Free Republic says the Blair memo is a forgery, and has been debunked

and that DU is spreading lies: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1397891/posts

Forged Iraq "Memo to Blair" exposed - AGAIN!
AFP ^

Posted on 05/06/2005 6:58:44 AM PDT by smag999

About every 20 minutes somebody at DU posts the Knight Ridder Washington Bureau report that says Bush/Blair prepped for a 2003 war with Iraq. The Washington Bureau report was based on a memo that has now been debunked as a FRAUD.

Will Wolcotte and Strobel, the two guys that continually print misinformation at this Washington Bureau of Knight Ridder, be punished? I doubt it. They never are.

Dreeeeam-dream-deam-dream!

EVERYTHING that slams Bushie is automatically a FRAUD!:D:D:D:D

I read the article and it doesn't seem to be the one in the KR story.

The memo being talked about by Knight Ridder is from 23 July 2002, the memo being "debunked" is from March 7, 2003 according to the Yahoo article.

Different memos.

One that doesn't matter to us. The one we have been discussing this week for all intensive purposes thus far is 100% authentic!

That story references a legit released summary of advice given. Is that valid sumamry the one that contains references to Bush having decided to invade Iraq very early on and that the plan was to use WMD as the pretext... or, is that the forged memo the story is referring to?

Edit: Ok, see below. The WMD pretext/mold the intelligence memo is the valid memo.
Hmmm, a muddy the waters campaign?

Anyone have a link to that released information?

Several different memos around.

n/t

LOl those Freepers are changing their Depends over this one. :evilgrin:

But it is not debunked only questioned.

and pretend it's the gospel truth

I remember when Ashlee Simpson bombed on SNL, over on her site the fanboys were going "No, it was a skit...no, it was part of the show..."

Same thing here.

you put it so plainly and succintly...

:D

they are about to start a "spinning,"

This week should be fun watching them disconnect.

I like kettle korn.

:popcorn:

Dear Freepers:

The war was predicated on lies. Bush is a liar and a war criminal. Deal with it.

/s/

Jack Rabbit

My mark placed here with assistance from
the University of Kansas

There are two separate memos. The Knight-Ridder story concerns the "intelligence being made to fit the policy memo." The so-called "debunking" reported on Yahoo is the Attorney General's memo on the legal basis for the invasion.

TWO DIFFERENT MEMOS!

thanks for the explanation!!!

in line. Follow Bob Boudelang.

LOL! Thanks for the update.

:yourock:

I got disenheartened yesterday until I examined both carefully.
This is just another fucking attempt at manipulation.
These guys are PROFESSIONAL at the "art of manipulation."
Thank GOD we have some intelligent people here to see right through
their bullshit!

is from March 2003. Totally different documents.

But they can't because there is another whole country involved.

are.

In Brittain, they like to ridicule, scorn, and question their "leaders" when they fuck up.

I wonder how long it will take the freepers to figure out? Eternity? :shrug:

link. They just repeat the claim while people are clamoring for a link.

Haha. Bad Freepers!

from the Yahoo article:


"The fake memo appeared to have been sent with the intention of inflaming the debate over authentic advice Goldsmith had given Blair two weeks before the British-US invasion, and which was published on Thursday after its summary was leaked to the media."


The freepers saying it is a fake KNOW there are 2 memos and the reason for the fake one, and they don't want the rest (the smarter ones) to see the article and figure it out...

!!

Self deleted. See post #14.

NOT deny that such existed and was legit. He attempted to sidestep the question. I watched it myself. As someone said on this thread. One needs pay attention and not to freep land.

Because it isn't. (To clarify, this refers to the recently leaked "US will 'fix the facts' to match the policy" memo.)

"Blair plays down new Iraq claims
Tony Blair has played down a leaked memo indicating he was looking at ways to justify war with Iraq in July 2002 - eight months before the conflict.

He claimed the Lib Dems and Tories were focusing on Iraq as they had "nothing serious to say" about other issues."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4503061.stm

I am dead, fucking serious here.

The Enlightenment and its claims that Truth can be validated through objective, scientific enquiry is dead.

"Truth" is whatever those in power say it is. If they claim there are WMDs in Iraq, there are WMDs in Iraq regardless of what intelligence tells us. If memos claiming that Bush used his privilege to avoid Vietnam are forgeries, then it follows Bush did not use his privilege to avoid Vietnam. The rulers tell us so. Same goes for "claims" that the world is experiencing global warming.

Same goes here.

Fact is fiction and TV reality, as U2 sang back when they were relevant. War is peace. Love is hate. Freedom is, indeed, slavery.

Light a candle, everyone. It's gonna be dark for a loooooooong time.

there world is crumbling.

times from different people.

does not work

One is the one that came out 2 weeks before the war. They claim that one is fake. The other came out July 2002, 9 months before the war. There is still no question on either one. Either way, nothing has been debunked from what I see.

1) "The secret Downing Street memo" was written by MATTHEW RYCROFT to DAVID MANNING on Date: 23 July 2002 (Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

2) Blair had previously refused to release a memo, written by Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith on 7 March 2003


See the difference?

so where did this second one come from?

it's how they are able to support a lying, thieving misadministation

I was confused after I read the story on another thread. I was just going to try and figure it out and of course a DUer had already asked.

In other words: :kick:

a lie, one gets haul into court and tried for libel or slander. in the united states it`s legal to publish just about anything one`s heart desires regardless of the truth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4482029.stm

It's a very interesting read. I highly suggest it.

