Overview of AG 1 SW I GH stories

Reliability of 45 minute claim

SW asserts that the imminence of threat was a No 10 interpretation AG goes further, postulating that govt
knew the claim was wrong but put it in anyway

Who added 45 minute claim

SW says the source did not dispute that intelligence services had inserted 45 minute claim She says his
point was the undue prominence given to the claim However David Kelly denied this in his evidence AG
goes further claiming at first that source said it was added at'Downing Street's insistence' and further still in
tdioS saying it was added by AC David Kelly says the Campbell claim does not sound like him, although
admits that AC name did come up

Changes to dessier
GH asserts that in final week material was added and taken away and that some spin from No 10 came into
play SW says source made clear that in run up to publication govl was desperate for any intelligence on
immediate Iraqi threats AG goes the furthest claiming that No 10 ordered the document be 'sexed up', that
the transformation was at the behest of No 10 Humphreys in his intro describes this as being 'cobbled
together' at last minute with unapproved material Kelly says that'sexed up' is not something he would be
likely to say

Intelliaence Services knowledge of 45 minutes and concern

SW says there was agreement of a potential threat in the future but less on an imminent threat GH says
there were murmunngs within inlelligence community on final wording AG goes further claiming the
intelligence services don't realty believe the 45 minute claim In his evidence, David Kelly gives reasons as
to why the weapons, d they could be used at 45 mrns notice, were not used

Description of source
GH refers to source as one of those was 'consulted on dossier" (although in her intro Fiona Bruce describes
"secunty sources') SW consistently refers to source as 'senior official' who was 'intimately involved' with
dossier (However, KIN and JP in their intros etc refer to source as 'intelligence' and member of 'secunty
services" ) AG refers to source as'senior official' either 'involved in' or "m charge ofdrawing up dossier but
goes further on Radio 5 describing him as 'intelligence service'

Consensus
Due to the brevity of GH's accusations the only real consensus that can be claimed between all three is that
the source worked on the dossier, some changes were made in the final week of preparation of the dossier
at the behest of the government and that intelligence were not entirely m agreement on the 45 minute
claim's place in the final dossier

Ouotes from source

The language is markedly different between the SW quotes and the AG quotes (GH does not use quotes)
The language in AG's is much more flamboyant and almost enthusiastic David Kelly points out that that this
side of the language does not sound like him although he admits that the '30°/d claim is something he would
say In SWs' quotes the language is dryer and more measured. (N B David Kelly denied making any of
these comments - he said only meeting was not on one to one basis and was back in November)
CLAIM - 45 Minutes - What the government knew about its reliability

AG SW GH DK- - CR comment
Government probably Iraqi threat was No mention "Froni tile AG goes much
knew that that forty- imminent was a conversation I had further .
five minute figure was Downing Street with him, I do not see AG : govt knew it was
wrong, even before it interpretation of how lie could make probably wrong .
decided to put it in . intelligence the authoritative SW : imminent threat
conclusions . statement he was was a No 10
making from the interpretation .
comments that I GH : no mention of 45
made" mins
CLAIM - 45 Minutes - Who added it

AG SW GH DK
_ CR comment
Was added at Our source was not No mention Asked if lie said lie AG goes much
"Downing Street's disputing that the 45 thought the dossier further .
insistence" minute assessment was was exaggerated "No, Only AG says 45 mins
included in the dossier i had no doubt that the added by Nolo/AC .
Went further in Mail by the intelligence veracity of it Ithe
on Sunday - was services, although he rlr,ssierl was SW says was included
added by AC did say he felt that to absolute ." by intelligence
have been a mistake . services but in his
His point was that the On Susan Watts's opinion was a mistake
emphasis placed on notes "1 do not and was concerned
that element of the recognise those about undue emphasis
intelligence in the comrnents" given/prominence
foreword to the
dossier went too far . ()n the Mt7S article "1
He felt this emphasis cannot recall using the
turned a possible name Campbell in that
capability into an context, it does not
imminent threat and a sound like a thing that
critical part of the I would say" BT IT
government's case for "The Campbell word
war . did come up lin
conversation with
C-61 11 O43 l
CLAIM - 45 minutes - What the agencies knew about its reliability and their concern

