afterdowningstreet: six "new" Downing Street papers authenticated

[evermind]

As posted in LBN and elsewhere, rawstory is releasing their own copy of six leaked British cabinet papers, which have been around on the net since last year.

They are not the original documents, but transcripts originally released to the net via http://www.middleeastreference.org.uk and http://cryptome.org/leaks-brief.htm circa Oct 5 2004.

Since attention was drawn to the docs on Jun 8 at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3809302 (that's right: you heard it here first, folks! ;-) ) there's been a fair bit of discussion already about their authenticity. If you're interested, see the threads at:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/viewtopic.php?topic=56683&forum=17&start=0

and more recently at:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/12/1547/01037

(where I posted as "Mr_Happy" and "kolinowski" respectively)

As well as the original DU thread above, and some others.

When I found a surviving copy at a cryptome mirror site (cryptome itself had removed their copy, probably for space reasons) I submitted it to afterdowningstreet.org via their upload form, and to David Swanson by email. I was told to hold off on them until they could be authenticated. I didn't post on afterdowningstreet.org about them, but by then my DU post had been picked up by Scoop.co.nz, so I felt justified in responding to discussions about the documents that were ongoing.

I do think rawstory would not be publishing them, and afterdowningstreet hosting them, unless they had good reason to believe in them, given the caution they've shown until now - the documents have been known to them since Jun 9th, at least. So I suggest waiting to see the full rawstory article, promised for later today, before further casting doubt on the authenticity.

Here's from an afterdowningstreet mailing list email I received earlier today:

Breaking News Later Today From RawStory.com

Evidence / >From After Downing Street Dot Org
Posted by downing on Jun 13, 2005 - 10:17 AM
BREAKING NEWS

Later today RawStory.com <1> will be posting an article that they have been researching for several days. Six new secret British documents have been leaked and made widely available on the internet, including via the links below. These were retyped from the originals to protect the source, but RawStory.com <2> has verified the authenticity and will be reporting on that research, on the significance of the documents, and on the timeline of the events illuminated by this information, known to the British media but new on this side of the pond.



• "Iraq Options Paper," UK Overseas and Defense Secretariat, March 8, 2002

The greater investment of Western forces, the greater our control over Iraq's future, but the greater the cost and the longer we would need to stay. The only certain means to remove Saddam and his elite is to invade and impose a new government, but this could involve nation building over many years. Even a representative government could seek to acquire WMD and build-up its conventional forces, so long as Iran and Israel retain their WMD and conventional armouries and there was no acceptable solution to the Palestinian grievances.

SIGNIFICANCE: UK government anticipated "nation building over many years," in contradiction to public case by Bush administration. British also believed Iraq might acquire WMD without Saddam Hussein in power.

We have looked at three options for regime change...

OPTION 3: A GROUND CAMPAIGN

The aim would be to launch a full-scale ground offensive... A pro-Western regime would be installed... The optimal times to start action are early spring.

SIGNIFICANCE: Timing of invasion already set in March 2002. Aim is not an Iraq which can democratically choose its policies, but a "pro-Western regime."

Most Iraqis see the INC/INA as Western stooges.

SIGNIFICANCE: The head of the INC (Iraqi National Congress) was Ahmed Chalabi; Chalabi is now acting Oil Minister of Iraq. The head of the INA (Iraqi National Accord) was Ayad Allawi; Allawi was Prime Minister of the Iraqi Interim government from June 1, 2004-April 7, 2005.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/ods020308.pdf <3>

• "Iraq: Legal Background," UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, March 8, 2002

The US... maintain that the assessment of breach is for individual member States. We are not aware of any other State which supports this view.

SIGNIFICANCE: Bush administration's interpretation of international law, which eventually invoked for the invasion, was so bizarre it was not shared by any other nation on earth (including UK).

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/fcolegal020308.pdf <4>

• Memo from David Manning (Foreign Policy Advisor to Blair) to Blair on Manning's Dinner with Condoleezza Rice, March 14, 2002

I said you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion... Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed.... Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions:... what happens on the morning after?

SIGNIFICANCE: Aim was always regime change. Bush had no plan for future of Iraq.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/manning020314.pdf <5>

• Memo from Christopher Meyer (UK Ambassador to US) to David Manning on Meyer's lunch with Wolfowitz, March 18, 2002

"On Iraq I opened by sticking very closely to the script that you used with Condi Rice last week. We backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option. It would be a tough sell for us domestically, and probably tougher elsewhere in Europe. The US could go it alone if it wanted to. But if it wanted to act with partners, there had to be a strategy for building support for military action against Saddam. I then went through the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN SCRs and the critical importance of the MEPP as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy. If all this could be accomplished skillfully, we were fairly confident that a number of countries would come on board."

SIGNIFICANCE: UN process was a sham for Blair's sake; aim was not disarmament but regime change, which had already been decided on.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/meyer020318.pdf <6>

• Memo from Peter Ricketts (Political Director, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office) to Jack Straw (UK Foreign Secretary), March 22, 2002

For Iraq, "regime change" does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam. Much better, as you have suggested, to make the objective ending the threat to the international community from Iraqi WMD...

SIGNIFICANCE: Aim was regime change, but that wouldn't sell; WMD issue was useful for PR reasons.

US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al aida is so far frankly unconvincing.

SIGNIFICANCE: Even UK government at the highest levels believed the Bush administration claims of an Iraq-Al Qaida links were false.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/ricketts020322.pdf <7>

• Memo from Jack Straw to Blair, March 25, 2002

We have also to answer the big question—what will this action achieve?... has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured, and how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be better.

SIGNIFICANCE: UK government at its highest levels did not believe the US had any plan to be certain a new Iraqi government would be an improvement on Saddam and would not develop WMD.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/straw020325.pdf <8>
This article is from After Downing Street Dot Org
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/

The URL for this story is:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=205

There was a fair bit of coverage in the British press at the time of the leak. Here's a list of some articles available online which I collected together last night:

Scotsman:
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3513167
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1098762004

Observer:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1307907,00.html
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1307908,00.html

Telegraph:
http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar18.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/09/18 /ixportaltop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=23439
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar218.xml
http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar118.xml

Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1309109,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1336608,00.html

Sunday Herald:
http://www.sundayherald.com/44911

The documents were also used as material for a BBC "Panorama" documentary. See http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/%20panorama/transcripts/iraqtonyandthetruth.txt for a transcript or see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4332485.stm for the program itself.

[Karenina]

1. AUTHENTICATED.

n/t

[Julius Civitatus]

2. Who did authenticate these documents?

Who did authenticate these? Official sources. We will need official authentication or we could be facing a new "memogate"

Pardon me for being a bit paranoid, but having all these documents coming out suddenly, at once, could be a Rovian tactic. Remember the Dan Rather "memogate" fiasco? What if they are using the SAME tactic to discredit the Downing Street Memo by flooding the gates with false documents?

Well, we will have evidence of this if in the next few days we have right-wing bloggers coming out with "irrefutable evidence" that these new documents are false. Typical Rove.

Pay attention, watch out for those signs. We need to be very careful.

[evermind]

4. The "Rovian tactic" hypothesis is old news..

It's been hypothesised many times in threads on these papers. See the links in my post to go through the arguments.

We'll have to wait to see why rawstory are convinced. As it says in my post above, they say they'll be posting that later today.

[Julius Civitatus]

6. Old news? Bull! It has happened too many times already

for us not to be CAUTIOUS.

Why you would try to quickly dismiss it just makes me even more concerned.

We should not take anything at face value anymore. Ask Dan Rather, see what he tells you.

:mad:

[evermind]

8. No, I mean people have posting that about these

documents since Jun 8th. So the idea "the six cabinet papers leaked could be fakes planted by Karl Rove to muddy up the waters on the DSM" is old. There's many instances of it both here and on the threads I mention above - check them out for detailed arguments on both sides.

Rawstory and afterdowningstreet have been holding off publishing anything on these for that precise reason. They have had the docs since Jun 9th.

That's why I suggest they must have pretty darned good reasons to publish now. They are well aware of the need for caution because of exactly the reasons you suggest.

[Julius Civitatus]

9. OK. I just mean we need to make sure this is tight

We can not afford to keep falling for Rovian plants. Authentication needs to be the first thing mentioned when presenting these documents.