:hi:

Haven't seen you in a while :D

:hi:

The first memo is the fake that was put out and generated enough fodder that Blair was forced to release the REAL memo from the AG and that can be found at the official Downing Street website.

The third memo is the one of the secret memo that was published by the timesonline, containing the minutes from that meeting. As far as I can tell it has not been debunked at all.

That answers my question below.

presumably because it was so obviously fake - a transparent attempt to screw things up (hah, from Free Republic, perhaps?)

Timeline:

24th April Mail on Sunday reveals that Lord Goldsmith wrote a 13 page opinion, on March 7th 2003, warning invasion might be illegal. The paper does not publish the exact words of the memo, but give a detailed description of the arguments in it.

27th April Channel 4 News, in the UK, reads out the exact words of the memo.

28th April Blair publishes memo, saying we now all know what's in it anyway.

29th April News organisations are sent another 'memo' dated 1st March 2003. No-one published it - instead they called the police (maybe it was obviously forged, maybe they asked Goldsmith if it was authentic, and he called the police - I'm not sure).

1st May Sunday Times publishes memo from 23rd July 2002 saying Blair had agreed with Bush to invade for regime change: "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." Blair admits it is genuine, but says they still decided to go to the UN anyway.

I seem to recall that part of the first memo was "leaked" and then Downing Street was forced to release the whole thing.

I thought that was the one about the Attorney General's opinion.

How have I become confused?

Does anyone remember Blair's office having to release the full text of a partially leaked memo in the last 30 days or so?

Also, if the suspect memo is an absolute fraud, why didn't they determine this during the campaign?

It's now available on the Prime Minister's website. ABC article about it which includes url to download the memo:

Britain's Blair Gives in to Pressure Ahead of Elections, Releases Memo on Iraq War
By ED JOHNSON
The Associated Press

Apr. 29, 2005 - In an embarrassing about-face ahead of elections, Prime Minister Tony Blair on Thursday released a secret memo warning of the legal consequences of invading Iraq without a second U.N. resolution.

Blair had long refused to publish the March 7, 2003 document from Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, saying it was confidential. Instead, the prime minister had consistently pointed to the written statement Goldsmith gave to parliament 10 days later, which said the war would be legal without another resolution.

Political opponents, who pressured Blair into releasing the text after it was leaked Wednesday night, said it showed the prime minister had deceived Britain a charge Blair denied.

<snip>

Goldsmith's 13-page memo to Blair warns the government it would be safer to go to war with a second U.N. Security Council resolution specifically authorizing military action. It also warned that British troops taking part in the conflict could be open to legal action.

Ten days later, Goldsmith said the war would be legal without a further resolution. Opponents insist there is a clear difference between Goldsmith's views in the March 7 and March 17 documents, and question whether the attorney general was leaned on politically.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/print?id=713681

(Apparently according to the Yahoo article noted above a fake version of the leaked memo was distributed to news organizations in addition to the authentic leak of portions of the authentic memo. But the full memo available from the PM's site apparently makes clear that there was concern about legal issues, else there would be no reason to discuss "safer" paths and British troops potentially subject to legal action.)

********* SEE A LOT MORE INFO BELOW *********
British Ambassador to
Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Matthew Rycroft, CBE


Matthew Rycroft CBE was born on 16 June 1968, and brought up in Southampton and Cambridge. He studied maths and philosophy at Oxford University.

Matthew joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in 1989. After a few months in Geneva and then on the NATO desk in London, he spent four years in the British Embassy in Paris.

In 1995-96 Matthew was head of the political section of Eastern Adriatic Department in the FCO; in this role he was a member of the British delegation to the Dayton peace talks on Bosnia and Herzegovina.

After two years in the FCO’s Policy Planning Staff covering European and trans-Atlantic issues, Matthew joined the British Embassy in Washington. There he followed American domestic politics from 1998 to 2002.
From 2002 to 2004, Matthew was Private Secretary to the Prime Minister Tony Blair, for Foreign Affairs, covering all foreign, European, Northern Ireland and defence issues. He received a CBE for this work in 2004.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Secret 23 July 2002 Downing Street Memo - Key Quotes And Commentary
Milan Rai, Electronic Iraq, 4 May 2005




Milan Rai, author of War Plan Iraq and Regime Unchanged, gives his analysis surrounding the Downing Street Memo that was recently published in the Sunday Times. His analysis confirms what was long known; "that Tony Blair and his ministers lied through their teeth." (EMPHASIS ADDED BY BIGBEARJOHN)

The meeting on 23 July 2002 involved the major decision-makers in the drive to war: Tony Blair; Geoff Hoon (Defence Secretary); Jack Straw (Foreign Secretary); the Government's legal adviser Lord Goldsmith (the Attorney General); the head of the Joint Intelligence Committee (the top level of British intelligence) John Scarlett; Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6 (the British equivalent of the CIA), referred to as 'C'; David Manning, Tony Blair's Foreign Policy Adviser (equivalent to the US National Security Advisor); Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS); Jonathan Powell, head of staff at Number 10; and Alistair Campbell, then director of strategy.

The minutes were drawn up for David Manning by his assistant, Matthew Rycroft.

The full text of this top secret memo is at Justice Not Vegeance, taken from the Sunday Times, 1 May 2005.

SEE:

http://electroniciraq.net/news/1946.shtml

i.e., confusing the memos:

http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=l&board=37138445&tid=krwashbureaubcusiraqintelligencewa&sid=37138445&mid=18

This has been discussed at length in a prior thread by botany :P

Yea, the Fucking Times of London is a tabloid. Uphill battle all the freakin' way.

terms. But the public here associated tabs w/ Enquirer, Star, etc.