The report includes the following:
In the course of his 40-year dictatorship Muammar Gaddafi had acquired many enemies in the Middle East and North Africa, who were similarly prepared to exaggerate the threat to civilians.
[testimony:] "Al-Jazeera in particular, but also al-Arabiya, were reporting that Gaddafi was using air strikes against people in Benghazi and, I think, were really hamming everything up, and it turned out not to be true."
An Amnesty International investigation in June 2011 ... uncovered evidence that rebels in Benghazi made false claims and manufactured evidence.
Many Western policymakers genuinely believed that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered his troops to massacre civilians in Benghazi, if those forces had been able to enter the city. However, while Muammar Gaddafi certainly threatened violence against those who took up arms against his rule, this did not necessarily translate into a threat to everyone in Benghazi. In short, the scale of the threat to civilians was presented with unjustified certainty. US intelligence officials reportedly described the intervention as “an intelligence-light decision”.
UK strategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.
It is correct to say that the report describes the intervention as being based on lies. These lies, originating from Gaddafi's political enemies, were spread by Qatari media and uncritically accepted by Western policymakers. (The report places the blame for the bombing of Libya on incorrect analysis of these lies, as well as major diplomatic and strategic failures on the part of the entire UK government.)