Previous page | Contents | Next page
4.2  |  Iraq WMD assessments, July to September 2002
766.  Mr Cook subsequently wrote:
“The dossier … painted a one-sided picture … [I]t defiantly proclaimed a certitude for
its claims that was at odds with the nuanced tone of every JIC Assessment I read.”
767.  Mr Cook added:
“Personally I never doubted that No.10 believed in the threads of intelligence
which were woven into the dossier. But that does not alter the awkward fact that
the intelligence was wrong and Ministers who had applied a sceptical mind could
have seen that it was too thin to be a reliable base for war. No.10 believed in the
intelligence because they desperately wanted it to be true. Their sin was not one
of bad faith but of evangelical certainty. They selected for inclusion only the scraps
of intelligence that fitted the Government’s case. And gave them a harder edge
than was justifiable. The net result was a gross distortion. Although every individual
claim could be sourced … the overall effect was to present a false picture of an Iraq
bristling with real weapons of mass destruction that turned out not to exist.”
768.  In a section reflecting on the issues written after the conflict, Mr Cook wrote:
“Only in the last five days was the word Programme dropped from the title.
The clear implication is that No.10 wanted Parliament and public to believe that Iraq
had actual weapons …”
769.  In Mr Cook’s view:
“… the most egregious claim of all was that Saddam had attempted to reconstitute
his nuclear programme … The conclusion of the section on nuclear weapons is a
masterpiece of false suggestion.”
770.  Mr Cook described the section in the dossier addressing what Iraq might be able
to do if it obtained fissile material and other essential components as “a fanciful leap
into the realm of fantasy”: “This language is frightening. But as evidence that Iraq was a
threat it is pathetic and the authors must have known it.”
Mr Blair’s statement to Parliament, 24 September 2002
771.  Mr Blair wrote his statement himself and chose the arguments to make
clear his perception of the threat and why he believed that there was an
“overwhelming” case for action to disarm Iraq.
772.  Mr Straw, Mr Hoon, Mr Scarlett and others were asked to identify “any facts
that are false and … any other essential changes that you would like to suggest”.
773.  Parliament was recalled from recess on 24 September to debate the case for
effective action in respect of the threat posed by Iraq.
263
Previous page | Contents | Next page