Downing Street Memo

[HagiaSophia]

A shocking secret document recently leaked from Whitehall? No, it is the London Observer, in an article published July 21, 2002, p. 2. Two days later nearly identical language would be recorded in the so-called “Downing Street Memo,” the minutes of a British cabinet meeting recorded by foreign-policy aide Matthew Rycroft and published “gotcha!” style days before the recent parliamentary election.

The memo raises three issues dear to the hearts of President Bush’s critics — the timing of the decision to go to war with Saddam, the WMD rationale, and the use (read: abuse) of intelligence to create the casus belli. One paragraph in the memo conveniently contains all three:

“This and other excerpts have caused a furor on the American Left. Ralph Nader is calling for impeachment (again), and John Kerry has vowed to bring the matter to the Senate floor. Of course, the memo simply contains the impressions of an aide of the impressions of British-cabinet officials of the impressions of unnamed people they spoke to in the United States about what they thought the president was thinking. It is sad when hearsay thrice-removed raises this kind of ruckus, especially since a version had been reported three years ago. As smoking guns go, it is not high caliber…”

nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200506060801.asp

 

[SeanMc]

guardian.co.uk/salon/story/0,14752,1509059,00.html

I would tend to believe the author of the Downing Street Memo, considering how he is a Knight of the British Empire and not some uneducated, Republican columnist who would tries to downplay Watergate if he were in that era.

 

[geezerbob]

guardian.co.uk/salon/story/0,14752,1509059,00.html

I would tend to believe the author of the Downing Street Memo, considering how he is a Knight of the British Empire and not some uneducated, Republican columnist who would tries to downplay Watergate if he were in that era.

Hmm…I thought journalism required an education and knighthood just required kissing up to the queen.

 

[HagiaSophia]

guardian.co.uk/salon/story/0,14752,1509059,00.html

I would tend to believe the author of the Downing Street Memo, considering how he is a Knight of the British Empire and not some uneducated, Republican columnist who would tries to downplay Watergate if he were in that era.

Sean me boy – I have to hand it to you — a great sense of humor do you have!

You don’t find anything odd at all about the fact that a story printed two days earlier in the public newspaper, ends up pretty much as the “notetaking” of an individual who has offered his impressions of what took place at a meeting…and gets released just in time for an election in the UK?

And your defense for it is that he has alphabet letters after his name?

God love you — BTW I have some stock in a silver mine, I’d like to talk to you about…

 

[HagiaSophia]

geezerbob:

Hmm…I thought journalism required an education and knighthood just required kissing up to the queen.

It often helps if you can sing a bit…I mean Mick Jagger and Elton John and all…

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Kerry vows to take it to the senate floor Oh,Kerryshakes headwhat is wrong are you still bitter

 

[David_Paul]

“Downing Street Memo”

Five syllables. About all the base of the Rat party can digest.

Free Mumia! No Justice, no Peace! No blood for oil! Bush lied, men died!

Did I mention Mumia must be freed?

 

[swampfox]

Did Lucy Ramirez Find The Downing Street Memos?
captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
The media and the Leftists have had a field day with the Downing Street memos that they claim imply that the Bush administration lied about the intelligence on WMD in order to justify the attack on Iraq. Despite the fact that none of the memos actually say that, none of them quote any officials or any documents, and that the text of the memos show that the British government worried about the deployment of WMD by Saddam against Coalition troops, Kuwait and/or Israel, the meme continues to survive.

Until tonight, however, no one questioned the authenticity of the documents provided by the Times of London. That has now changed, as Times reporter Michael Smith admitted that the memos he used are not originals, but retyped copies (via LGF and CQ reader Sapper):

The eight memos — all labeled “secret” or “confidential” — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.

Readers of this site should recall this set of circumstances from last year. The Killian memos at the center of CBS’ 60 Minutes Wednesday report on George Bush’ National Guard service supposedly went through the same laundry service as the Downing Street Memos. Bill Burkett, once he’d been outed as the source of the now-disgraced Killian memos, claimed that a woman named Lucy Ramirez provided them to him – but that he made copies and burned the originals to protect her identity or that of her source.

Why would a reporter do such a thing? While reporters need to protect their sources, at some point stories based on official documents will require authentication – and as we have seen with the Killian memos, copies make that impossible. The AP gets a “senior British official” to assert that the content “appeared authentic”, which only means that the content seems to match what he thinks he knows.

This, in fact, could very well be another case of “fake but accurate”, where documents get created after the fact to support preconceived notions about what happened in the past. One fact certainly stands out – Michael Smith cannot authenticate the copies. And absent that authentication, they lose their value as evidence of anything.

