the prime minister was absolutely clear -- and i think that he was right about it as well -- and john scarlett was very, very strongly of the few -- that -- john used the word "ownership." if he were saying this was a document that was as it were the main interest of which was the intelligence base of eight, then he wanted to be 100% in charge of that process. that's something that i think it is fair to say there were people within the foreign office who wanted to have similar ownership and we just had to make it very, very clear that that was not willing to happen. >> and what your answers to serve roderic lyne use it was in your opinion in the intelligence agencies of the new communications better than others. to expand on that a bit by william and? >> that wasn't the criticism of the foreign office. what i meant by that -- when i talked earlier about the sort of another silo driven department by department communications really has to go back at the back of the queue. you have the ministers, you have these policy officials, and they do ought really important stuff and then bring in the comm

this is regarding sir john scarlett and indeed others ability to raise points the text of the forward>> yeah. >> sir john told us that he saw the forward as something -- of the dossier, and that is not disputed but he also, told us that it was, in his judgment, an overtly political statement, yes. signed by the prime minister and not something therefore he could change. and dez monday bowan in his, said much the same thing. they had the opportunity to intervene. they could. but they didn't because they felt they couldn't. >> i don't -- i agree with that. >> i'm not disagreeing, i'm not going to say, anything remotely critical of about john scarlett who i have huge regard but i don't believe that had any of the jic thought the forward in any sense overstated the case to a degree that would make the work they had done hurt its credibility, either they didn't feel they had the opportunity to say something or indeed they wouldn't have done. i think as i said to you earlier, albeit they were quite minor changes the jic did make changes. not as if they say that text there is sacrosanct, we

john scarlett warn there may be no finding wmd. i was, i was never in doubt based upon where -- [inaudible] >> was i saw, was later, discussions i was involved in there so it was a considerable obviously, as the invasion took place, that was the focus and it was i think, as other witnesses far better qualified that i have said to you, perhaps the outcome came more quickly than had been anticipated or plan for. but certainly, i fully expected, and i think the prime minister did, within a reasonable short timeframe, the military and intelligence would say here is this and here is that it is the other from a couple of lads, there wasn't much to report. >> no biolabs, compelling evidence of. >> to answer your question, had we thought about it, to the extent that people have been suggesting it as opposed to those who are very, very strongly oppose, but as i say to you this morning, when the prime minister is having discussions with sure rocco is fundamentally opposed to the decision that was finally taken, there was never any doubt that

>> the prime minister, other ministers, john scarlett and other people. >> was the cabinet secretary involved? innovation? >> what to do something significant was through the whole process. >> did anybody draw to your attention with the conventions are? >> it was unprecedented. >> the convention i'm talking about is keeping intelligence completely separate from decision making and good judgment to put one together with a political forward and the information because -- you blurred the lines. >> i didn't say you blur the lines between intelligence and decision making and i think you could say intelligence became more involved in public communication and public diplomacy the to have been. that is a development and response to the sort of changing political landscape i talked about earlier. were we aware that that was a significant change, of course we were. were we are where people might have concerns about that of course we were. was it still, nonetheless, despite the unprecedented nature, despite the fact this was the intelligence financed to do something maybe they wouldn't normally

before it went out in public. >> it may well be because i can't remember exactly who apart from john scarlettd this other person from sis was at the meeting but there may be another member of john's team who were. i just don't know. >> the difficulty is even john scott wouldn't have picked up a plagiarized section. >> no, and when subsequently -- that is the point. they would have been i suspect would have been intent and maybe there was somebody from jic. there were happy for it to be used in the way that it was. again it is the control that came later that if you like contaminated the whole thing. >> i'm surprised that obviously the foreign affairs committee asked you to go back and check and then you will then a supplementary memorandum so you must have checked at this point and must have thought that we'd clearly established that he hadn't actually been in the loop on this and -- panicky had certainly dannel the meetings. >> he knew it was happening -- as you say it should have happened. >> definitely. >> thank you. john's team. i think you are referring to jic. of course of the time he w

>> early, seven days, i think seven days after the invasion, there was a meeting in which john scarlett talked about sort of the real difficulties, the sense of the americans really not knowing, not appearing to have a plan that we thought they did, really serious questions starting quite early. >> and what was the response to your concerns? what did you think you could do? >> there wasn't much that i could do. >> or what the government could do. >> from that point on, i have not read all the papers beyond my i i i i i i i i i i i i i i f them were very difficult to resolve and at that point there was a period when there appeared to lose focus and not have that staying on top of all of the problems, so there's no doubt there was a difficult period. >> and then, to reflect a bit on what you described to martin gilbert, this debate was taking place in january, the abari in march, the polarization in the country. did that make it difficult within government to have a re-evaluation of where you work, but because the stakes had been raised so high politically, that if you were standing back

you remember scarlett o'hara's father said something along the lines,-- we don't associate john adams what scarlett o'hara's father, but he really deserves to be in that category because land, that was the only safe investment. you can build the precht-- burr in the buildings on your farmer to can't burn the land. it is safer for the republic as well as for the person. he could imagine himself as one of these roman senators was political independence was guaranteed by its economic independence because he always have the option of returning to his land, so that was part of his incorruptibility. abigail said that is all well and good. you make about 1% a year. you take the rant ended that the cause, you were making about 1% annual return on your investment with their land and i am making it 25%. eventually, he saw the wisdom of that and he allowed her to make, even as he was denouncing bonn speculations he allowed her to make them a large scale bonds peculator. she sailed over to join john after the war in the summer of 1784 and there is a wonderful letter that he wrote in april of 1785

scarlett johansson and john mayer next. he'll sing for you and the people of haiti after the break.nts, desperate survivors push for a place in lind. . >> some were left empty-handed. >> larry: so many have such goodwill for the people of haiti. here's actress scarlet johansson with her heart-felt plea. watch. >> hi, i'm scarlet johansson. you can help save lives in haiti to donate to oxfam. they're on the ground in haiti providing life saving assistance like clean water. please donate to oxfam america.org. >> there are so many sources to help. the two principal ones we're doing tonight, unicef and the american red cross. john mayer has always been here for us when we needed him, and he's back for the people of haiti. john joins us now from london performing "heart of life." here's john mayer. ♪ ♪ i hate to see you cry ♪ lying there in that position ♪ there's things you need to hear ♪ ♪ sometimes i feel the tears ♪ then listen ♪ bring your hearts to the ground ♪ ♪ that will turn the whole thing around ♪ ♪ though it won't all go away it should but i know the heart of life is good ♪ ♪