Fax from ' 19/98/03 18 :19 Pg : 1

19. AuG, 4003 E :03 N0, 14B9 P 1

RESTRICTED - PERSONAL
P M C~ul
i

From: Alastair Campbell

Date; 3 June 2003

PRIME MINISTER cc: Jonathan Powell

Clare Sumner
David Manning
PMOS
Sally Morgan
Pat McFadden
David Hanson
Catherine Rimmer

RE: WMD/TOMORROW

Tomorrow is about both the substance of the issue, and the manner in which you
deal with it. The overall aim must be to give explanation and context, calrn the
frenzy, and regain supporl for our basic position through the re-statement of what
has happened since .

On the substance, the current frenzy flows from the fact that apart from the 2
mobile labs nothing new has been found . Everything stems from that, so
tomorrow is in part about saying as much as you can about the process towards
discovery - who is involved, what son of numbers, where are they searching,
who are they interviewing, how are we verifying . The Northern Ireland analogy
is always worth repeating . We will need help from scientists . That help is
coming but their continuing fear is a factor. The fact there are other more
pressing issues - security, humanitarian, basic services - is relevant . (Hremer
may say something on this later ioday.)

What reasonable MPs will want is a signal that you understand the nature of the
concern. We've had a week now essentially of saying people are being
ridiculous about this, but it won't go away . So the first thing is to make clear
you understand why . as WMD was the stated reason for war, people want to
know the full story, and that you set out the process as to how they're going to
get it .

The second issue relates to the intelligence services, and in particular the false
charge thai we wrongly used intelligence material, or asked the Agencies to do
something they should not have, or ihat they were not happy with . Again, a
week of denials has noi taken us very far forward because the media, partieularly

CAD / 15 /0001
RESTR,rcT>rD - PERSOINAI.
13, AUG, 2003 E :03 NO 140y P. 2
RESTRICTED - PERSONAL

. -2-
"

the BBC, are trying to create a "no smoke without fire" atmosphere, Whilst Of
course John Scarlett and others should not be expected to go up in public, their
views - that nothing improper took place - should be made public forcefully. I
would recommend that you say that in the light of the controversy you asked the
IIC to set out for you a detailed analysis of the process of the dossier from
inception to publication, and as a result not only you, but more importantly the
JIC are l00°k clear that nothing wrong took place . You commissioned a
document after discussion with Ministers and Agency chiefs; it was drafted and
redrafted by the JIC - i .e. the heads of the Agencies and others - in consultation
with Allies . It was presented to No. ]0 as a JIC document and remains so.
Obviously there were discussions with No . ]0, not least because you were
writing a foreword and you were going to be presenting it to Parliament. But
these discussions related primarily to your frontpiece printing, briefing materials,
preparation of Q & A, in other words the normal stuff of presentation.

On the question of an ISC inquiry, the media will probably want to present this
as the main outcome of tomorrow . I,think what you say about it should be fairly
low key . It is inevitable that they would look at this and they will do so in the
normal way .

So taken together in relation to where we appear on the defensive, that part of the
response would give you ;

acceptance of genuine concern

process, with a sense of time-scale, months not days
confidence they'll be found because of historical reality and the labs
explanation on dossier production
I1C assurance nothing wrong took place
confirmation of ISC inquiry
statement of confidence in Agencies
reasons for no need for other inquiry

Once you get into questions, I also think there may come a point where it is
worth saying there is not a lot we can do if the BBC for example prefer to take
the word of an anonymous official against the word of the Prime Minister arid all
the heads of the Agencies .

As 10 the manner in which you deal with it, it must be calm, confident,
explanatory and thorough . But when you go on to the broader issues, in

CAB r+5 faooz

RESTRICTED " PERSONAL
2 :6d 6 i :BT EB/8B/6t . w0jJ Xp3
 19 . AUG . 2003 E ;04 N9 109 P. 3
,' '. ' RESTRICTED- PERSONAL

particular reporting back on Iraq, I think you should display a more combative
approach .

cg . " I always respected the views of those who were opposed to conflict, though
I passionately disagreed with them . I am in no doubt that as a result of the
process I have set out we will be able to confirm once more to the world the
nature of the threat, the reality of his WMD programme, and his attempts to
conceal . We had 12 years of evidence of WMD. We had thousands of deaths as
a result of him using them . In taking the action we have, we have ensured he
will not be able to use them again . We have high standards in this House which
is why it is right that I am held to account for what I have said and what we
" published . 1 am in no doubt that we will be proved right. Just as I am in no
doubt we did the right thing : .

the joy on the faces of the children 1 met tells me we did the right thing
the work going on to build basic services denied to Iraqis under Saddam
tells me we did the right thing ~
the slow beginnings of democracy tells me we did the right thing
the mass graves and the appalling accounts of human rights atrocities now
being told tells me we did the right thing
the fact that Saddam has gone tells me we did the right thing . And just
because we haven't found him does not mean he did not exist

I well understand why people opposed to the conflict wish to justify their
opposition, just as I wish to justify the action we took.

" But some of those now saying there are no WMD also said :
- tens of thousands would die if we went into action
- we would be bogged down for months
- Muslims would riot around the world in defence of Saddam
- there would be conflagration in the Middle East
- etc

They also said we would never persuade President Bush to take forward the
MEPP. He is. And as I know from my discussions with Arab leaders he is able
to do so with that region better, safer and more stable than when Saddam was in
power. "

1 know this is a lot to pack in, but you're noc going to be short of questions either
at PMQs or on the statement .

cwa( is toco3
RESTRICTED - PERSONAL
£ :bd 6T :8T EB/BB/6i . w°JS xp3
. 19 AUG . 2003 E ;04 N0, 1489 °, 4
RESTRICTED - PERSONAL

-4-

What is clearly happening here is that the relatively more sober coverage of the
war is giving way to the more usual frenzied media, and the aim of our
opponents is to contaminate the success you had as a war leader in Iraq . So those
who opposed you then want to justify the opposition then - that goes for some of
our MPs, BBC, the left leaning press . Those who supported you, like the right
wing press, want to look for reasons to regret their support and detach you from
Bush . They supported you because it was his war. They're happy for him to
retain success - WM)<7 is third order issue in the US at the moment - so hope
they can undermine your integrity without attacking him. Of course for the right
wing, a lot of this is also about getting the trust issue in relation to Europe . That
is why elsewhere in f'MQs it would be good to get out the message that just as
you stood up for what you believed to be right in ]ray, regardless of short term
popularity you'll do the same in Europe.

The final judgement to make dependent on what the Tories agree today, is how
hard to hit them for opportunism if they break ranks or, as is more likely, if they
diddle . They need to know there will be a Bush price to pay on that.

61a ..OX+o 4-1113

ALASTAIR CAMPBELL

cA $I vs1coo 4-
RTiSTRJCTED . PERSONAL
6 :bd 6T :BI £Bi88i61 . WoJ3 xp3