Breaking: Confirmed. There are two al-Jazeera memos

[kpete]

Breaking: Confirmed. There are two al-Jazeera memos - two Bush bomb bombshells
by caribmon
Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 06:03:47 AM PDT
UK bloggers beating Fleet Street once again.... incredible work - and solid blogtage by the lads from Blair Watch.

From Blair Watch

We have had our suspicions (argued below) that the Times memo and the Mirror memo citing Bush’s plans to bomb al-Jazeera are entirely different documents confirmed by Peter Kilfoyle MP, who has seen both documents.

He was naturally reticent, but when we aked Peter if the source for the Mirror article was related to the ‘prosecution’ of and Keogh and O’Connor over last years leak to the Times he said:

Wholly different sources.

The Times used ‘official’ leaks; the current document remains top secret - they are livid it is out.


caribmon's diary :: ::

We have also had it confirmed that Keogh and O’Connor are only facing one set of charges, over one document.

If what was reported by the BBC prior to the Mirror story is correct; That Keogh and O’Connor are being prosecuted over the leak of the document ‘Iraq in The Medium Term’ as published in the Times , and not for leaking the source of the Mirror article then Blair and his official spokesman would be leaving themselves wide open by describing the Mirror story as ’sub-judice’.

If the mirror is correct in it’s assertion that Keogh and O’Connor are being charged over the source of their story , then the story reported by the BBC about them being charged over the leaking of ‘Iraq in the Medium Term’ memo was a construct, a ‘beard’ to cover up the existence of the document refered by the Mirror.

This means our government must have pre planned and disseminated the lie ; that Keogh and O’connor were being prosecuted over the leaking of the ‘Iraq in the medium term’ memo.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/29/8348/2458
http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/612

[C_U_L8R]

1. Twice the fun

I'm doubled over laughing .......hahaha

At least the Brit press knows how to get tenacious
(and some brave MPs too)
Maybe their limp American counterparts will
find their courage to go digging for the truth
in the shadow of corrupt power.

[Punkingal]

2. Thank heaven for the British press...

I remember a few years ago when some reporter in Canada published an article critical of Bush I emailed her to thank her, and mentioned how disappointing the American media was. She emailed me back, and said what a shame it was what had happened to the American media. It is apparent to the whole world that we don't have a free press, but they don't seem to know it themselves.

[Supersedeas]

4. Seconded and recommended

[Al-CIAda]

3. .

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. It was clear, as soon as the Mirror published, there were 2 memos

One was the Foreign Office memo the Sunday Times printed on 24th May 2004, "Iraq in the Medium Term", which criticised the US for being 'heavy-handed' in Iraq. The other was the transcript of Bush and Blair's conversation, including the 'bomb al Jazeera' bit. That also contained other material, which hasn't been described in much detail so far (and that detail may be what the UK is trying to stop coming out with the threats of the Official Secrets Act), but which might be about Falluja (and therefore might again be a criticism of heavy-handedness, or might be a description of what was planned for the November attack on Falluja).

What was at first unclear was what Keogh and O'Connor were being prosecuted for - the BBC and several others said on Thursday 17th November it was for leaking "Iraq in the Medium Term" (although the charge said "leaked between Arpil 16th and May 28th 2004", which doesn't really point to that, since the Sumday Times printed it before the end of that period), though by Sunday 20th November, the Sunday Times had said it wasn't their document. When the Mirror published on Tuesday 22nd, it was obvious there was a second document, and it looked a far better candidate as what Keogh and O'Connor were charged for.

On edit: Therefore there are not "two al-Jazeera memos" - only the Bush-Blair transcript has anything to do with al-Jazeera. The other memo is British criticism of American tactics.

[dutchdemocrat]

6. How does that fit in with this?

If what was reported by the BBC on 17th November, prior to the Mirror story is correct; That Keogh and O'Connor are being prosecuted over the leak of the document 'Iraq in The Medium Term' as published in the Times , and not for leaking the source of the Mirror article then the Bliar and his official spokesman would be leaving themselves wide open by describing the Mirror story as 'sub-judice'.

If the Mirror is correct in it's assertion that Keogh and O'Connor are being charged over the source of their story , then the story reported by the BBC about them being charged over the leaking of the 'Iraq in the Medium Term' memo was a construct, a 'beard' to cover up the existence of the document refered by the Mirror.

This means our government must have pre planned and disseminated the lie ; that Keogh and O'connor were being prosecuted over the leaking of the 'Iraq in the medium term' memo.

To cover up the existance of the 'Lets bomb Al-Jazeera' transcript?
A plan derailed by the Mirror obtaining a copy and publishing it's story.

The BBC ran the story about Keogh and O'Connor's prosecution on the 17th of November.
The Mirror state they approached the Government with their story about Bush wanting to Bomb al-Jazeera 24 hours before publication, on the 22nd of November.

This was four days after we 'learned' via the BBC that Keogh and O'Connor were to be charged with the leak of the 'Iraq in the Medium Term' memo.
If this is the case, the Mirror story did not precipitate the lie that was reported either wittingly or unwittingly by the BBC on the 17th November, it exposed it.

If we accept Peter Killfoyle's word (and I do) that the Times article and the Mirror article are from different sources, then Keogh and O'Connor cannot be facing charges over both leaks.
Either way we are being told lies by our government, and either wittingly or unwittingly by the mainstream media.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. I think the BBC and others on the 17th got it wrong

I made a list of who reported what (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5445445#5446812) and, on the 17th, the BBC, Reuters, Raw Story and the Guardian (sort of) said the charges were about the "Iraq in the Medium Term" leak. On the 18th, the Indepdendent said it was about a Bush-Blair conversation, and on the 20th the Sunday Times said it wasn't about "Iraq in the Medium Term" (which they ought to have known).

Whether all the reporters on the 17th had been fed bad information, had made wrong guesses, or had connived at writing a misleading story, I don't know.

[Junkdrawer]

7. Hey. No fair. Blair said the magic words...Conspiracy Theory...

So, according to the rules, it's no longer a credible story. Right? :shrug:

[rodeodance]

8. kicky

[JNelson6563]

9. Great stuff!

:popcorn:

[xchrom]

11. kick