Memos Show British Fretting Over Iraq War~~Just in Time for the Sunday Talk shows

Las Vegas Sun ^ | June 18, 2005 at 22:23:10 PDT | THOMAS WAGNER ASSOCIATED PRESS

[Sal]

I take it you confidently expect the British government to prosecute the journalist in this case? How long a timescale would you like to put on your prediction?

I wouldn't necessarily expect or predict a prosecution. Dan Ra^ther hasn't been prosecuted under the law, although many of us would prefer to see that happen.

What happened to poor old Dan was the justice of the marketplace. He completely lost all credibility except with his washed up, fading from dominance, old commie hack "journalists". He's a joke.

If your boy can come up with some proof such as an acknowledgement by a credible (non-commie) British government official, public support by his currently anonymous source (assuming the source isn't a Ra^ther-like joke), or some actual original documents that prove to be authentic; then I will be among the first to say that he was right and a fine and honest fellow--at least on this subject.

OTOH as long as his proof is the "fake but accurate" memos typed up by himself and supported only by what just might turn out to be his imaginary friend, I hope he becomes a joke like poor old Danny.

IOW I genuinely hope he ends up with exactly the amount of respect he deserves whichever way it goes. Apparently we expect it to go in opposite ways. We'll have to wait and see.

[Canard]

But you do expect the British government to publically say that these documents are not authentic in the coming days? Just so we can be clear...

Why do you think they are delaying?

[federal]

Actually as is often the case I get side tracked on the issues. Just a personal demon I suppose, the truth is I really don't care if these memos are authentic since I believe they show nothing damning in the real sense of the word.

They only contain information about planning for the removal of a know terrorist supporter Saddam Hussein. They show the very real concern both the USA and British had that Saddam would indeed use his WMD against our troops if we did remove him from power.

What they don't show is that Saddam was in violation of 16 UN resolutions (ultimately 17 resolutions) and the Ceasefire agreement which halted the Gulf War. It also doesn't show that Saddam was firing on both British and American aircraft daily, aircraft flying in support of the "No Fly Zone" resolution keeping Hussein from slathering more Iraqi Kurds and Shia muslims.

They aren't even new information since this was all reported in 2002 by a British Newspaper.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,759158,00.html

What they are is a source for political propagandists to take info out of context and misquote. And we still don't really even know if they are legitimate. Anyway that's a portion of my problem with this issue I've enclosed a link to a article which explains if much better than I can.
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200506060801.asp

[Canard]

"the truth is I really don't care if these memos are authentic since I believe they show nothing damning in the real sense of the word."

I imagine that you are probably talking in the American context and would agree in that context. In terms of the British government, they are somewhat damaging to Tony Blair in the sense that they confirm that public statements that he was making at the time were not reflective of the process that was actually occuring. He seems impervious to any such damage however so I don't really see it affecting him now.

[GopherGOPer]

You can't really say that and then follow it with a quote from the author saying that they aren't forgeries. That's not really 'proof'.

No the author admits their forgeries in the earlier quote. To copy something by retyping it all, is by very definition a forgery, since its a copy, but not a photo-copy. Thus its a fake, not an authentic copy, thus its a forgery.

Forgery means to fake authenticity on a document, and that's exactly what this person did. Its admitted right there in that article.

[Canard]

Oh ok! That's fair enough but, by that definition any quote of a document in a book or newspaper is a 'forgery'. I was more concerned with whether the words were accurate.

[CFC__VRWC]

Isn't there some sort of law against destroying government documents in Great Britain, and wouldn't the originals of these memos qualify as official government documents? Of course that's supposed to be illegal here in the US, but as we found out in the Sandy Berger case, that law's not prosecuted if you're a former Clinton Administration official. Maybe that's the case with these memos, and I suppose you're all right with that.

[Canard]

"Isn't there some sort of law against destroying government documents in Great Britain, and wouldn't the originals of these memos qualify as official government documents?"

Not that I'm aware of. It would certainly be illegal to give them to a journalist under the Official Secrets Act, hence the efforts to conceal the source I guess.