a different audience. Furthermore, to be comprehensive it brought together the key parts of a number of past JIC assessments, together with some intelligence that had not featured in JIC assessments, about Iraq’s nuclear, biological, chemical and ballistic missile programmes. It is as a result difficult to make a direct comparison between judgements in any one JIC paper and the language in the dossier. We are therefore publishing, at Annex B, substantial extracts from three key JIC assessments issued in 2002 alongside relevant extracts from the Government’s dossier, the Prime Minister’s Foreword and his accompanying statement to the House of Commons so that readers can check our judgements and reach their own conclusions.
We have noted that the JIC assessment of 9 September exercised considerable influence over the dossier, which was being prepared almost in parallel. That assessment was written to inform military and other contingency planning, and examined a range of possible scenarios in which chemical and biological weapons might be used by Iraq. But these precautionary JIC judgements about the scenarios (as was right for a document to inform military planning) were subsequently taken up into the dossier, and were taken up in an abbreviated form in which points were run together and caveats on the intelligence were dropped. The most significant difference was the omission of the warnings included in JIC assessments about the limited intelligence base on which some aspects of those assessments were being made. We set out below the warnings on this point from JIC assessments between March and September 2002 (in the left-hand column) against extracts from the dossier (in the right-hand column) addressing the size and quality of the intelligence base: