An earlier leaked memo to Downing Street ...

[evermind]

... seems to contradict Tony Blair's statement today:

bLiar:

But all the way through that period of time, we were trying to look for a way of managing to resolve this without conflict. As it happened, we weren't able to do that because -- as I think was very clear -- there was no way that Saddam Hussein was ever going to change the way that he worked, or the way that he acted.

I'm not sure how familiar DU'ers are with the earlier leaked memos, which made little impact even in the British press, so I hope you'll forgive me if this is all old news...

Around the 18th Sept, 2004, a set of 6 papers from various members of the Blair set were leaked, via the Daily Telegraph. (See http://lists.stir.ac.uk/pipermail/media-watch/2004-October/001523.html for an analysis. Google on "leaks-brief.zip" to see where I got my copy )

One of these was a memo, dated 18 March 2002, from then British ambassador to Washington, Christopher Meyer to a Downing Street foreign policy advisor, David Manning, who later replaced Meyer. It reported on a meeting between Meyer and Paul Wolfowitz.

I'll reproduce it in full, below, for curiosity's sake, but the most interesting part is in the second paragraph.

There was plainly a strategy, alluded to in the DSM, of forcing an unmeetable ultimatum on Saddam with the weapons inspection, so that when it was not met, a convenient pretext for invasion would be provided. This is clearly alluded to in the second paragraph of the Meyer memo, as the need to "wrongfoot" Saddam. This gives the lie to Blair's protestations of innocent intentions vis-a-vis the inspections program and a peaceful resolution.

Here's the memo (I've typed it from a graphic in a PDF, but *some* of the typos were in the original! :-)

CONFIDENTIAL AND PERSONAL

British Embassy Washington

From the Ambassador
Christopher Meyer KCMG

18 March 2002

Sir David Manning KCMG
No 10 Downing Street

IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN: CONVERSATION WITH WOLFOWITZ

1   Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, came to Sunday lunch on 17
March.

2   On Iraq I opened by sticking very closely to the script that you used with
Condi Rice last week, We backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever
and failure was not an option.  It would be a tough sell for us domestically, and
probably tougher elsewhere in Europe.  The US could go it alone if it wanted to.
But if it wanted to act with partners, there had to be a strategy for building
support for military action against Saddam. I then went through the need to
wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN SCRs and the critical importance
of the MEPP as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy.  If all this could
be accomplished skilfully, we were fairly confident that a number of countries 
would come on board.

3   I said that the UK was giving serious thought to publishing a paper that 
would make the case against Saddam. If the UK were to join with the US in any
operation against Saddam, we would have to be able to take a critical mass of
parliamentary and public opinion with us.  It was extraordinary how people had
forgotten how bad he was.

4   Wolfowitz said that he fully agreed. He took a slightly different position
from others in the Administration, who were focussed on Saddam's capacity
to develop weapons of mass destruction.  The WMD danger was of course crucial to
the public case against Saddam, particularly the potential linkage to terrorism.
But Wolfowitz thought it indispensable to spell out in detail Saddam's
barbarism. This was well documented from what he had done during the occupation
of Kuwait, the incursion into Kurdish territory, the assault on the Marsh Arabs,
and to his own people.  A lot of work had been done on this towards the end of
the first Bush administration. Wolfowitz thought that this would go a long way
to destroying any notion of moral equivalence between Iraq and Israel.  I said
that I had been forcefully struck, when addressing university audiences in the
US how ready students were to gloss over Saddam's crimes and to blame the US
and the UK for the suffering of the Iraqi people.

5   Wolfowitz said that it was absurd to deny the link between terrorism and
Saddam.  There might be doubt about the alleged meeting in Prague between
Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker on 9/11, and Iraqi intelligence (did we, he
asked, know anything more about this meeting?). But there were other
substantiated cases of Saddam giving comfort to terrorists, including someone
involved in the first attack on the World Trade Center (the latest New Yorker
apparently has a story about links between Saddam and Al Qaeda operating in
Kurdistan).