[Karenina]

10. HAL-LO!!!

:hi:

DOWNING STREET MINUTES - OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MINUTES OF AN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MEETING - distributed to U.K. EYES ONLY in the form of a memorandum...

[icehenge]

5. My thoughts also

:eyes:

[evermind]

14. Actually, two of these documents were referenced in the Jun 12th

Washington Post "DSM2" story by Walter Pincus, who said that their own British sources had authenticated them, but could not be named as they were not allowed to discuss the documents officially.

One of the paradoxes of government secrecey (at least in Britain) is that inauthentic documents can be denied <i>on the record</i> but authentic ones can sometimes not be officially discussed at all.

However, in one of the Guardian stories (see links in the topic post) there is a quote to the effect that the UK Foreign Office (a bit like the State Department, I think) acknowledged the documents as genuine.

[Ian David]

3. NOW is it Treason yet??????? n/t

[Just Me]

7. They evidence knowledge and intent BEFORE the propaganda,...

,...campaign which completely misrepresented the facts/issues/evidence leading our country to an elective/aggressive war in violation of US and international law.

IOW These documents are damning evidence of a conspiracy to defraud congress and the people = "high crimes and misdemeanors" + violation of federal law + violation of human rights.

Every member of the BushCo/neoCON cabal should be prosecuted!!!

I can't wait for Conyer's hearings. I hope he's increasing the list of witnesses to testify. The event should be a blockbuster!!!!

[Catrina]

11. Yes, I wish he could include in the list

all those who signed the memos. But his hearings may not have the power to do that.

I think the best way to ensure that those documents are legitimate is to put the original authors under oath and ask them to verify that they wrote them.

In the meantime, if they are legitimate, I think they verify the suspicions of everyone who opposed this war and who believed that we were being lied to.

[JDPriestly]

16. Aren't they also evidence of the intent to

violate international law. After all, the consensus on Downing Street seemed to be that the only way legal basis for war was pursuant to UN authorization. The memos concede that the established UN resolutions did not suffice to authorize an additional war. Bush and Blair were unable to get the resolution they wanted and, according to these memos, needed. All they got was 1441, which merely sent the inspectors back to Iraq. It is essential to read Resolution 1441 at http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/26/PDF/N0268226.pdf?OpenElement

and the February 14, 2002 report of Blix to the Security Council at

http://www.themoderntribune.com/hans_blix_report_to_un_february_14_2003_full_text_-_war_on_iraq_-_inspections.htm

[Just Me]

17. Yes. Violation of US and international law.

The docs reveal knowledge (of facts that legal bases did NOT exist) and intent (to deceive) BEFORE the willfully deceptive propaganda campaign which deviated from that knowledge and acted on the intent.

IOW we have a cabal of criminals running this country. Of course, we already knew that but now there is documented evidence proving it.

[Pacifist Patriot]

12. I know I can be overly cautious, but I really really hope they

did due diligence and a half. I'm sure in this media / political climate organizations such as these are going to make damned sure their i's are dotted and their t's are crossed, but I still can't help but feel nervous. So much can be dependent upon their authenticity.

As a side note, I would like every person who ever signed one of those ridiculous PNAC letters to congress to be investigated as well. Clearly they are complicit as well.

[redacted]

13. 'Devastating' Secret Papers Reveal Pre-War Iraq Warnings

Thank you for your press compilation! Just wanted to emphasize an important excerpt from one of the Scotsman's reports:

<snip>

Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said: “If these documents are accurate they provide a devastating insight into the political run up to war in Iraq.

“They demonstrate that the Government agreed with the Bush administration on regime change in Iraq more than a year before military action was taken.

“The justifications offered on many occasions to Parliament and the public that the issue was one of WMD are shown to be a mechanism designed to get round the legal obstacles in international law against the removal of Saddam Hussein.

“The British Government has not come clean and been frank with the British people, either about regime change or the long term troop commitment which would result if Saddam was removed.

“It is hardly surprising that the Government has resisted any form of inquiry which would allow scrutiny of the actions of ministers or officials.

“Iraq has become a question of trust. There is ample material in these documents to show why the Government has lost so much.”

[evermind]

15. Whoops: that flubbed Daily Telegraph link in full:

here

(I messed it up in the topic post, probably because it went over a line break.. This one seems to work.)