UK's WMD Dossier Release "Very Soon"

Chris Ames on the New Statesman (Feb 6, 2008, WMD dossier decision 'very soon', Brown says) has this update:

Gordon Brown has told MPs the government will decide “very soon” whether to release the secret draft of the Iraq wmd dossier written by Foreign Office (FCO) spin doctor John Williams.

The Information Tribunal ruled two weeks ago that the document, which I requested in February 2005, should be released under the Freedom of Information Act.

At Prime Minister’s Questions this lunchtime, Tory MP John Baron asked Brown whether he would “now immediately release the document, and if not, why not?” Brown replied that “a decision will be announced very soon.”

Commenting afterwards Baron said, “The Government has for too long withheld the truth about the role played by spin doctors in producing the Iraq Dossier. Now the Information Tribunal agrees that the Williams draft could have played a greater part in influencing the drafting of the dossier than the Government has so far admitted – even to the Hutton inquiry. The public deserves to decide for ourselves the importance of this document in the run up to war.”

The existence of what is now known as the “Williams draft” was first revealed by the New Statesman’s political editor Martin Bright in November 2006. At the time of the dossier’s production, Williams was the FCO’s press secretary. The fact that a spin doctor produced an early draft of the September 2002 dossier has cast doubt on the government’s assertions that the document that took Britain to war in Iraq was the pure work of the intelligence services.

On 22 January, the Information Tribunal rejected the FCO’s appeal against a decision by the Information Commissioner that the draft should be released. In its ruling, the tribunal criticised inconsistencies in the FCO’s evidence and observed that: “Information has been placed before us, which was not before Lord Hutton, which may lead to questions as to whether the Williams draft in fact played a greater part in influencing the drafting of the dossier than has previously been supposed.”

This evidence included a letter from the FCO to the Commissioner which stated that the draft was prepared “at the request of” Joint Intelligence Committee chairman John Scarlett, now head of MI6. The government has told both the Hutton Inquiry and parliament that Williams produced the draft “on his own initiative”.

The letter also stated that Williams was at a meeting on 9 September 2002 as “a member of a group tasked with drafting a preliminary document described by that meeting as ‘a draft assessment’ to be used in the production of a draft Dossier”. Scarlett produced what the government has always claimed to be the first draft of the dossier a day later. At the time, he referred to “considerable help from John
Williams” towards that draft.

The government has directly denied that the Williams draft includes a reference to the notorious “45 minutes” claim. It is however believed to contain a number of other instances of “sexing-up” that first appeared in Scarlett’s draft. As the New Statesman reported last week, Scarlett’s draft includes the first appearance in a published draft of a false claim that Iraq had “purchased” uranium from Africa. It appears that this claim is also in the Williams draft.

The FCO press office was this afternoon unaware of Brown’s comments and unable to clarify what “very soon” means. The government has until 19 February either to release the document or appeal to the High Court on a point of law. Ministers also have a veto over Freedom of Information Act requests, although this has never been used.

Lies for Iraq War

Douglass K. Daniel reports for the Associated Press (Jan 23, 2008, Study: False statements preceded war):

...in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.... The study counted 935 false statements.... It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Center For Public Integrity: http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx

From the United Kingdom, the New Statesman reports (Jan 23, 2008, Another NS victory and 'Release dossier', ministry told):

The Information Tribunal has just rejected an appeal by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to stop the release, under the Freedom of Information Act, of an early draft of the now infamous Weapons of Mass Destruction dossier.

The September 2002 dossier formed part of the government’s spurious case for war in Iraq. The draft in question was produced by John Williams, the FCO’s Head of News at the time. Its existence tore apart the government’s assertion, to the Hutton and Butler inquiries, that the dossier was the work of the intelligence services.

The Tribunal criticised inconsistencies in the Foreign Office’s account. It noted that the FCO’s chief witness and Director of International Security, Stephen Pattinson, "was not involved at the time and volunteered no information about the source of his information".

The decision follows a three-year battle by Chris Ames, a charity researcher from Surrey, who persisted in his quest for the truth....

From Chris Ames:

...the Tribunal has allowed a handwritten note to be redacted which the Foreign Office claimed would be damaging to international relations.