6   I asked for Wolfowitz's take on the stuggle inside the Administration
between the pro- and anti- INC lobbies (well documented in Sy Hersh's recent
New Yorker piece, which I gave you).  He said that he found himself between the
two sides (but as the conversation developed, it became clear that Wolfowitz
was far more pro-INC than not).  He said that he was strongly opposed to what
some were advocating: a coalition including all outside factions except the
INC (INA, KDP, PUK, SCIRI).  This would not work.  Hostility towards the INC
was in reality hostility towards Chalabi.  It was true that Chalabi was not the
easiest person to work with.  Bute had a good record in bringing high-grade defectors
out of Iraq.  The CIA stubbornly refused to recognise this.  They unreasonably 
denigrated the INC because of their fixation with Chalabi.  When I mentioned that
the INC was penetraded by Iraqi intelligence, Wolfowitz commented that this was
probably the case with all the opposition groups: it was something we would 
have to live with.  As to the Kurds, it was true that they were living well 
(another point to be made in any public dossier on Saddam) and that they feared
provoking an incursion by Baghdad,  But there were good people among the Kurds,
including in particular Salih (?) of the PUK.  Wolfowitz brushed over my
reference to the absence of SUnni in the INC: there was a big difference between
Iraqi and Iranian Shia.  The former just wanted to be rid of Saddam.

7   Wolvowitz was pretty dismissive of the desirability of a military coup and
of the defector generals in the wings.  The latter had blood on their hands. The
important thing was to try to have Saddam replaced by something like a
functioning democracy.  Though imperfect, the Kurdish model was not bad.  How to
achieve this, I asked?  Only through a coalition of all the parties was the
answer (we did not get into military planning).

[earthboundmisfit]

1. DSM plus this = DAMNING

Damn damning! To the Hague with all these bastards! :mad:

[cthrumatrix]

13. I would love to see some SPINE (Lord knows our Dems should grow one)

[negativenihil]

64. kick for good measure

n/t

[Spazito]

2. Thanks for this!

This is the other memo referred to repeatedly in the BBC video, "Iraq, Tony & the Truth". After watching this excellent program, I was wondering where that memo was and if it had made the paper.

Here is the link to the BBC video, excellent and well worth watching:

http://www.overcast.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/warofterror/iraqtonytruth.htm

[evermind]

3. Eh, and thanks for that! :-) Missed it before.. (n/t)

[Spazito]

4. evermind, you might want to post your info into this thread,,,

as well because it relates to the video and your memo is definitely part of the story.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3808547#3809550

[evermind]

5. Done. (n/t)

[Karenina]

6. Kick!

:kick:

[Triana]

11. I saw the vid and bLiar deffo says it...

"I then went through the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN SCRs..."

So it's on tape and on official docs. ALL THIS MUST GO to the MSM and Conyers - and whoever else.

God this is damning, combined with the DSM. I cannot BELIEVE bLiar or bu$hit are even still walking around free, given this information.

And the media? Snoozing and complicit as usual. USELESS.

[Coexist]

22. that video is great!

[Blue Belle]

15. I watched that last night.... EVERYONE should see it.

Of course, if you're pissed about what's going on now, it will double by the time this video is done.

:mad:

[woodsprite]

7. Does Conyers know about this memo? n/t

[ROH]

46. It's important that Conyers AND Kerry see this information. (n/t)

[NewJeffCT]

8. kick for our troops

we need to get all of this out in the public... wrongfooting Saddam? I assume to "wrongfoot" somebody is the Brit equivalent of framing them?

[evermind]

12. Re: "wrongfoot"

I think it means to catch them off guard, in the wrong stance, as in boxing. Specifically, the plan seems to have been to encourage Saddam to deny access to inspectors so that they could then justify the war on a technical breach of the UN resolution requiring access for the inspectors.

