vs. The Facts

To read the posts on the other issues please use the links named after the different page-subtitles.

For additional information see also the sections

Lies & The Propaganda Of Fear

vs. The Facts


VIDEO The Lies That Led To War

VIDEO Iraq, Tony & The Truth

The White House Criminal Conspiracy

6-PART VIDEO Frontline: The Dark Side

VIDEO Dateline: Paul Moran Story - How The Rendon Group Spun the Iraq Propaganda for Chalabi's INC

"Fixed" Intelligence from Feith's "Gestapo Office"

Blood for Oil?

A CIA Cover Blown, A White House Exposed

More Damning than Downing Street

Pravda on the Potomac

Bombshell As Six More British Documents Leaked

The Memo Comes In From the Cold

The Other Bomb Drops

Galloway vs U.S. Senate: Video, Transcript & Background Info

WMD Commissions Report 2005


News & Comments


Important Reports

Related Links

American Rhetoric: Rhetoric of 9-11

September 11 News: Osama bin Laden Speeches

The Path of War Timeline

Very Pissed Off Combat Veterans -- And Blueprints For Change By John McCarthy

The Lies That Led Us To Wage Wars

- vs The Facts -

Home | John McCarthy | CIA | Treason in Wartime | 1941-2001 | Science vs Religion | Reality Or Hoax? | Israel & ME | 9/11 - 3/11 - 7/7 -- Cui Bono? | New World Order | Lies vs Facts | War on Terror - Terrorism of War | Patriotism vs Humanity | War Crimes - Committed 'In All Our Names' | Enviroment & Lobbyism | FOIA & Whistleblowers vs Cover-Ups | Recruiting Lies vs Military Reality | From Democracy to Dictatorship | Empire Agenda | Media Coverage | International (War)Crimes Tribunals | Take Action! - Take Back America! | Summaries & Previews | Index Part 1 | Index Part 2 | Multimedia Index

Washington Post - White House Briefing
The Memo Comes In From the Cold
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, June 8, 2005; 2:09 PM

After six weeks in the political wilderness, the Downing Street Memo yesterday finally burst into the White House -- and into the headlines.

The memo, which dates back to 2002, conveys a British intelligence official's conclusion that President Bush was manipulating intelligence to build support for war with Iraq -- and that he was already set on invasion long before acknowledging as much in public. The Sunday Times of London first published a leaked version on May 1.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair was visiting with Bush yesterday, and when a question about the memo came up at their abbreviated joint press conference -- the first time Bush has been asked to comment about it -- Blair threw himself at its potentially explosive allegations in an attempt to muffle the damage.

Bush then followed, insisting that he had tried to resolve the standoff with Saddam Hussein peacefully, but that in any case the world is better off with Hussein gone.

But the hard-to-explain memo today is making headlines far and wide, after more than a month during which the American press largely kept its silence on the issue.

It remains unclear how big of a blowup the memo represents for the White House. Bush partisans consider it either old news, or flatly wrong, or both.

And the American press still demonstrates no intention of aggressively following it up.

But even if the memo doesn't detonate, there are suddenly several other potential scandals sputtering away in the press today to cause the White House worry.

The New York Times is reporting that a White House official with ties to the oil industry repeatedly edited government climate reports to play down global warming issues.

The Guardian reports on new State Department documents suggesting that Bush's decision not to sign the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil.

The Texas Observer and the Associated Press are reporting that two Indian tribes working with Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist now under criminal and congressional investigation, paid $25,000 each to a conservative tax-exempt group to underwrite an event that got tribal leaders a private meeting with President Bush.

And The Washington Post reports that senators are asking for more information about the involvement of White House officials in pushing for a $30 billion air-tanker deal now considered the most significant military contracting abuses in several decades.

All this comes as a new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows a slew of sinking numbers for Bush, including a dramatic loss of support on his ace-in-the-hole issue, the war on terror. And the public has apparently concluded that the war in Iraq was not worth it and has not made the United States safer.

So it's perhaps no coincidence that Bush's patience with the press appeared to run out yesterday in the East Room.

Tradition necessitated a joint press availability with the visiting prime minister, but Bush nevertheless abruptly invoked the two-question-from-each-side rule that normally only applies to Oval Office photo ops.

And Bush was evidently in such a hurry to get out of there that he hastily called the conference to a close before Blair could respond to the final question.

The Downing Street Memo

Elisabeth Bumiller writes in the New York Times: "President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain presented a united front on Tuesday against a recently disclosed British government memorandum that said in July 2002 that American intelligence was being 'fixed' around the policy of removing Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

Dana Milbank brings everyone up to speed on the issue in The Washington Post.

"The issue caused quite a fuss in Britain when the Times of London published the memo last month on the eve of Blair's reelection. Here at home, the memo provoked outrage from liberals but did not become a major news event -- until yesterday. . . .

"Blair, as he has done on a full range of issues over the past four years, leaped to Bush's defense. Well, I can respond to that very easily,' he said, before Bush could open his mouth. 'No, the facts were not being fixed, in any shape or form at all.'

"Bush started out by suggesting that the memo wasn't credible because British media had 'dropped it out in the middle of his [Blair's] race.' Skipping any discussion of the intelligence, Bush said he had not settled on war from the start. 'There's nothing farther from the truth,' he asserted. 'My conversations with the prime minister was, how can we do this peacefully?' "

The question about the memo came from Reuters White House correspondent Steve Holland. As I noted yesterday , any reporter asking about the memo was eligible for a $1,000 reward being offered by a group of liberal Web activists .

But Milbank writes: "Holland, a consummate professional, wasn't trying to satisfy the wing nuts -- 'good grief,' he said when told later about the prize money -- and won't be collecting. But his query ended a slightly strange episode in the American media in which the potentially explosive report out of London had become a seldom acknowledged elephant in the room."

Mark Memmott , writing in USA Today, acknowledges the widespread reticence among the media -- including his own newspaper -- to cover the story until now.

"The memo is said by some of the president's sharpest critics, such as Democratic Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, to be strong evidence that Bush decided to go to war and then looked for evidence to support his decision. . . .

"USA TODAY chose not to publish anything about the memo before today for several reasons, says Jim Cox, the newspaper's senior assignment editor for foreign news. 'We could not obtain the memo or a copy of it from a reliable source,' Cox says. 'There was no explicit confirmation of its authenticity from (Blair's office). And it was disclosed four days before the British elections, raising concerns about the timing.' "

My washingtonpost.com colleague Jefferson Morley shared his thoughts about the lack of coverage in his Live Online yesterday.

Climate Changes I

Andrew C. Revkin writes in the New York Times: "A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents."

Reminds me quite a bit of this 2003 story by Revkin and Katharine Q. Seelye .

Climate Changes II

John Vidal writes in the Guardian: "President's George Bush's decision not to sign the United States up to the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world's most powerful oil company, and other industries, according to US State Department papers seen by the Guardian. . . .

"In briefing papers given before meetings to the US under-secretary of state, Paula Dobriansky, between 2001 and 2004, the administration is found thanking Exxon executives for the company's 'active involvement' in helping to determine climate change policy, and also seeking its advice on what climate change policies the company might find acceptable. . . .

"Until now Exxon has publicly maintained that it had no involvement in the US government's rejection of Kyoto. But the documents, obtained by Greenpeace under US freedom of information legislation, suggest this is not the case.

" 'Potus [president of the United States] rejected Kyoto in part based on input from you [the Global Climate Coalition],' says one briefing note before Ms Dobriansky's meeting with the GCC, the main anti-Kyoto US industry group, which was dominated by Exxon."

An Audience With the President

Lou Dubose writes in the Texas Observer: "Four months after he took the oath of office in 2001, President George W. Bush was the attraction, and the White House the venue, for a fundraiser organized by the alleged perpetrator of the largest billing fraud in the history of corporate lobbying."

Or, somewhat less breathlessly, as Suzanne Gamboa writes for the Associated Press: "At the behest of a lobbyist now under criminal investigation, two Indian tribes paid $25,000 each to a conservative tax-exempt group to underwrite an event that scored tribal leaders a private meeting with President Bush.

"The arrangement in 2001 between the tribes, lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the Americans for Tax Reform group, led by Bush supporter Grover Norquist, was confirmed by tribal lawyers and documents showing the solicitation of money and promise of a meeting. . . .

"Lovelin Poncho, who is stepping down after 20 years as Coushatta tribal chairman, recalled meeting with Bush for about 15 minutes, his attorney said. An itinerary said the meeting was in the Old Executive Office Building, next to the White House. Poncho recalls Abramoff also attended, said the lawyer, who spoke on condition he not be named."

Here are some of the related documents .

Elizabeth Drew writes in the New York Review of Books with an overview of the current state of lobbying: "Abramoff's behavior is symptomatic of the unprecedented corruption -- the intensified buying and selling of influence over legislation and federal policy -- that has become endemic in Washington under a Republican Congress and White House. Corruption has always been present in Washington, but in recent years it has become more sophisticated, pervasive, and blatant than ever."

Boeing and the 45 Deleted References

Mike Allen writes in The Washington Post: "Senators urged the Pentagon's inspector general yesterday to release more information about the involvement of White House officials and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in an aborted $30 billion air-tanker deal that exposed gaping holes in the government's controls on large purchases. . . .

"Former Air Force secretary James G. Roche said in a January letter to [Pentagon inspector general, Joseph E.] Schmitz, included in the report, that the tanker talks had included 'senior White House staff' and President Bush's budget office. . . .

"White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. has previously been identified as playing a role in the negotiations. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Card had served 'simply as an honest broker to make sure that all views were represented and to make sure that it was completed in a timely matter, because it was relating to a national security need that was pressing.'"

Here's the inspector general's report , complete with deletions.

At a particularly contentious press briefing yesterday, McClellan tried to brush off questions about whether the White House should be more transparent about its role.

One tiny excerpt from the long brawl:

"Q Is that to say that the White House will not allow those names to be made public?

"MR. McCLELLAN: It's a jurisdictional matter, and like I said, it was understood. I mean, I think it --

"Q Is that a 'yes' or a 'no,' Scott?

"MR. McCLELLAN: I think it was understood --

"Q How is it a jurisdictional matter, for god's sake?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- that that information would not be part of the report. But the Inspector General had access to the information he needed to complete his report."

Poll Watch

Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane write in The Washington Post: "For the first time since the war in Iraq began, more than half of the American public believes the fight there has not made the United States safer, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

"While the focus in Washington has shifted from the Iraq conflict to Social Security and other domestic matters, the survey found that Americans continue to rank Iraq second only to the economy in importance -- and that many are losing patience with the enterprise. . . .

"Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it has. It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home."

Here are the complete results .

For the first time, none of Bush's specific approval ratings were over 50 percent, not even for the war on terror, which has been Bush's ace in the hole -- as high as 92 percent in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and still at a very healthy 61 percent as recently as January of this year.

And asked if they thought Bush has done more to unite or divide the country, 43 percent said unite; 55 percent said divide.

Blair's Agenda I

Lest we forget, Blair was in town yesterday to get Bush to make some concessions on two issues dear to the British leader's heart: Africa and global warming. He largely struck out.

Jim VandeHei writes in The Washington Post that Bush and Blair "agreed yesterday to increase financial assistance to developing African nations suffering from famine, AIDS and war. But the two leaders parted ways over how much money rich nations should provide to Africa and how they should ease global warming."

Paul Koring writes in Toronto's Globe and Mail: "Seeking billions in debt relief for Africa, newly re-elected British Prime Minister Tony Blair had to settle yesterday for extravagantly wrapped morsels of food aid and vague promises of more to come from U.S. President George W. Bush. . . .

"Both men gushed about their close relationship, but a clear and yawning gap remained in their positions over both aid to Africa and global warming. Mr. Blair wants massive action on both now; Mr. Bush remains unconvinced."

There was what appeared to be one concession on Bush's part, but it's still unclear how significant that will be.

Caroline Daniel, Ben Hall and Chris Giles write in the Financial Times: "President George W. Bush yesterday paved the way for an agreement on multilateral debt relief for Africa when in a change of tack he promised 'additional resources' would be made available to the World Bank. . . .

"Mr Bush's comments about new resources mark a concession by the US which had previously wanted to cancel the debt without replenishing World Bank funds."

Sarah Left writes in the Guardian that aid agencies "said yesterday's announcement marked the first time that Mr Bush had conceded that debt cancellation must be financed through additional funds rather than existing aid budgets, which would cut payments to African countries."

But Steve Holland and Mike Peacock , writing for Reuters, note at least one possible loophole: "Both leaders said only those countries who stamped out corruption would benefit. Bush said 'highly indebted developing countries that are on the path to reform should not be burdened by mountains of debt.'

" 'I see we've got a fantastic opportunity, presuming that the countries in Africa make the right decisions. Nobody wants to give money to a country that's corrupt, where leaders take money and put it in their pocket,' Bush said."

Blair's Agenda II

On climate change, Blair got no concessions at all.

Fiona Harvey and Ben Hall writes in the Financial Times: "Mr Bush appeared to suggest he still had doubts about the scientific evidence behind global warning.

" 'We need to know more about it,' he said. 'It's a lot easier to solve when you know more about it.' "

Meanwhile, as Miguel Bustillo writes in the Los Angeles Times: "The National Academy of Sciences and 10 similar organizations from some of the world's most powerful nations released a statement Tuesday calling for a stronger international response to global warming, arguing there is now more than enough evidence of a changing climate to justify taking immediate action."

Here's that statement .

Today's Calendar

Bush met this morning with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Also today, he speaks about Social Security before a meeting of builders and contractors at the Capital Hilton, sits down for an interview with Neil Cavuto of Fox News to be shown this afternoon, and meets with Republican congressional leaders.

Tonight he is scheduled to watch "Cinderella Man" at the White House. That has a happy ending, right?

 2005 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive

Washington Post

Related reports:

The need to wrongfoot Saddam

'USA Today' Defends Lack of Coverage for Downing Street Memo

and on the Enviroment issue of this site:

What on Earth is going on? 

America can hide from reality about global warming no longer — and they're showing that they know it

Revealed: How Oil Giant Influenced Bush

White House sought advice from Exxon on Kyoto stance


For additional information see also

Links To Latest Headlines

and the article on the Media Coverage issue:

Papers Reach Iraq Boiling Point

The Downing Street Memo Story Won't Die

By Jefferson Morley
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 7, 2005; 9:18 AM

More than a month after its publication, the so-called Downing Street Memo remains among the top 10 most viewed articles on The Times of London site.

It's not hard to see why this remarkable document, published in The Times on May 1 (and reported in this column on May 3), continues to attract reader interest around the world, especially with British Prime Minister Tony Blair visiting Washington Tuesday.

The July 2002 memo, labeled "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY," reports the views of "C," code name for Richard Dearlove, the chief of British intelligence. Dearlove had just retuned from a visit with Bush administration officials eight months before the war in Iraq began.

"Military action was now seen as inevitable," Dearlove told Blair and his senior defense policy advisers. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

A separate secret briefing paper for the meeting said Britain and the United States had to "create" conditions to justify a war.

The story attracted some news coverage in the United States, but not much. Last month, the Chicago Tribune concluded that "the Downing Street memo story has proven to be something of a dud in the United States.

