2002 British Ambassador letter in re Downing Street

Images of documents released a while ago and already discussed.

No new content or information. But you now have a link to the "actual memo image" to show those who "still don't want to believe".

My view: Quit trying to convince them that their leaders are war criminals. Let the indictments remove them from office. Don't waste time trying to convince idiots.

RawStory is reporting they have another copy of the DowningStreet Memo.

Original: What I wrote before I had the link

I have no idea what this memo is about, what relationship it has, or whether it is of any meaning.

However, I suspect there may be something interesting. I thought I'd share with you my reactions to this document as I read it real time. This will be a live blog, so if you're checking this link, there will be updates and changes. The entire final version of this blog will change, so check back.

They key will be to see how this document fits into the picture with the others.

It will be interesting to see how this memo fits in with the picture of a book Blair is blocking/affected [?] by Sir Greenstock. Greenstock is a former Ambassador, so I wonder if he's the source of the RawStory memo: You'll notice various meetings which could very well mean he knows about the RawStory memo.

Sir Meyer is speculated to be the source of the Downing Street Memos who is also a former Ambassador. Photo.

Receipt: What I wrote after I got the memo.

Wow: The actual Raw Story memo is about Christopher Meyer, which I already mentioned above.

Wrongfooting

I've heard that term before. I suspect this memo isn't actually news; its just "the actual memo". We'll see.

This might be news. Because a month ago one of the memos talked about wrongfooting Saddam. I take the information from a month ago to mean they wanted to set up Saddam so that "he had to" take action that would justify whatever the US wanted to do.

However, this new memo implies that "there was no need to wrongfoot," meaning that it appears Christopher knows the issue is whether the war was legal or not; and that simply letting the inspectors do their work, they were bound to find something or get a result that would the be evaluated later.

Sir Meyer's approach, in a broad sense, seems to be a little slower than the US timetable.

Appears I'm misreading the memo

Wrong footing has nothing to do with what I wrote above; rather, Meyers approach was the opposite of what I speculated: That it was the right thing to do.

Things are getting confusing

There are two memos on the site: one is from 2002 with the letter head; and there's a link to the Meyers memo.

Warning

Here's a warning that things are already too confusing at this point to make sense of what this new information is; what importance it is; or how it fits in.

Not to worry, I'll make sense of it. But the RawStory does a poor job of outlining "what is really new here".

Problem

If you take a key phrase out of the memo linked, it shows that this memo has been out for a while.

So, I'll have to figure out what the big deal is. Maybe there's something new to this and there's more information to follow.

Possible spoof?

I'm not sahying what RawStory is saying is a joke or an error; I just found this on the spoof news and will have to figure out the timing of this RawStory memo.

WTF

According to google> this key phrase from the memo has not only been around, but Raw Story has had enough time to have this information posted and archived to Google.

What a load of bullshit: This "news" has already been posted to the raw story website, and has been archived.

Here's the RawStory discussion on that original posting last month: Not very many comments on the original memo; so it will be curious to compare the subsequent discussions on the new comment feed.

Note I didn't say "interesting" as I'm not convinced there will be anything much new added/commented on. Why? Because most of the "hot air" and "steam" related to this information ha already been channeled; and has already been discussed last month in the media.

This [the information in the content, memo] isn't news. RawStory look like its had this information before, has previously posted it. I'm not sure if the "news" is that this is the copy of the letter, and that the previous version was the "transcribed version."

I guess the only "news" is that instead of having the transcript, we now can see the actual document. Whatever. Woop, dee-doo.

This isn't news. Why don't they just link to the original story and say, "We have the actual document we've already talked about." Whatever.

RawReports that the original posting was "Originally published on Monday June 13, 2005." with a link to this link.

The news

As far as I can tell, the only "news" here is that that Raw has a copy of the content that's been known for a month.

Hmmmm.....yawn.

Perhaps they'll have something to add as to "why this is news." I mean, it's interesting they have a copy . . . but since there's "nothing new in the content" I can't see how this helps.

The only benefit is that it will put to rest the claims of "the original documents were forgeries" or "the reporter was stupid for not keeping teh originals".

I'm only looking at the RawSite for content; this news article will only give you information if you want to see the actual document and wave it in front of those who say, "The newspaper reporters photocopies of the transcripts are unreliable."

Well, the key will be to compare the actual document to the multiple versions floating around: Are there any significant errors?

I would wonder what the real goal of this memo is at this point.

Maybe someone just got bored and decided to release it on a day when there wasn't much else going on.

Who knows.

What I wish

One of the things I'll have to figure out: Is it reasonable to suggest/require someone to link to the original content?

No, because they might not want to. Oh, well: If you want to know more, you know where you can find it: On google.

Analysis

By mentioning 2002 Ambassador, there was a sign that Sir Meyer was involved in the RawMemo.

But to find out that the memo was not only old, but already discussed on teh site was a real let down. I wish they'd included a link to the original raw story and said, "Here's the actual copy of the memo we already discussed and we talked about."

Yes, it is neat to see "the actual memo" . . .but even that . .. the memo isn't complete. Just a small portino of it.

What are they doing, saving the rest for later? LOL.