Hypocrite Blair’s culture of leaks

So a civil servant and a parliamentary researcher have been found guilty of leaking a Top Secret Downing Street memo to an MP. It was in reference to conversations between Tony Blair and George W. Bush about the battle of Fallujah (Operation Phantom Fury, the bloody siege where US forces used chemical weapons – namely White Phosphorous, on suspected insurgents). The defendants released the memo in the hope that it would help MP’s question the PM, and possibly influence the ’04 US Presidential Elections.

The documents were “extremely sensitive” – so much so that much of the trial was conducted behind closed doors.

Right, now you’re up-to-speed, I’ll make a few comments…

This has been an administration that has been built on leakages. Name a significant policy that hasn’t been ‘leaked’ to the media prior to an announcement in Parliament? OK – Gordon Brown’s 2p budget surprise, but even that rare example of secrecy was entirely politically motivated.

Prior to the build up to the Iraq War, countless intelligence briefings were ‘leaked’ to compliant journalists on both sides of the pond, in a deliberate attempt to soften up the public for war. This entire case is a joke. How hypocritical can the government be to charge someone when it has such a dire track record itself? I suppose it’s an example of, do as I say, not as I do.

If the Blair Administration is happy to use leak after leak for political gain, then they play a dangerous game where evidence they don’t want in the public domain is fair game. Tough shit,as they say.

And what information does this “extremely sensitive” memo contain exactly? It’s three years since it was leaked. The Battle for Fallujah is old news and pretty much every juicy detail of the war has been digested (or so we assume) ad nauseam across the globe’s media.

Is the info so combustible that the case had to be conducted behind closed doors? If so, I’d like to know exactly what Blair and Bush were discussing? Such is the public concern over the legality of the war, not-to-mention anxiety over possible war crimes committed in their name, surely they have a right to know what happened?

The government has gone to great lengths to stifle this information. Why?