Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site