The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
The Guardian (White, MacAskill and Norton-Taylor, i.e very good and well-informed journalists) today: > It emerged yesterday that the dossier issued last week - later found to > include a plagiarised section written by an American PhD student - was > compiled by mid-level officials in Alastair Campbell's Downing Street > communications department with only cursory approval from intelligence or even > Foreign Office sources.... > The four officials originally named on the website version of the 19-page > dossier include Alison Blackshaw, Mr Campbell's senior assistant, and Murtaza > Khan, described as a news editor on the busy Downing Street website. So it seems that "Intelligence" involvement in the dossier was zero. At first sight this rather undermines Glen's comments that the dossier "indicates that the UK at least really does not have any independent sources of information on Iraq's internal politics." The UK intelligence services MAY have independent information, but none of it was drawn upon by the "creators" of the dossier. (One wonders if the Intelligence Services WOULD supply real intelligence data -- supposing any exists -- even upon a request from Downing St.) Officials seem keen to defend MI6 at least: > Even before the latest row some Whitehall officials were protesting that MI6 > and other intelligence material was being used selectively by Downing Street. > A well-placed source made it clear that the dossier had been the work of > Downing Street and the Coalition Information Centre, the body set up after > September 11 to put the US-British case on the war against terrorism. The > source dismissed a key section of the dossier as full of "silly errors".... > In Whitehall one official who regularly sees MI6 reports said that Britain's > knowledge about Iraq until recently had been very poor. But another claimed > there has been a recent transformation: "What has happened in the last nine > months is that there is now strong intelligence coming through." It is not explained how the "official" is able to tell "strong intelligence" from unsubstantiated and inaccurate guesses, and all the other garbage that no doubt crosses his desk. Glen is of course correct to say (in his original "dossier" message) > Thus any further claims to information based on > "intelligence data" must be treated with even more scepticism. But it seems -- unfortunately -- that this episode doesn't _in itself_ indicate that the UK intelligence services are as clueless as one might suspect. Any comments? Andrew Goreing _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk