Six new British documents reveal details on case for war (Raw Story)

[Roland99]

http://www.rawstory.com/

Six new British documents reveal details on case for war quoted in the UK press but never printed raw; Longer narrative later today.


The Iraq options paper
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Iraq_options_paper_Full__0613.html

After axis of evil, British foreign secretary says Iraq case weak
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/A_month_after_the_axis_of_evil_British_foreign_secretary_Straw_says_case_for_Iraq_is_wea_0613.html

Condi committed to regime change in 2002
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Condi_committed_to_regime_change_in_early_2002_New_Yorker_seen_as__0613.html

The British legal background
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Iraq_The_British_legal_backg_0613.html

Admission that Iraq WMD program hadn't changed
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/The_truth_is_what_has_changed_is_not_the_pace_of_Saddams_WMD_pro_0613.html

The 'need to wrongfoot' Saddam on inspectors
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/The_need_to_wrongfoot_Saddam_on_the_inspect_0613.html

[freeplessinseattle]

1. veddy veddy interesting, thank you! (nt)

[NVMojo]

2. holy beejeezus! how come Britain is coming clean all of a sudden?

Collective guilt, er, conscience, over crimes againts the people of Iraq?

[Up2Late]

6. This is exactly what I was afraid of, this may be a "Flood the Zone"

type tactic to overload and confuse the public.

[rawstory]

7. No, these have been out since the fall.

Only your trusted liberal media hasn't been bringing them to you.

[lumpy]

13. Where are the US documents?

x

[Roland99]

15. In *'s private vault hidden by executive order.

[rawstory]

3. For the record, there are repeated citations...

If you need to move out of LBN, I'll understand, tho we're confident these documents are genuine, and we've found repeated references to them abroad. We'll have more citation in our article later today. They're a lot to tackle, but fascinating, and striking accurate predictions of where we are today.

[Roland99]

4. Thanks for the info there.

I know some people, including myself, would love to see copies of the actual documents. Or, at the least, damning proof that these are corroborated as valid by people in Britain, including the authors, themselves.


But, we all thank you immensely for your work on this topic!!

:applause:



This just seems like all of the puzzle pieces we've long suspected to fit a certain way are now showing to fit in that exact way. As Tucker Carlson is want to point out, we've known about this (the lack of planning) so it's nothing new. Well, Mr. dumbshit bowtie, this is the PROOF that confirms what we all thought to be true.

[evermind]

8. Regards authentication,

as swiftly becomes apparent, wherever these docs get printed there is an understandable reaction of: "how can we be sure there isn't some trick here, to muddy the waters on the DSM?"

So I hope there is something in the "longer narrative" promised for later today.

As a possible contribution to that, has rawstory attempted to contact (Professor) Mike Lewis, or Glen Rangwala (who I believe released these documents in their current form)?

I don't know if it's current, but their contact details are available (for example) at http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/02/uk020603.html

[Roland99]

21. Just saw your thread in GD

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3847277


Great work!

[Spazito]

5. I am glad Raw Story is covering this

The six documents covered were discussed earlier last week in this thread and some had a question of authenticity. I am glad that no longer seems to be in question.

Link to the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3809302

Edited to clarify wording

[KoKo]

9. Why are there so many glaring typo's in all of these released transcripts

Were these typed from original memos in haste? The Brits are normally very careful about "presentation" and seeing so many typo's is going to cause criticism we don't need.

This one in particular is pretty riddled with what seems to be ommitted words, and typo's making some sentences hard to read.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/The_truth_is_what_has_changed_is_not_the_pace_of_Saddams_WMD_pro_0613.html


Anyone know? Or have any additional thoughts? :shrug:

[Stand and Fight]

10. Your link does NOT work. n/t

[KoKo]

16. Here's the link....copied other one from DU article:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/The_truth_is_what_has_changed_is_not_the_pace_of_Saddams_WMD_pro_0613.html

[Roland99]

11. There are common typing mistakes in there

"watn" instead of "want". "the" is split as "t he" at one point, I believe. Heck, I do that all of the time.

Hard to say what the source of the typos are.

[KoKo]

18. We all do it all the time. But when typing a transcript of an official

govt. document as important as these are, accuracy is of prime importance. Sloppy typing is something that we can do replying to threads on internet sites but wouldn't be acceptable if one worked in a law firm, government office or anywhere that accuracy is vital.

That's why I wondered why these transcripts weren't checked and retyped.

I would have been fired if I had typed a transcript with as many typo's as these documents have.

Not questioning the accuracy of the content, but the release of the copies with so many typographical errors invites criticism. :shrug:

[Roland99]

20. I find errors in novels, reports, gov't PDF docs, etc.

I guess we'll know more when Raw Story updates.

[Karmakaze]

31. Document tracers...

There is a method used on highly secret documents that is designed to identify the source of the document should it leak to the press or a foreign power.

This method involves automatically inserting errors and changed wording, so that each document is uinique - if it is copied verbatim and leaked, it is possible to identify the exact person who had possession of the original document. Thus in a top secret briefing with six copies given out, they would be able to identify which of the six people was the source of the leak.

I know I read somewhere that at least one of the released documents had been intentionally rewritten to disguise the source, but if these other ones haven't also undergone that process then it is likely the source of the leak has already been identified.

[Roland99]

33. Interesting. Are there any articles out there discussing this?

I suppose I could Google but if you know of any off-hand....

[evermind]

22. Hi, I' ve posted what was going to be my response to

your post as a new topic, at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3847277

Executive summary: there's been loads of discussion on the question of the authenticity of these documents. rawstory claim to have authenticated them. Please wait to read their full story, and hopefully it will contain convincing evidence as to the authenticity.

[KoKo]

29. Thanks for the reply "evermind," and I checked out your DU link.

Interesting to read the history and that "AfterDowningStreet" and Raw Story have authenticated them.

It's seems "haste" was the factor in the typo's then. See my post below which I typed before I went to your link and saw the explanations.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

23. Perhaps they were done by someone who was typing the transcript....

...as the words were spoken, and that person never had the chance to correct the spelling/typing errors before the raw drafts were secretly copied and released to the public.

[KoKo]

28. That was what I was asking if anyone knew. Were they typed "hastily"

was what I asked in my original post asking about so many typo's.

I said before I wasn't questioning the authenticity, but that the typo's remain may make them open to criticism, however the opposite could be true in that whoever typed a transcript was under pressure trying to record the live meetings or perhaps had only a short time access to the original documents and had to copy down what they could as fast as they could. :shrug:

[underpants]

12. very different than anything in the States

I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States.

[wryter2000]

14. Good effing grief!

The dam has burst. I'm sure Conyers must know about these.

[mom cat]

17. Just added to my favorites: Iraq - Pre-war lies!

[pdurod1]

19. Rovian tactic maybe

This administration mentioned that it would engage in disinformation.

[Julius Civitatus]

24. Watch out for the NY Times to come out debunking these

documents any time now.

David E. Sanger should be parsing them right now, looking for any word or phrase to hang on and use to debunk the whole thing.

"But, but, they didn't use the right verbal tense, so the whole thing doesn't prove anything."

Your "liberal media" at work, ladies and gentlemen.


I have a question regarding Sanger and the NY Times:

Where they ever so fucking picky with words when presented with "incriminating evidence" against the Clintons?

I don't think so. As a matter of fact, when it came to Whitewater, the NY Times published any piece of uncorroborated crap that any right-wing loon would sell them citing "anonymous sources." It's very interesting that when presented with EVIDENCE that the Bush administration LIED to get us into war, the NY Times can't spin fast enough in favor of the Bush administration.

:wtf:

Bush and mainstream media, joined at the hip.


PS: ON EDIT

On the other hand, 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.

[bpilgrim]

25. you say you found it on the INTERNETs, 1818181

We're Here...

http://images.globalfreepress.com

peace

[Roland99]

26. I guess their "mea culpa" was just for show?

[Roland99]

27. "Narrative late tonight" (RawStory)

[KoKo]

30. Nice job in explaining points from Memo's/Minutes on "conjurblog."

Just checked it out and it was a good read, especially for those here on DU who may not get why what Bush/Blair did in "shaping the public's opion" is important and goes to foundation of government which is responsible to the people and not to an Emperor or Dictator who is always "free" to shape whatever opinion he wants by fiat.

[Roland99]

34. Thanks. I wish I had more time to devote to the blog.

I actually do but I've been enjoying more downtime lately. :-)

[Straight Shooter]

32. Interesting. "Condi committed to regime change" written March 2002.

In March 2002 Bush interrupted a meeting between three senators and Dr. Rice as they discussed strategies for Iraq in relationship to the U.N. According to Time magazine the commander-in-chief stopped all the talk and said - "Fuck Saddam - we're taking him out."

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0506-01.htm

I have read other accounts where the Senators appeared to be appalled at bush's choice of words, but Rice merely smiled knowingly.

I'm very curious to know the precise timing of the "fuck saddam" meeting vis-a-vis the Rice "regime change" document.

[Roland99]

35. There are some good timelines out there but nothing in total, afaik.

Did I just hear you volunteer? :P

[Roland99]

36. Here's a good timeline just put out by RawStory

http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/muriel/path_of_war_timeline_613.htm

[Straight Shooter]

50. Thanks for that, Roland99.

I always hate it when I have to post and run, but there are so many good DU researchers.

I'd never seen a date on the actual meeting or who the Senators are. Going to check your link now, and then I've got to take care of the neighbor's dog.

Thanks!

[icymist]

37. Afterdowningstreet.org has this up on their site also.

BREAKING NEWS

Later today RawStory.com 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 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.

Last week we were made aware of additional leaked documents regarding the Iraq war. While some of these documents were posted online at various Web sites, we wanted to be certain on the chain of custody. The documents in question are transcribed from the originals and then copied. We wanted to be sure that what we would be posting and distributing to the coalition members was authenticated fully. As we are an advocacy group, we asked Larisa Alexandrovna of Raw Story to take the information and investigate it. We agreed that the coalition would act responsibly in this matter and wait on the facts to drive the advocacy, not the advocacy to push the facts.

The Raw Story article is scheduled to run later today at which point we would have released the documents along with the article. This morning, several prominent Web sites posted the documents, thereby creating some confusion. Raw Story also posted the documents in order to help keep the focus on the context that is forthcoming. We ask that you act responsibly in distributing the documents. When the Raw Story article goes out today, the documents that are now posted will have context. The documents on Raw Story and here at ADS are the ones that the chain of custody was established for. We cannot speak to other documents circulating on the Web. Please be ready to distribute the article and documents when we post the article later today. We apologize for the confusion.
(More)
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=205

[Roland99]

38. Let's not forget Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski.

She's been very vocal for the last couple of years describing the "manipulation" of intelligence in the OSP.


http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/22/143233

I got a clear sense that what we were doing in The Pentagon, or what the neoconservative group was doing in The Pentagon as far as a middle east policy was to not just fabricate falsehoods for the Defense Department, but to push that into the mainstream of American media.

<...>

The main thing that happened was the influence of Ahmed Chalabi. In the office that I was at, I saw Ahmed Chalabi. He would come in to visit Bill Luti. There was a military officer working in the Office of Special Plans whose job was described to me as the Ahmed Chalabi's handler. He would set up meetings downtown. They traveled to London to meet with members of the I.N.C. Ahmed was a key source of a lot of the stories that Saddam Hussein had vast quantities of undetermined weapons of mass destruction, that he was going to either use directly against U.S. interests or give to terrorists who would do the same thing.

<...>

We are not too worried about dictators as long as they're on our side and they do what we tell them. Democracy is not the reason we went in there. The main reason is geo strategic regional dominance, which is the one that relates to energy supplies. Another reason for this invasion-occupation at the time that we did it, had to do with the pressure to lift sanctions. There was a huge pressure building to lift sanctions on Iraq. Had sanctions been lifted or partially lifted, Iraq could have been filled with Europeans, Russians, Chinese, Japanese, all kinds of folks. No American or British folks, but we and the U.K. had been bombing Iraq for 12 years. Had sanctions been lifting with Saddam Hussein still in charge, we would have gotten no contracts and no opportunities to invest in Iraq, but furthermore, we would have lost the ability to attack Iraq at any time, because Iraq would have been filled with foreigners. The other aspect to me is a smaller one, but it has to do with Saddam Hussein's decision in November of 2000 to switch to the Euro for all of his oil for food exports. He had been on the dollar for decades. He decided to switch to the euro. He had gone into full production of his oil capability and had he continued to trade oil on the Euro and not the Dollar, this would have actually had a financial impact on the United States in that Central Banks in the world would be more favorable towards the Euro and less to the Dollar.

[Chauga]

39. The truth has been printed before. It doesn't stop the lying.

[Roland99]

57. So, true. And welcome to DU!

[Roland99]

40. (RawStory) We're slowly converting the UK Iraq docs into text format....

Does this mean Raw Story has copies of the original paper docs??

[evermind]

41. I doubt it, but who knows? The docs as originally circulated

were PDF's containing images, not text PDF's - you couldn't cut and paste them. Looked like they'd been scanned in from faxed copies.

Maybe they could save some time, though, by cutting and pasting from the text (html) copies now at http://informationclearinghouse.info/article9125.htm

Meanwhile, the promise of a story detailing the authentication later tonight seems to have disappeared. I hope this doesn't mean the story has disappeared. I'm dying to know what they have to say about the authentication issue...

<sigh>

[Roland99]

43. Well, "slowly converting...into text" could very well be manual PDF -> TXT

[rawstory]

44. Yeah, we are making into TEXT from the PDFs

so people can copy and do with it what they will, blogs, further research, etc. mainly, i hate linking people to pdfs because for some people it's so annoying so we like to have the text and then provide the pdf at the bottom for folks that are enamored of the 'real thing;' only, these are transcribed PDFs in themselves, as circulated by the British press.

[Roland99]

46. Everyone at RawStory deserves the Congressional Medal of Honor!

[Spazito]

51. I just saw your timeline, excellent work!

Thank you for this, it helps tremendously to tie it all together!

[evermind]

54. Yeah, that's what I was saying, I think: "manually converting"

(ie typing) as opposed to cut and paste.

I still don't know why they don't grab the text/html copies from informationclearinghouse, though.

Actually, they may have on one (or the other way round) since both rawstory's and informationclearinghouse's text copies of the Wolfowitz report have a glaring typo at the end of point 4: they've got "glow" instead of "gloss", which has Meyer saying, amusingly, "how ready students were to glow over Saddam’s crimes" instead of "ready to gloss over" :-)

Could be worth fixing that!

Kudos though for their spotting and meticulously reproducing several typos in the original that I missed in mine.

Anyone know what's happened to their "narrative" story? Is it delayed?

(EDIT: Oops! They've got all the text done now, I see)

[magellan]

42. Question

Just quickly looking through the Iraq Options paper I noticed this right near the top:

"The US administration has lost faith in containment and is now considering regime change."

The same thing is reiterated further below.

It's difficult to tell what year this paper was written as the date at top is missing a final digit. I suspect it's 2002/03 (is this Goldsmith's legal justification paper?).

Anyway, this leads to the heart of the question that DEMANDS to be answered when/if we get Bush** investigated. Prior to 9/11, Rice and Powell were going around telling the world that they believed Saddam was contained, his WMD capabilities were virtually nil, and he represented no threat to his neighbors.

Then "something" happened. The White House did a 180 on Iraq.

An Oct 2002 report from the State Dept's Intelligence & Research Dept called the White House conclusions on Saddam's WMD inaccurate, saying they could find no compelling case that Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons. And a month before the invasion, both the weapons inspectors and the IAEA told the White House that there was "no evidence of ongoing nuclear or nuclear-related activities" and "they had not found any weapons of mass destruction."

Taken along with the masses of similar reports the WH was receiving over the same period, including from the CIA, all of which said Iraq was a nuisance but contained, the very simple question that needs to be put to Bush** is, "What changed? What happened to cause you to 'lose faith' in containment so suddenly?"

Obviously it was the opening 9/11 gave them to go after Saddam. But they're going to have to come up with a better answer than that. And that means they'll have to lie, because the paper trail and witness evidence pointing to their opportunism is overwhelming.

God I hope we get to see Bush** squirm and stutter over that question!!

[Rainscents]

45. Drip... drip... drip.

[Roland99]

47. Hey, Rush says drip.drip, drip water torture is fun stuff.

like dropping water balloons on unsuspecting trick-or-treaters.

[Spazito]

48. MSNBC has verified their authenticity

More British memos on pre-Iraq war concerns

WASHINGTON — It started during British Prime Minister Tony Blair's re-election campaign last month, when details leaked about a top-secret memo, written in July 2002 — eight months before the Iraq war. In the memo, British officials just back from Washington reported that prewar "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" to invade Iraq.

Just last week, President Bush and Blair vigorously denied that war was inevitable.

“No, the facts were not being fixed, in any shape or form at all,” said Blair at a White House news conference with the president on June 7.

But now, war critics have come up with seven more memos, verified by NBC News.


more

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8207731

(Thanks to shraby who posted it in GD)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

49. Interesting that NBC News has stepped up to the plate.

[Roland99]

52. ****RawStory now has full text conversions and links to the PDFs****

http://rawstory.com/aexternal/pdfstemp/ods020308.pdf

http://rawstory.com/aexternal/pdfstemp/fcolegal020308.pdf

[Nothing Without Hope]

53. And also add this one from May 1 in the Guardian (UK):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3847225
Thread title: This May 1 EXPOSÉ ABOUT THE U.K. ATT'Y GENERAL complements the DSM:

Come and read it and join the discussion. It's a gruesome story and it fingers some of our favorite Bushie stalwarts. Another important piece of the puzzle, and it hasn't yet gotten the attention it should have.

[Nothing Without Hope]

55. kick n/t

[Roland99]

56. NBC News has verified the documents!

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8207731

[evermind]

58. Backstory: Confirming the Downing Street documents (Rawstory)

This is the one Rawstory promised last night on how they confirmed the authenticity of the six "new" British cabinet papers available at their site in PDF form and as html transcripts.

It essentially confirms the documents, which have been available on the net(* see below) since around Oct 5th 2004, are authentic copies of the documents obtained by DSM journalist Michael Smith for his September 18th (2004) story in the Daily Telegraph. Those documents, which were widely quoted in the UK press, were acknowledged as genuine at that time by the UK Foreign Office.

Backstory: Confirming the Downing Street documents
Larisa Alexandrovna

--snip--

Six additional UK Iraq documents, acquired by RAW STORY, reveal the depth and girth of the plan to go to war and the extent of the deceit on the part of the President and his cabinet, in conjunction with the Blair government.

The documents are transcribed photocopies in PDF format and were acquired from a British source and corroborated by Michael Smith, the journalist who first received the original leaked memos. RAW STORY validated them through an independent source and with Smith.

“I was given them last September while still on the Telegraph,” Smith, who now works for the London Sunday Times, told RAW STORY. “I was given very strict orders from the lawyers as to how to handle them.”

“I first photocopied them to ensure they were on our paper and returned the originals, which were on government paper and therefore government property, to the source,” he added.

--snip--

Originally published on Tuesday, June 14, 2005

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Backstory_Confirming_the_Downing_Street_0614.html



*) The files Rawstory are hosting are identical to those available at http://cryptome.org/leaks-brief.htm and, originally I think, at http://www.middleeastreference.org.uk though they have now been removed from that last site, probably to save bandwidth)

(Edit: for clarity)

[evermind]

59. Mods: sorry, I thought this was a new story, because of the

Michael Smith quotes, which are, well, new ;-) Apologies!

[evermind]

60. More confirmation details (and MORE!) in this dkos blog

at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/14/143936/397

"Smintheus" confirms from Professor Michael Lewis (of Cambridge University) that he posted the PDFs to cryptome last year.

Also, some new analysis of the documents:

Many of the best bits have been published or broadcast before, but there are several new gems (unpublished heretofore, it seems to me). For example, in the Ricketts memo of March 22, 2002: "US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Aaida [sic] is so far frankly unconvincing." A little bit later: "For Iraq, "regime change" does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam." Fuel to the fire; let's keep that fire stoked--but carefully. First, analyze the documents.

There is a somewhat troubling curiosity to the Iraq Options document, which I've asked an authority in the UK to comment on (will post when I hear from him). This is what I said about it yesterday on highacidity's diary (slightly modified for clarity):

The Iraq Options document appears to have been altered, to cut out one or several lines of text. This is a little worrying.

The last sentence on p. 7 of the Iraq Options document runs "The optimal times to start action are early spring ..." (and when? there is in fact nothing to continue the sentence on p. 8, though we have a plural subject and verb).

More at the link.