My memory is a little hazy, but I believe ultimatums were issued and ridiculous amounts of access requested for the inspection team in the run-up to the US invasion.

My interpretation is that this was a British plan, adopted by Bush as a condition for bringing Blairco on side.

In the Downing Street memo itself, there's a paragraph reading:

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors ... If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

Now you could read that bolded part as Blair saying "suppose Saddam, acting as a free agent, were to refuse access...", but in the context of the two other memos I've quoted, a more likely reading is "If we can get Saddam to refuse access...".

This gives the lie to the whole Bush/Blair position of "we tried our darndest to negotiate a peaceful settlement" because it suggests deliberate manipulation of the UN inspection process in a way calculated to provide political and legal justification for war. (IMHO)

[evermind]

9. And one more memo..

This one is from David Manning to Blair, advising him on the meeting between Manning and Condoleeza Rice, 12th(?) March 2002.

Again, the firm stance on regime change, is evident, and the perception of the need to convince the British public, as well as other internal evidence, shows the change was being planned in military terms.

Again, the memo goes some way to documenting what seems to have been a British plan to create a pretext for war on the basis of inspection issues that were deliberately skewed with this in mind.

As noted in Michael Lewis' summary and analysis (see http://kampra.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=241 ) the papers were made available via cryptome.org, and its mirrors, and at (the excellent!) http://www.middleeastreference.org.uk as a zipped file containing 6 PDFs.

Unfortunately, this file (leaks-brief.zip) has seemingly disappeared from the web. But I still have the copy I downloaded at the time.

SECRET - STRICTLY PERSONAL

FROM: DAVID MANNING
DATE: 14 MARCH 2002

CC: JONATHAN POWELL

PRIME MINISTER

YOUR TRIP TO THE US

I had dinner with Condi on Tuesday; and lunch with her and an
NSC team on Wednesday (to which Christopher Meyer also came). These were
good exchanges, and particularly frank when we were on-on-one at dinner.
I attach the records in case you want to glance.

IRAQ

We spent a long time at dinner on IRAQ.  It is clear that Bush is grateful
for your support and has registered that you are getting flak.  I said
that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you
had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very
different than anything in the States.  And you would not budge either
in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very
carefully done and produce the right result.  Failure was not an option.

Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed.  But there were some
signs, since we last spoke, of greater awareness of the practical diffic-
ulties and political risks.  (See the attached piece by Seymour Hersh
which Christopher Meyer says gives a pretty accurate picture of the uncertain
state of the debate in Washington.)

From what she said, Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions:

-    how to persuade international opinion that military action against
Iraq is necessary and justified;

-    what value to put on the exiled Iraqi opposition;

-    how to coordinate a US/allied military campaign with internal
opposition (assuming there is any);

-    what happens on the morning after?

Bush will want to pick your brains.  He will also want to hear whether
he can expect coalition support.  I told Condi that we realised that the
Administration could go it alone if it chose.  But if it wanted company,
it would have to take account of the concerns of its potential coalition
partners.  In particular:

-    the Un dimension.  The issue of the weapons inspectors must be handled
in a way that would persuade European and wider opinion that the US was
conscious of the international framework, and the insistence of many
countries on the need for a legal base.  Renwed refused [sic] by Saddam to accept
unfettered inspections would be a powerful argument;

-    the paramount importance of tackling Israel/Palestine.  Unless we
did, we could find ourselves bonbing Iraq and losing the Gulf.

YOUR VISIT TO THE RANCH

No doubt we need to keep a sense of perspective.  But my talks with Condi
convinced me that Bush wants to hear you views on Iraq before taking
decisions.  He also wants your support.  He is still smarting from the com-
ments by other European leaders on his Iraq policy.

This gives you real influence: on the public relations strategy; on the
UN and weapons inspections; and on US planning for any military campaign.
This could be critically important.  I think there is a real risk that the
Administration underestimates the difficulties.  They may agree that
failure isn't an option, but this does not mean that they will avoid it.

Will the Sunni majority really respond to an uprising led by Kurds and
Shias?  Will Americans really put in enough ground troops to do the job
if the Kurdish/Shi'ite stratagem fails?  Even if they do will they be
willing to take the sort of casualties that the Republican Guard may
inflict on them if it turns out to be an urban war, and Iraqi troops
don't conveniently collapse in a heap as Richard Perle and others confid-
ently predict?  They need to answer these and other tough questions,
in a more convincing way than they have so far before concluding that they
can do the business.

The talks at the ranch will also give you the chance to push Bush on
the Middle East.  The Iraq factor means that there may never be a better
opportunity to get this Administration to give sustained attention to
reviving the MEPP.

DAVID MANNING

(Edit: correct http://www.middleeastreference.org.uk url, deal with square brackets!)

[Spazito]

10. Excellent! Thanks for your work!

That makes at least 3 memos that show how the facts were manipulated and the decision to invade was made by both Blair and bush well before any attempt for a UN resolution, even before a resolution from Congress. They also show that regime change was the reason regardless of the fact that regime change as a justification for invading a sovereign country is illegal by international law.

[cthrumatrix]

14. forward this to ALL MEDIA AND CONGRESS!!!!

[Amonester]

17. Recommended & Kicked

:kick:

:woohoo:

[Blue Belle]

19. Wow... thanks for positng.

Now if only everyone else in America could see it... :eyes:

Welcome to the DU by the way! :-)

[katinmn]

16. Please be careful...verify these memos!!

There were other memos that were proven to be forgeries.

Make absolutely, 100 percent certain that someone isn't trying to muddle things up.

[Spazito]

18. These memos are quoted in the BBC documentary...

Iraq, Tony and the Truth which aired before the election and there has been NO denial from Downing Street that they are not accurate from what I have found.

It is up to the media to do the checks and I am sure the BBC triple checked their facts, especially after the upset on the 'sexed up' news report, before including quotes from these memos.

[Synnical]

20. That was my thought, too n/t

[evermind]

21. No, they're not fake, see inside.

You're right to advise caution, but I'm sure the memos are not fake. Apart from having a reputable source (a Cambridge academic, no less, see the summary and analysis link in the "one more memo" post in this thread) they were actually acknowledged as genuine by the Foreign Office at the time. Read on for details...

The forged memo (that I know of anyway) was one circulated to the UK press at the end of April, 2005, which purported to be legal advice from the UK Attorney General, advising Blair the Iraq war would be illegal. It was never published anywhere (AFAIK), and the police were alerted. Shortly afterwards, the actual advice was published.

Despite the conviction of many freepsheep, this was not the now famous DSM, which was from and to different people, on a different subject, and never denied by the British Government (Blair's comment was that it contained "nothing new"!).

Neither are the memos I've published the same "fake memo". They were substantially reported in the British press in late 2004, and were acknowledged as genuine by the UK Foreign Office.

See, for example, the Guardian story at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1308368,00.html

The documents from the Cabinet Office and Foreign Office suggest that in March 2002 Mr Blair was concerned primarily about regime change rather than, as he subsequently said, weapons of mass destruction. Invasion simply for regime change would have been contrary to international law.

The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine but stressed they were only a snapshot of thinking at a particular time. Nor did they reflect the changes that took place over the following 12 months, in particular referring the issue to the UN, which the White House did at Mr Blair's behest, though it failed to get a second security council resolution authorising war.

--snip--

But Sir David Manning, then Downing Street foreign policy adviser, now UK ambassador to Washington, discloses in one of the newly emerged documents, a memo on March 14 2002, that at the time the main issue for Mr Blair was regime change.

He told Condoleezza Rice, Mr Bush's national security adviser: "I said you [Blair] would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a parliament and a public opinion that was very different from anything in the States."