The FCO has said that it is studying the Tribunal decision and declined to name the authors of the handwritten comments....

...The tribunal also reveals that the draft was “annotated in two different persons’ handwriting, suggesting that at least one person other than the author had reviewed and commented on it despite Mr Pattison’s statement that it was put aside the moment it was first presented.” Again here, the tribunal can be seen to be skeptical of the government’s claim that Williams’ work was not taken forward.

However, the tribunal has ordered that one of the handwritten notes should be redacted from the draft when it is published. It is clear that the Foreign Office has claimed that disclosure of this comment would be damaging to international relations, a claim that it did not make at the time of its initial refusal. The decision notice states that this issue is covered in a confidential annexe.

On the content of the draft itself, the Tribunal reveals that some intelligence-related sections of the published dossier bear a resemblance to parts of the Williams draft, although this does not “lead on easily to the conclusion that one had been based on the other”. The dossier was finally published on 24 September 2002, two weeks after Scarlett’s “first draft”, and was central to the case it made to Parliament for war in Iraq.

Responding to the Information Tribunal decision, Conservative MP John Baron said: "This decision lifts the lid on government efforts to cover-up the role played by spin doctors in producing the Iraq Dossier.

"I am now pressing the Foreign Secretary immediately to make public the Williams draft, so that we can assess for ourselves the significance of this document in the run up to war – a war which we should never had been party to.

"The Tribunal agrees that the Williams draft could have played a greater part in influencing the drafting of the dossier than the Government has so far admitted - even to the Hutton Inquiry. The Government cannot hide this document any longer."

Gordon Brown's (PM, UK) 42-day Detention

Ben Russell and Nigel Morris at the Independent report:

...A survey of Labour MPs by The Independent has uncovered a growing insurrection. Only 34 votes are needed to defeat the detention plans and at least 38 MPs – enough to wipe out Mr Brown's Commons majority of 67 – are vowing to oppose controversial moves to extend the existing 28-day maximum detention period.

The scale of the rebellion will alarm Labour whips determined to hit the ground running next year after the Prime Minister's disastrous end to 2007.

It emerged as Sir Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, delivered a damning verdict on Mr Brown's 42-day plans. He argued that the 28-day limit was working well, accusing ministers of wanting to pass laws based on a theoretical threat. "I think the basic point is whether you want to legislate on the basis of hypotheticals or whether you want to legislate on the basis of the evidence that we have acquired through practice," Sir Ken told BBC Radio 4's The World at One. "It seems to me that if you are legislating in an area which is going to curtail civil liberties to a significant extent, it is better to proceed by way of the evidence and the evidence of experience."...

UK Gov't as Scarlett O'Hara ...

Andrew Grice reports for The Independent today about the British government's backtracking "over demands for an independent inquiry into the mistakes made in the run-up to and aftermath of the invasion of Iraq":

... Ministers have hinted repeatedly that an investigation would be held after British forces leave the country. But they have now changed tack in the hope of "moving on" in Iraq rather than looking back at what went wrong.

Asked if an inquiry would take place after British troops withdraw, David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, replied: "I am obsessed with the next five years in Iraq, not the last five years in Iraq. And I think that the best 'inquiry' is putting the best brains to think about how to make sure the next five years in Iraq get that combination of political reconstruction, economic reconstruction and security improvement that are so essential."

His statement will bitterly disappoint anti-war campaigners, who hoped that Gordon Brown would draw a line under Iraq after succeeding Tony Blair by holding an investigation to ensure the lessons are learnt.

After becoming Prime Minister, Gordon Brown rejected calls for an immediate inquiry but raised hopes that one might be held after British troops withdraw.

He said in September: "There will be a time to discuss the question you raise but for the moment nothing has changed. The security and safety of our forces – and there are more than 5,000 people in Iraq – remain the first and foremost consideration."...

...In November 2006, Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, said there would be an inquiry "when the time is right" after the Government defeated a proposal calling for one in the Commons. Margaret Beckett, the then Foreign Secretary, assured MPs: "I have no doubt there will be a time when we want to learn lessons."

