Posted on 09/15/2003 3:43:02 PM PDT by Brian S
Mon September 15, 2003 05:00 PM ET By Dominic Evans
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's secretive intelligence chief conceded Monday that criticism of a dossier setting out Prime Minister Tony Blair's case for war with Iraq was valid because its most sensational warning was "misinterpreted."
Breaking with precedent, MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove testified via audio-link to the judicial inquiry into the suicide of a weapons expert, which has raised questions about Blair's reasons for war and sent his trust ratings plunging.
Dearlove said he stood by the intelligence in the September 2002 dossier but added that a contentious assertion that Iraq could deploy chemical or biological weapons at 45 minutes' notice was only meant to refer to short-range arms.
"Given the misinterpretation placed on the 45-minutes intelligence, with the benefit of hindsight you could say that was valid criticism," said Dearlove, chief of the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), better known as MI6.
"The original (intelligence) report referred ... to battlefield weapons. What subsequently happened in the reporting was it was taken that the 45 minutes applied to weapons of a longer range," he said.
The 45-minute claim was the most dramatic element of the dossier that Blair used to counter widespread public opposition to joining a U.S. war against Saddam Hussein.
Blair's team denies it "sexed up" the dossier on the threat posed by Iraq. But five months after Saddam's overthrow, no banned weapons have been found in Iraq.
Dearlove, his disembodied voice echoing in the courtroom during 40 minutes of testimony, insisted the 45-minutes' claim was "a well-sourced piece of intelligence."
Scientist David Kelly killed himself in July after he was exposed as the source of a BBC report accusing the government of hyping up the case for war to win over skeptical Britons.
Blair's public trust ratings have since evaporated. Although he will not have to testify again, his Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon and outgoing communications chief Alastair Campbell are recalled to be grilled by judge Lord Hutton next week.
Hoon, Kelly's ultimate boss, has been portrayed as a potential fall guy lined up to take the rap and protect Blair.
He faces questions over why he overruled advice to protect Kelly from a hostile public grilling just days before the scientist's death, and why concerns among defense intelligence staff over language in the dossier were not acted on.
Fresh evidence of that concern emerged Monday when the inquiry was shown a letter from the Defense Intelligence Staff, sent just one week before Blair's Iraq dossier was published, saying some of its claims were put too forcefully.
The judgment that Iraq had continued producing chemical and biological weapons was "too strong," the letter said. It also described the 45-minute warning as "rather strong since it is based on a single source."
The government was rocked further at the weekend when a new book claimed that just days before Iraq was invaded, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw begged Blair not to go to war.
Blair's spokesman said Straw was merely outlining a "Plan B" if parliament had voted against war, which it did not. "That is entirely different to expressing policy differences," he said.
But author John Kampfner, an experienced political journalist, said his work was sourced to interviews with 40 key government figures and was confident about its authenticity.
His report follows a revelation last week that Blair ignored warnings from spy chiefs that war would raise the risk of militants like al Qaeda acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
Each passing day confirms that Saddam's regieme didn't have the WMD that Blair claimed he had. Heck, we haven't found any at all let alone the 45 min crap the Britts claimed. Talk about making stuff up to get the desired outcome. Geez.
Richard W.
Yep, used some on the Kurds and then destroyed the rest. At this point, you have to be blind not to see the truth.
Richard W.
If this is true, then it's quite odd that he didn't just document that destruction for the UN and save his own ass, and power, and sons. Instead, he let the details of the WMD-destruction be a mystery to us. I guess he fooled us. Oops! Oh well.
You may be wrong but you are never in doubt, are you?
It is simply illogical and irrational that after all this time, and after having captured so many high ranking officials (cute card deck PR), that no one has said, "I know where they are. Let me show you". With the massive WMD program Saddam was accused of having, surely at least one scientist, worker, military person of any rank would have been talking his head off by now. After all, these people are happy and grateful that we're there and that they are liberated.
Richard W.
Doesn't it stike you as odd that a country with a known established chemical program is sanitized of any evi\dence at all??
There is non so blind as he who will not see.
I hate when they do that. What is the original statement in it's entirety? Why should I trust the press to not splice together quotes possibly taken out of context, to put whatever spin they want on it? They've certainly been doing a lot of that lately.
(response): "If this is true, then it's quite odd that he didn't just document that destruction for the UN and save his own ass, and power, and sons. Instead, he let the details of the WMD-destruction be a mystery to us.
I keep going back and forth on this. Maybe Saddam wanted us to believe he had WMD because he calculated that our belief in his "WMD" would deter us. Saddam has made plenty of miscalculations in his life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.