A Curious Thing About Sunday Times/Telegraph And The DSM...

[althecat]

From: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758,00.html

"The paper, produced by the Cabinet Office on July 21, 2002, is incomplete because the last page is missing. The following is a transcript rather than the original document in order to protect the source. "

To protect a source. Yes as you do...

But who on earth is this new deep throat? I have never seen this quality of intelligence leaked on anything. And on the face of it this latest leak has come after, not before, the DSM scandal started to get legs....

And then there is the issue of where this material is being leaked.

1. The telegraph (arguably Britain's most right wing paper, this is the one that used the fabricated info to attack galloway.)

2. The Times - Murdoch's flagship..

WTF???

First time this happened with the original DSM story I thought it must have been a slip up in the Murdoch control mechanism... some genuine journalism sqeaked through at the pass. However now a pattern is emerging. On the face of it the Brits are out to get *.

[bain_sidhe]

1. "On the face of it the Brits are out to get *."

No, they're out to get Blair. * is just collateral damage.

[FreedomAngel82]

5. Yep

I think if they get Blair then Blair will blame Bush and then Bush will probably blame Cheney. :eyes: I think it's time for my tinfoil hat. But why do you think they're getting rid of Bush? I've seen some theories that the reason why Nixon resigned in Watergate is because it would've caused too much damage to the party and people in control and they didn't want another assisination like with Kennedy, so the Bilderberg group made Nixon resign. :shrug: Maybe they're doing the same with Bush but it's going much faster. Does anybody have a list of the press who's involved with Bilderberg (I know CNN is)? I know Bush wants to go to Iran but I read about a week or two ago (at least) a post someone made where it was an article from a Bilderberg meeting and they were aruging about whether to go to Iran or not and more of them were against Iran.

[althecat]

7. Well Iran would be my theory too..... Bilderberg link

The bilderberg story is here....
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/052405Estulin/052405estulin.html
&
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/060705Estulin/060705estulin.html

I am assuming this is the one you mean.

[DrDebug]

8. If Blair goes down then Bush's future is anything but certain

They are in it together. If one goes down then the scenario that the other goes down as well is highly probable. So keep up the good work with leaking Blair stuff.


War, poodle? War, monkey-boy!

[mr blur]

15. No, Blair's future is not linked to Bush's

His future is set - it's just a case of when he steps down.
btw - it's fairly well-known over here that the Blairs loathe and despise the Bushes - Blair was legally and morally wrong to lie and help invade Iraq but it wasn't through any liking or respect for the Chimp. Blair is a politician, Bush is a dangerous lunatic.

[althecat]

21. Precisely....

:)

[althecat]

9. I don't think so. Blair is on his way out....

He has just won his last election and he is planning on leaving before the next one. Moreover conservative elements would regard Blair as much more attractive than Gordon Brown. Brown is a genuine left-winger.

You have a point though certainly in relation to the first leak. That could have been motivated by a simple desire to harm Blair's re-election chances.

However there are two interesting aspects to this that come immediately to mind.

1. Why The Sunday Times? A leak like this would far more likely be targetted at The Independent or The Guardian. The fact it is the Times tends to suggest.

a) The leaker is seeking an establishment audience,
&
b) The leaker is from the establishment.

[evermind]

2. This reflects so badly on Blair it's hard to believe the leaks are

sanctioned.

Gordon Brown, though... Hmmmm.. ;-)

Seriously, much as I'd like Gordy to be the source, it's very difficult to speculate on who is doing it. It could be someone with a conscience within the intel or diplomatic apparatus who's obtained the papers through contacts or in the course of business...?

I don't think any paper would turn down stories of this magnitude. The story is going to come out anyway, with a determined leaker, so why not be the one to get the kudos (and sales) from printing it?

[FreedomAngel82]

6. I think also

it has to be someone with some sort of power to have influence over these papers. But who could that be??

[althecat]

20. I am not really that surprised that the story was run... just about where.

And that reflects in some ways on both the leaker and the recipient of the leak. The background that follows in terms of Michael Smith's experience sheds some light on this, albeit no actual answers.

[evermind]

3. On reading the Washington Post version of the latest memo story

something jogged my memory, and I went to check. Sunday Times journalist Michael White who wrote the DSM and latest "DSM2" stories, was also the author of the Sept 2004 Telegraph story with the earlier leaks. So I guess that explains the change of venue..

[althecat]

10. That's a useful part of the puzzle certainly.... thanks for that

[paulthompson]

4. The Times...

When Murdoch bought the Times, part of the deal was that he would have no say on the hiring or firing of staff, or the content. They were to remain completely independent. The only newspaper he owns, as far as I know, where the independent was kept. I don't know if it worked out that way 100% or not, but I don't think it's really fair to just lump it in with his rags like the New York Post. It's a whole different situation.

[althecat]

11. Hi Paul...

Useful background I wasn't aware of that. But accompanied by the above info that they took this character off the Telegraph it seems to me that the plot thickens.

While we may not be able to lump the Times in with the Murdoch shill stable, it's management will nevertheless be aware that there is some risk attached to an approach like this.

