FANDOM


basics Edit

wikipedia:September_Dossier#The_45_minute_claim

whered the story come from?? Edit

'Spy chief regrets '45 minute' Iraq weapons claim', peter fray, sep 17 2003, 'the age'

"Sir Richard said the 45 minute claim had "come from an established and reliable source, equating a senior Iraqi military officer, who was certainly in a position to know this information". But the inquiry also heard that senior defence intelligence officials were concerned the 45 minute claim had been "rather strong" as it came from a single source. "

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/16/1063625031302.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true

q: what 'Senior Iraqi Military Officer'???

hutton inquiry testimony of richard dearlove Edit

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans32.htm

  • first heard about thing on late aug, ... 29

source of intel Edit

interview between the lord and Richard Dearlove


the Foreign and
19 Commonwealth Office had told the Committee that the
20 intelligence on which the claim was based came from "an
21 established, reliable and long-standing line of
22 reporting". Can you comment on that?
23 A. Well, I can except I would not normally comment in
24 public on the status of an SIS source; but a certain
25 amount of this is already in the public domain.


86
1 Q. I am only seeking comments that are already in the
2 public domain.
3 A. Yes, it did come from an established and reliable source
4 equating a senior Iraqi military officer who was
5 certainly in a position to know this information.

...

20 Q. Did you have any comment about the proposed publication
21 of intelligence material?
22 A. Yes, I certainly did. I discussed with David Manning to
23 what extent it would be possible to put intelligence
24 from my service into the public domain; and I said that
25 I thought it would be possible to put some of this in


87
1 the public domain, but that I would insist on grounds of
2 source protection on having the last word in withholding
3 material from publication, if necessary.
4 Q. And was that agreed?
5 A. Yes, it certainly was.


...

9 Q. Which again deals with those matters, but also deals
10 with the 45 minutes order. It said this at the bottom
11 of the page:
12 "A similar statement appears in the dossier. This
13 is reported as fact whereas the intelligence comes from
14 a single source. In my view the intelligence warrants
15 no stronger a statement than 'intelligence suggests that
16 military planning allows...'"
17 Did you agree with that? First of all, did you see
18 this memorandum at any time before this Inquiry?
19 A. No, I did not. I have to say I am rather bemused by the
20 sentence "this is reported as fact whereas the
21 intelligence comes from a single source". It rather
22 implies that a single source cannot report a fact.
23 I mean, if I can add to that.
24 Q. Yes, of course.
25 A. CX reports as produced by my service are essentially



98
1 single source; and much high quality intelligence which
2 is factual or proved to be factual is single source
3 material. So I do not really understand that comment.

questions Edit

why did this "established, reliable and long-standing line of reporting", source, say this? what was in it for this person to say such a thing?

or did they say something else and it just got ignored??

who was the soucE? was it allawi?


they admit its bogus Edit

'Blair retracts his '45 minutes' WMD claim', peter fray, oct 14 2004, 'the age'

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/13/1097607294014.html?from=storylhs