TOTAL INFORMATION ANALYSIS

Monday, June 20, 2005

This webmaster and other researchers have suspected that the so-called "Downing St memo" may grow into an impeachment sideshow that, while legitimate in and of itself, may ultimately distract from the Bush Administration's complicity in 9/11. (Just as the Lewinsky impeachment distracted from Clinton's arms-to-China, etc.)

Now a researcher on 911TruthAction suspects the memo itself may be a forged honeytrap. It could be that, like the forged Bush National Guard memo, the document expresses something true that is nevertheless being built up in order to be discredited.:

I put together this crude webpage showing Michael Smith, author of the Downing Street memo articles to be an MI6 insider. I claim no personal expertise in this area but find the memo itself unconvincing for the reasons below:

1) Sir David Manning is extremely unlikely to circulate ultra-sensitive memos like that to anyone including the prime minister. Was it filed in a drawer ? The language is not of the highest quality either.

2) The British government didn't deny it's contents No investigation has been launched into the leak.

3) The British government could have used a so called 'D notice' to prevent publication in ANY newspaper or magazine which they have numerous times in the past. [ "In the UK, a 'D notice" is a censorship notice issued by the Department of Defence to the media to prohibit the publication of information on matters alleged to be of national security. The system dates from 1922."]

4) It was published in a Blair supporting Murdoch newspaper. That's enough in itself. Would Americans find it credible if it had been leaked by Fox News ?

5) All the US authorities have to do is deny it. No individual or organisation is specified as the source of the American information.

6) Congress would find it easier to get Elvis as a witness than the head of MI6.

| Posted at 10:25 | PERMA-LINK |

Comments:
Interesting... The DSM situation does seem to be a strange one...
thx


#

posted by  Anonymous : 22/6/05 22:22

 

Post a Comment