Overview

• The government’s spin doctors were inside the process of drafting the dossier.

• The sexing-up of the dossier was far greater than previously realised.

• The government covered this up from the moment the row broke over the Gilligan/Kelly story, misleading Parliament and a succession of inquiries.

In short, the government did what it was accused of (Para 4[1]) and then lied about it.

Who Wrote the Dossier?

• The government’s claim that the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) produced the dossier is a fabrication. The JIC neither wrote nor approved the dossier. JIC Chairman John Scarlett expressly rejected an attempt by Alastair Campbell to claim that the document was "the work of the JIC". A claim in the 16 September draft that the JIC had endorsed the dossier’s judgements was rejected (This was reported at the time of the Hutton Inquiry.)

• Four government spin doctors took part in both the actual drafting of the dossier and the group that oversaw the process.

• Foreign Office press secretary John Williams played an extensive part in drafting the dossier and can legitimately be described as its joint author.

• Williams produced the first full draft of the dossier. The government withheld it from the Hutton Inquiry and other inquiries. The draft was finally published in February 2008 following a Freedom of Information Act request.

• It is also likely that an Foreign Office spin doctor produced the 16 September draft of the executive summary that fabricated "judgements", including the 45 minutes claim. The Cabinet Office is claiming not to know who wrote this.

• Alastair Campbell made a number of significant changes to the dossier, including a fabricated "judgement" that Iraq would use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against a Shia uprising, added and a fabricated claim that Iraq was making "progress" with its WMD programmes, in spite of sanctions.

The Sexing-up

• The majority of the "judgements" in the dossier were fabricated: they were not "key judgements" of JIC assessment papers. The judgements first appeared in the Williams draft.

• The fabrication of many "judgements" (including the 45 minutes claim) was a crass presentational change. Between the 10 and 16 September drafts of the dossier two sets of bullet points were compounded. A heading "recent intelligence indicates…" was removed so that points below read "we judge…."

• JIC assessment staff had not included the notorious 45 minutes claim in drafts of the WMD section of the dossier on 5 and 6 September, even though it was available to them and in a draft JIC assessment on 5 September (Para 467[1]{iii}) which they themselves wrote.

• It is likely that Williams inserted the 45 minutes claim at a meeting on 9 September, the day before the draft the government says was the first to include it.

• The claim (Column 5) that Iraq could produce a nuclear weapon in 1-2 years (with help) was fabricated. The JIC gave no timescale. Early drafts said "at least 2 years". The Cabinet Office cannot point to any assessment to support either claim.

• As the dossier was drafted, the language relating to the reliability of the intelligence was comprehensively strengthened. This went way beyond the removal of qualifications identified by the Butler Review.

The Cover-Up

• Tony Blair again misled Parliament when he said - when Dr David Kelly was alive - that the 45 minutes claim was "a judgement made by the JIC and by that committee alone". (Column 148)

• Jack Straw repeatedly lied to the Foreign Affairs Committee Inquiry when he insisted (e.g. Q1216) that the 45 minutes was in the first draft of the dossier after the intelligence was received (and assessed).

• Alastair Campbell lied repeatedly to the Foreign Affairs Committee Inquiry and the Hutton Inquiry.

• The government withheld many documents from the Hutton Inquiry showing the involvement of the spin doctors. It also blatantly blacked out their names from documents that it did submit.

• There are at least two other "missing" drafts of the dossier, possibly three.

• All the inquiries were misled but they were also inept. The Butler Review was as inept and credulous as the Hutton Inquiry. Although much of the evidence of changes to language and fabricated judgements can be found in its narrative and appendices, it failed to realise its significance and wrongly attributed authorship of the dossier to the JIC.