Yesterday, The Mirror broke the story that, according to a leaked government transcript, in April last year Tony Blair had to talk George Bush out of bombing the Al-Jazeera office in Qatar.

In the Mirror article, “[a] Government official suggested that the Bush threat had been “humorous, not serious”. According to the BBC, ‘[a] White House official said: “We are not going to dignify something so outlandish with a response.”‘ The official response from the UK government was the stock “We don’t comment on leaked documents”.

Jump to this morning, and we find the Government throwing its weight about and threatening newspapers who print any further details of from the transcript with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. Two men, a former Foreign Office official and an MP’s researcher, have already been charged in connection with the leak. Whether “humorous” and “outlandish” or not, somebody thought the document worth leaking and the Government doesn’t want the details published.

So how to process this information? White House communications director Nicolle Wallace apparently said, in connection with the leak: “[I]t is fanciful to think that the President of the United States of America, a champion really for free press all over the world, would ever have any serious notions to do anything of the sort.”

Resisting the temptation to cite precedent and make myriad cracks about Bush being “a champion really for free press”, his administration has previous when it comes to Al-Jazeera. The TV station’s offices in Kabul were destroyed by a US missile in November 2001. This was a month after Colin Powell had asked the Qatar government to “rein in” the Qatari-based station.

In April 2003, the Al-Jazeera office in Baghdad was hit by a US missile and a correspondent was killed. The office was close to the Iraqi Information Ministry so you’d be pushed to prove intent. It depends how generous you want to be with the burden of proof. “Reasonable suspicion” or “balance of probabilities”?

It occurs to me that this plays rather well for Blair. Even if the complete transcript doesn’t see the light of day, the story shows him in a good light coming so soon after Christopher Meyer’s assertion that Blair failed to exert any influence over Bush in the run up to the Iraq war. This leaked transcript (apparently) shows that Blair exert some influence, if only 12 months after the start of the war and on the issue of whether to bomb a TV station seen as hostile to the coalition’s aims based in a friendly nation. And as Tim Ireland says this morning, “I still can’t spot an outright denial from the White House or Downing St”.

Who knows what else might be in there - the transcript is supposed to be five pages long after all. Maybe Tony begged George to stop using torture as a weapon of war or warned against the use of thermobaric weapons in hearts and minds exercises but is too modest to have his heroism revealed in the press.

The conversation took place over 18 months ago. The war in Iraq has moved on and circumstances have changed. It’d be interesting to know what the vestigial national security implications are in supressing publication of the transcript beyond saving George and Tony’s blushes.

This story might fizzle out or it might drip, drip, drip until the transcript is published, much like the Attorney General’s advice on the legality of the Iraq war. The question is was the “threat” to Al-Jazeera the meat of the document or is their more?