The hardening line against an inquiry is disclosed by Mr Miliband in an interview with Fabian Review, the journal of the Labour-affiliated Fabian Society, published next week....

The Scarlett O'Hara "defense" {"...after all, tomorrow is another day..."} ensures that the Iraq "pre-emptive" invasion was not the first, nor will it be the last.

EU & UN Reps Expelled from Afghanistan; UK's MI6 Negotiated with Taliban

Deutsche Welle reports today:

A government official said that acting European Union mission head Michael Semple and senior UN official Mervyn Patterson had held an illegal meeting with members of the Taliban and must leave by Thursday, Dec. 27.

"It is the government's last decision. They are persona non grata," Reuters quoted an anonymous Afghan official as saying.

The press officer for the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, Nilab Mobarez, said the organization hoped to quickly clear up the situation so Patterson, who would leave the country on Thursday, could soon return....

...Semple, an Irishman, and Patterson, a Briton, were charged with having talks with the Taliban in the southern province of Helmand without the knowledge of the government in Kabul, which accused them of endangering the security and sovereignty of Afghanistan.

NATO and Afghan troops this month drove the Taliban out of the province, which is the heart of Afghan's drug-producing poppy production. The radical Islamists had controlled the region for the previous 10 months.

Thomas Harding and Tom Coghlan at The Telegraph have this revelation:

...The diplomatic row blew up after the Telegraph revealed that agents from MI6 entered secret talks with Taliban leaders despite Gordon Brown's pledge that Britain would not negotiate with terrorists.

Officers from the Secret Intelligence Service staged discussions, known as "jirgas", with senior insurgents on several occasions over the summer.

An intelligence source said: "The SIS officers were understood to have sought peace directly with the Taliban with them coming across as some sort of armed militia. The British would also provide 'mentoring' for the Taliban."

The disclosure comes only a fortnight after the Prime Minister told the House of Commons: "We will not enter into any negotiations with these people." Opposition leaders said that Mr Brown had "some explaining to do".

The Government was apparently prepared to admit that the talks had taken place but Mr Brown was thought to have "bottled out" just before Prime Minister's Questions on Dec 12, when he made his denial instead.

It is thought that the Americans were extremely unhappy with the news becoming public that an ally was negotiating with terrorists who supported the September 11 attackers.

MI6's meetings with the Taliban took place up to half a dozen times at houses on the outskirts of Lashkah Gah and in villages in the Upper Gereshk valley, to the north-east of Helmand's main town.

The compounds were surrounded by a force of British infantry providing a security cordon.

To maintain the stance that President Hamid Karzai's government was leading the negotiations the clandestine meetings took place in the presence of Afghan officials.

"These meetings were with up to a dozen Taliban or with Taliban who had only recently laid down their arms," an intelligence source said. "The impression was that these were important motivating figures inside the Taliban."

The Prime Minister had denied reports of talks with the Taliban under questioning from David Cameron, the Tory leader, in Parliament....

UK Wind Farms Expansion Planned

Bill Jacobs reports on The Scotsman about the UK's plans for a massive expansion of wind farms - up to 7,000 turbines to boost the production of wind energy 30-fold by 2020:

... the new farms will most likely be in deep-water locations up to 200 nautical miles offshore.... Mr Hutton admitted the "step change" would alter the face of the waters around the country - with the equivalent of two turbines to every mile....

...Mr Hutton has shelved plans to situate new wind farms within 12 nautical miles of the Scottish coast at the request of the Scottish Government - which is responsible for both its territorial waters and the UK Renewable Energy Zone surrounding Scotland - as there is limited scope for such development....

... "There is great potential for deep-water offshore wind farms - especially in the North Sea where oil companies are very interested in terms of not just supplying electricity to the UK but to Europe. This is being driven by the market." So far there are five offshore wind farms operating in England and Wales, six under construction and a further six with planning consent.

In Scotland, there is the Beatrice demonstrator deep-water wind farm, off the North-east coast, and plans for inshore wind farms at Robin Rigg in the Solway Firth - which will supply Cumbria in England - and in Aberdeen Bay...

North Sea oil production is declining.