More leaked memos

[jaxx]

These apparently were leaked last year, but ignored by the media except for the London Guardian. The Guardian article establishing their provenance is now added to this list of links.
Reading the memos makes it clear that the US was well aware throughout 2002 that their case for war was weak. The documents show that early in March 2002, ministers were warned by Cabinet Office officials that the Bush administration was pushing hard for an invasion to topple Saddam even though there was no evidence he posed more of a threat than previously, or supported international terrorism. (WRH)

LEAKED MEMOS (PDF)
The "Downing Street Memo" to David Manning from Matthew Rycroft on July 23rd 2002

Memo from Jack Straw To Tony Blair March 25, 2002

Memo from Peter Rickets March 22 2002

Memo from Overseas & Defense Secretariat March 8 2002

Memo from Chris Meyer To David Manning March 18 2002

David Manning Memo to Tony Blair on March 14 2002, describing his trip to the US.

Memo on legal grounds for war

September 21, 2004 story confirming the above memos as being leaked to the Guardian.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/leakedmemos.html

[Spectral]

1. Lordy, there's a stack of memos!

Thank God for the Guardian

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. Totally shoots down the accusation that it was to impact elections

now doesn't it? If these came out last year, it was well before the UK elections.

Another typical dodge by Bush blown to pieces!

[katinmn]

3. These are not verified yet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3809302&mesg_id=3823156&page=

[jaxx]

6. Bush or Blair will never verify them

Look what they've done with the DSM........said it was wrong after the brits said it was true.

[katinmn]

8. I don't mean B&B. I mean our side needs to verify.

We just want to make sure they're not fakes meant to confuse the shallow media.

Can't blame anyone for wanting to verify, can you?

[jaxx]

10. No problem with verifying

Just a problem with our media glossing over anything anti-bush.

[katinmn]

15. I agree. Now there's begrudging coverage because bloggers

and alt media are getting the word out DESPITE the media cover up.

The masses are just now hearing about the DSM and more are questioning the media on its role.

The fact that the afterdowningstreet folks asked a DUer to pull a mirror site tells me they have reservations about the latest documents.

And that's good enough for me. They represent about 116 coalition members.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=86

[Spectral]

7. I'm inclined to believe the Guardian if only because they

underwent a "Dan Rather" kind of trap with torture photos. They were given faked info on a very real occurrence and then got zapped for it.

If they are important enough for that kind of operation, they probably have the sources right.

But still, it's good to make sure.

[Spazito]

9. It is not just the Guardian, the BBC used excerpts from leaked

documents in their documentary, "Iraq, Tony and the Truth" and, from the transcript, the quotes mirror what are in the documents listed above. The documentary was AFTER the 'sexed up' kerfuffle caused the resignation of a BBC bigwig. I have no doubt they triple-checked the authenticity of the leaked documents before using them in the program.

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

[gordianot]

4. I heard a theory why this is not being followed more closely by Media.

Corporate media likes it when they have exclusive rights. Since this is being reported in foreign press they do not want to credit other sources and it is not being commonly reported for that reason. What is being reported is the reaction to the memo's as that becomes a story.

Actually I think they are not willing to counter BFEE.

[Al-CIAda]

5. bullshit EXCUSE. -nt

[wiggs]

12. Amazing to me that people still don't accept media complicity.

It's not laziness. It's not profits. It's not fear of reprisal.

It is the fact that MSM media is controlled by global corporations who have joined with government to form a corporatocracy.

If and when MSM turns on the administration it will be because 52 of the world's top 100 economies (corporations) decide that it is time to do so.

[gordianot]

16. Agreed

[xchrom]

19. but that doesn't necessarily translate into good news for us.

just means changing the ceo.

[wiggs]

22. Correct. It's really bad news

and it is key to the whole corporatocracy neocon cabal thing that's going on. That's why they've been working to get the media under control for 20 years.

[killbotfactory]

11. Jack Straw To Tony Blair March 25, 2002

Read the last part about consequences to military action. Even they weren't buying the pollyannaish "roses and parades" tripe from the Bush administration.

[WillyT]

13. Wow !!! - Thanks !!! - I Only Counted 3 Til Now !!!

:yourock:

See here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3825380

:hi:

[killbotfactory]

14. Memo from Peter Rickets March 22 2002

Here we go...

"...But even the best survey on Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missle or CW/BW fronts"

Other points:
- The US is scrambling to link Iraq and Al Qaeda but remain unconvincing (this is backed up by Jack Straq memo above)
- They faced a problem of convincing the public that Iraq was an immenent threat, since his WMD programs were not advanced over teh years.
- "Regime Change" sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam and that excuse does not fly.

[Spectral]

18. Was it only our deluded freepers who bought the WMD thing?

God, even our closest ally knew it was garbage.

[Supersedeas]

21. that excuse does not fly!!! Tell that to our war dead.

[killbotfactory]

17. Memo from Overseas & Defense Secretariat March 8 2002

States plainly that:
- there is no greater threat posed by Saddam now than in recent years
- A legal justification for the invasion must exist, but currently there wasn't one.
- Objective of UK was to "establish security" in the middle east and ensuring "energy security"
- Notes the INC headed by Chalabi, who is a convicted fraudster. Most see outside Iraqi groups as western stooges.
- US contigency plannin pre-9/11 stated that we would need 200-400,000 troops to invade Iraq.
- There is no recent evidence of Iraqi involvement in international terrorism.
- Since the ceasefire in 91 was proclaimed by the UN Security Council, it would be up to them to determine if Iraq was in breach of it.

[sellitman]

20. I wonder who is leaking them?

I hope this is just the tip of the iceberg. The bushies have alot of enemies. I hope they all come out of the closet now and nail these monsters!

[Spectral]

23. There have to be British government officials who are sick of subservience

to *.

I wonder--maybe the pro EUers?

[PurityOfEssence]

24. Once again: common sense (much as that's an oxymoron)

NOBODY came to the administration like Chicken Little with fears of Saddam. ALL desires to fuck him and take Iraq were from the administration and their friends like the PNAC.

There was no clear and present danger. There was no building storm. They couldn't even cobble together enough slanderous excuses to justify it, YET THEY'D ALREADY DECIDED TO INVADE.

This is cruelly obvious. This is precisely the point.

Carp as they may about how "everyone agreed" with the misconceptions, it simply isn't true. The Russians, Germans and French were all on the record as saying that there was no nuclear program. By reductionist argument, THAT was the bugaboo that caused Senators and Representatives to either be swayed into supporting or genuinely scared into wanting what was still a VERY qualified authorization after sincere diplomatic avenues were exhausted.

It started with the executive branch, and when they couldn't get the intelligence community to justify it, they created a new intelligence entity which they controlled. Still, the case was so non-existent and flimsy that they had to quash all sorts of reports and skew all the rest of them. It's obvious by simplistic observation: these guys wanted to invade, occupy and steal oil, and it had nothing to do with self-defense or fear.

[KansDem]

25. If you don't mind, I'll wait for USAToday to translate these for me!

You know, trying to understand British English when you're an American might prove confusing and too daunting a task. Thank Gawd for the lexicographers and cipherers at USAToday!!!

[Spectral]

26. LOL!! Reminds me of the episode of Will and Grace where Jack

"translated" from American into British at Karen's wedding. Too funny!