+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 18

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    96

    Another Memo from Britain

    22 November 2005
    EXCLUSIVE: BUSH PLOT TO BOMB HIS ARAB ALLY
    Madness of war memo
    By Kevin Maguire And Andy Lines



    PRESIDENT Bush planned to bomb Arab TV station al-Jazeera in friendly Qatar, a "Top Secret" No 10 memo reveals.

    But he was talked out of it at a White House summit by Tony Blair, who said it would provoke a worldwide backlash.

    A source said: "There's no doubt what Bush wanted, and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it." Al-Jazeera is accused by the US of fuelling the Iraqi insurgency.

    The attack would have led to a massacre of innocents on the territory of a key ally, enraged the Middle East and almost certainly have sparked bloody retaliation.

    A source said last night: "The memo is explosive and hugely damaging to Bush.


    Advertisement


    "He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere. Blair replied that would cause a big problem.


    "There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do - and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it."


    A Government official suggested that the Bush threat had been "humorous, not serious".


    But another source declared: "Bush was deadly serious, as was Blair. That much is absolutely clear from the language used by both men."


    Yesterday former Labour Defence Minister Peter Kilfoyle challenged Downing Street to publish the five-page transcript of the two leaders' conversation. He said: "It's frightening to think that such a powerful man as Bush can propose such cavalier actions.


    "I hope the Prime Minister insists this memo be published. It gives an insight into the mindset of those who were the architects of war."


    Bush disclosed his plan to target al-Jazeera, a civilian station with a huge Mid-East following, at a White House face-to-face with Mr Blair on April 16 last year.


    At the time, the US was launching an all-out assault on insurgents in the Iraqi town of Fallujah.


    Al-Jazeera infuriated Washington and London by reporting from behind rebel lines and broadcasting pictures of dead soldiers, private contractors and Iraqi victims.


    The station, watched by millions, has also been used by bin Laden and al-Qaeda to broadcast atrocities and to threaten the West.


    Al-Jazeera's HQ is in the business district of Qatar's capital, Doha.


    Its single-storey buildings would have made an easy target for bombers. As it is sited away from residential areas, and more than 10 miles from the US's desert base in Qatar, there would have been no danger of "collateral damage".


    Dozens of al-Jazeera staff at the HQ are not, as many believe, Islamic fanatics. Instead, most are respected and highly trained technicians and journalists.


    To have wiped them out would have been equivalent to bombing the BBC in London and the most spectacular foreign policy disaster since the Iraq War itself.


    The No 10 memo now raises fresh doubts over US claims that previous attacks against al-Jazeera staff were military errors.


    In 2001 the station's Kabul office was knocked out by two "smart" bombs. In 2003, al-Jazeera reporter Tareq Ayyoub was killed in a US missile strike on the station's Baghdad centre.


    The memo, which also included details of troop deployments, turned up in May last year at the Northampton constituency office of then Labour MP Tony Clarke.


    Cabinet Office civil servant David Keogh, 49, is accused under the Official Secrets Act of passing it to Leo O'Connor, 42, who used to work for Mr Clarke. Both are bailed to appear at Bow Street court next week.


    Mr Clarke, who lost at the election, returned the memo to No 10.


    He said Mr O'Connor had behaved "perfectly correctly".


    Neither Mr O'Connor or Mr Keogh were available. No 10 did not comment.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: Another Memo from Britain

    LOLOLOL

    Don't miss the sequal... Bush Lied in Briton 2: Downing street revisited.

    Here we go again... Another memo stating what someone else's opinion was of what they overheard. Don't they usually only do sequels when the first was successful?

    .

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    96

    Re: Another Memo from Britain

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    LOLOLOL

    Don't miss the sequal... Bush Lied in Briton 2: Downing street revisited.

    Here we go again... Another memo stating what someone else's opinion was of what they overheard. Don't they usually only do sequels when the first was successful?

    .
    Im not saying it's true or not but the story was also on CNN this morning. At this point with so many indictments and intellegence fabrications within this administration, Who the hell knows what coming next. Maybe when Scanlon starts snitching we will have some more what ifs for you guys to do the "Repug Spin Dance" on.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: Another Memo from Britain

    You are right about all the allegations that have been coming down lately. I can't argue that, but what I can say is I feel sorry for the less informed people in America that rely on the news they receive from the main stream press.

    The MSM will jump on every single allegation against George Bush that comes down the pike, but when it is later learned that those allegations were unfounded and false, as the vast majority... I mean the OVERWHELMING majority of those allegations are, they don't hear much about it. So the public is left with what they heard last, which is usually that Bush did something wrong.

    Seriously, take an honest look at all the allegations that have been made against Bush and his administration over the last 3 years or so, and observe how many of them ended up no where. To make things easy, look at how many of them ended up being true. That will only take one hand to count, even if you lost some fingers in a hunting accident.

    .

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    51

    Re: Another Memo from Britain

    A five page transcript of the ..... conversation cannot best be described as someone else's opinion of an overheard conversation. The issue of the court case is not the contents of the memo, but rather concerns who leaked it, contrary to the official secrets act.
    We have an official secrets act, while you have a freedom of information act, the difference being that sometimes our Government tells the truth and sometimes they lie, whereas your Government sometimes tells the truth and sometimes they lie.
    I wouldn't give Blair too much credit either. Note that he argued against the idea, not because it was a murderous attack on innocent individuals some of whom worked for a news agency, but rathe that they might be found out and villified.
    Gordon.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: Another Memo from Britain

    I'll say the same thing now, I said when downing street first hit:

    Funny how all of this comes out now, years later... We shall see where this leads, but I suspect once again... Nowhere.

    .

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    96

    Re: Another Memo from Britain

    Hey Grim the only thing that disturbs me is how many times can people be wrong. These stories are coming out for a reason, not just some made up fantasy. There has to be some valdity to the accusations leveled at this administration, the thing is going to be is how good are they at fending them off valid or not. It also does not make them look good when Cheney is going to be fund raising at a luncheon on Dec 5 for an already indicted Tom Delay. It bothers me that he would have the arrogance to rub Delays troubles in our face like that. Even though innocent until proven guilty, the indictment was handed down and has a paper trail to support it, not to mention what Scanlon might add. It just makes them look more corrupt.

  8. #8
    umdkook Guest

    Re: Another Memo from Britain

    yea we also heard reports that Saddam had WMD's and was INTENT on using them against the US. o well

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: Another Memo from Britain

    Quote Originally Posted by tommy4887
    Hey Grim the only thing that disturbs me is how many times can people be wrong. These stories are coming out for a reason, not just some made up fantasy.
    Tommy, as tempting as it is to rip away and attack, I won't do it. I will attempt to explain my perspective without insulting. Well, let me clarify that... I can say that there will be no insults intended by me in this response.

    Tommy, there have been far, far, too many false allegations against the president and his administration over the last five years for me to take many seriously. I have never witnessed anything like this in American politics in my 40+ years on this planet.

    I quoted two statements/questions from you here I want to address. How many times can people be wrong, you asked. Well, being wrong is when you tell your friend you think the car is behind door number 2 on Lets Make A Deal and it ended up behind door number 1. That is completely different than the overwhelming majority of the allegations made against this administration. This leads me to your second statement.

    You are correct tommy, these allegations are coming out for a reason and that reason is clear... To destroy the president and his administration. So in reality, they are in fact, made up "fantasy". I will give you a few examples of what I'm talking about:

    The National Guard Story:

    This wasn't a mistake by CBS news. This was several lies tied together by a hand full of Bush hating democrats and CBS News was just the vehicle by which they spread this lie.

    Who were the liars? They were Mary Mapes, Dan Rather, Ben Barnes, Bill Burkett and Killians ex-secretary. Thats just the ones we know of.

    The ex-secretary said that the documents were fake, but said that the sentiments within them were a true reflection of how Killian felt. There have been dozens of people that worked with or knew Killian that have come forward and said that he did not feel that way about Bush, including Killians son and ex-wife.

    Ben Barnes lies are even more clear. The day following the 60 Minutes broadcast, Barnes's own daughter called in to a talk show in Dallas, WBAP and told the host on live radio that she knew her father lied because she asked him if he had helped Bush get into the guard back in 2000 when it was an issue. His answer then was "No". He said he barely knew him back then. In other interviews days after, she also explained why her father had lied (besides being a liberal democrat). He told her that the "Bush" story about helping him was in the first chapter of his upcoming book.

    Rather's lies are obvious. When he refused to admit, or even consider that the documents were fake for 11 days after they were discovered to be "less than genuine", his intentions were clear.

    Bill Burkett is the source of the fakes and his grudge with Bush is anything but a secret. Look it up on google if your interested.