[katinmn]

24. Now I am even more suspicious.

seems like a pretty weak "explanation" to me...

"a reputable source (a Cambridge academic, no less, see the summary and analysis link in the "one more memo" post in this thread) they were actually acknowledged as genuine by the Foreign Office at the time."

And the link to FReeperland and a story in the Guardian talking about discredited memos.

Sorry, this is too important to just take someone's word for it.

[evermind]

25. No, the guardian story is NOT about discredited memos.

Except in the sense that certain politicians were at pains to deny them.

What is there, really, in your post?

"Oh, I've heard there are some fake memos, these might be them".

No indication of what fake memos where, or any actual information.

As I tried to indicate, by showing you a freeper source, the only "fake memo" floating about was one from a now expired Yahoo! story: a completely different memo, which originated this year.

Can you show any evidence of any other "fake memo"?

Now, look at the Guardian story. It says, plain as daylight: "The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine".

What part of that reputably reported sentence do you not understand?

It goes on to say "but stressed they were only a snapshot of thinking at a particular time". This is called "damage limitation".

You mention "a story in the Guardian talking about discredited memos": where in the Guardian story is the word "discredited"? It's not there. The Guardian story is about memos acknowledged as genuine, by the UK government.

For someone concerned about muddying, you're doing a pretty good job yourself.

[katinmn]

28. oh blah, blah, blah n/t

[Spazito]

27. The 'discredited' memo was dealing with a fake memo

that came out regarding the British AG's 13 page document regarding the legality of the invasion. The reports of the fake report forced Blair to release the real report which was quite damning on it's own regarding the illegality of invading for regime change.

Again, the BBC used them in it's documentary, I don't consider them as a weak source.

Caution is always good but, again, there is NO indication from Downing Street or the White House that the authenticity is in question, as a matter of fact, they are trying to spin them as 'old news'.

[donkeyotay]

29. Authentic, but just a "snapshot," What about the UN and legality of war?

The Foreign Office yesterday acknowledged the documents were genuine but stressed they were only a snapshot of thinking at a particular time... referring the issue to the UN, which the White House did at Mr Blair's behest, though it failed to get a second security council resolution authorizing war.

The original London Times article talks about the legality of the war:

Also seen by The Sunday Times is the Foreign Office opinion on the possible legal bases for war. Marked “Confidential”, it runs to eight pages and casts doubt on the possibility of reviving the authority to use force from earlier UN resolutions. “Reliance on it now would be unlikely to receive any support,” it says.

Foreign Office lawyers were consistently doubtful of the legality of war and one deputy legal director, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, ultimately resigned because she believed the conflict was a “crime of aggression”.

[notadmblnd]

51. I think they demonstrate more than just a snapshotof their thinking...

I think they (the memos) demonstrate a conspiracy.

[TWiley]

23. Great Post ! Thank You. n/t

[paineinthearse]

26. evermind - fantastic work for someone with just 45 posts

Would you care to tell us more about yourself and your political orientation?

[evermind]

30. Since you ask.. :-)

I'm resident in the UK, mid-40's, work in IT. Politically I have no strong party affiliations, I think Bush and his like are transforming the US into a fascist state, and dragging the UK along behind them.

Thanks for asking :)

[paineinthearse]

42. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[understandinglife]

31. Thank you for bringing these documents to our attention. I have written ..

... the Cryptome administrator -- jya (at) pipeline.com, and requested copies of the six .pdf files:

straw020325.pdf
manning020314.pdf
meyer020318.pdf
ods020308.pdf
ricketts020322.pdf
fcolegal020308.pdf

http://cryptome.org/


Cryptome's overview statement is interesting:

Cryptome welcomes documents for publication that are prohibited by governments worldwide, in particular material on freedom of expression, privacy, cryptology, dual-use technologies, national security, intelligence, and secret governance -- open, secret and classified documents -- but not limited to those.

