WHAT?! Goldsmith claims FORGERY in UK press re: Iraq War Memo from Blair

[cyberpj]

First parts of the memo were leaked, then Blair releases the memo, then signator Atty General Goldsmith claims it's a forgery (in a LONDON AFP article which only seems to appear in UK press), then Blair admits discussion of early plan to topple Saddam.

Is Rove working for Blair now?
How could a memo released by Blair be a forged document?

We might want to document and save the forgery links and articles before they disappear. Seems to me Goldsmith is using a tried and true US Republican technique by claiming forgery in order to support Blair's re-election. Meanwhile, in the most recent article (at bottom) Blair is finessing his story.

Print news is changing FAST on this story - remind you of anything?
What do you think? All links and memos follow:

====================================================
Blair Releases Memo Questioning Legality of Iraq War
By Glenn Frankel
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, April 29, 2005

(snip)

In the original opinion, which Blair released Thursday after key portions were leaked to Channel Four News here, Goldsmith told Blair that the language of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, passed in November 2002 to bring new pressure on Iraq, was ambiguous on the question of war. "I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorize the use of force," he wrote.

(snip)

Unlike in the United States, the legality of the war has remained an enduring issue here because of long-standing respect for international law and because Britain has signed on to the new International Criminal Court, which has a mandate to try accused war criminals.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042801058.html

===========================================================
Forged Iraq 'memo to Blair' exposed
Fri Apr 29, 1:56 PM ET

LONDON (AFP) - A forged document purporting to counsel British Prime Minister Tony Blair on the legality of the Iraq war was sent to media in London, while a pre-election debate raged over authentic legal advice given in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion.

The text, which purports to be signed by Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith and appears to warn that military action against Iraq would be illegal, is a "complete forgery", Goldsmith's office said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050429/wl_uk_afp/britainvoteiraq_050429175651

Also here:
Forged Iraq ‘memo to Blair’ exposed
Sunday May 01, 2005 (0221 PST)
http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=103632

Also here:
Forged Iraq 'memo to Blair' exposed
http://news.lycos.co.uk/uk/050429175651.6yu0oq3j.xml.html

==============================================================
Now the latest info I can find (19 hours ago)
Blair admits UK discussed early plan to topple Saddam

LONDON: Britain discussed supporting the United States to bring about a change of government in Iraq eight months before the March 2003 invasion, Tony Blair said on Sunday.
But the prime minister, facing an election on Thursday in which the divisive war could cost him votes, denied suggestions his government took an early decision to topple Saddam Hussein.

His comments came in response to a leaked memo in a newspaper that said Blair and US President George W Bush were determined to oust Iraq’s former leader as early as July 2002.

(snip)

Britain’s spy chief, Sir Richard Dearlove, fresh from a trip to Washington, had concluded that war was “inevitable” because “Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action”, and “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”. Blair ordered his chief of defence staff, Sir Michael Boyce, to present him with war plans later that week, the minutes said. reuters

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_2-5-2005_pg4_3

[KoKo]

1. Well....sounds like "Michael Kelly" warnings were given to Goldsmith..

Blair seems to be just as conniving and evil as the group running the USA. :shrug:

I wonder if the Brits will accept this. Usually this would become a huge tabloid kind of thing. But, given what happened to the BBC after Kelly's "suicide" it would seem that the power of the British Press to report political scandals might be waining like here.

Hard to know what to think will happen with this latest revelation. :eyes:

[FreedomAngel82]

2. Hopefully they won't

Hopefully they won't.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

16. the British press will only go after the story if they think

it'll help Michael Howard and the Conservative Party.

[autorank]

23. Good point. Blair and Co are utterly ruthless. I mean Thatcher

just attacked a sheep farming island, dreadful as that waqs. Blair went after a country with 26,000,000 people. I'm sure they will do anything to avoid jail. Good point.

[Stand and Fight]

3. Sigh... I'm really beginning to feel hopeless in all of this.

It seems that no matter what dirt comes up on Bush & Co, it is disproven, disregarded, in some way or another. This is yet another in a long line of disappointments.

[Last Lemming]

4. Well,

at least Rove is starting to recycle his methodology.
It would be interesting to track a time line for this and the previous "forgery" When the "memo" was released, how soon bloggers (or "bloggers") were on top of it, what the official response was ("we can neither confirm or deny".) That way we can generate a typical Rovian forgery template to apply to future "forgery" cases. (all these "*" make me a little "dizzy")

If anyone has some handle on the timeline of the previous Rathergate scenario and would like to work with me on this just PM me.

[TheFarseer]

5. Total BS - here's why

They were asking him (Tony Blair) about it on the Thursday debate televised on CNN. He never said it was a fake, never said the memo didn't exist, never said it didn't come from his office - never said anything like that. He just tried to downplay it and re-iterate the rest of the case for war with Iraq. This is total BS, don't believe this.

edited to clarify who "him" is

[cyberpj]

6. I didn't say I believed it - I'm ranting that the UK press published it.

It actually looks like Blair didn't know that Goldsmith said it was a forgery.

[TheFarseer]

8. I know, but for anyone who isn't sure what to believe

it isn't true. Blair would have responded in a completely different way if he didn't know it was real.

[cyberpj]

19. - kick

[JDPriestly]

7. Interesting.

Who would be stupid enough to forge a memo like this to harm Blair in the wake of the Rather scandal. Obviously it did not work against Bush. Why would anyone think it would work against Blair? I wonder if they will catch the forgerer or if he/she will go free as with the Rather memos.

[cyberpj]

10. I don't think you're getting it. I don't think it IS forged.

I believe that's a defensive claim - by Goldsmith - planted in the UK press to give vascillating voters room to stick with Blair.

Although the article says it's forged and calls it a fake document there is no information on why they are saying that.

Most likely so they can say it was just a mistake later.

[JDPriestly]

24. You may be right, but you can't rely on its

authenticity. My guess is that it is a private memo written by someone who attended the meeting, but is not an official memo of the department. Time will tell. But, first, someone will have to determine whether there really was a meeting at the time and place the memo claims.

[grasswire]

9. same old trick, isn't it??

Leak a purposefully flawed document, and let all hell break loose.

It works for George all the time.

[cyberpj]

11. I don't believe it's true. I think Goldsmith just said that and

someone put it in a few non-mainstream papers.

It's just amazing that his first reaction was to claim forgery!

[LizW]

12. What the heck?

The Yahoo story says straight out and without qualification that the memo is "forged" and later twice calls it the "fake memo."

But they never explain how it was determined to be fake other than "Goldsmith's office says it is."

Did I miss something? Before a news organization calls a document "fake" shouldn't they offer something -- ANYTHING to show why they came to that conclusion?

[cyberpj]

13. Well why aren't you as dumb as most people?

:sarcasm: Why should you care that they don't support their story?!

[madrchsod]

14. nothing on many euro news outlets

bbc has nothing nor the guardian...afp story that only a few are picking up. something isn`t right about the whole story. in the usa the news outlets can lie and get away with it but not in england. the brits won`t release a story until all the facts are verified.

[cyberpj]

15. It's an AFP story. Check out their website:

I seriously doubt they mean what it implied by this particular "fake memo" story being planted:

"A Long Tradition of Newsgathering

AFP is the world's oldest established news agency, founded in 1835 by Charles-Louis Havas, the father of global journalism.

Today, the agency continues to expand its operations worldwide, reaching thousands of subscribers via radio, television, newspapers and companies from its main headquarters in Paris and regional centers in Washington, Hong Kong, Nicosia and Montevideo. All share the same goal: to guarantee top quality international service tailored to the specific needs of clients in each region."

http://www.afp.com/english/afp/?pid=history

[drm604]

17. It sounds to me like Goldsmith and Blair didn't check with each other

to keep their stories straight. Here's what I think may have happened. Blair, figuring that he was outed and that he couldn't deny a real memo, decided to try to downplay it and direct attention away from it rather than deny it. Meanwhile, Goldsmith immediately cried forgery, figuring that no one who was in on the meeting would confirm it's authenticity. Different news outlets got different stories depending on who they talked to. I'm curious about the time-line for the release of both of these stories.

[cyberpj]

22. But isn't just wonderful how the forgery article states:

"The fake memo states that the case for Iraq did not meet the criteria which would enable a foreign power to invade the sovereign country."

I mean, they call it "the fake memo" twice with the article headline screaming "Forged Iraq 'memo to Blair' exposed" and as someone noted earlier, without an iota or even a suggestion of proof of forgery.

[gordianot]

18. Maybe Goldsmith is in trouble himself as he faces charges by Bar Council.

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, faces a possible Bar Council disciplinary hearing over his advice on the legality of war against Iraq, after the council's conduct committee decided to consult a constitutional law expert on whether it has jurisdiction to deal with complaints that he breached the Bar's code.

If found guilty of breaching the requirements of the code of conduct, which require barristers to act independently at all times, he could be reprimanded, suspended from practice or even disbarred.

Complaints have been made by the former overseas development secretary, Clare Short, and by Reg Keys, whose son was killed in Iraq and who is standing as an independent candidate against Tony Blair in Sedgefield. A separate group of MPs is also understood to have filed a complaint, and a further complaint is being lodged by more than a dozen barristers, including four QCs.


see link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1474678,00....

[cyberpj]

20. Wow. Very interesting...... Thanks for that. eom.

[Cha]

21. Good! Now they will get more

publicity than ever to find out the authenticity of the document.

[KoKo]

25. Kick...

[magellan]

26. Whether it's forged or not

This memo has no bearing on the leaked minute from Blair's July 2002 war cabinet, a separate document which discloses that Bush** had already firmly made up his mind to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, and 'the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy'.

Eye on the ball.