    Mary Mapes is the the king of them all though. She manufactured, ignored and lied to the core on this story and paid the price for doing so.


    Next example is the "Bush will bring back the draft" lie.

    This was perpetrated by Charles Rangle, John Kerry and god only knows how many others. It involved an elaborate series of events taking place so the American public would falsely believe that if Bush were re-elected, he would bring back the draft.

    First, Rangle submits a bill in congress (H.R. 163) in January, 2003 to bring back the draft. The bill has 14 other democrats sponsoring it.

    Then person or persons from the democratic party wait until a month before the bill will come up for debate (September 2004) and send out a bulk of fake emails to college students and other target groups saying Bush is going to bring back the draft if elected, and use H.R. 163 as proof of this.

    The same day, John Kerry says Bush will try and bring back the draft in a campaign speech. Coincidence? Well, explain how come the bill was voted on the next month and was defeated 402-2, and Rangle himself was one of those that voted "No"? Thats right, he voted against the bill he himself wrote and sponsored.


    That is just 2 of the dozens of allegations that were nothing more than pre-meditated lies spread by members of the democratic party and their fanatical, Bush hating, card carrying members.

    So tommy when you say "the only thing that disturbs me is how many times can people be wrong", I say to you that most, if not all of those allegations were not the result of legitimate concerns based on circumstantial evidence that happened in the end not to be true, but the result of planned out and totally pre-meditated smear campaigns designed to discredit the president and his administration. I have gotten to the point where I can't believe anything the democrats say concerning the president anymore.

    How many of the countless accusations that the democrats have made against the president in the last 3-5 years, have actually proven to be true?

    .

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    51

    Re: Another Memo from Britain

    Guardian newspaper follow up on Mirror exclusive



    Bush claim revives al-Jazeera bombing fears

    John Plunkett
    Wednesday November 23, 2005


    Claims that George Bush planned to bomb the Arabic TV news station al-Jazeera have fuelled concerns that an attack on the broadcaster's Baghdad offices during the war on Iraq was deliberate.
    An international journalists group today demanded "complete disclosure" from the British and American governments over reports that the US considered attacking the al-Jazeera HQ in the Qatar capital, Doha.

    The International Federation of Journalists claimed that 16 journalists and other media staff have died at the hands of US forces in Iraq, adding that the deaths had not been properly investigated.

    Al-Jazeera cameraman Tarek Ayoub was killed when the station's Baghdad office was bombed during a US air raid on April 8 2003. On the same day a US tank shelled the Palestine hotel in the Iraqi capital, killing two other journalists.

    "Reports that George Bush and Tony Blair discussed a plan to bomb al-Jazeera reinforce concerns that the US attack in Baghdad on April 8 [2003] was deliberate targeting of the media," said Aidan White, the general secretary of the IFJ.

    "If that is the case then the US is guilty of a gross violation of international humanitarian law and on the face of it the murder of an innocent journalist.

    "The evidence is stacking up to suggest that the US decided to take out al-Jazeera in Baghdad, as a warning not only to them but to other media about their coverage. If true, it is an absolute scandal that the US administration can regard the staff of al-Jazeera as a bunch of terrorists and a legitimate target."

    Under the front page headline "Bush plots to bomb his ally", the Daily Mirror claimed yesterday a leaked memo revealed that the US president last year discussed plans to attack al-Jazeera's Qatar HQ with Mr Blair.

    The Baghdad bombing of 2003 was the second attack by American forces on the offices of al-Jazeera. In 2001 the station's Kabul office was hit by two "smart" bombs in an attack that almost wrecked the nearby BBC bureau.

    Al-Jazeera said it had given the location of its offices in both Kabul and Baghdad to the authorities in Washington, but it had still been attacked.

    "We have been campaigning vigorously for an independent inquiry into what happened in Baghdad on April 8 [2003]. Now is the time for the US to take responsibility and tell the world what actually happened," said Mr White.

    "The public has a right to know whether politicians would seriously consider killing journalists in order to stifle independent or critical voices. In this particular case the family, friends and colleagues of the victim also have a right to justice.

    "Incidents in which journalists are killed by combatants in conflict zones have to be properly and independently investigated. Investigations that are carried out by the military do not consider the full extent of the evidence and in almost every single case lead to the exoneration of the military involved. At best there is a shrug of regret about the consequences."

    Both the US and UK governments declined to comment on the Mirror's allegations.

    "We are not going to dignify something so outlandish with a response," a White House official said.

    A Downing Street spokesman added: "We have got nothing to say about this story. We don't comment on leaked documents."

    The attorney general last night threatened newspapers with the Official Secrets Act if they revealed the contents of a document allegedly relating to a dispute between Mr Blair and Mr Bush over the conduct of military operations in Iraq.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another article from same paper




    Al-Jazeera seeks answers over 'bombing' memo

    Dominic Timms
    Wednesday November 23, 2005


    Arabic TV news channel al-Jazeera has called on the US and UK governments to provide a "good explanation" for comments allegedly made by George Bush about a plan to bomb its Qatar headquarters.
    The comments, which surfaced in a leaked memo, alleged that the American president considered bombing al-Jazeera's offices in Doha, the capital of Qatar, at the height of last year's Iraqi insurgency in Falluja.

    Al-Jazeera said it was still investigating the validity of the memo and whether Mr Bush was serious about his alleged comments or not, but warned that if they were credible it was a "bad day" for news organisations worldwide.

    "We are still investigating the credibility and the contents of the document and in the absence of comment from Downing Street we are slightly cautious," said al-Jazeera's London bureau chief, Yofri Fouda.

    "We certainly hope it's not true, but if it turns out to be true it would be horrific and bad news not only for al-Jazeera but for every news organisation around the world.

    "We hope Downing Street or the White House comes up with a good explanation - either denying the memo exists or, if it is true, that the president was at least joking."

    Mr Fouda said if details about the alleged memo - covered in a story in yesterday's Daily Mirror - were correct, it would throw into question US explanations about attacks on al-Jazeera's offices in Kabul and Baghdad in 2001 and 2003.

    "It will cast even more doubt on the circumstances surrounding previous incidents," he said.

    The channel's London bureau chief said al-Jazeera wrote to the Pentagon at the start of the 2003 Iraq war detailing the locations of its offices in an official letter.

    "Our Doha office is a one-storey building located in the middle of nowhere. It would be incredibly easy to knock out," he added.

    Both the US and UK government's declined to comment on the allegations.

    "We are not going to dignify something so outlandish with a response," a White House official said.

    A Downing Street spokesman said: "We have got nothing to say about this story. We don't comment on leaked documents."

    The alleged threat by Mr Bush to take "military action" against the broadcaster's Qatar headquarters was contained in a leaked memo, which surfaced in the Daily Mirror yesterday.

    Quoting unnamed sources, the paper claimed the US president was "deadly serious" about the plan, which he allegedly talked about at a face-to-face meeting withTony Blair in April last year, but backed down after pressure from the UK prime minister.

    The US has long criticised al-Jazeera. During the Iraq war of 2003, the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, accused the broadcaster of "consistently lying" and "working in concert with terrorists".

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And finally another article from 29th June this year

    CIA blunder on al-Jazeera 'terror messages'

    Gary Younge in New York and Vikram Dodd
    Wednesday June 29, 2005
    The Guardian


    CIA analysts forced 30 flights to be cancelled and raised the US terror alert from yellow to orange because they thought that al-Qaida was sending hidden messages through the headlines of the Arabic television news channel al-Jazeera, it has been revealed
    According to a report by NBC, CIA experts thought they had decoded messages that they believed gave dates, flight numbers and geographic coordinates for targets that included the White House, Seattle's Space Needle and even the small town of Tappahannock, Virginia, which has a population of 2,000.

    "These credible sources suggest the possibility of attacks against the homeland around the holiday season and beyond," said the homeland security chief, Tom Ridge, at the time of the incident in December 2003.

    But in an interview with NBC 18 months later he conceded that the intelligence analysis was "bizarre, unique, unorthodox, unprecedented", and that "speaking for myself I've got to admit to wondering whether or not it was credible.

    "Maybe that's very much the reason that you'd be worried about it, because you hadn't seen it before."

    Code yellow denotes a significant risk of terror attacks. Code orange denotes a high risk, and additional precautions are taken at public events.

    The analysis led to several international flights, operated by Air France, British Airways, Continental Airlines and AeroMexico, being cancelled.

    Seven men - one French, one American and five Algerians - were questioned in Paris and released.

    "The people with Arab-sounding names turned out to be, for example, a diplomat and a sports player. There were no terrorists," a police source told the newspaper Le Parisien at the time.

    Al-Jazeera said the NBC report "vindicated" the network after repeated claims from the Bush administration and its allies that the broadcaster was linked to or sympathetic to terrorists. "We've always said these are politically motivated allegations."

    The analysts were using a system called steganography, which examines hidden messages, in this case in video images.

    Professor Nasir Memon of the Polytechnic University in Brooklyn, said that such an analysis is not always reliable. "It's not something I would bet the farm on because there is a significant chance that it could be wrong."

    More than 20 al-Jazeera journalists have been arrested and jailed by US forces in Iraq and one was killed in April 2003 after a US tank fired a shell at the channel's Baghdad offices.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    432

    Re: Another Memo from Britain

    The President's PDB's, when obtained by order, should offer much insight into what information he was given and what information he presented to the Congress and the American people. Judging from the fact that the Administration does not want to give these up, one could postulate that the information would not favor the Administration. Stay tuned.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    96

    Re: Another Memo from Britain

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    Tommy, as tempting as it is to rip away and attack, I won't do it. I will attempt to explain my perspective without insulting. Well, let me clarify that... I can say that there will be no insults intended by me in this response.

    Tommy, there have been far, far, too many false allegations against the president and his administration over the last five years for me to take many seriously. I have never witnessed anything like this in American politics in my 40+ years on this planet.

    I quoted two statements/questions from you here I want to address. How many times can people be wrong, you asked. Well, being wrong is when you tell your friend you think the car is behind door number 2 on Lets Make A Deal and it ended up behind door number 1. That is completely different than the overwhelming majority of the allegations made against this administration. This leads me to your second statement.

    You are correct tommy, these allegations are coming out for a reason and that reason is clear... To destroy the president and his administration. So in reality, they are in fact, made up "fantasy". I will give you a few examples of what I'm talking about:

    The National Guard Story:

    This wasn't a mistake by CBS news. This was several lies tied together by a hand full of Bush hating democrats and CBS News was just the vehicle by which they spread this lie.

    Who were the liars? They were Mary Mapes, Dan Rather, Ben Barnes, Bill Burkett and Killians ex-secretary. Thats just the ones we know of.

    The ex-secretary said that the documents were fake, but said that the sentiments within them were a true reflection of how Killian felt. There have been dozens of people that worked with or knew Killian that have come forward and said that he did not feel that way about Bush, including Killians son and ex-wife.

    Ben Barnes lies are even more clear. The day following the 60 Minutes broadcast, Barnes's own daughter called in to a talk show in Dallas, WBAP and told the host on live radio that she knew her father lied because she asked him if he had helped Bush get into the guard back in 2000 when it was an issue. His answer then was "No". He said he barely knew him back then. In other interviews days after, she also explained why her father had lied (besides being a liberal democrat). He told her that the "Bush" story about helping him was in the first chapter of his upcoming book.

    Rather's lies are obvious. When he refused to admit, or even consider that the documents were fake for 11 days after they were discovered to be "less than genuine", his intentions were clear.

    Bill Burkett is the source of the fakes and his grudge with Bush is anything but a secret. Look it up on google if your interested.

    Mary Mapes is the the king of them all though. She manufactured, ignored and lied to the core on this story and paid the price for doing so.


    Next example is the "Bush will bring back the draft" lie.

    This was perpetrated by Charles Rangle, John Kerry and god only knows how many others. It involved an elaborate series of events taking place so the American public would falsely believe that if Bush were re-elected, he would bring back the draft.

    First, Rangle submits a bill in congress (H.R. 163) in January, 2003 to bring back the draft. The bill has 14 other democrats sponsoring it.

    Then person or persons from the democratic party wait until a month before the bill will come up for debate (September 2004) and send out a bulk of fake emails to college students and other target groups saying Bush is going to bring back the draft if elected, and use H.R. 163 as proof of this.

    The same day, John Kerry says Bush will try and bring back the draft in a campaign speech. Coincidence? Well, explain how come the bill was voted on the next month and was defeated 402-2, and Rangle himself was one of those that voted "No"? Thats right, he voted against the bill he himself wrote and sponsored.


    That is just 2 of the dozens of allegations that were nothing more than pre-meditated lies spread by members of the democratic party and their fanatical, Bush hating, card carrying members.

    So tommy when you say "the only thing that disturbs me is how many times can people be wrong", I say to you that most, if not all of those allegations were not the result of legitimate concerns based on circumstantial evidence that happened in the end not to be true, but the result of planned out and totally pre-meditated smear campaigns designed to discredit the president and his administration. I have gotten to the point where I can't believe anything the democrats say concerning the president anymore.

    How many of the countless accusations that the democrats have made against the president in the last 3-5 years, have actually proven to be true?

    .
    Hey Grim if I supported Bush I would be upset also. However while some of these accusations are thrown around without a paper trail to support them, there are alot that will be proven to be factual. There is a reason why the administration is doing its best to keep the presidents PDBS out of the hands of the intelligence committee. With all the indictments surronding this administration and this other new memo coming out of England, these are actual transcripts of the presidents conversation. While I understand how you feel about this president, because I felt the same way about Clinton. I mean the repugs made a big deal about the prez with another woman, there is a big difference between that and taking us to war with exagerated intelligence. But Grim you cannot be honestly satisfied with the way Bush has handaled the white house. You can,t make this shi! up Grim. This commander in chief has guys doing 3 tours in Iraq Grim that are in the reserve, that,s just outrageous and shows that he had no plan to enter or exit this war. In my opinion Grim we could have used a bombing campaign to support 90% of fighting this war and 10% could have been supported by a ground strike force deployed only in certain situations from the perimeter. This war did not need 100% on the ground troops, it is adding to the recruitment of younger more embolden terrorists acts. Fact, before we landed on the ground, Zarqawi was not as known as he is now. Bush has smacked foreign policy in the face by not garnering true allied support in this war or in the reconstruction in Iraq. Our country is in more foreign debt then ever before, so he is ruining our country financially by not adhering to the paygo policy that has worked in the past. At this point I do not see how anyone can honestly see this man as doing the right things for our country. Our respect around the world has declined more than I have ever seen in any other presidency. Why is that? Bush must lose that my way or the highway attitude that is no good for this country. What happened to I will be a uniter and not a divider?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    51

    Re: Another Memo from Britain

    This puts the meeting at which the memo was produced into its historical context. Also links to other threads concerning the use of White Phosphorous.



    Beyond That Memo: Bush Wanted Al Jazeera Gone
    Did Bush Really Want to Bomb Al Jazeera?
    by JEREMY SCAHILL
    [posted online on November 23, 2005]

    On November 22, Britain's Daily Mirror published a startling allegation: In an April 2004 White House meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush proposed bombing the Arab TV network Al Jazeera's international headquarters in Qatar. The report was based on a memo stamped "Top Secret" that had been leaked by a Cabinet official in Blair's government.

    Is the allegation "outlandish," as the White House claims? Or was it a deadly serious option? Until a news organization or British official defies the Official Secrets Act and publishes the five-page memo, we have no way of knowing. But what we do know is that at the time of Bush's White House meeting with Blair, the Bush Administration was in the throes of a very public, high-level temper tantrum directed against Al Jazeera. The Bush-Blair summit took place on April 16, at the peak of the first US siege of Falluja, and Al Jazeera was there to witness the assault and the fierce resistance.

    A day before Bush's meeting with Blair, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld slammed Al Jazeera in distinctly undiplomatic terms:


    REPORTER: Can you definitively say that hundreds of women and children and innocent civilians have not been killed?
    RUMSFELD: I can definitively say that what Al Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.
    REPORTER: Do you have a civilian casualty count?
    RUMSFELD: Of course not, we're not in the city. But you know what our forces do; they don't go around killing hundreds of civilians. That's just outrageous nonsense. It's disgraceful what that station is doing.

    What Al Jazeera was doing in Falluja is exactly what it was doing when the United States bombed its offices in Afghanistan in 2001 and when US forces killed Al Jazeera's Baghdad correspondent, Tareq Ayoub, during the April 2003 occupation of Baghdad. Al Jazeera was witnessing and reporting on events Washington did not want the world to see.

    The Falluja offensive was one of the bloodiest assaults of the US occupation of Iraq. On April 5, 2004, US forces laid siege to the city after the killing of four Blackwater mercenaries days earlier. When the US forces, led by the First Marine Expeditionary Force, attempted to take Falluja on April 7, they faced fierce guerrilla resistance. A US helicopter attacked a mosque, hitting the minaret and killing at least a dozen people. Within a week, some 600 Iraqis were dead, many of them women and children. By April 9, some thirty Marines had been killed and Falluja had become a symbol of resistance against the occupation.

    What was more devastating than the direct resistance US forces encountered in Falluja was the effect the story of the local defense of the city and the US killing of civilians was having on the broader Iraqi population. A handful of unembedded journalists, most prominently from Al Jazeera, were providing the world with independent, eyewitness accounts. Al Jazeera's camera crew was also uploading video of the devastation for all the world, including Iraqis, to see. Inspired by the defense of Falluja and outraged by the US onslaught, smaller uprisings broke out across Iraq, as members of the Iraqi police and army abandoned their posts, some joining the resistance.

    Faced with a public relations disaster, US officials did what they do best--they attacked the messenger. On April 11, with the unembedded reporters exposing the reality of the siege of Falluja, senior military spokesperson Mark Kimmitt declared, "The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda, and that is lies." A few days later, on April 15, Rumsfeld echoed those remarks calling Al Jazeera "vicious."

    It was the very next day, according to the Daily Mirror, that Bush told Blair of his plan. "He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere," a source told the Mirror. "Blair replied that would cause a big problem. There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do--and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it."

    To date, there has been no credible rejection of the Mirror's report from the White House or 10 Downing Street. Instead, the British government has activated its Official Secrets Act, threatening news organizations that publish any portion of the five-page memo. Already, one British official has been accused of violating the act for allegedly passing it on to a member of Parliament. Former British Defense Minister Peter Kilfoyle has called on Blair's government to release the memo. "It's frightening to think that such a powerful man as Bush can propose such cavalier actions," he said. "I hope the Prime Minister insists this memo be published. It gives an insight into the mindset of those who were the architects of war."

    The Bush Administration clearly blamed Al Jazeera for undermining the first siege on Falluja and fueling Iraqi public opinion and resistance against the US occupation. Given Washington's record of attacking Al Jazeera both militarily and verbally, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the Bush Administration could have simply decided that it was time to take the network out. What is needed now is for a British newspaper or magazine to publish the memo for all the world to see--and if they face legal action, they should be backed up by every major media organization in the world. If true, Bush's threat is a bold confirmation of what many journalists already believe: that the Bush Administration views us all as enemy combatants.

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051212/scahill

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    51

    Re: Another Memo from Britain

    http://www.afgha.com/?af=article&sid=13693

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: Another Memo from Britain

    Quote Originally Posted by Synik
    The President's PDB's, when obtained by order, should offer much insight into what information he was given and what information he presented to the Congress and the American people. Judging from the fact that the Administration does not want to give these up, one could postulate that the information would not favor the Administration. Stay tuned.
    Where have you boys been?

    Earlier this year, the Silverman commission, which was created to investigate the content of the PDB's and the intelligence that is marked "White house only", published their findings and determined that the few things that the senate wasn't privileged to read, were even more critical of Saddam than the national intelligence reports that everyone in the senate (and now the world) did see.

    So I'm not sure why you all are barking up this tree. Those PDB's have already been looked at.

    .

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: Another Memo from Britain

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    You are right about all the allegations that have been coming down lately. I can't argue that, but what I can say is I feel sorry for the less informed people in America that rely on the news they receive from the main stream press.

    The MSM will jump on every single allegation against George Bush that comes down the pike, but when it is later learned that those allegations were unfounded and false, as the vast majority... I mean the OVERWHELMING majority of those allegations are, they don't hear much about it. So the public is left with what they heard last, which is usually that Bush did something wrong.

    Seriously, take an honest look at all the allegations that have been made against Bush and his administration over the last 3 years or so, and observe how many of them ended up no where. To make things easy, look at how many of them ended up being true. That will only take one hand to count, even if you lost some fingers in a hunting accident.

    .
    some people lose fingers,some people lose brain cells!!you are the latter in my opinion!!not that i hold it agin ya!!been ther done that thing!! :eek: :p :D