Documents are removed from this site only by order served directly by a US court having jurisdiction. No court order has ever been served; any order served will be published here -- or elsewhere if gagged by order. Bluffs will be published if comical but otherwise ignored.

Once I have the .pdf, I will email them to the DU administrators and they can decide how to best make them available for further research by members of DU.

Edited to add: I've also preserved a copy of the following analysis by "kamal" posted on 8 October 2004:
http://kampra.com/index.php?name=News&file=print&sid=241

Peace and welcome to DU!


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - We support Apian's goal of 10,000,000 signatures on Congressman Conyers letter by June 21, 2005; make it happen! http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/6/214643/6438

[evermind]

32. Just found: docs are still available at cryptome mirror

http://cryptome.quintessenz.org/mirror/leaks-brief.zip

But I'm still curious to hear why jya has removed his copy. I'd guess to save space.

[understandinglife]

35. Thank you. If I get a response from jya I'll certainly share it. Please ..

.... see my comment # 34.

Thank you again for the heads-up on these documents and please understand that one of the great value contribution of DU and dKos and a few other discussion groups is that many of the folk participating are skeptical and meticulous for obvious important reasons.

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[Spazito]

36. Thanks for this!

I now have the pdfs saved.

In watching the BBC documentary, when they were referring to excerpts from these memos, they were ringing faint bells so I went back in DU's archives and they were covered at the time they were leaked:

These were all in Late Breaking News

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=835625

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=838515

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=837667

Thank you, again, for reminding us of these as they have even greater relevance, imo, since the release of the DSM.

[katinmn]

33. Cool, understandinglife! Can't wait to see them

Right now when you click on the files, all you get is:

http://kampra.com/spaw/straw020325.pdf

Whatta shame.

We are just now making MAJOR progress on the DSM.

The media is coming around and its starting to sink in with the public.

We have to be absolutely certain before introducing anything new into the mix.

You all know first hand how easily distracted the media is.

[understandinglife]

34. I'm in full agreement with the need to validate every item. I now ...

... have downloaded the six .pdfs from the mirror site kindly posted by evermind and am arranging to establish a way for them to be available to DUers should the site evermind posted in comment # 32 disappear.

I urge you and others to do likewise so we have several independent downloads of those documents.

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[katinmn]

37. Thanks.

:)

And if I'm wrong to have been hesitant, I will gladly apologize to the appropriate people.

[evermind]

38. Hi Katinmn

You're right to be "hesitant", and if you mean me, there's no need to apologise at all. In fact, if anyone should, it would be me, for my slightly steamed-up reply.

As you can see, not least from the links in post #36 there's plenty of other supporting evidence for the fact the docs were leaked. It's very likely, but not absolutely certain, I suppose, that the docs at cryptome are the exact leaked documents. At the time, the Daily Telegraph provided the docs as a link, but for me it was broken, so I can't absolutely verify it contained the exact files that cryptome had.

Anyone wanting further verification might consider contacting

Michael Lewis
Christ's College
St Andrew's Street
Cambridge CB2 3BU

Email: mhl24 at cam.ac.uk

(from the email at http://lists.stir.ac.uk/pipermail/media-watch/2004-October/001523.html )

Or perhaps Glen Rangwala (via http://www.middleeastreference.org.uk ) who I think is involved with the apparently quiescent campaign to impeach Blair

[katinmn]

39. As a Brit, you have easier access to this than we do.

Thank you for your graciousness. I'm sorry if I went overboard in asking people to be cautious and sending this new info around. Here's why:

I'm seeing the media starting to wake up and starting to call Bush on his lies and some are even starting to call for withdrawal in the editorial pages.

I'm afraid of losing the momentum if the media gets side-tracked.

We have to get out of Iraq. We're raping that country and we're making the entire world less safe by being there. Too many people buy into the RW talking points that we can't "cut and run" or "we broke it, we need to stay around and fix it." We have to wake them up through focus, focus, focus. We're just starting to see a glimmer of enlightenment.

