More on the memo

More on the Al-Jazeera bombing memo from the Independent on Sunday

"Some people will think this is heavy-handed," said a senior Whitehall source. "What people are bound to say is that we are being inconsistent in dealing with this case. They are bound to ask why we are pursuing this case, and not others."

The innocent (government) has nothing to fear…

Some have argued that if the text of the memo at the heart of the present row were published, it would show that Mr Blair, contrary to the claims of Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's former ambassador to Washington, had used his influence to restrain American behaviour in Iraq. But events in Fallujah and beyond do not give much sign that the US ever heeded any British expression of concern about its methods of dealing with the insurgency.

Not only is the Prime Minister's authority in Washington in question, but Iraq has also eroded his ability to push through his policies at home. It is in this context that the Government's crackdown on leaks is being viewed. With open disagreements growing inside the Government on a host of issues - just in the past week, these have included pensions, nuclear power, education policy and flu jabs - a firmer approach is needed to stop the flow of confidential documents, some believe.

The government needs to promote its heavy-handedness in order to pre-empt further leaks…

It remains to be seen whether the Government seeks to prevent the five-page document becoming public during the OSA trial, but it could not have focused more interest on the case unless it published the whole transcript, as Peter Kilfoyle, a former defence minister, and others are demanding in a parliamentary motion.

But they’ve ballsed-up: by threatening to jail anyone who publishes it, they’ve drawn more attention to it, than it (possibly/probably?) deserves.

The Sunday Times also has ideas about why the government has chosen to act how it has:

Bush had endorsed Ariel Sharon’s plan for the Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. But the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees to land seized by Israel since 1948 was blocked. The plan was met with fury in the Arab world. It also angered Blair as it ended two years of diplomatic efforts by the British on the “road map” to Middle East peace.

According to Anthony Seldon, Blair’s biographer, who has interviewed those briefed on the meeting, this marked a “significant” setback for Blair. The prime minister was also said to be angered by the US failure to consult him on their private negotiations with Sharon. However, in public Blair remained supportive of Bush.

There were disagreements, but not over bombing a TV station, but over how to resolve the Israel-Palestine problem. They also think it contains other juicy details:

The White House meeting is thought to have covered how the British were secretly liaising with Iranian “diplomats” in Baghdad in the hope that they would mediate with the Shi’ite leader Moqtada al-Sadr.

Iran is now suspected of funding and training insurgents in southern Iraq, so the disclosure of any evidence that Blair was prepared to negotiate with them in 2004 would be embarrassing.

This part of the discussion also revealed information about British and American intelligence sources in Iraq and military strategies. It is this material that the government is most concerned to prevent leaking into the public domain.