Similar Threads

  1. Internal Romney Memo Exposed
    By Administrator in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-03-2012, 06:06 PM
  2. Bush Senior, the Hoover Memo and JFK
    By Ayarian in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-28-2009, 03:17 AM
  3. All Company Memo
    By sparky777 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-04-2008, 02:00 PM
  4. Friday Memo
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-24-2008, 08:11 PM
  5. Memo To Hillary
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-08-2006, 10:47 PM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
000, 2001, abandoned, accident, accounts, accurate, accused, act, action, actions, acts, add, added, address, administration, admit, aff, against, agency, ain, airlines, alert, algeria, allegations, alot, also, aluminium, america, american, and, another, answer, answers, april, arab, are, aries, army, article, assault, asy, ation, attacked, attacking, attacks, attempt, attitude, attorney general, audience, away, back, bad, baghdad, base, based, ben, best, bin, blu, bomb, bombed, bombing, bombs, book, bow, brain, bri, bring, british, broadcast, broke, brooklyn, building, bunch, bureau, bush, cabinet, called, calling, camera, campaign, cannot, capital, card, case, centre, cer, chan, chance, channel, charles, che, cheney, cher, chief, civil, claim, claims, clarke, cli, clinto, coincidence, colla, college, college students, com, coming, comments, commit, complete, completely, con, concerns, consequences, context, continental, conversation, core, corp, correct, couldn, count, country, credibility, credible, credit, crew, critical, dallas, damage, dan, dance, date, daughter, david, day, days, dea, december, decided, declared, defeated, democratic, democrats, des, described, desert, designed, devastating, did, didn, difference, different, dig, ding, diploma, diplomat, diplomatic, disaster, disclosing, disgraceful, dish, district, divider, doc, documents, don, donald, door, dow, dozen, duc, earlier, east, easy, eed, effect, elaborate, elected, electio, ells, embedded, eme, ended, enemy, england, enter, entire, events, examples, exists, exit, exo, experts, explained, exposing, eyewitness, face, faced, factual, fair, fake, false, father, favor, fears, feel, felt, financially, fired, five, forces, forward, fra, france, french, fresh, friday, from, front, fund, gave, general, genuine, george, george bush, give, good, google, grim, ground, group, groups, grudge, guys, had, hand, handed, hands, happened, hat, hats, headquarters, hear, heard, hell, helped, helping, hem, her, hey, hidden, high, highly, him, his, hit, hold, holiday, homeland, honest, horrific, hose, hotel, house, huma, humanitarian, ial, ignored, images, important, inc, indicted, individuals, insulting, insults, intelligence, inter, interested, interview, investigated, investigations, involved, ion, islamic, issue, issues, its, jailed, jeremy, john, john kerry, joke, jour, jump, just, kerry, kevin, kha, killed, knew, knock, laden, last, lead, leaders, leads, leaked, led, legitimate, leo, less, lets, letter, liars, liberal, lied, line, local, lon, london, long, lord, los, lose, lost, lot, lying, main, make, makes, many, marine, mark, mea, meeting, members, memo, mention, messages, messenger, millions, minister, minutes, month, mor, more, morning, msm, named, national, nbc, need, needed, network, never, news, newspaper, niger, nigh, night, note, nov, november, now, number, numbers, office, official, officials, ones, onli, only, operations, opinion, orange, order, organization, organizations, other, outrageous, overwhelming, page, paper, paper trail, par, party, pas, pentagon, people, perfectly, person, persons, peter, pictures, place, plane, planned, plans, player, point, policy, politically, pos, posted, posts, powerful, presiden, presidency, press, prez, price, prime, prior, private, promised, prove, proven, provoke, public, public opinion, published, pull, qatar, question, questions, quote, raised, raising, rated, raw, read, reality, reason, reasons, rebel, receive, refused, regarding, regime, release, released, reliable, remarks, reporter, reporters, reporting, reports, reserve, residential, respect, response, returned, revealed, reveals, ric, rip, risk, roy, saddam, satisfied, sca, scott, script, scripts, season, seattle, secretary, secrets, sen, senate, sending, sense, september, shows, simply, small, smart, smear, smoking gun, snitching, soldiers, sometimes, sorry, source, sources, speaking, spokesman, staff, star, start, started, starts, states, station, stay, stories, story, stream, street, strike, students, successful, such, sul, supported, surfaced, surge, system, take, taken, taking, talk, talking, tan, tank, targeting, targets, ted, tells, ten, tent, terms, tex, text, that, they, thing, thought, threads, threaten, threatened, threatening, throw, tied, time, times, today, told, tom, ton, tony, top, tor, totally, town, trac, trail, transcripts, tree, troops, troubles, trum, trusted, turned, ubes, uni, unique, united, united states, unprecedented, upcoming, upset, url, using, vehicle, vicious, victim, viola, virginia, voted, wait, wanted, warned, was, watched, week, west, when, will, woma, wome, won, worked, working, worldwide, wrong, year, years, yesterday, york, you, your

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •