until the publication of the final draft, and as late as 19 September, the document was entitled "Iraq's programme for weapons of mass destruction". But on 24 September, when the Government published the finished version, it left out the words "programme for".

---

In the same draft is an acknowledgement that "Iraq has chemical and biological weapons available, either from pre-Gulf war stocks or more recent production". In the final document, this has been changed to: "Iraq has chemical and biological agents and weapons available, both from pre-Gulf war stocks and more recent production."

[QuietStorm]

4. see that is the thing

so much of it has been right in front of our eyes. It is time to believe our eyes.

[JawJaw]

13. Exactly

Not only did the Blair administration not cite it's sources for this dossier (falsely implying that the information was thus up-to-date and from valid government intelligence), but they also changed key words (inserting the words "terrorists" etc) with the specific intent of frightening the population (an act of terrorism, in itself) into invading another country (another act of terrorism)


And if the word "programmes" was so inappropriate before the invasion, why are both the US and UK administations parrotting nothing but "programmes" now that those massed stockpiles of WMD can't be found?

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. As if this was anything new

Anybody who a taken a breath in the last 5 minutes knows that this dossier was bogus. Hell, I immediately knew it was bogus when it was referred to as a "dossier" instead of a report. That it is taking soooo long to fully expose and oust Blair either indicates a patient methodical slow roast or utter stupidity. We can only hope it's the former.

[AP]

8. I think another possibility is that Blair was relying on actual

intelligence provided by the intelligence community which was bogus.

I have a suspicion that in the UK, like in the US, regardless of who heads the executive branch (in the US) or legislative (in UK), the people who run intelligence are a mix of committed, patriotic conservatives, and evil extreme right wing fascists. I would bet money that Tony Blair decided he needed to go into Iraq to protect Britain and Europe from having their economies sabotaged by the US, and to act as America's conscience in Iraq. To do that he probably took a look at the intelligence the right wingers in intelligence had been providing to support Bush's cause -- and the intelligence community probably thought there was no way anyone in Europe was going in with the US and look over the US's back, so they didn't mind doing their facist thang -- and said, OK, I'll accept this. Let's go.

I think the problem with putting that noose around Blair's neck is that he created a very good paper trail leading right back to the intelligence community to explain every action he made. He's going to be able to justify every action. Now the question is, will the media then ask why the hell the intelligence community got it so wrong? Well, I read recently that the single biggest item in the CIA budget is payoffs to (foreign, they claim) media. I don't think the media is going to bite the hand that feeds.

[AP]

10. Another hollow accusation: "last minute changes"

anyone who went to college is going to have a certain set of not too sinister emotions triggered when they hear the phrase 'last minute changes'.

I don't think the average person is going to care unless he or she is told exactly what the change was AND if the change was sinister and unspported by evidence. Just because an or was changed to an and, doesn't mean much unless you have some other evidence about what they knew about the ands and ors.

[dudeness]

12. did anyone really need to know the report was bs..?

an absolutely defenseless country ...12 years of sanctions..12 years of allied bombardment..but a lapdog dictator who no longer jumped to the masters whistle..the time was right to replace saddam with a new lackey..the whole charade of justification was for the mass media to run a smoke screen, we , the masses could believe..this is just a continuation of the coverup under the guise of democracy..the war has been fought and won and truth was the loser..