A question for the US Democrats who decided not to release the al-Jazeera Memo
For some strange reason, [I can't imagine why...!?] the deadwood press and TV/radio in the UK have pretty much ignored both the al-Jazeera Memo story this week. Both the committal hearing in the Keogh and O'Connor trial yesterday, and Peter Kilfoyle's disclosures in the Guardian on Monday.
But Kilfoyle has followed up today in the local press, reiterating his challenge to the government to prosecute him, and predicting that the trial of Keogh and O'Connor would eventually collapse.
And he confidently predicted the government would be forced to drop all the prosecutions rather than face the embarrassment of the document being discussed in open court.
Mr Kilfoyle said: "I believed the document should be made public because it is a matter of national interest. It does not imperil anybody and it reveals the kind of person we are dealing with.
"I don't think I will be prosecuted. The government will be very foolish if it proceeds with these charges - or brings new ones against me."
Asked if he believed he was guilty of breaching the Official Secrets Act, the MP replied: "I think the public will be the best judge of that.
Mr Kilfoyle added: "I said to Tony [Clarke] 'Give it to me and I will publish it to anyone I can', but he was more restrained and decided to give it back to Downing Street."
He also explains why the information wasn't used:
That they thought the plot to bomb al-Jazeera becoming public would help rather than hinder the Bush election campaign is either a savage indictment of the Democrats themselves and their judgement, or US voters...
But it suggests to us that at least some Democrats at a senior enough level in the party to take those kind of decisions took that decision. They knew of the plot to bomb al-Jazeera - and have never said a word.
They have remained silent both during and after the election, when the Mirror story came out and since then.
[although, we do wonder where this UPI story came from...?]
There is, of course, the chance that John Latham recieved the information from Peter Kilfoyle, and took the decision not to use it by himself, and never told anyone about it.
But given the explosive nature of that information, we find this almost impossible to believe.
So which Democrats knew?
Why are democrats covering for George Bush?
From my blog
From my blog
Brain dead Democratic leaders
Or maybe's it's that the Dem leadership, except for a few social issues, isn't much different from the Republicans. The disconnect is between the Dem leadership and the rank and file.
Why are democrats covering
Why are democrats covering for George Bush?
Because they're scared. The Bush attack dogs have been wounded, but not killed off. They're at their most dangerous.
If this is true, it is very
If this is true, it is very sad indeed. Have the democratic leadership run into an issue they weren't afraid of?!?
I want my party back!