"The White House has denied the premise of the memo, the American media have reacted slowly to it and the public generally seems indifferent to the issue or unwilling to rehash the bitter prewar debate over the reasons for the war," wrote reporters Stephen J. Hedges and Mark Silva.

Still the story won't go away, thanks to the attention it gets on the Internet.

"I think it's a . . . profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home," Sen. John Kerry told a Massachusetts audience last week. "And it's amazing to me the way it escaped major media discussion. It's not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that."

Kerry promised to raise the issue when he returned to Washington this week.

On Sunday, "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert asked Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman about the memo. Mehlman said "that report has been discredited by everyone else who's looked at it since then."

When Russert noted that the authenticity of the report has not been discredited, Mehlman said "I believe that the findings of the report, the fact that the intelligence was somehow fixed have been totally discredited by everyone who's looked at it."

Mehlman referred specifically to the Senate Intelligence Committee's July 2004 report on pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction which concluded that the Bush administration's findings were "overstated" and "not supported by the underlying intelligence reporting." The report attributed the mistakes to "group think" in the intelligence community, not to pressure from the administration officials.

The Post's Walter Pincus reported on the memo in a May 13 story, noting that Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) had written a letter to President Bush, signed by 88 congressional Democrats, demanding an explanation.

A week later, The Times of London reported on the Conyers letter and quoted the Michigan congressman as saying, "I deplore the fact that our media have been so reticent on the question of whether there was a secret planning of a war for which neither the Congress nor the American people had given permission."

"We have The Sunday Times to thank for this very important activity. It reminds me of Watergate, which started off as a tiny little incident reported in The Washington Post. I think that the interest of many citizens is picking up," Conyers said.

So is journalistic interest. Over the weekend, Charles Hanley, a special correspondent for the Associated Press, linked The Times's Downing Street memo to U.N. Ambassador nominee John Bolton's effort to get a U.N. weapons inspector fired.

"Bolton flew to Europe in 2002 to confront the head of a global arms-control agency and demand he resign, then orchestrated the firing of the unwilling diplomat in a move a U.N. tribunal has since judged unlawful, according to officials involved, " Hanley said in a story published this weekend by The Guardian in London and carried by Canadian TV.

The dismissal, Hanley says, was part of the Bush administration effort to control intelligence findings on Iraq.

Jose Bustani, the head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), "had to go" according to one of Bolton's aides, because he was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. The course of action favored by Bustani might "have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war," Hanley wrote.

Bustani was relieved of his position in April 2002 at an OPCW meeting attended by only one third of the group's member nations, according to the AP report.

"The Iraq connection to the OPCW affair comes as fresh evidence surfaces that the Bush administration was intent from early on to pursue military and not diplomatic action against Saddam Hussein's regime," Hanley wrote. He cited the Times's original Downing Street memo story, which reported that Blair told Bush that Britain would support a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq at a meeting in Crawford, Tex., in mid-April 2002.

"Two weeks later, Bustani was ousted, with British help," Hanley wrote.

Far from being a dud, the Downing Street Memo may generate more stories to come.

Sehrish Shaban and Mary Specht provided research for this column.

 2005 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive

and here's the Downing Street Memo:
The Sunday Times - Britain
May 01, 2005

The secret Downing Street memo

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


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.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

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.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.


(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)


(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)



The Sunday Times - Britain

Check for latest Site-Updates

Index of Posted Articles

or copy and paste the URL into Google Translate

Important note:

We neither promote nor condone hate speech in any way, shape or form. We have created this website to search for truthful facts that can shape unconventional conclusions and restore historical integrity. The work is therefore protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution as well as by Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this website are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This website has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources.

Copyright John McCarthy 2005 if not indicated otherwise

Ages ago, I taught my children "never to point with a naked finger towards dressed people" and I usually keep that for myself as well but for this website I have to quote:
"The Emporer Has NO Clothes On!"

Want to get in touch? You can send email at:


Disclaimer And Fair Use