---------- ----
AG _S_W G_H__ DK CK comment
"the intelligence I(is point is that while others with experience "The question was AG goes further .
agencies say they the intelligence in the intelligence then asked why, if
don't really believe it community was community say there weapons could he AG : agencies didn't
[45 minute claim] was agreed on the potential were some deployed at 45 believe was true .
necessarily true ." Iraqi threat in the murmurings about the minutes notice, were SW : agencies believed
future, there was less final wording of a they not used, and I threat less imminent at
agreement about the dossier offered my reasons the moment.
threat tile Iraqi's why they may not
posed at that moment have been used ."

on those reasons to the

FAC "early on in the
war the weather
conditions were such
that you could not
possibly consider the
use of chemical and
hiel0gical weapons .
And later in the
conflict command and
control had collapsed
to such a state that
 you still would not be
~able to use them .
CLAIM - changes to dossier

AG __ SW GH DK CR comment
Downing Street, our Our source made clear Six months work was On `sexing up' : " . . . I All agreed there was
source says, ordered a that in tile run up to apparently involved cannot recall but that much activity in week
week before publishing the dossier, but in the final week does not mean to say, prior to publication .
publication, ordered it the government was before publication of course, that such a
to be sexed up ohsesscd with finding some material was statement was not AG :
intelligence on taken out and some made hut 1 rcally transformed/sexed up
the transformation of immediate Iraqi material put in . His cannot recall it . It by Nolt) .
the dossier took place threats . judgement, some spin does not sound like
form Number Ten did the sort of thing I SW : govt wanting
at the behest of
Downing Street" Our source talked of a come in to play . would say ." more info .
febrile atmosphere in
"was cobbled together the clays of diplomacy GH : in source's
leading to the big judgement some spin
at the last minute with
Commons debate of from Nol(l .
some unconfirmed
material that had not September last year.
been approved by the Of the government
security services ." seizing on anything
(Humphrys intro) useful to the case
including the possible
existence of weapons
that could be ready
within forty five
C ftBI 1 10+4-1
CLAIM - DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE
- ---
_A_G _ SW _G11 _- ~DK - CR comm ent
- --- - --- -
"one of the senior "some of the "Security sources have When asked whether All reporters agreed
officials in charge of intelligence told the BBC . . ." the description Mr source is an offical
drawing up that community have (Fionn Bruce, 10 Gilligan gave of the who worked on
dossier" spoken to us" (K4V, O'clock news position and expertise dossier .
(A G, Today, 29/5/03) Newsrtighl 2/6/2803) 29/05/2003) of his source for the
45 minute bore no AG refers to him as
" our intelligence
"I've spoken to a "1 have spoken to one resemblance to DK, "intelligence" .
source. . ." (KW,
British official who of those who was DK said "it does not
NewsniRltl 2/6/2003)
was involved in the consulted on the match op" AG exaggerates role
preparation of the dossier" from "involved in"
"a senior official,
dossier" (AG. Today, (Gavin Hewitt, 10 Although "there are dossier to "in charge
intimately involved
29/5/03) O'clock news other elements of it of" .
with the process of
29/05/2003) which do match the
putting together the
"A senior official things that I say, and I
original Septetnher
involved in preparing have referred to that :
2002 Blair weapons
the Government's the issue of the 3(1 per
dossier" (SW
dossier" (Victoria cent probability of
New,crtight, 2/6/Bi)
Derbyshire, Radio 5, Iraq possessing
29/5/03) chemical weapons .
" it is a member of the
That is the sort of
security services
"my intelligence statement that 1 do
intimately involved "
service source" make and may well
(JP, Newsitight, -
(A G, 5 Live, 29/S/03) 14/6/2003) 1 1 have made to him"