Secondly. The fact Michael Smith came from the telegraph and is continuing to work on this self same story tends to indicate that employing him and having him work on this particular story was very much a deliberate move. I.E. it didn't just happen as a result of a reporter's lucky break, The Times want to be involved in this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. A little more background on Michael Smith

Michael Smith served for nine years in the British Army's Intelligence Corps as a latter-day codebreaker before going to work for the BBC Monitoring Service. He has written for a number of newspapers, including the Financial Times, the Sunday Times, and most recently the Daily Telegraph, where he is Defense Correspondent.

http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Author/AuthorPage/0,,0_1000029904,00.html

(which doesn't seem quite up to date with his move back to the Sunday Times). That would certainly indicate he could have contacts with the kind of people who might get access to these documents - people in intelligence or the army that feel they've been misused by the government.

And it's not completely surprising that these stories turned up in the Telegraph and Times - both supported the Conservatives at the last election, and so would be willing to print stories showing Blair in a bad light (and that does show how the Times/Sunday Times can be independent of Murdoch - he told The Sun, his tabloid UK newspaper, to support Blair, but was willing to let his Times newspapers take their own line).

I don't buy the idea (in post #13 below) that it's Blair's office doing the leaks themselves - the timing of the May 1st leak was far too dangerous to them. It kept the entire last week of the British election being "can you trust Blair?"; it's also ammo for the anti-Blair faction inside Labour.

[althecat]

18. Very interesting... and your comments about blair make sense...

But what do you think about the notion that this is sanctioned in some way?

If MS's background is in intelligence he would also be the perfect person to pass something like this to.

Plus while the timing of the earlier leaks makes some sense in terms of inserting a spanner into the election, this latest one is another kettle of fish entirely.

[althecat]

19. self delete... accidental double post

[althecat]

12. Ok, here's another wrinkle to this, why is there no leak hunt underway?

One might have thought that if someone was leaking top secret, classified, extremely damaging, material like this to a reporter then someone would be doing their damnedest to close up the hole.

In fact I can imagine that Cheney might have a few words to say to Dearlove on the subject. Afterall the leaking of classified intelligence info (and this material would be so classified) is an offence. Plus Cheney, Dearlove et al will be well aware that if this material is in the open that other material may be in danger of being leaked.

So.

How did this second leak occur?

On the face of things it looks like drip-feeding.

Had Smith had this cabinet paper on May 1st, why wouldn't he have used it then?

And even if he was trying to play the story out why not use the story the following week or the week after? Six weeks is a long time to wait to file a followup.

On the face of it it looks like the Times (or the leaker) has been waiting for the jungle drums to start beating before stoking up the fire again.

The timing of this new story in the same week that Blair and Chimpy finally take the bait is unmistakeable.

[althecat]

13. Ok lets go very tinfoil here... couldn't the leaker be Blair himself?

Afterall with his career effectively over he hasn't that much to hold him back now.

And Blair unlike the Chimp is a smart guy with a conscience of sorts.

While he may be deeply corrupt in a pragmatic sort of way but unlike Cheney et. al. I do think Blair thinks he is trying to do good for the world.

Perhaps he is starting to have some qualms about what he has unleashed on the world in the form of Chimpy's hegemonic agenda. Or - as suggested above - maybe the Bilderbergers and their like, a world in which Blair has lived for sometime, have decided that it is no longer in their interests to have * rushing around the world bombing people and have sought Blair's help to rein him in.

If the above is correct then - again as hinted above - I would suspect Iran is the key.

Particularly.

What if Dearlove's latest report from discussions in Langley reads:

"The Bush administration's resolve to strike at Iran and take out their nuclear installations has hardened. A strike date is already scheduled and intelligence and facts are again being fixed around policy."

Except that this time Blair doesn't want his legacy to be a mushroom cloud over Tehran.

It's a possibility.

[althecat]

14. kick

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. Let's keep at the media--we're getting somewhere

:bounce:


Just a reminder of some very, very important links:

To sign Congressman Conyers’ letter

http://www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com


To put and keep pressure on the Mainstream Media:

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/takeaction.html#awaken


http://www.afterdowningstreet.org


LISTEN TO THE RANDI RHODES SHOW-to keep up daily with what’s going on with--THE DOWNING STREET MEMO:

http://www.therandirhodesshow.com


Peace
O8)

Here is my standard letter to the Media:


Dear Sir/Madam:

As you know, on May 1 of this year a document now commonly referred to as “|The Downing Street Memo” was released into the British Press. This document raises serious question about how the administration was handling intelligence related to Iraq and appears to suggest that the Bush Administration had already decided on war when publicly it was claiming that no such decision had been made.

This document and perhaps other documents suggest that the Bush administration was determined to “fix intelligence” around a predetermined policy.

It is most disturbing that there has been a virtual media blackout regarding “The Downing Street Memo”. Even more disturbing is the absence in the America media of any credible discussion or coverage regarding strong, credible and independent evidence that the Bush Administration intentionally mislead the U.S. Congress, the media and the American people.

I do hope you will accept the responsibility to address this issue and provide serious investigative journalism into this matter.

Furthermore, on Thursday June 16, 2005, Rep. John Conyers, Jr., ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, and other House members will hold a hearing to consider testimony concerning the Downing Street minutes and questions of possible fixing of prewar intelligence. I do hope you will be giving full coverage to these events.

Sincerely,