Posted on 10/14/2005 7:19:22 PM PDT by Pokey78
"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.
What was fraudulent about the Downing Street Memos story?
We need to go into Syria and Iran.
And the Guardian can kiss it. I don't believe a word they print anyway.
Just because they come from a geographical location doesn't make them real.
Errr, ok. In what sense do you consider them 'not real'?!
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.
"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.
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
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.