This is article in England as to the false intel in garnering support for invasion of Iraq. Does it strike anyone else as a strange coincidence that the two strongest advocates for the invasion bothe have the identical claim of faulty intel. and both claim it was thjis which motivated their actions? I don't believe them, but believe that O'Neill's revelation of the intention to invade came about in 2001, as result of study to report the plan to build oil pipeline through Iraq Afghanistan and Pakistan to Orient. Feel free to comment or e-mail: wahkonta@graffiti.net
EXCERPT BEGINS
Hutton: spy chiefs face reform over Iraq fiasco

.Move to end political spin on intelligence
.Angry Campbell defends role in dossier

Peter Beaumont and Gaby Hinsliff
Sunday January 11, 2004
The Observer

A massive shake-up of the way the Government handles secret intelligence in
order to prevent its creeping politicisation is to be launched in the wake
of the Hutton inquiry.

The radical reforms will overhaul the role of the Joint Intelligence
Committee (JIC), which drew up the infamous dossier on Iraq's banned weapons
of mass destruction that lies at the heart of the judicial inquiry.

They emerged amid fresh uproar triggered by Alastair Campbell, the Prime
Minister's former director of communications, who claimed yesterday that
'there was no naming strategy' to identify weapons scientist David Kelly as
the likely source of the BBC's allegations last year that Downing Street
spiced up the dossier.

In an outspoken defence of his actions in advance of Lord Hutton's findings,
Campbell dismissed revelations that he had requested 15 changes to the
dossier being drawn up by JIC chairman John Scarlett.

Insisting that while 'we can dance on pinheads till the cows come home', he
said the changes - which critics argue dramatically strengthened the
dossier - were not hugely significant: 'It does not represent in quotes a
"sexing-up" or a "transformation". It is me saying, "This is less clear than
that," or, "This is expressed slightly differently to where you've expressed
it here."'

However, his comments - pounced on yesterday by the Tories, who accused him
of spinning himself out of trouble in defiance of his own evidence to
Hutton - drive a coach and horses through Downing Street's previous policy
of shunning comment on the affair so as not to pre-empt the inquiry.

Last night, a poll for the Mail on Sunday found only one in four voters
believes Tony Blair told the truth in saying he had not authorised the
leaking of David Kelly's name: almost half blamed the Government most for
Kelly's death, followed by the Commons select committee who questioned him,
with the BBC well behind.

To prevent such politically damaging rows in future, officials are now
planning widespread changes to the JIC, the group of intelligence officials,
Ministers and senior civil servants that advises the Prime Minister on
material produced by MI5, MI6, the Defence Intelligence staff and GCHQ.

They will insist on a sharp separation between material as presented to the
JIC by the intelligence services, and its presentation to the public,
erecting 'Chinese walls' between the secret services and spin doctors.

So-called 'ownership' of the intelligence product would rest with the
intelligence services, ensuring it continued to be viewed in context rather
than cherry-picked for political effect.

Ownership of the dossier was a key issue in the Hutton inquiry: while emails
stressed it lay with John Scarlett, critics have argued that he had grown
too close to Campbell.

The reforms would also rule out purely political appointees who are neither
Crown nor civil servants - such as Campbell - sitting on the committee.

'The idea is that intelligence should be seen in the context in which it was
gathered,' said one familiar with the suggested reforms. 'It should be
logical and procedure-based, and its veracity should be tested more.'

A second proposal includes ensuring the committee is chaired by a senior
civil servant rather than member of the intelligence services, Foreign
Office or Ministry of Defence.

Liam Fox, the Conservative Party co-chairman, said Campbell's self-defence
was belied by extracts from his own diaries, submitted to the Hutton
inquiry, revealing how he and Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon had 'wanted to
get it out that someone had broken cover' and that 'the biggest thing needed
was the source out'.

'What are they trying to cover up?' Fox demanded last night. 'Alastair
Campbell should now therefore clarify which set of statements is correct -
his statement that "what we wanted was the name out" or his statement in a
newspaper that "there was no strategy".'

The row will encourage the Tories, who plan to build on last week's dramatic
ambush of the Prime Minister by Michael Howard over whether he had
authorised the identification of David Kelly.

They have collated many apparent inconsistencies in testimony from key
figures, including Campbell, which they hope to highlight in the run-up to
the report's publication later this month.

Testifying to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Campbell suggested he
had seen JIC intelligence assessments while working on the dossier. Yet,
giving evidence to Hutton, he said that he had not. His access to highly
secret material was signifi cant because he had said he was involved purely
in presentation, rather than in analysing the material itself.

Blair was facing growing pressure last night to promise a vote on the Hutton
report when it is debated in the Commons, to give MPs a chance to pass their
own verdict.

'If they were that confident they would want to have a vote,' said Oliver
Heald, Shadow Leader of the Commons. 'The whole thing reeks of a government
running scared.'

Downing Street refused to say yesterday whether there would be a vote. But
one senior source said it would depend on the findings: 'What do they think
we might be voting on?'

Last night it emerged Lord Hutton had complained in a letter to the Tory MP
Peter Lilley of being sent notes made by Private Secretaries which were
'sparse and of no relevance'. He was also not given the transcript of
Blair's in-flight press conference last July during which he denied leaking
David Kelly's name.

The spotlight will turn this week to the role of the BBC, with the
publication of a blueprint under which its governors would be elected rather
than made up of political appointees in order to prevent bias.

Broadcasters may face criticism from Hutton over their handling of the
dossier story, including whether governors were fully briefed on possible
flaws in it before backing the BBC against Downing Street.

A book to be published by the Institute for Public Policy Research think
tank on Tues day, part-funded by the BBC, will call for the governors to be
chosen by an electoral college of interested parties instead.

'There is a pressing need to make regulation more transparent,' said author
Jamie Cowling. 'We don't think it is appropriate to appoint the board of
governors because there is a possibility that, precisely because they are
appointed, they feel it more necessary to demonstrate their independence
from Government.'

Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell, who will attend the report's launch, is
reviewing the BBC's charter and is expected to study the blueprint closely.

The Tories will pile on the pressure tomorrow by introducing measures as a
backbench Commons Bill to protect the Civil Service from interference.

They are also demanding assurances that they will receive Hutton's report 24
hours before it is published.



EXCERPT ENDS click link for copy verify