WASHINGTON (CNN) -- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, was indicted Friday by a federal grand jury investigating the public unmasking of an undercover CIA operative.
Charges included making false statements, obstruction of justice, and perjury, court documents show.
Indictments in the case were the first in a nearly two-year investigation into the public unmasking of an undercover CIA operative. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has scheduled a 2 p.m. ET news conference.
Quote of the Day:
David Gergen, a former adviser to presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, told CNN's "Larry King Live" that indictments in the case could have an enormous impact on the Iraq war.
"Because if there are indictments, it will not only be people close to the president, the vice president of the United States, but they will raise questions about whether criminal acts were perpetrated to help get the country into war."
Some people have been raising those same questions for a VERY long time. We are either on a course to see some indictments for lying on the part of some major players in this administration, or the beginnings of a conspiracy that could rival Watergate in it's implications. Whatever happens, even the most hardcore Bush supporters are going to find this one difficult to successfully spin.
Rove is not out of the water yet.
Rove's attorney Robert Luskin issued a statement Friday that Fitzgerald "has advised Mr. Rove that he has made no decision about whether or not to bring charges."
And this case along with the DeLay Case and other investigations into prominent Republicans, does not bode well for the Republican Party at this point. At a moment when the Republican Party needs him the most, Spinmiester Karl Rove may be too busy trying to save his own hide, to spin his party out of trouble...
There will likely be a lot of commentary on the issue from both sides. I found this interesting:
Perjury by the President of the United States: No big deal. Everyone lies. Perjury by an assistant to the Vice-President who until last month almost no one had ever heard of: A serious challenge to our democracy and he should be executed.
Special Prosecutor expanding an original investigation to cover perjury by the President of the United States: A partisan tool, out of control prosecutor , hell-bent on destroying our country.
Special Prosecutor expanding an original investigation to cover perjury by an assistant to the Vice-President who until last month almost no one had ever heard of: An absolute requirement for the sake of our country. Democracy would crumble without it.
So let me see... Perjury to cover up personal misconduct vs. Perjury to cover up the outting of a CIA agent...
The Truth is out there... And its coming to bite someone on the A$$!
Read the Latest Raw Story Report on The Downing Street Evidence. Some really compelling stuff.
The most vociferous advocates of an attack on Iraq were Dick Cheney, the vice-president, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld deputy Paul Wolfowitz. They needed Congressional support and set about obtaining it in an aggressive fashion, insisting that not only did Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction threaten America and its allies but that the dictator was closely linked to al-Qa'eda.
This was a bit of a problem for the CIA, and in particular CIA director George Tenet. The CIA's 2001 annual assessment of 'worldwide threats' had played down any immediate threat from Iraq while the Agency had repeatedly dismissed the ludicrous idea that Saddam was in league with Osama bin Laden, a claim that was also strenuously denied in private by British intelligence officials.
By early 2002, US media reported the CIA had come under intense political pressure to back up the neo-cons' claims on Iraq with Rumsfeld's Pentagon even setting up an office of special plans which looked back through all the previous intelligence, hyping up any reports linking al-Qa'eda with Iraq in order to prove the CIA wrong.
Read the whole thing.
One thing that always facinates me about Politics, is they all figure that they wont get caught. I got a proposition, a long term one for my conservative friends out there. I got a case of Costa Rican Coffee, against a lets say equal value in your favorite local export... That this issue is going to explode before Bush leaves office. Anyone want to take me up on it?
Further TRUTH comes to light on the road to Iraq and War!
It is going to be interesting as HELL to see how the right spins this, the latest barrage of evidence to support the idea that the American Public and possibly even Colin Powell were bullshitted into believing war in Iraq was justified.
Powell's speech, delivered on
February 5, 2003, made the case for the war by presenting U.S.
intelligence that purported to prove that Saddam Hussein had weapons of
mass destruction. Wilkerson says the information in Powell's
presentation initially came from a document he described as "sort of a
Chinese menu" that was provided by the White House.
"(Powell)
came through the door ... and he had in his hands a sheaf of papers,
and he said, 'This is what I've got to present at the United Nations
according to the White House, and you need to look at it,'" Wilkerson
says in the program. "It was anything but an intelligence document. It
was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from
which you could pick and choose."
Wilkerson and Powell spent four
days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George
Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the
presentation, Wilkerson says.
"There was no way the Secretary of
State was going to read off a script about serious matters of
intelligence that could lead to war when the script was basically
un-sourced," Wilkerson says.
In one dramatic accusation in his
speech, Powell showed slides alleging that Saddam had bioweapons labs
mounted on trucks that would be almost impossible to find.
"In
fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was
given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the
Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator," says David Kay,
who served as the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq after the fall
of Saddam. That source, an Iraqi defector who had never been debriefed
by the CIA, was known within the intelligence community as "Curveball."
After
searching Iraq for several months across the summer of 2003, Kay began
e-mailing Tenet to tell him the WMD evidence was falling apart. At one
point, Wilkerson says, Tenet called Powell to tell him the claims about
mobile bioweapons labs were apparently not true.
"George actually
did call the Secretary, and said, 'I'm really sorry to have to tell
you. We don't believe there were any mobile labs for making biological
weapons,'" Wilkerson says in the documentary. "This was the third or
fourth telephone call. And I think it's fair to say the Secretary and
Mr. Tenet, at that point, ceased being close. I mean, you can be
sincere and you can be honest and you can believe what you're telling
the Secretary. But three or four times on substantive issues like that?
It's difficult to maintain any warm feelings."
The whole thing just reeks, stinks to high heaven, and it is beyond the pale to me that anyone can continue to justify this war. I believe very seriously, that the only way some Right Wingers will acknowledge that this war was based on unadulterated lies and deceptions, is if Bush wakes up one day and just says, "Sorry folks, the guy tried to kill my Daddy. It's a Texas thing, I had to get some payback. And we all know that Saddam was a loony so who cares why we went to war. We did, and in the end, the ends justify the means." And even if he did, I still think some people on the right would try to spin it.
You go to war when you have to. You weigh the dangers and you make a decision based on the imminent threat to the United States. It is clear to all but a rabid Bush Supporter at this point, that no such threat existed, and that the administration not only knew it, but sought to invent one.
State Department experts warned CENTCOM before Iraq war about lack of plans forpost-war Iraq security
Planning for post-Saddam regime change began as early as October 2001
Washington, D.C., August 17, 2005:
Newly declassified State Department documents show that government experts warned the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in early 2003 about "serious planning gaps for post-conflict public security and humanitarian assistance," well before Operation Iraqi Freedom began.
In a February 7, 2003, memo to Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky, three senior Department officials noted CENTCOM's "focus on its primary military objectives and its reluctance to take on 'policing' roles," but warned that "a failure to address short-term public security and humanitarian assistance concerns could result in serious human rights abuses which would undermine an otherwise successful military campaign, and our reputation internationally." The memo adds "We have raised these issues with top CENTCOM officials."
By contrast, a December 2003 report to Congress, also released by the State Department, offers a relatively rosy picture of the security situation, saying U.S. forces are "increasingly successful in preventing planned hostile attacks; and in capturing former regime loyalists, would-be terrorists and planners; and seizing weapons caches." The document acknowledges that "Challenges remain."
Since then, 1,393 U.S. military fatalities have been recorded in Iraq, including two on the day the report went to Congress.
The new documents, released this month to the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act, also provide more evidence on when the Bush administration began planning for regime change in Iraq -- as early as October 2001.
Meanwhile, in Iraq.....
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraqi police arrested four people in connection with a string of car bombings Wednesday morning that killed at least 43 people and wounded 88 in central Baghdad, the Transportation Ministry said.
The blasts came as transitional governmental officials worked to complete a new constitution, which lawmakers hope will help produce stability in the volatile country.
The attacks began about 7:45 a.m. (11:45 p.m. ET), when a car bomb exploded outside of the al-Nahda bus terminal, police said. A second car bomb exploded about 10 minutes later.
Casualties were rushed to the al-Kindi Hospital, where a third explosion was reported a short time later.
Video from the scene showed the smoldering wreckage of a vehicle near two buses, but black smoke obscured much of the view. Iraqi police said 22 vehicles were damaged.