I should not jump to conclusions but we have been duped a few times by RW operatives.

I'm sorry.

:grouphug:

[understandinglife]

76. Just an update. Cryptome folk have not responded to my email ..

... however, they appear to have maintained the download link on their mirror site.

Just wanted you to know, katinmn and others.

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[nashville_brook]

40. nice work -- not old news to me

recommended and thank you for posting this!

[cthrumatrix]

41. everyone must read this

[chalky]

43. Recommended and kicking. n/t

[Bluebear]

44. Recommended and kicked n/t

[chiffon]

45. Great post and full of a lot of interesting substance. n/t

[LightningFlash]

47. Wow....The hole just keeps getting deeper.

This is like watching a patented official mystery action novel.

[paineinthearse]

48. Evermind, I cannot PM because you don't have enough posts..

Question: Does the Parliament have a public record keeping system where one can obtain minutes of the daily events? If "yes", plese provide the link.

[Spazito]

50. I am not sure if this is what you are looking for..

I did find this on the United Kingdome Parliament official site:

Parliamentary Publications and Archives

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_publications_and_archives/parliamentary_publications_and_archives.cfm

There home page may also have a link to what you are looking for

http://www.parliament.uk/

( I don't mean to butt in as the question was posed to Evermind but wouldn't want to see the thread disappear before she/he might see it due to time differences between the States and the UK.)

[evermind]

53. Yeah, not much to add to that, except

the PM's site at http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp has some links to Blair speeches and extraparliamentary goings on. On the parliament.uk site, Hansard is the official record of what's said in parliament, if that's what you're looking for..

[psychopomp]

49. kick

[psychopomp]

52. kick

[burrowowl]

54. When typos, etc.

are in the original, you should put (sic) to warn people.
Good JOB!

[thecrow]

55. Great Stuff.... and another KICK!

[ngGale]

56. A careful kick...

:kick:

[passy]

57. kick

[DearAbby]

58. OMG!

this is sooooooooooo damning, get these to Conyers and Kerry/Kennedy, they need to be aware of this. :wow:

[psychopomp]

59. kick

[dzika]

60. Another File Mirror

I mirrored the files on my server.

• fcolegal020308.pdf
  
• manning020314.pdf
  
• meyer020318.pdf
  
• ods020308.pdf
  
• ricketts020322.pdf
  
• straw020325.pdf
  
  
• leaks-brief.zip (all files)
  

The URL to the all files is:
http://edwardsdavid.com/media/iraq/reports

[Coexist]

61. Thanks

[understandinglife]

68. Very much appreciate your doing this, dzika

Thank you.

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us

[Spazito]

62. evermind, your thread on the 'wrongfooting Saddam' has been

picked up by Scoop, well done!

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0506/S00116.htm

(Thanks to Barrett808 for catching the scoop coverage)

[negativenihil]

63. leaks-brief.zip

did anyone get a copy of the leaks-brief.zip that was hosted at http://cryptome.org/leaks-brief.zip? it seems to have disapeared (and i've even checked with all of my more "seedy" sources and turned up nothing...).

this file needs to be spread far and wide...

edit - THANKS dzika!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[negativenihil]

65. kick!

n/t

[funflower]

66. Anybody know how this fits time-wise with Blair's visit to Crawford?

[Spazito]

67. Blair visited Crawford on April 6th, 2002

Here is the official transcript of the press conference:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020406-3.html

[oblivious]

69. THE PRESIDENT:

I explained to the Prime Minister that the policy of my government is the removal of Saddam and that all options are on the table.

... Maybe I should be a little less direct and be a little more nuanced, and say we support regime change.

...I think regime change sounds a lot more civil, doesn't it? The world would be better off without him. Let me put it that way, though. And so will the future.