Besides, as the AP report makes clear, the two governments sincerely worried about the deployment of WMD despite the allegations of those who fixate on one sentence of one memo. The latest issue coming from the memos, according to its proponents, is the alleged statement by Blair that WMD programs had not progressed. However, it also points out why 9/11 made all the difference in the approach to Iraq:

The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America’s top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.
“The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September,” said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

“But even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.”

All of the Western nations had intelligence that matched with the Bush/Blair determination that Saddam had not disposed of his WMD stocks. Prior to 9/11, the Western approach of waiting Saddam out appeared adequate. After 9/11, the existence of those WMD stocks clearly was intolerable, given Saddam’s involvement with terrorist groups in the past – including hosting an al-Qaeda convention, of sorts, in 1999.

Even if these memos could be authenticated, they’re still meaningless. They could only excite the kind of idiots that would hold mock impeachment hearings with four witnesses and no authority whatsoever.

 

[mlchance]

SeanMc:

I would tend to believe the author of the Downing Street Memo, considering how he is a Knight of the British Empire and not some uneducated, Republican columnist who would tries to downplay Watergate if he were in that era.

Like being a knight is a guarantee of anything nowadays. Even cocaine-induced psychotic episodes aren’t enough to keep a person from being knighted.

And James S. Robbins is uneducated? Hardly:

James S. Robbins,
NATIONAL REVIEW Contributing Editor,
Professor of International Relations, National Defense University

EDUCATION:
M.A. The University of Cincinnati
M.A.L.D. The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University
Ph.D. The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES:
James S. Robbins came to the National Defense University’s School for National Security Executive Education in January, 2000 from the United States Marine Corps Command and Staff College, Quantico, VA, where he served as Associate Professor of International Relations and Course Director for Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW). Prior to that, he was an Assistant Professor of Diplomacy at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, Medford, MA. He has also taught at Boston University, Bentley College and Northern Essex.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

swampfox:

Did Lucy Ramirez Find The Downing Street Memos?
captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
The media and the Leftists have had a field day with the Downing Street memos that they claim imply that the Bush administration lied about the intelligence on WMD in order to justify the attack on Iraq. Despite the fact that none of the memos actually say that, none of them quote any officials or any documents, and that the text of the memos show that the British government worried about the deployment of WMD by Saddam against Coalition troops, Kuwait and/or Israel, the meme continues to survive.

Until tonight, however, no one questioned the authenticity of the documents provided by the Times of London. That has now changed, as Times reporter Michael Smith admitted that the memos he used are not originals, but retyped copies (via LGF and CQ reader Sapper):

The eight memos — all labeled “secret” or “confidential” — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.

Readers of this site should recall this set of circumstances from last year. The Killian memos at the center of CBS’ 60 Minutes Wednesday report on George Bush’ National Guard service supposedly went through the same laundry service as the Downing Street Memos. Bill Burkett, once he’d been outed as the source of the now-disgraced Killian memos, claimed that a woman named Lucy Ramirez provided them to him – but that he made copies and burned the originals to protect her identity or that of her source.

Why would a reporter do such a thing? While reporters need to protect their sources, at some point stories based on official documents will require authentication – and as we have seen with the Killian memos, copies make that impossible. The AP gets a “senior British official” to assert that the content “appeared authentic”, which only means that the content seems to match what he thinks he knows.

This, in fact, could very well be another case of “fake but accurate”, where documents get created after the fact to support preconceived notions about what happened in the past. One fact certainly stands out – Michael Smith cannot authenticate the copies. And absent that authentication, they lose their value as evidence of anything.

Besides, as the AP report makes clear, the two governments sincerely worried about the deployment of WMD despite the allegations of those who fixate on one sentence of one memo. The latest issue coming from the memos, according to its proponents, is the alleged statement by Blair that WMD programs had not progressed. However, it also points out why 9/11 made all the difference in the approach to Iraq:

The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America’s top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.
“The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September,” said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

“But even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.”

All of the Western nations had intelligence that matched with the Bush/Blair determination that Saddam had not disposed of his WMD stocks. Prior to 9/11, the Western approach of waiting Saddam out appeared adequate. After 9/11, the existence of those WMD stocks clearly was intolerable, given Saddam’s involvement with terrorist groups in the past – including hosting an al-Qaeda convention, of sorts, in 1999.

Even if these memos could be authenticated, they’re still meaningless. They could only excite the kind of idiots that would hold mock impeachment hearings with four witnesses and no authority whatsoever.

Sounds like we now have DOWNINGATE.

PF

 

[HagiaSophia]

WanderAimlessly:

Sounds like we now have DOWNINGATE.

PF

If anyone is interested, my shares in a silver mine which are for sale can be purchased at a large discount…