More Downing Street Minutes ~link to actual document

[Generator]

So some come to discourage this as nothing big. Well...here's a prime link..from the day it started.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-523-1592904-523,00.html

May 01, 2005

Blair hit by new leak of secret war plan
Michael Smith

A SECRET document from the heart of government reveals today that Tony Blair privately committed Britain to war with Iraq and then set out to lure Saddam Hussein into providing the legal justification.

The Downing Street minutes, headed “Secret and strictly personal — UK eyes only”, detail one of the most important meetings ahead of the invasion.

It was chaired by the prime minister and attended by his inner circle. The document reveals Blair backed “regime change” by force from the outset, despite warnings from Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, that such action could be illegal.

The minutes, published by The Sunday Times today, begins with the warning: “This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. The paper should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know.” It records a meeting in July 2002, attended by military and intelligence chiefs, at which Blair discussed military options having already committed himself to supporting President George Bush’s plans for ousting Saddam.

Snip~
A separate secret briefing for the meeting said Britain and America had to “create” conditions to justify a war.

Nothing to see hear at all.

Snip~
Downing Street claimed the document contained “nothing new”.


I guess nothing new..would mean it's absolutly validated, heh?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

The link above is the actual document. I hadn't read the real deal before. Must read.

[whistle]

1. Here are my conclusions as to what this document represents....

...which did post in another thread:

<snip>
whistle (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-03-05 04:22 PM
Response to Original message

5. The format of the Downing Street document may be argued....


..endlessly, but it remains the personal recollection of one Matthew Rycroft as dictated and transcribed for the exclusive review of I believe his boss David Manning on July 23, 2002, of a meeting that took place earlier that day. This copy of the document has no title, although the original may in fact have a "Title". In addition to the document's composer, Matthew Rycroft and the person to whom the document was sent, David Manning, there are eleven (11) other persons who were copied onto the document and I presume were all present or represented at the meeting. That is what the document reveals at its beginning.


<snip from your link>
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL -- UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING

From: Matthew Rycroft

Date: 23 July 2002

S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

<end of snip>

The next four sentences reveal that the document is to be treated as confidential, although it uses the term "sensitive". It makes clear that no copies are to be made or circulated, but does allow recipients to show the document on a "need to know basis". It does identify the document as "(t)his record", which suggests that it is a transcription summary and leads me to think that actual recorded minutes exist, perhaps like a court reporter might take down, where word for word reviews of what was actually said and by whom could be examined.

<snip of next four sentences>
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq. This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

<end of snip>

The remainder of the document reads like a synopsis of what transpired at the meeting being communicated to David Manning by Matthew Rycroft. My conclusion therefore, is that this particular document is in fact a "memo" that may or may not be an accurate portrayal of the actual minutes of the meeting.

This next begs the question, if this is just a memo, are there minutes of the meeting and if so, are these available or restricted?


<link> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1826878&mesg_id=1826960

[Generator]

2. The original times article never refers to it as a "memo"

I think that was our press.

It refers to it as variously, meetings, a record, a document. OF course I don't know as a fact, but the idea here is THIS is the record of the meeting. Period. Accepted as the record.

Memo has the sense of something anybody would just scratch out..but of course..he was there..and the "memo" was accepted as the record of fact. Downing Street has never doubted its authenticity.

Maybe we should contact this guy:

http://www.britainusa.com/government/articles_show.asp?SarticleType=1&Article_ID=2865
~

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-523-1592904-523,00.html

Snip~
The July meeting was later mentioned by Lord Butler in his report on the use of intelligence on WMD as a “key stage” in the road to war; but its details have never been revealed until now.

Here's another nugget to pursue.

[whistle]

6. Hey, if the Brits call this piece a record, I am inclined to go....

...with their definition, after all, English is their primary language:shrug:

I just don't want to see everyone getting hung up of a semantic squabble over the officialism of this document by calling it something that the British may deny that it is, thus throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

If the British say it is as good as any transcript record of what transpired at that meeting, and I believe that this is the nature of this piece, we should go with that idea and not skirmish over what word to call it.

Insisting that this document represents the "minutes" of that meeting weakens our position of the importance of the contents of the document. It certainly is more than a "memo" because the author, Matthew Rycroft created this document for his superior, I believe that is what David Manning represents to Rycroft, as an important and very confidential report, which was run past all who attended the meeting.

Now, I just viewed your links and I learn that David Manning became the UK Ambassador to the United States in September 2003 which is even more interesting. What his position was a year earlier at the time the report was written and sent to him is not clear.

If the Brits are calling it a report, I think then that we should hold with that label, knowledgeable that ALL the evidence backing up the content of "the report" in available as actual transcribed minutes, tapes, or whatever. This document is authentic, factual and obviously very explosive as far as what the Bush administration had intended all along regarding Iraq.

[seemslikeadream]

3. Co-Founder of AfterDowningStreet.org on C-SPAN!!!!

Co-Founder of AfterDowningStreet.org on C-SPAN 7:45 - 8:30 a.m. EST Sat.


Media: We'll Be on C-SPAN Saturday Morning!
Posted by: downing on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 01:44 PM 31 Reads
From After Downing Street Dot Org
Watch the Washington Journal on C-Span from 7:45 - 8:30 a.m. ET Saturday June 4 for AfterDowningStreet.org Co-Founder Steve Cobble. And phone in to have your say!

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org /

[damntexdem]

4. And these nutcases thought that they were going to keep ...

these documents secret!

[ieoeja]

5. I still don't see much smoke.

Matthew Rycroft said that "C" said that it would be necessasry to fix the intelligence and facts around the Bush policy to justify military action against Saddam based on WMD and terrorism. One man's brief notes on another man's comments on his impressions of what a third man was doing isn't exactly a smoking gun. Plus, all you have to do is change the words "fix the intelligence" to "affix the existing intelligence", and you then have nothing.


Worse yet, consider this passage:

"For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."

This bolsters their claim that they believed Iraq had NBC weapons. If not, why would they be worrying about Iraq using them?