I see, in between the Northern Rock problem, the papers are reporting upon the FoI release of a draft 'Iraq dossier' written by Jack Straw's former press officer a few days before the JIC's first draft appeared which carried the infamous 45 minute claim. Of the papers I have read they all appear to have carried out comparison 'analysis' and noted that the two reports have strikingly similar wording. Thus, by implication, the newly released draft was not, as the Government says, the press officer working off his own back, but was instead part of the spin operation leading to the final dossier that was released. Oh the lies! Oh the spin!
John Baron, the Tory MP that pushed for the document's release has said that 'the Government must now explain why key passages of both documents are similar or identical'. Why it requires the Government to offer an explanation is beyond me I'm afraid because I can think of an obvious one in a flash. Source Q. I'm sure anyone mildly interested in theology will be aware of Q but if not here are basic details. Q is considered to be missing source for the Gospels. A missing source you see makes sense because there are certain, some might even say 'strinking' similarities between certain section of the Gospels. This suggests that there is a missing source, could be written, might just be spoken, but missing it is.
Now lets go back to the dossiers whilst keeping Q in our mind. It's probably fair to say that the Foreign Secretary' press officer come spin doctor, along with the JIC were privy to the same documents. As such it's also fair to say that they may both have used the same documents when they came to write their dossiers. So consider this, there is a Q document somewhere that they both used. Accepting this does not mean nothing was 'sexed up' in the final document. The point though is that similar wording in the JIC dossier to that of this earlier dossier does not mean, by necessity, that the former is a pre-cursor to the latter. It's entirely possible they both copied chunks from someone else.
I know this doesn't fit with the anti-war lobby's theme about the Iraq War all being based on some dark evil spun lies, but if you strip away political subjectivity and apply a bit of historical objectivity to the two documents it does not take a genius to come to the conclusion that the people that 'wrote' both probably did so on the basis of cut and pasting from the same raw intel report and then did a bit of rewording to make it read in a satisfactory way to their own personal style.
Instead of assuming that the released report is a piece of primary evidence and the JIC is a secondary piece in the 'big spin lie' narrative, it's more sane and sensible to consider the far more probable possibilty that both are secondary evidence based upon a primary source written by some spook analyst and distributed through the relevant upper echelons of the intelligence community.