The Original FOIA Request for the al-Jazeera Memo: The Cabinet Office gives a straight answer to a straight question..!

There has been some discussion about the true meaning of the Cabinet Office's response to the original FOIA request for disclosure of the al-Jazeera memo.

In refusing the request, the Cabinet Office said:

It seemed clear to me that they were confirming the existence and subject matter of the al-Jazeera memo; that there is indeed a document which contains reference to a discussion between Messrs Bliar and Bush about bombing the al-Jazeera Television station in Qatar.
[Remember, it has been described as outlandish by the Whitehouse, and a Conspiracy Theory by the Bliar]

It has been suggested however, that this is reading too much into the Cabinet Office answer: to know for sure we needed to know how the question was phrased.
Was the Cabinet Office simply confirming there was a meeting between Bush and Bliar on the given date of 16th April, 2004 (the date of the alleged discussion to bomb al-Jazeera), and that minutes were taken, when they said they held "relevant information"?

As we didn't have the text of the original request, this might have been the case. We, and Newsnight could have got it wrong.

Well, we can now clear up any confusion about what the Cabinet office said, because Steve, from the FOIA blog has sent us the text of his original request.

He wrote:

And he got in response:

So, I stand by what I said in December, that 'The Cabinet Office Confirms the Story about the al-Jazeera Memo'.

This begs the question, why?
The argument that it was simply a badly drafted reply, and the Cabinet Office was only confirming that they held documents related to the meeting when the plan was allegedly [sic] discussed now looks redundant.

From the text of Steve's original request, he never mentioned any specific meeting or date. He simply asked for any memos or notes that record Bush and Blair's discussions about bombing al-Jazeera. There cannot be any documents relevant to that request, if the discussion never happened.

It could, of course, be a mistake, and nothing more than that, but given the furore surrounding this allegation, I find it hard to believe Cabinet Office could confirm the substance of the Mirror story inadvertently.

So why go further than they needed too? Why does their reply contradict what both Downing St and the Whitehouse have been saying?
Without that sentence,
"I can confirm that the Cabinet Office holds information which is relevant to your request."
the reply would have been unremarkable.

There is an argument that HMG do intend, ultimately to release the memo on the grounds that it portrays the Bliar in rather a good light having talked Bush out of this outrageous scheme. I see the logic in this; they will release it at a time of their own choosing, able to spin like mad about what a good and benign influence Tony is on Dubya.

I find this quite difficult to accept though, as anything less than damage limitation.

There was the initial effort to distract attention from the trial of Keogh and O'Connor by briefing that they were being tried for the leak of the document "Iraq: The Medium Term".

There was a palpable sense of panic from Government when Lord Goldsmith threatened the unprecedented use of the OSA to prosecute anyone who ran any further details of the memo.

The prosecution of David Keogh, and especially Leo O'Connor appears both vindictive and counter productive, especially when Peter Kilfoyle is shouting in the press that he both received and distributed the contents of the Memo to a 3rd party.
As far as I am aware, he is still waiting for a knock on his door...

Finally, any positive press that the Bliar might get out of being a restraining influence, will surely be outweighed by the bad press about his close association with the excesses of this Whitehouse, and their history of attacking al-Jazeera journalists.

As I understand it, if I was talking with someone who was planning to assassinate Blair, even if I disagreed, I would be part of the conspiracy if I didn't report it... Especially if that person had form for previously attacking his intended victim.

I've spoken with quite a few people far more knowledgeable about politics in general, and this subject in particular than me; and they subscribe to the view it can play well for Bliar and, that is the plan.
I have a hat within easy reach, ready to be eaten if they are indeed right and I am wrong...

But I am wondering if this from UPI might be a clue to the thinking behind the Cabinet Office's forthright response:

This story appeared from nowhere on Dec 19th 2005, and then disappeared again as fast. Now I am only speculating here, but could it be that this article is correct; that the plan to bomb al-Jazeera caused as much outrage within the government officials as it did in the public when the Mirror Story broke?
If we are going down this route, then it might worh remembering that David Keogh, one of the two charged over the original leak of the Memo is [or was] a Cabinet Office employee.

Could it be that the Cabinet Office confirmed the story deliberately, because of outrage at the plan, or from a sense of solidarity with their colleague David Keogh?

This idea might be out on a limb, and would mean that officials are responding to FOIA requests in the spirit in which they are made. Which would be a first.

Either way, there is a clear and distinct difference between what the Cabinet Office said when confirming the story that Bush and Blair discussed bombing al-Jazeera, and what the PMOS said on behalf of the Bliar the other day, denying that there was ever any discussion between Bush and Blair about bombing al-Jazeera.

There doesn't appear to be any ambiguity in the Cabinet Office's reply, it is a straight answer to a straight question. The Cabinet office say yes, the Prime Minister's Official Spokesman says no.

Who do you believe?