Alastair Campbell

**Desperado †** · January 13, 2010, 10:19 AM

Alastair Campbell to John Scarlet (head of Joint Intelligence Committee) in memo, 9th of Sep. 2002:
'I am confident we can make yours [the British WMD Dossier] one that complements rather than conflicts with them [US claims].'
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk...0002to0004.pdf

First Draft of British Dossier by Joint Intelligence Committee, 10th of Sep. 2002:
'If Iraq acquired sufficient fissile material from abroad we judge it would take at least two years to make a working nuclear device'
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk...0002to0057.pdf

Bush speech to UN, 12th of Sep. 2002:
'Should Iraq gain fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon whithin a year'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/12/iraq.usa3

Mistakenly released papers (from Cabinet Office) show email was sent, dated 13th of Sep 2002:
'Covering a copy of a Bush speech, to compare with UK dossier claims'
http://iraqdossier.com/foi/caboff1/scan0001.pdf

Blair to Parliament when presenting final dossier, 24th of Sep.:
'if he [Saddam] were able to purchase fissile matériel illegally, it would be only a year or two [before he'd be able to make a bomb].'
http://www.publications.parliament.u...20924-01_head0

Campbell to Iraq War Inquiry, yesterday:
'At no time did I ask [Sir John Scarlett] to beef up any of the judgements that he had.'

Lying bastard.
/rant

**Poach** · January 13, 2010, 04:13 PM

There's no such thing as an honest politician, hardly surprising that he's trying to cover his tracks.

**Phier** · January 13, 2010, 04:22 PM

Well if it was 2 years it would have been different?

**Denny Crane!** · January 13, 2010, 04:28 PM

Unfortunately I fail to see the point in this. We know they lied, we know they will face no punishment for this. This is farcical.

**Desperado †** · January 13, 2010, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Poach

There's no such thing as an honest politician, hardly surprising that he's trying to cover his tracks.

It comes in relative.

Originally Posted by Phier

Well if it was 2 years it would have been different?

At least 2 years, yes (originally the JIC didn't consider a time at all as they thought it was too unlikely a situation). This was the incorrect dossier that scared Parliament into war, Saddam's said capabilities were absolutely crucial.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane!

Unfortunately I fail to see the point in this. We know they lied, we know they will face no punishment for this. This is farcical.

My thread or the inquiry? Frankly we don't know exactly where and how they lied, and we don't know exactly who did. The details of both those questions are of key importance to many of the current Labour cabinet's reputation, our intelligence gathering institutions and the framework of government, especially considering the Iran predicament.

**Phier** · January 13, 2010, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Desperado †

At least 2 years, yes (originally the JIC didn't consider a time at all as they thought it was too unlikely a situation). This was the incorrect dossier that scared Parliament into war, Saddam's said capabilities were absolutely crucial.

Why 2 years would have meant he had the bomb in 2005, I fail to see a difference a year makes.

The interesting thing is that the intelligence two or one year was wrong but they both thought he was VERY close to a nuclear bomb.

Is there a special time frame where it matters? If so I'd guess 2 years is close enough.

**Delvecchio1975** · January 14, 2010, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by Phier

Why 2 years would have meant he had the bomb in 2005, I fail to see a difference a year makes.

The interesting thing is that the intelligence two or one year was wrong but they both thought he was VERY close to a nuclear bomb.

Is there a special time frame where it matters? If so I'd guess 2 years is close enough.

the difference a year would make is that Hans Blix would have had the time to complete his research and prove once and for all that Saddam was not making bombs, as he was too busy holding on to power.

the difference a year would make is not starting an illegal war with hundreds of thousands of DEAD PEOPLE.

**Phier** · January 14, 2010, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Delvecchio1975

the difference a year would make is that Hans Blix would have had the time to complete his research and prove once and for all that Saddam was not making bombs, as he was too busy holding on to power.

the difference a year would make is not starting an illegal war with hundreds of thousands of DEAD PEOPLE.

Ah Hans Blix and the mighty UN would save the day?

Like they are in Iran right now, no doubt

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**Desperado †** · January 14, 2010, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by Phier

Why 2 years would have meant he had the bomb in 2005, I fail to see a difference a year makes.

The interesting thing is that the intelligence two or one year was wrong but they both thought he was VERY close to a nuclear bomb.

Is there a special time frame where it matters? If so I'd guess 2 years is close enough.

Umm..

Originally Posted by Desperado †

(originally the JIC didn't consider a time at all as they thought it was too unlikely a situation).

It would appear the devil is in the detail.

The interesting thing is that it is obvious that British intelligence was manipulated, perverted and exaggerated. The (at least - you keep seeming to miss that part) 2 years part in the first draft against the one to two years in the final draft of the dossier is just one minor example, and one that shows firmly and unquestioningly Allaistair Campbell's outright changing of the evidence and also how the Chilcot inquiry is failing to properly cross examine speakers despite the clear hypocrisy in what they are saying and the truth.

**Martin N** · January 13, 2010, 05:11 PM

Which politican when promoting the iraq war did not lie about saddams capability to gain a nuclear weapon ? kinda like they are now with iran.

I rather like this video, though this is US politicians, its a funny watch.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: