Previous page | Contents | Next page
4.3  |  Iraq WMD assessments, October 2002 to March 2003
SIS … has thrown doubt on the reliability of one of the links in the reporting chain
affecting this intelligence report.”241
618.  The third source about which doubts had arisen provided “the vast majority of the
intelligence suggesting that Iraq had developed mobile facilities for the production of
biological agent”.242 Sir Richard Dearlove told the Butler Review in May 2004 that these
reports had “been received through a liaison service” and SIS:
“… had been able to verify that he had worked in an area which would have meant
that he would have had access to the sort of information he claimed to have. But
they had not been able to question him directly until after the war.”
619.  SIS told the Butler Review that, after their initial debrief of the source (Curve Ball):
It had “become apparent that significant detail did not appear in the original
liaison reports … But based on the information derived from the limited access
to date we continue to judge that it is premature to conclude … that all the
intelligence from the source must be discounted.”
SIS had concluded that the trailers described by the source as part of the mobile
facilities would have produced agent in the form of a slurry, which would have
a limited life, and, therefore, that the “most likely function … was to provide a
breakout production capability and not the continued production of material
for stockpiling”.
SIS was continuing to debrief the source.243
620.  The Butler Report concluded that the reports received in 2000 from this source,
suggesting that Iraq had recently produced biological agent were “seriously flawed”; and
that the grounds for the JIC Assessments drawing on these reports (see Section 4.1) “no
longer exist”.244
621.  The Butler Report stated that the source (Curve Ball) was “a refugee”, and that his
reporting had been:
“… treated with some caution by the JIC until it appeared to be confirmed by other
human intelligence. The subsequent need to withdraw a key part of the reporting
received through the liaison service arose as a result of misunderstandings, not
because of the source’s status.”245
241  Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction [“The Butler Report”], 14 July 2004, HC 898,
paragraph 512.
242  Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction [“The Butler Report”], 14 July 2004, HC 898,
paragraph 406.
243  Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction [“The Butler Report”], 14 July 2004, HC 898,
paragraphs 407-409.
244  Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction [“The Butler Report”], 14 July 2004, HC 898,
paragraph 409.
245  Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction [“The Butler Report”], 14 July 2004, HC 898,
paragraph 438.
397
Previous page | Contents | Next page