From The San Francisco Gate, 6/14/05:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/06/14/worldv
iews.DTL

Edward M. Gomez, special to SF Gate

Is it a second Downing Street Memo -- or something even more damning
for both the Bush administration and the government of British Prime
Minister Tony Blair?

On May 1, Britain's Sunday Times broke the story of the now-infamous
Downing Street Memo; that document, the minutes of a meeting of
Blair's top advisers, showed that the prime minister had known, some
eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, that a war not
authorized by the United Nations would be illegal for British troops
to take part in.

Now The Times has scooped its rivals again with the news -- and the
text of -- a leaked, extremely secret British Cabinet Office briefing
paper dated July 23, 2002.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1650822_1,00.html

Prepared for Blair and his closest advisers, this newly discovered
document clearly states that "since regime change was illegal, it was
'necessary to create the conditions' which would make it legal."

The Times' news story, written by defense reporter Michael Smith,
about the newly discovered, secret briefing paper noted that it had
confirmed that Blair "had already agreed to back military action to
get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President
George W. Bush three months earlier."

In his news article, Smith explained that fabricating conditions for
going to war "was required because, even if ministers decided Britain
should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be
using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit
in any illegal U.S. action."

The British Cabinet Office briefing paper also stated that "U.S. views
of international law vary from that of the U.K. and the international
community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military
action under international law."

It further stated that the British government "would regard the use of
force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the
right of individual or collective self-defense, if carried out to
avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe or if authorized by the
U.N. Security Council." As it turned out, the U.S.-led attack on Iraq
met none of those criteria.

Although mainstream American news media were very slow or apparently
even reluctant to publish news of the Downing Street Memo until as
late as the middle of May, this time, in the United States, the Times'
revelation of the Cabinet Office briefing paper made the front page of
The Washington Post.

Smith noted that many U.S. citizens, as they have learned about the
Downing Street Memo and have become "angry at what they see as media
self-censorship in ignoring [it]," have been flooding Web sites that
have been set up to focus on the controversial British document.

Many Americans, Smith noted, have "demanded to know why [it] has been
largely ignored by the U.S. mainstream media" and have expressed their
support for a letter that U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-Ill.) and 88 other
Democratic members of Congress have sent to President Bush.

That missive asked Bush to confirm or deny that, as the Downing Street
Memo asserted, in the run-up to the war, "the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the policy" that led to the U.S.-led invasion.
(Times)

Smith also noted that, because Bush has so far refused to answer the
U.S. lawmakers, the members of Congress have set up a Web site named
Downingstreetmemo.com to collect signatures on a petition that urges
the president to respond to their question.

Another new site set up since the Downing Street Memo became known,
AfterDowningStreet.org, "is calling for a congressional committee to
consider whether Bush's actions as depicted in the memo constitute
grounds for impeachment."

In Sunday's Times, Smith predicted that Blair's just-uncovered, July
2002 Cabinet Office briefing paper "is certain to add to the pressure,
particularly on the American president, because of the damaging
revelation that Bush and Blair agreed on regime change in April 2002
and then looked for a way to justify it."

____________________________________________________________

Harry

From The San Francisco Gate, 6/14/05:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/06/14/worldv
iews.DTL

Edward M. Gomez, special to SF Gate

Is it a second Downing Street Memo -- or something even more damning
for both the Bush administration and the government of British Prime
Minister Tony Blair?

On May 1, Britain's Sunday Times broke the story of the now-infamous
Downing Street Memo; that document, the minutes of a meeting of
Blair's top advisers, showed that the prime minister had known, some
eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, that a war not
authorized by the United Nations would be illegal for British troops
to take part in.

Now The Times has scooped its rivals again with the news -- and the
text of -- a leaked, extremely secret British Cabinet Office briefing
paper dated July 23, 2002.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1650822_1,00.html

Prepared for Blair and his closest advisers, this newly discovered
document clearly states that "since regime change was illegal, it was
'necessary to create the conditions' which would make it legal."

The Times' news story, written by defense reporter Michael Smith,
about the newly discovered, secret briefing paper noted that it had
confirmed that Blair "had already agreed to back military action to
get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President
George W. Bush three months earlier."

In his news article, Smith explained that fabricating conditions for
going to war "was required because, even if ministers decided Britain
should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be
using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit
in any illegal U.S. action."

The British Cabinet Office briefing paper also stated that "U.S. views
of international law vary from that of the U.K. and the international
community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military
action under international law."

It further stated that the British government "would regard the use of
force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the
right of individual or collective self-defense, if carried out to
avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe or if authorized by the
U.N. Security Council." As it turned out, the U.S.-led attack on Iraq
met none of those criteria.

Although mainstream American news media were very slow or apparently
even reluctant to publish news of the Downing Street Memo until as
late as the middle of May, this time, in the United States, the Times'
revelation of the Cabinet Office briefing paper made the front page of
The Washington Post.

Smith noted that many U.S. citizens, as they have learned about the
Downing Street Memo and have become "angry at what they see as media
self-censorship in ignoring [it]," have been flooding Web sites that
have been set up to focus on the controversial British document.

Many Americans, Smith noted, have "demanded to know why [it] has been
largely ignored by the U.S. mainstream media" and have expressed their
support for a letter that U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D-Ill.) and 88 other
Democratic members of Congress have sent to President Bush.

That missive asked Bush to confirm or deny that, as the Downing Street
Memo asserted, in the run-up to the war, "the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the policy" that led to the U.S.-led invasion.
(Times)

Smith also noted that, because Bush has so far refused to answer the
U.S. lawmakers, the members of Congress have set up a Web site named
Downingstreetmemo.com to collect signatures on a petition that urges
the president to respond to their question.

Another new site set up since the Downing Street Memo became known,
AfterDowningStreet.org, "is calling for a congressional committee to
consider whether Bush's actions as depicted in the memo constitute
grounds for impeachment."

In Sunday's Times, Smith predicted that Blair's just-uncovered, July
2002 Cabinet Office briefing paper "is certain to add to the pressure,
particularly on the American president, because of the damaging
revelation that Bush and Blair agreed on regime change in April 2002
and then looked for a way to justify it."

____________________________________________________________

Harry