Blair's signed confession?

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Blair's signed confession?

Postby antiaristo » Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:24 pm

Forgive me if I am repeating what you already know. But I find this incredible.<br><br>This is Michael Smith of the Sunday Times. The man who leaked the DSM.<br><br>“The second batch of leaks arrived in the middle of this year's British general election, by which time I was writing for a different newspaper, the Sunday Times. These documents, which came from a different source, related to a crucial meeting of Blair's war Cabinet on July 23, 2002. The timing of the leak was significant, with Blair clearly in electoral difficulties because of an unpopular war.<br><br>I did not then regard the now-infamous memo — the one that includes the minutes of the July 23 meeting — as the most important. My main article focused on the separate briefing paper for those taking part, prepared beforehand by Cabinet Office experts.”<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-smith23jun23,0,1838831.story">www.latimes.com/news/opin...8831.story</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br>Here in my UK experience is what happens at formal (minuted) meetings.<br><br>The designated note taker does not participate. Once the meeting is over he pulls together a rough draft and runs through it with the chairman. He incorporates the chairman’s comments and circulates the resulting first draft to those named therein. Once they are satisfied with the accuracy with respect to themselves, he takes what have become draft minutes back to the chairman.<br><br>When the chairman signs they become minutes. And only then.<br><br>The chairman in this case was Tony Blair.<br><br>The fact that these are the real minutes means that Tony Blair himself signed at the foot of the page.<br><br>Not a bureacrat, nor a senior official, nor even a minister. But the man who wields the royal prerogative.<br><br>Yet Michael Smith says he did not regard this document as the most important, and “focused on the separate briefing paper for those taking part, prepared beforehand by Cabinet Office experts.”<br><br>So that was Rupert’s game. He sat on the bombshell for at least two weeks, while at the same time running a limited hangout involving “Cabinet Office experts”. When he finally did publish it was too late to have an effect. And it was published using that deadly word “memo”, a gross distortion since clung to by the American media.<br><br>If this had come out straight away Blair’s majority would have melted away as the war dominated the whole campaign.<br><br>If this had come out five days later it would have de-legitimized the result.<br><br>I would say Mr Smith is “disassembling”<br><br>Now I see the WSJ and the WaPo ran stories Tuesday.<br><br>You can search both stories in vain and never see the word “minutes”.<br><br>The fact that this document was signed by Blair himself is being buried. And he himself is getting away with dismissing a document he himself signed.<br><br>For the first time we have what is in reality a signed confession. And we are letting them bury it.<br> <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Some support

Postby antiaristo » Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:46 pm

Robin Cook, Blair's first Foreign Secretary, seems to agree<br><br><br>"But what should really astonish the rest of us is that there is no such debate going on in Britain. The memorandum that is causing such a stir in America is, after all, a minute of our government, and our nation is entitled to some answers. Most notably, how could our prime minister go on publicly claiming that no decision had been made when he had privately committed himself a year before to "back military action" and was asking ministers to "create the conditions" that would make war legal."<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1518751,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/commen...51,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
antiaristo
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 9:50 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Iraq

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest