BBC: Al-Jazeera 'bombing plan' denied (by Downing Street)

[sabra]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4621676.stm

Al-Jazeera 'bombing plan' denied

Downing Street has denied for the first time claims US President George Bush had to be talked out of bombing the TV station al-Jazeera by Tony Blair.

Tony Blair's official spokesman said a memo about the Bush-Blair conversation does not refer to bombing al-Jazeera.

...

On Tuesday, the Downing Street spokesman said: "We are saying this because a specific allegation, despite our firm denial, has been repeated over and over again."

[rodeodance]

1. So--my interpretation--Blaire did nothing to stop Bush.

[daleo]

2. No doubt there is some trickery here

I don't know what, but they must be lying with the truth. For example, the exact wording may not be "bombing" - it may striking, etc.

[louis-t]

3. "... a specific allegation, despite our firm denial, has been repeated

over and over again." Looks like * and friends are getting a taste of their own medicine.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. That's strange - they seemed to admit it before Christmas

Thank you for your email of 24 November in which you request a copy of any memos or motes that record President Bush's discussions with the Prime Minister about the bombing of the al-Jazeera television station in Qatar. Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I can confirm that the cabinet Office holds information which is relevant to your request.

The information held comes under section 27 of the act (international relations). Section 27(1)(a) applies when disclosure of information would or would be likeley to predudice relations between the United Kingdom and any other State. Section 27 is a qualified exemption. In applying this exemption we have had to consider the public interest in maintaining the exemption against the public interest in disclosing the information.

The Cabinet Office accepts that there is a general public interest in greater transparency in how Government operates particularly in relation to an issue on which there has been public debate.

However, there are strong countervailing public interest factors. It would not be in the public interest to release information which would harm international relations. It is important that information pertaining to our discussions or relations with other states is protected. The effective conduct of international relations depends on maintaining trust and confidence between governments. This relationship allows for the freee and frank exchange of information on the understanding that it will be treated in confidence. If the United Kingdom does not respect such confidences, it's ability to protect and promote UK interests through international relations will be hampered. The states concerned may be more reluctant to share sensitive information with the United Kingdom Government in future and may be less likely to respect the confidentiality of information supplied by the United Kingdom Government to them, to the detriment of UK interests. this could have hte effect of prejudicing the UK's relations with other states and thus it's ability to protect its interests and its citizens effevtively.

This information therefore is being withheld.

http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/701

That's not what I'd call a 'firm denial' - more "yes, Bush did say something about bombing al-Jazeera, but we're allowed to refuse your request on the grounds it would embarrass Bush, so we will".

[Zodiak]

5. Oh a denial!!!!

Wow....so everyone is just supposed to go home now?

Fuck you, Downing Street! Your denial is not good enough. Release the document to Al Jazeera to back up your claims, otherwise you are just dissembling, obfuscating, and otherwise acting like a World Emperor (when you know the World Emperor is Bush).

As if Downing Street has any credibility left after going along with this ill-advised Iraqi venture.

[Canuckistanian]

6. If the story wasn't true, why is Blair prosecuting the leakers?

And why not an immediate denial?

Sounds like Blair has had a chat with some lawyers in order to parse some language exactly.

[MrPrax]

7. Took them long enough...

They must have worked overtime in the background in order to state this lie...a lie that could be easily proven by a full publishing/leaking of the text of the meeting.

Obviously the BLairites are pretty confident that this won't happen.

Lesson to whistleblowers: Not all the press is the same...and if you WANT the information out, there are MORE than enough people out there that will give it wide play, regardless of the consequences...

[EuroObserver]

8. Reuters (UK) on this:

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-01-17T173948Z_01_L17418026_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SECURITY-BRITAIN-JAZEERA.xml
"...MP Peter Kilfoyle said last week he had been briefed on the memo by former MP Tony Clarke who had seen it, saying it had included a discussion of bombing Al Jazeera and of an attack on the Iraqi town of Falluja.

Two men are facing trial on charges of leaking the memo."

/more...

[lumpy]

9. Al Jazeera's office in Kubal was

hit by US bombs in 2001; Al Jareeza's Baghdad office was hit by a US strike killing an Al Jazeera reporter...... US denies this, of course. I hope Quatar is successful in pursuing this. There is no doubt in my mind that Bush discussed the continuing bombing of Al Jareeza news outlets, revenge appears to be a prominent factor in his skewed thinking.