contains the impressions of an aide of the impressions of British-cabinet officials of the impressions of unnamed people they spoke to in the United States about what they thought the president was thinking.
Firstly, he is sadly misinformed about British parliamentary procedure, and especially the procedures of a Labour cabinet brought up on British Trade Union committee procedure. It is standard for a "minute" - and that's what this is, even Robbins doesn't dispute the description - to be checked for accuracy and signed off by every person present before it can be adopted, which this minute was. Let's have a look at who was there and would have to OK this minute:
intelligence establishment", an intelligence agency, which reports
to the Foreign Secretary
meeting minutes, heads the UK's foreign intelligence service
Secondly, this isn't the impressions of some second rate civil servant. It's an accurate record of the professional opinion of the head of what is arguably the best intelligence service on this planet after talking to his sources in the US government and to officials at a high level. The head of MI6 doesn't go to the US to have talks with junior lawyers from State. Of course it doesn't mention those sources names - it would be an infringement of UK national security to do so in a cabinet minute and everyone present would have realised that while understanding that if C said it, especially in such a company, he had made sure the information was checked at a high level.
His other main spin is that C's opinion:
can be weighed against the exhaustive investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on prewar intelligence assessments in Iraq. The committee examined this very question, whether the White House had pressured the intelligence community to reach predetermined conclusions supporting the case for war. The investigation found no evidence that "administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities"...One would think that the Senate investigation would have somewhat more weight than the secondhand impressions of a foreign intelligence officer.
Now there's an appeal to parochialist egos if ever there was one. I repeat, C is not a no-nothing civil servant from some tinpot little nation. He is the head of intelligence of America's major ally in the war on terror. There is absolutely no reason to take the Senates opinion over that of such a person. While that sinks in, consider that the Downing Street Memo wasn't available as evidence to the Senate at the time and would surely have heavily influenced their digging into the issue if it had been because of the source.
The fact remains that what is new about the Downing Street Memo is that it is evidence, and expert testimony. Moreover, evidence and testimony that wasn't available to either the Senate or the 9/11 Commission. That makes it new and relevant. It's a smoking gun and the administration has no defense against it except spin. You may well decide after the fact that you don't care, but you can't dismiss it before the fact. Others will decide that they do care, because it is prima facie evidence of perjury and war crimes.
Over 100,000 people have already signed Senator Conyers letter asking for an open enquiry. They care. The Senator has now extended the target to 250,000 signatures and doubtless will make it.
As a British citizen, I would like Tony Blair to call the head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, forward and give him permission to make a statement under oath for the Senate and House. The Brits who are also upset at their own government's complicity and aquiessence have a right to that statement too.
No comments:
Post a Comment