Registered user login:

Make the dossier 'revelatory' - Campbell

Chris Ames

Published 09 July 2007

Alastair Campbell's diaries show the Government decided it wanted a strongly worded dossier days before they knew the view of intelligence, reports Chris Ames

Alastair Campbell told intelligence chiefs the Iraq dossier “had to be revelatory” even though Tony Blair had told him “there was really not much to say at the moment”, according to his diaries. Blair was reluctant to recall Parliament and did not want the Cabinet to discuss the dossier. Campbell also thought the secret draft of the dossier by spin doctor John Williams represented a Foreign Office takeover attempt. But the diaries leave out many key events that show how heavily Williams and other spin doctors were involved in drafting the dossier and the insertion of the notorious 45 minutes claim.

Campbell records that he met Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) chairman John Scarlett and others on Thursday 5 September 2002 to go over the dossier, two days after Blair had announced it would be published. He demanded something revelator and records “we needed to show that it was new and informative and part of a bigger case.” As a footnote, he mentions that John Williams, the Foreign Office’s press secretary, was offering to write the dossier full time.

Significantly there is no entry for Friday 6 September. On that day Williams emailed Campbell saying he had Foreign Secretary Jack Straw’s permission to carry out "the media-friendly editorial job that will need to be done when John Scarlett and his team have produced the dossier." No record of Campbell’s response has surfaced, but Williams has told me he put together his own draft of the dossier that weekend. It is this draft, dated 9 September, whose existence the New Statesman’s Martin Bright revealed in November and which is still being withheld by the Foreign Office, in spite of a ruling from the Information Commissioner that it should be released.

Campbell was aware of what Williams was doing. He records that on Monday 9 September that he met John Scarlett, who “agrees with me that the FCO was trying to take [the dossier] over”. Then: “Jack Straw called me about it and I said John Williams should be part of the team, not the writer.” But Campbell told Hutton that he had no knowledge of “John’s draft of 9th September”. Asked whether there was a dossier on that day, he replied, “No, there was not”.

Campbell’s diaries leave out what happened next but Williams continued to be closely involved. The first meeting of the dossier drafting group was described as “a Cab Off meeting at 2pm today w John Williams on the dossier”. Campbell told Hutton he had no knowledge of whether this meeting had gone ahead. Williams also failed to tell Hutton about the meeting. He has told me that he has no recollection of it but has not entirely denied attending it. He has said that he was not at any meeting that took the decision to include the 45 minutes claim.

But according to the government’s own evidence to the 2003 Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry, the 45 minutes claim was inserted in the dossier after it was discussed at this meeting. Also at this meeting was Daniel Pruce of the No. 10 press office, and possibly other spin doctors.

Campbell told Hutton that Pruce, who represented him at the meeting, was “not terribly closely involved in the process”. Clearly he had good reason to try to portray Pruce as out of the loop as it was Pruce’s email on 10 September that discussed the Williams draft as something that would lead to a “further draft”. In another email, Pruce revealingly referred to John Scarlett’s “first draft” of the dossier as “this latest draft”.

The government has always presented John Scarlett’s draft on 10 Septemberas the pure work of the intelligence services but it is clear that the spin doctors’ fingerprints are all over it. Campbell records receiving Scarlett’s draft late that day. Scarlett also sent a covering note acknowledging “considerable help from John Williams” who apparently already had a copy of the draft.

Having demanded a “revelatory” document without knowing what its contents might be, Campbell says he was happy enough with the dossier at this point. He says that Blair “felt it was pretty compelling stuff” but was “in a bit of a strop” over plans to recall Parliament and was under pressure from within the Cabinet.

“He also didn’t want Cabinet until after a recall. Ridiculous. No wonder Betty Boothroyd said it was becoming more presidential.”

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

6 comments from readers

mariella
10 July 2007 at 11:32

It is terrifying that Campbell played such a huge part in taking this country to war illegally on a fictional pretext. He may well have cried when he learned of Dr David Kelly's death although I don't believe this either.

Tom Paine
10 July 2007 at 16:35

The war was a con borne out of the arrogance of people utterly ignorant of history. In Iraq Blair and Bush have seriously destabilised the world. Spin your way out of that one Campbell.

RedDaybreak
10 July 2007 at 16:55

Please don't buy this book! He doesn't deserve the money.

D.Objective
10 July 2007 at 19:50

I was not surprised to read Zawahiri's statement; Blair and his spin-doctors were most probably the greatest menace to Britain's security (for a century) and it is wonderful to see them out of Office.

Gordon Brown should not fall victim of the self-destructive loyalty to a bunch of ex-neocons. The government should distance itself from the Blair legacy (this includes any symbolic gestures, title awards etc).

Extremists should open their eyes and see that Prime Minister Brown and those around him, much less ordinary civilians, have absolutely nothing to do with politics of fear, intimidation and antagonism. The new government should be judged by its policies not by what was done in the name of Labour by Blair and his neocon handlers.

I'd like to see a prominent (and credible) Muslim scholar (Mr Tamimi -the head of The Institute of Islamic Political Thought for e.g) to come out with a statement in support of measures announced by Mr Brown. It is going to work, because unlike his predecessors' meetings with the Muslim Council, Mr Brown is honest about his intentions to tackle the root-causes of the Blair catastrophe.

Richard
11 July 2007 at 12:56

This foul mouthed purveyor of lies is an unrepentant destroyer of political decency and truth. Please don’t buy his book.

IrritatedofTonbridge
11 July 2007 at 13:10

Boycott Campbell. Don't listen to anything he says, don't read anything he writes, and certainly don't buy anything he sells.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Does Hillary Clinton deserve to be secretary of state?