[dzika]

70. File Mirror is down until docs are authenticated.

The folks at AfterDowningStreet.com asked me to take down my mirror of the files until they good be authenticated.

Please feel free to pmail me if you have any questions.

[evermind]

71. Still available at cryptome mirror (link)

http://cryptome.quintessenz.org/mirror/leaks-brief.zip

I wonder why the folks would do that? I'll be as interested as anyone to hear about the authenticity, though, if it transpires they're not - that would be about as interesting.

Certainly the PDFs agree with all the points quoted in the UK press, who, as I've posted above, obtained acknowledgement from the Foreign Office that the documents they quoted were genuine (that's not just "not challenged", that's "yes, they're real".)

You can verify this by hitting the links in my post #21, and spazito's post #32, above.

If it should turn out that Michael Lewis, Glen Rangwala and cryptome were all talking about and hosting documents made up to contain quotes printed in UK newspapers last September, but also including other inauthentic material, that would be most fascinating!

I suppose on reflection the best course for those wishing to fast-track the authenticating would be to contact the UK Daily Telegraph, where the documents were originally leaked.

Essentially, this is old news. I just thought the papers were worth a second look in the context of the DSM.

[Spazito]

72. The BBC might be one source to go re authentication seeing as

they quote excerpts from leaked documents that use the exact same words as are in the OP post in their documentary entitled: Iraq, Tony and the Truth.

From the transcript of the documentary:

MEYER: Memo to Sir David Manning, No.10 Downing Street. Confidential and personal.

WARE: Sir Christopher Meyer reported back to No.10 on this latest meeting.


Memo
From: Sir Christopher Meyer,
Ambassador to the USA
To: Prime Minister's Foreign Affairs Adviser
Point 2 on Iraq, I opened my… sticking very closely to the script that you used with Condo Rice last week. We backed regime change but the plan had to be clever, and failure was not an option. It would be a tough sell for us domestically.

Memo
From: Sir Christopher Meyer,
Ambassador to the USA
To: Prime Minister's Foreign Affairs Adviser
We backed regime change but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option.


memo continues] The US could go it alone if it wanted, but if it wanted to act with partners there had to be strategy for building support for military action. I then went through the need to wrong foot Saddam on the inspectors.


I then went through the need to wrong foot Saddam on the inspectors.

Link to BBC Panaramic program site

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4332485.stm




Link to Iraq, Tony and the Truth transcript:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/panorama/transcripts/iraqtonyandthetruth.txt

[evermind]

74. Agreed. Also...

there's a thread at smirkingchimp ( http://smirkingchimp.com/viewtopic.php?topic=56683&forum=17 ) where we're discussing the authenticity of the documents.

And it seems cryptome.org have republished their copy in response to queries - see http://cryptome.org/leaks-brief.htm

[katinmn]

73. Thanks, n/t

[MojoXN]

75. In a word...

Revealing. This is quite consistent with the general account of the run up to war that has been revealed to the public thus far, especially in light of the proof positive that the DSM offers. I have a strong feeling that some sort of evidence that is MUCH more damning is going to surface in short order. Take heart, brothers and sisters, the tide is turning. Slowly but surely, the tide is turning. One day soon, the American people en masse are going to wake up to the fact that they have been lied to. This will be a direct consequence of the moral lapses of the mainstream media. I do not wish for that inevitable day, because it is the harbinger of worse things to come. Our nation has been segregated by self-imposed strictures for far too long.

When the demise of our current Rightist media machine finally comes to pass, we will become impotent as a nation, as we will have no meaningful oversight with respect to dissemination of the truth. The check and/or balance that the Founding Fathers didn't explicitly account for is a vigorous, independent media. They erroneously assumed that the First Amendment protections would guarantee that the media of this nation would never be corrupted. Without citizens who devote their lives to the exposition of the truth, American democracy does not function properly. May God help uis all during these dark days...

MojoXN

[psychopomp]

77. kick