Skip to main content

View Diary: CNN.com: Smoking Gun Memo story on front page (228 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  not quite right, Apian (bless you (4.00)
    your work), but:

    the leaked Downing Street minutes document was published for the first time Sunday, May 1, by the London Times (the Goldsmith legal advice memo was leaked and printed earlier). Early minor U.S. coverage (a couple of mentions in newspaper "World" news digest columns) muddled the Goldsmith memo and the Downing Street minutes together.

    The first Knight-Ridder story was datelined Friday, May 6. (and yes many Knight-Ridder papers across the country picked it up).

    Conyers' diary wasn't the first here, either, there were several others. The first one I have a link to is: "Bush / Iraq Bombshell This Morning" and I know there were comments inside diaries re: the breaking UK Times story the night before.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/1/115530/0288

    •  Yes, they were leaked earlier (none)
      They were referred to beginning in the UK around the 25th.  The NYT reported on the 28th of April, as did The Village Voice.  

      I agree it's interesting, and I certainly share your enthusiasm.  

      I found Knight-Ridder on the 5th.  There are 50 more MSM news sources carrying this story than there were three days ago.

      Who controls the media, controls the fates.

      by Apian on Wed May 11, 2005 at 07:20:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  sorry, but I must insist (3.50)
        for the sake of history! (and I'm only half-kidding).

        The Sunday, May 1, 2005, leak of the Downing Street minutes, by the Tory-endorsing Times of London was an exclusive bombshell.

        You -- like many, including some reporters and editors here in the U.S. -- are confusing stories re: the earlier (but recent) leak of Lord Goldsmith's memo re: legal advice, with stories covering the second additional leak of the Downing Street minutes.

        here's the link to the original Times of London story, accompanying the actual minutes text (which is linked elsewhere on this page):

        http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592724,00.html

        The 4/28 NY Times story, "Disclosure of Legal Opinion on War Could Hurt Blair at Polls," was about the Lord Goldsmith legal advice memo, which had been leaked earlier. It's in paid archives now, but you can see the summary if you search for it.

        same with the Village Voice -- pre-May 1 coverage was of the first leaked memo -- the online anti-Bush guy did note the Times "minutes" story as word got out the night before -- just as it did here on Daily Kos -- that the story was posted, and would be in Sunday's paper.

        Just like that first Knight-Ridder story -- we saw it here too on May 5th, but official publication date is May 6.

        and yes, Greg Palast was early, too, as was Ray McGovern. Tomorrow's LA Times story is important, too, because (as far as I've seen) it's the first big non-Knight Ridder daily in the U.S. to run its own full story. (if you look closely at your Google News search results, you'll see the results listed for U.S. mainstream dailies are reprints of Warren Strobel's stories by Knight-Ridder owned papers).

        sorry to be annoying, but I started keeping track right away, with the thought this would be something momentous. Any links expanding on / correcting the above time line are welcome.

      •  Front Page Story (none)
        Blair Under Scrutiny About Pre-War Dealings
        Security Pronews, KY - Apr 25, 2005
        ... This adds a nice crescendo to the suspicions that Blair and President Bush had agreed to declare war on Iraq in the spring of 2002, to be marketed ..

        If anyone would stop to read the Goldsmith legal finding --- they would find out why this story is not being reported broadly in the US.

        BBC covered the Downing Street minutes on their program Panorama on the 20th of MARCH, 2005

        Iraq: Tony & the Truth
        RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC-1; DATE: 20:03:05

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

        I referred to this in my Course is Set for Impeachment.

        Then there are the following:

        Britain: Blair forced to publish legal advice on Iraq war
        uruknet.info, Italy - Apr 30, 2005
        ... Iraq could never have complied with demands to hand over its weapons of mass destruction because it did not have any ... The Bush and Blair administrations were ...
        http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m11416&l=i&size=1&hd=0

        Another Iraq leak hits Blair in run-up to elections
        Indian Express, India - Apr 28, 2005
        ... The deeply unpopular Iraq war remains Blair's Achilles Heel, enabling foes to attack him on trust and integrity. ... Blair, President George W. Bush's closest
        http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=69414
        Call for Iraq war inquiry
        DeHavilland, UK - Apr 25, 2005
        ... "It took an announcement from President Bush before Tony Blair would agree to ... for a full inquiry into how Britain went to war in Iraq, which examines ...

        Amid Pressure, Blair Makes Public Text of Secret Advice
        Muslim American Society, VA - Apr 28, 2005
        ... March 7, 2003 , memo, stamped "secret," Goldsmith seemed to doubt whether Iraq could legitimately ... Blair, US President George W. Bush's closest foreign ...

        Another Iraq leak hits Blair in run-up to elections
        Indian Express, India - Apr 28, 2005
        ... The deeply unpopular Iraq war remains Blair's Achilles Heel, enabling foes to attack him on trust and integrity. ... Blair, President George W. Bush's closest ...

        Secret Iraq war advice published
        uruknet.info, Italy - Apr 28, 2005
        ... The deeply unpopular Iraq war remains Blair's Achilles Heel, enabling foes to attack him on trust and ... Blair, President George W. Bush's closest foreign ally
        Goldsmith was under intense pressure amid rapid turn of events

        Financial Times, UK - Apr 27, 2005
        ... Lord Goldsmith warned Mr Blair of the potential ... to pass a further resolution and Iraq was invaded. ... case", which Lord Goldsmith said the Bush administration had ...

        Memo on legality of war was full of caveats
        Financial Times, UK - Apr 27, 2005
        ... Lord Goldsmith warned Mr Blair of the potential ... to pass a further resolution and Iraq was invaded. ... case" Lord Goldsmith said the Bush administration had made ...

        Lib Dems demand Iraq war inquiry
        Vanguard, Nigeria - Apr 25, 2005
        ... smiling picture of the two leaders, and the slogan "We oppose: Bush and Blair on Iraq ... Mr Kennedy will warn: "Iraq deserves to be a central issue in this ...

        Who controls the media, controls the fates.

        by Apian on Thu May 12, 2005 at 05:42:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Apian, you've got the March BBC transcript (none)
          which has this: "Several well placed sources have told us that Sir Richard Dearlove was minuted as saying:  "The facts and the intelligence were being fixed  round the policy by the Bush administration."

          Yes, there were rumors, and those attending the July 2002 meeting and other insiders knew there was a damning official minutes in the record, but the document was not leaked in print until May 1, by the Times of London.

          The other two links you provide are, as I said, about the Lord Goldsmith legal MEMO from 2003 - in fact they're the same story, written by Andrew Cawthorne, with this same lead:

          "LONDON, APRIL 28: Publication of a secret 2003 memo from Britain's top government lawyer questioning the Iraq war's legality buffeted Prime Minister Tony Blair on Thursday, just a week before the May 5 election."

          The other stories on your list, SecurityPro story, the duplicate copies of the Financial Times story and the "Lib Dems call for inquiry" story, the story from the Muslim American Society -- go back and read them, and you will, in fact, see that they are all about the 2003 Goldsmith memo, not the 2002 minutes.

          It's an understandable confusion: both documents leaked at "the last minute" before the election by a Sunday newspaper; the generic word "memo" being applied to both documents, though one was a memo and one was a "minute"; both being reported as leaks which might have an effect on Blair's election; and the minutes document also addresses the legal status of the invasion.

          I apologize to everyone who's groaning at this exchange -- but in my opinion, it's important to understand that this "muddling" of the two stories / documents / leaks is one reason (just one reason) why some in the U.S. (news media and news consumers) have characterized this as "old news" (talk re: the legal advice Lord Goldsmith gave Blair, and calls for Blair to make the 2003 memo public have been happening for months).

          (let alone the posters here who bring up the "aren't there claims these minutes were forged?" when there never have been such claims re: the 2002 minutes -- only some debunked claims that the 2003 Goldsmith memo was a forgery.)

        •  Don't Worry About Folks, This Is Real Important (none)
          I agree with you entirely, getting the facts straight and the timeline in proper perspective is REAL important.

          I do not confuse the Goldsmith legal finding of March 7, 2003 with the Downing Street minutes.

          I am aware of the earlier release of the Goldsmith material, and the damage it caused in the run-up to the election.  My point is that the Goldsmith finding is the most potentially damaging to Blair and to Bush, and thoroughly backed up by the Downing Street minutes.

          It is of vital importance to this story that Lord Goldsmith did not write the finding of March 17, although he was being attacked personally for the "flip-flop."  

          It was written by Lord Faulkener and Baroness Morgan, who has just resigned from her post as Tony Blair's closest minister of external affairs, and Lord Faulkener who wrote the opinion finding that invasion of Iraq was legal within three previous UN Security Council Resolutions, so there was no need to go to the General Assembly again.

          The Downing Street minutes were first reported by the BBC on March 20, in Panorama, then released to the public on the 1st of May.

          I am really glad to be working on this with you.  I think we both care about important stuff, that may not make sense to others.  But it's okay.  Every effort is appreciated.

          Who controls the media, controls the fates.

          by Apian on Thu May 12, 2005 at 02:40:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you, Jennifer (none)
      That May 1st one from Smintheus is great.  I'm going to hop around some more and then go back to my Woodward page.

      Thanks for correcting me.

      Who controls the media, controls the fates.

      by Apian on Wed May 11, 2005 at 07:25:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Greg Palast (none)
      blogged the Bush connection, called it the smoking gun memo and noted the "fixed facts' quote on May 5.
      •  I thought I recalled Welshman (none)
        bringing this to our attention here on Kos first.

        Or maybe someone else.  

        (memory flickers, fades...)

        •  It was paper tigress, (none)
          with a summary off the AFP wire, and then me, with the Sunday Times link, in Welshman's diary on the British general's comments on war crimes trials, in case anyone is keeping a history.

          Mother Nature bats last.

          by pigpaste on Thu May 12, 2005 at 12:17:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you, PP, I am (none)
            I think it is extremely interesting to follow this story.  And to become familiar enough with the facts so that when the Washington Post or the New York Times sidesteps politiical bombshells that could damage the Bush presidency, you can point out those facts and insist that they be reported.

            What is being reported in the UK press, and why is that news not "kosher" in the US?

            Who controls the media, controls the fates.

            by Apian on Thu May 12, 2005 at 06:22:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (141)
  • Community (67)
  • 2016 (55)
  • Environment (44)
  • Elections (42)
  • Republicans (38)
  • Media (37)
  • Hillary Clinton (35)
  • Iraq (32)
  • Law (30)
  • Jeb Bush (30)
  • Barack Obama (30)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (29)
  • Climate Change (29)
  • Culture (29)
  • Civil Rights (27)
  • Labor (24)
  • Economy (23)
  • White House (18)
  • Science (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site