Bush told Blair of 'going beyond Iraq'

The Guardian (U.K.) ^ | 10/15.05 | Richard Norton-Taylor

[MNJohnnie]

Geee I wonder. IS this the same source that gave us the fraudulent "Downing Street Memos" story?????

[HereInTheHeartland]

"quoted in the US edition, published next week, of Lawless World, America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules"

Sounds like a credible publication.

[Canard]

What was fraudulent about the Downing Street Memos story?

[Fenris6]

We need to go into Syria and Iran.

And the Guardian can kiss it. I don't believe a word they print anyway.

[dila813]

Just because they come from a geographical location doesn't make them real.

[Canard]

Errr, ok. In what sense do you consider them 'not real'?!

[dila813]

for example, a left wing nut on a tour could have left the note. how bout a left wing nut receptionist.

Legitimacy is obtained by who wrote the note, not where it physically came from.

When you here note, think unsigned scribbled writing on a napkin. In other wise, flimsy, very flimsy.

[Canard]

Ok. But the Downing Street Memo was minutes of a meeting. We know who took the minutes and we know who the people expressing opinions are.

The minutes were taken by the same person who the memo discussed above is said to have been written by, incidentally.

[dila813]

"according to a note of a telephone conversation between the two men" "The note is quoted in the US edition," Then it becomes a memo in the same paragraph, "The memo was drawn up by one of the prime minister's foreign policy advisers in Downing Street and passed to the Foreign Office" ", according to Mr Sands." In other words, the only source for the memo is Mr Sands and it can't be confirmed. Or is the note a memo by another name?

[Canard]

"Or is the note a memo by another name?"

Yes, the two are synonyms in this context.

"...the only source for the memo is Mr Sands and it can't be confirmed."

This is true and should be treated with some degree of caution as a result. However, as I said, the Foreign Office leaks like a sieve at the moment. The one thing that I will say is that Blair's government will always come out strongly against anything published that they consider 'inaccurate' (see David Kelly affair). So, in the abscence of an outcry in the next couple of days, you can consider it 'not denied' and that's as close to a confirmation as makes no difference.

[Parmenio]

This article is blogged in The Guardian's "News blog" which features open comments (no registration required). I have already freeped it, and I suggest everyone else do the same:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/02/02/the_white_house_meeting_that_took_us_to_war.html