While some conservative bloggers blow sunshine up our ass... which is in and of itself amazing, considering that their own heads are up their asses. You see to them, it's all about Cindy Sheehan, the outrage of it all. Too bad they dont feel the same outrage about the bullshit that lead to Cindy being in Texas huh?
Wait NO, it was Clinton's fault!!! Everything was Clinton's fault. 9/11 was Clinton's fault... Let's just ignore the fact that it happened on Bush's watch, and that evidence has now been presented that 9/11 could have been stopped.
It's amazing... Truly amazing... Kevin at Wizbang, who has posted:
Update 2: More on Novak and Plame later, but
perhaps the raging debate in the comment section can dissect what
effect, if any, Novak's piece would have had if he used Valerie Wilson
instead of Valerie Plame? Also do you think Novak, on hearing of the
wife's involvement got her name from Who's Who and stuck with it OR
found the Who's Who reference to backup his source(s)?
*** Evidently one cannot even make a snarky remark about the Plame
affair without having to explain oneself ad nauseum. OK here goes...
I'm over generalizing here, but it seem like there wasn't an outing
of an agent until two non-secret bits of information were
combined.Joseph Wilson's wife's maiden name, most would now agree, was
not a secret. That Wilson worked at the CIA was not widely known, but
it was hardly a secret [See Cliff May at NRO and Just One Minute].
That Wilson's wife was (or had been) a covert operative was only known
to (if reports are to be believed) the Cuban government and perhaps
those receiving information form Aldrich Ames, but it was still a
secret. Novak puts two pieces of non-secret information together and
gets this flashpoint.
But how did that combination "out" a covert agent? I turns out the
the Valerie Plame name (remember, according to many commenters her
name's no big deal) was her cover. If her cover name was Valerie Jones
how exactly would Novak's column as it was written have "outed" her?
It's wouldn't have. As former federal prosecutor Joesph DiGenoa contends it sure looks like the CIA didn't exactly bust a nut to "take every conceivable step to protect this person's identity."
to his misguided latest attempt to defend the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, has had it blow up in his face. He is getting hammered in his comments by "The Reality Based Community," who has apparently just had enough and called "Bullshit!"
The Right Wing efforts to defend Rove, Novak and the other co-conspirators in the treasonous act of outing an undercover CIA agent have gotten so ridiculous, that they don't even pass the smell test for some on the Right. Novak cracking under the pressure is just another example of things starting to unravel in the disciplined Bush Spin apparatus. This all started a while back with the unraveling of the Armstrong Williams scandal, followed by countless others. The recent Downing Street revelations, The exposure of the ACVR as a disgusting front for Partisan GOP Politics, and countless other mini-scandals, have demonstrated to any RATIONAL thinking person, that this administration is rotten to the core, and that the Emperor Indeed has no clothes.
That Wizbang, (A blog that based on comments on this blog demonstrate), has been discredited even among rational members of the Right (See RINOS), continues to spin the unspinnable, is no surprise. That they would do so with such completely ridiculous arguments, (even for them), is....
Apparently Kool Aide rations are running low, because more and more Right Wing Blogs seem to be changing their tone these days, subtly acknowledging that their Party has been hijacked by an extreme element that wants to impose a dogmatism on them that they never expected and don't support.
Many people on the Right voted for Bush last year for one reason. They saw him being stronger on Terrorism. These one issue voters are seeing religious dogmatism shoved down their throat. They are watching in horror as, "The man who would bring honor back to the White House," does anything but. They are alarmed.
There are those on the Right who absolutely believe the garbage that is coming from the Administration. And there are others who shamefully just cant stomach the idea that they made such a monumental mistake. Perhaps out of embarrassment, perhaps out of a vain hope that they are right, they will continue to defend the indefensible.
As a side note, while he has gotten a lot fewer comments, Rob has gotten slammed too.
The Left. Hopeless. Shameful. History will record that the U.S.
could have saved tremendous loss of life and treasure had we liberated
Iraqi with more troops and a proper "after-victory" plan. But the
chronicles will also show that America could have saved time, money
and--most especially, lives--had the Left contributed its valuable
resources to the liberation effort as well. Imagine if feminists, labor
leaders, environmentalists, civil rights activists, artists and the
media had joined in the struggle instead of sitting on the
sidelines--or worse, assisting the fascists? Imagine if the clarion cry
of freedom and democracy had arisen from a unified progressive front
consisting of conservatives and liberals? Just as we've learned how
much succor the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong took from the anti-war
protesters of the 1960s, we will someday learn how the parochial,
small-minded, narrow-souled opposition to the establishment of
democracy in Iraq stiffen the fascist backbone of the "insurgency." But
of course, the Michael Moores, Robert Fisks, George Galloways, Ted
Kennedys and innumerable Hollywood celebrities and academics of this
world will not care--they will always find reporters, voters, fans and
tenure committees willing to dull the sting of conscience.
Dean goes on to agree with the quote. Well, perhaps I am showing my ignorance, but I have no idea who Steve Vincent was. I will take some time tomorrow to read his blog. But I want to offer a strong opposing point of view.
I don't think Leftist have done ENOUGH in opposing the war. Yes you read that right, and if you have read ISOU before, you are probably not surprised.
Many of us opposed this war BEFORE the Downing Street Memos. We had different reasons. Mine is sitting in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan right now. I felt, and still feel that we should have focused our ire and our energies on punishing those responsible for 9/11, and bringing ALL of the perpetrators to justice.
No, we allowed ourselves to be deceived, and to be swept up in the "War on Terror," which has become a disjointed quagmire. Iraq is a mess, more of a mess than it was under it's former dictator, and even the CIA says it has become a breeding ground for 21st Century Terrorism. All the jingoism in the world does not change the fact that there was no plan and is no plan, at least no consistent one.
Iraq has become a meat grinder for our troops and the Iraqi people, and it will probably have to get to the point where it is proven that there have been more killed during the occupation, than during the Hussein Regime, before anyone on the Right is willing to admit it.
I am not a moonbat, and stupid/dramatic protest do not make an impact on middle America. What we needed was for our elected representatives to stand up, show some spine and demand accountability in the decision to go into Iraq. What we needed and still need is for Progressives to speak out logically, sanely and without rhetoric on the true impact of this war, on the American People, The American Economy and the Iraqi people.
That we did not contribute to a war that we did not believe in is not the sad thing, that we did not contribute to stopping it, and have not suitably contributed to exposing it for what it is, is...
It might not seem on its face like Karl Rove and SCOTUS nominee John Roberts have much in common, but there's one very important attribute they both share, they're both political hacks. They've served their GOP master in different ways, but in the end, neither of them is any more than a political operative who fulfills a certain ideological role within the party. I could tell you all about Roberts' history with the Republicans, but what difference do specifics make? He's been a judge for two years, and the rest of his career has been spent in the pockets of GOP power players. This is, in the end, just more of the same from Bush & Co.
And could we really have expected any different? Of course not.
There will no doubt be plenty of debate across the blogosphere over the next few days about whether Rove or Rogers should command our collective attention, but it's not really an either-or proposition. Whether it's the Downing Street Memos revealing that the administration was fixing facts and intelligence around the policy, or senior administration officials using their media operatives to discredit a critic (and compromising national security in the process), or an announcement of a GOP hack SCOTUS nominee politically timed to distract from an official investigation of the administration's misdeeds, it's all part of the same ugly picture. Our country's leadership is corrupt. They place ideology before truth, before international law, before national security, before justice. It's just more of the same.
There is no question in my mind what the priority needs to be. If, as it has been suggested by many, the acceleration of the nomination process was designed to take Rove off the front page, it will not work for some of us...
I don't know enough about Roberts to have a strong opinion one way or the other. I have heard through various news sources tonight that he is against the Roe vs. Wade decision. If that is the case, I am sure that there will be a loud outcry across the country from Pro Choice advocates regarding his nomination. I am likewise sure that if he is "out of the mainstream," that there will be a battle in the confirmation hearings.
I for one believe it is important that we continue to push for answers on the Plame outing. And we stop, ONLY when those answers are forthcoming.
Raw Story is reporting today on on a new document, a letter from The British Ambassador to the U.S., to British Chief Foreign Policy Advisor, David Manning. Once again evidence is presented demonstrating collusion between British and American authorities to go to War with Iraq under questionable circumstances.
RAW STORY has acquired a copy of the Mar. 18, 2002 letter dispatched from then-British ambassador to the United States Sir Christopher Meyer to Tony Blair's chief foreign policy advisor, David Manning.
The release comes on the heels of the third anniversary of the Downing Street minutes. The minutes documented a high-level meeting between the Blair and Bush governments, at which the director of British intelligence declared 'the facts were being fixed around the policy' before either nation sought approval for war.
The copy, obtained through British channels, provides further indication of the veracity of the documents and offers striking visual evidence that the communications were made at the highest levels of the Blair government. Meyer drafted the letter on British Embassy stationery.
In the letter from Meyer, he indicates that the British had a "need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN" Security Council Resolutions, possibly suggesting that the British and the United States were coordinating to 'trick' Saddam into starting a war.
Meyer's letter is the third image of the documents to be released. The British Telegraph printed copies of a letter from British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and another by Manning last fall.
His full letter can be read in PDF format here. This copy has been truncated to hide markings that might indicate their source.
Transcript of todays show should be available within a couple of hours here. Make sure to read it. David Gergen, who sounds more and more like a Bush Administration apologist these days, went into full spin mode on the Karl Rove Plame Leak story. Dobbs cut him off mid-spin. The whole issue of conservatives splitting hairs over the Plame Leak makes me ill.
Lets put the legal issues aside for a moment here... It is not about whether ROVE knew Valerie Plame was an undercover operative, or whether he mentioned her name (That is probably the most ridiculous part of the story), it is about HONESTY, and Character. Bush said when the leak first broke two years ago that, "No one in his administration was responsible for the leak, and if they were they would be held accountable." Two years latter, with the irrefutable evidence on the table that Rove was one of the sources of the leak, the White House is suddenly mum!
Dobbs said it best, it is not about legal issues here, it is about honesty, and once again this administration has demonstrated that it has no concept of the word. While much of the Conservasphere continues to redefine Hypocrisy in the face of obvious wrongdoing...
The truth of the matter is that this administration is one that is built on decieving the American People. And no ammount of spin is going to change that. I never put the REALITY BASED COMMUNITY crap on my blog, but I am begining to understand why that idea is so important. I can't fathom how people allow political partisanship to just close their eyes to REALITY. These people are lying to us, they have been since day one, maybe BEFORE day one.
Some are worried about this issue distracting us from the fight over Downing Street. But as Shakespear's Sister says in this excellent post, this issue and lying about Iraq, are one and the same.
"Practically and factually, that issue is information manipulation and message control, and allowing ideologically-driven and designed propaganda to trump fact-based intelligence. Philosophically, that issue is a severe and appalling breech of ethics, most notably the betrayal of the trust of the American people."
What truly disgusts me is the continuing tendency to "put lipstick on a pig." Cause when it's all said and done, a pig is a pig. The only real solace I take from any of this, is that the truth will come out. The bigger the lie, the harder it is to conceal. The American People are slowly but surely getting wise to the truth, and it's a good thing.
Update (Relevant Portions of Dobbs Transcript)
DOBBS: White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan today faced tough questions among the White House press corps about the leak of a CIA agent's name two years ago. Reporters demanding to know whether presidential adviser Karl Rove was the source of that leak. But no answers were forthcoming from the White House.
Joining me now for more on these developments, the former presidential adviser, David Gergen, who served four presidents. David Gergen is professor at Harvard University's School of Government, joining us tonight from Cambridge.
Good to have you with us, David.
DAVID GERGEN, FMR. PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: This is a remarkable shift over the course of the past 10 days. On July 1, Lawrence O'Donnell says Karl Rove is it. Now, Ambassador Joseph Wilson had said that nearly two years ago, but Lawrence O'Donnell's comments spurredr within 24 hours, reaction from Rove's attorney, and the issue was under way.
What do you make of it?
GERGEN: Well, Lou, I think that this is a complex case. And we shouldn't get caught up in our underwear so far.
DOBBS: We shouldn't get caught up, I'm sorry?
GERGEN: We shouldn't get caught up in our underwear about whether Karl Rove is in legal trouble.
DOBBS: Well, I don't think we -- I don't think we are.
GERGEN: I don't see -- well, I don't see what we know so far as indicating he's in legal trouble. There may be some political storm over this.
DOBBS: Right.
GERGEN: But what we know is that Karl Rove may have apparently told "TIME" magazine that Joe Wilson's wife, who worked at the agency, might have been behind his trip to Africa. That's not illegal on its face.
I mean, if he didn't disclose her name and didn't know her, didn't know that she was covert, there's no violation of the law. That is what he has publicly said.
DOBBS: Before we even -- I -- neither you nor I blessedly is an attorney. I'm not...
GERGEN: I'm a fallen attorney.
DOBBS: I am not particularly interested in the legal aspect of this so much right now...
GERGEN: Right.
DOBBS: ... as I am in both the politics, and frankly, the forthright, honest character of the people who make statements such as, it's ridiculous to suggest that Karl Rove was behind this. Ambassador Joe Wilson, the husband of Valerie Plame, the CIA operative named in the Novak column, said straightforwardly, within just about a week's time in 2003, just about two years ago, that it was Karl Rove. And the White House was dismissive, and is now saying things like, well, he didn't use her name.
We're hearing some parsing, aren't we?
GERGEN: Well, we are hearing some parsing, but, you know, the law and politics do turn on subtle distinctions. And it's one thing to say a guy's wife at the CIA has something to do with this; it's a totally different thing to out a covert agent. That's what the distinction here is.
Now, so -- so if he... DOBBS: But while you do say -- while you do say law and politics may be nuanced and turn on subtle distinctions...
GERGEN: Right.
DOBBS: ... character and judgment often have to be less than nuanced, have to be forthright and turn on basic principles. And the fact of the matter is, you have the most important adviser to the president of the United States talking to a reporter, or more reporters possibly, including Matthew Cooper of "Time" magazine. This is remarkable.
GERGEN: Well, Lou, I don't think it's all that remarkable. Listen, a lot of White Houses, you know, put stories out, and the question is whether Karl Rove did anything wrong. That's the basic question we're trying to ask. And in terms of telling somebody, hey, a guy's wife at the CIA might have been behind it, on its face, that's not wrong. If he put her name out and he knew she was a covert agent, that would be wrong.
Now, so in terms of what actually happened at the time, it's not clear to me at all that Karl Rove -- and I don't agree with a lot of his politics...
DOBBS: I don't mean -- again, I don't want you to have to defend Karl Rove here, because we're talking about what is obviously the appearance. What is concerning and what is troubling, at least to me, David, is, one, and lack of a forthright position on the part of the White House, did he or did he not, that's straightforward. Two, this investigation has now taken longer than Watergate, and it's not reached a conclusion. That in itself is remarkable. And thirdly, "New York Times," Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Judith Miller is sitting in jail tonight on this issue, and she never even reported it.
GERGEN: Look, the -- there is a scandal in this whole thing, and that is that Judith Miller is in jail on a story she never reported. That is ridiculous on its face, and that woman ought to be set free, because this has gone way beyond what is appropriate.
I mean, she never -- if she had reported on the story, it would be different. She's not even a party to the story, original story.
So I agree totally with you on that.
I also agree, Lou, that in the two years that have passed, the White House could and should have been much more forthright and candid on what happened, so we didn't need to go through this monkey business of all this lawsuit and having Judy Miller go to jail over it.
So I do think that what happened since that time is, you know, is subject to a lot of serious criticism, because the White House should have cleaned this thing up right from the beginning. We shouldn't have this kind of legal probe. We shouldn't have to go through all this funny business.
On that, I totally agree with you. But if there's something here that Karl Rove did wrong in the initial instance, I don't see it yet. Did he lie to the grand jury? There's no evidence of that. So I don't think he's in legal trouble, but your point about what's happened since then I think is well taken. And I agree with you. I especially agree with you about Judy Miller.
DOBBS: Well, let's hope that we can get to the bottom of this.
GERGEN: We should get to the bottom of it.
DOBBS: With two years of investigative work by federal prosecutors, it's remarkable that we can't seem to reach a conclusion here.
GERGEN: I agree with that. And Karl Rove has a responsibility to help get this out. I mean, now that his name's in the middle of it, I do think he should come forward and say, listen, this is what I did, here is what happened, here's all I know about it, and we're going to get the rest of this cleaned up. Somebody gave the name out. We know that. And we don't yet know who that is. And it's possible somebody lied to the grand jury, and we need to know that. But I do think Karl Rove has got a responsibility to Joe Wilson and to everybody else to help clear it up.
DOBBS: It's not even clear at this point who the heck sent Ambassador Joe Wilson to Niger.
GERGEN: That's true, too.
DOBBS: Thank you very much, David Gergen, always good to have you here.
GERGEN: Take care.
Italics mine, and I will say it again, Dobbs cut right through the B.S. and got to the heart of the matter.
No one, and I mean NO ONE, in the Leftsphere is as BLUNT as Tas.
Whenever a representative of the mainstream media writes a
completely one-sided story or goes easy on a despicable subject during
an interview, I deem it as a "cocksuck". Why? Because the press is
giving their subject such a good time that they mine as well be
performing oral sex on them. (Note: In the future, when the subject of
media pleasure is a woman, then I promise to call it a "muffdive". But,
for the time being, we're dealing with men here.) So when Shake's Sis sent out a link to this AP article in her daily BBA
dispatch, I read it over and instantly thought, "Cocksuck!", because
it's just so one-sided and devoid of facts. In fact, it doesn't even
include so much as a quote from anyone with an opposing point of view.
It's that bad.
And, so far, we've been successful in getting a story that had almost zero visibility in the American press become more of a mainstream topic of interest.
But, I'm sorry, so far, the coverage in the American press has been incredibly lacking and mostly sucked.
Michael Smith broke this story on May 1st for The Sunday Times in Britain, and he has written a number of articles since then which have added to the tale. But the American mainstream media has yet to contribute one new fact to the story.
Hundreds of bloggers, like the ones listed above and mentioned in the story below, have been able to scour the Internet, hunt down charts and figures, expand upon Michael Smith's extraordinary work, yet the mainstream press hasn't done the same, and has ignored most of these contributions and have barely even addressed the "spikes of activity" mentioned in the memos.
This is an outrage! Has our American press really devolved into just a bunch of copycat stenographers? Hell, they might as well all join together and form one huge conglomerate, because that's what they've become due to their negligence in producing any real journalism.
The mainstream media started off by mocking the memos and claiming that they're old news. But the mainstream media should be mocked for essentially becoming no news.
When will our American Press return?
The fact that the majority of the Press wasn't ripping Bush's rhetoric apart the other night is a sign of where we have gone as a nation, when some of the same people the press is supposed to be watchdogging, now OWN them.
Since there has been so much heated discussion on my blog of late about Iraq. I thought I would write the definitive post on my feelings about the war. I am going to TRY and keep this short to avoid misinterpretation.
I am against the war. I have been against it almost from day one, as I believed and still believe that the REAL war is in Afghanistan, and the greater danger to our country is Osama Bin Laden.
I believe it was an insult to those who died on 9/11 and their families, to shift focus from finding their murderer to pursuing a war in Iraq.
I believe the American People were lied to about the reasons for going to war, and I believe we began executing a secret war in Iraq well before the war was declared or authorized.
I believe the neglect of our troops in providing them proper equipment and support is a criminal act that should be punished.
I believe that ultimately the abuses at Abu Gharib, Gitmo and in Afghanistan are the responsibility of command, and prosecuting a bunch of low level troops for these abuses does nothing to address the cause.
I believe that to support our troops does not mean that we have to support an illegal and immoral war. Further I believe that REALLY supporting our troops means demanding that they have the best equipment to get the job done, and the best medical and social services when they return home.
I do not believe in timetables for ending the war. We broke a country, we need to fix what we broke and finish the job. But I do believe we need to demand accountability and a strategy rather than idiotic rhetoric. Saying the insurrection is in its "Last Throes," as your Generals acknowledge a situation unchanged from six months ago, is just adding to the long list of lies associated with this war. Denying the need for additional resources when it is clear that they are needed is not SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS.
I believe that those who most loudly support the war SHOULD be doing something other than spouting rhetoric. I don't necessarily think that everyone who expresses support for the war on a blog should or could be a good soldier, but I do believe that many of the most rabid supporters who are young, able bodied men and women, should put their money where their mouth is and volunteer if they feel so strongly about it. Perhaps some of the others could support the war by buying additional flack jackets and such, since our government seems incapable of outfitting the troops. The families of these troops have already taken on a tremendous burden. I am sure a few of the Top Conservative Bloggers can afford to donate a few thousand bucks a piece to such a noble cause.
I am going to finish this post with a comment I made last night in response to a criticism of one of my post:
"True patriotism is standing up for what is right. They lied, and over 100,000 people are now dead. I don't really care about the morale of our troops in light of that. Nor do I care about being right personally. I care about my country and it's place in History. That place has potentially been irrevocably stained as a result of the actions of a few people whom you happen to support. History will determine who among us is right or wrong. The fact that so many of you on the Right are willing to overlook the immorality of sending our young men and women to war based on a lie, is a sad testament to the state of political affairs in our country today.
The evidence is beginning to mount that this war was executed well before we went to the U.N. or got Congressional Approval. You may be able to live with that, I can not, and will not accept it for the convenience of being accepted as a fellow patriot. My form of Patriotism recalls the founding principals of this country, not the evolving lack of principal in an age of Special Interest.
This will forever divide us, regardless of how we might feel about each other on a personal level. I have committed myself to seeking the truth, no matter how much it may hurt. That hurt may be to my pride if all the actions taken by our government prove to be legal and moral, if they do not, the hurt will be much more grievous, and I pray to God that those of you who did not ask questions, are able to sleep at night with the results."
So I am going to keep on covering the DSM, and I am going to keep on criticizing our government when I think it is the right thing to do. Call me a Traitor, imply that I don't support our troops, call me a moonbat, whatever. History will be the measure of all of our patriotism and of the justness and legality of this war. For now there is one thing in which we all agree. We need to finish the job. But when it is done, perhaps before... We all need to take a look at WHY...
The truly amazing thing about this statistic is that there has actually been very little concerted effort to bring down Bush's approval ratings on Iraq (despite the desperate attempts of Rove and company to blame it on liberal malcontents). The anti-war movement's last significant public action was the protest in New York city during the GOP convention. No prominent Democrat has made a habit of attacking Bush on his handling of Iraq. There are the occassional Durbins and Conyers, but they are potshots at best and hardly evidence of an organized effort to undermine the leadership of this country in a time of war.
Apparently the Rove Spin attempt is having no effect on distracting the American People. with almost 2,000 Americans dead in Iraq, thousands more wounded and an estimated 100,000 Plus dead Iraqis, it may be too little, too late, that the American People are finaly starting to realize what many have known for a long time.
In the interim, the har core left continues to prop up the war, and go into spin overdrive trying to justify the unjustifiable.
Starting in late May to June of 2002 a flurry of activity began both in the United States and in the Middle East. In what appears to be an admission of covert activity, chief allied air force commander Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley divulged in a little-noticed quote in the New York Times that US/British aircraft flew 21,736 sorties between June 2002 and March 2003.
Moseley said that some 600 bombs were dropped before the official start of the war, targeting 391 locations and/or installations.
Moseley explained that the combination of air strikes and covert raids occurred in the southern no-fly zone regions covered by routine patrols.
The targets of these strikes are difficult to pinpoint, but RAW STORY has found a clear divergence between U.S. and Iraqi reports at the time, as well as disagreement over what provoked the strikes.
GlobalSecurity.org, a military defense group, raised concerns about the air strikes when they mushroomed in early 2002, though their worries produced few press reports.
The group saw the strikes as a means by which the U.S. could degrade Iraqi defensive capabilities, and as a precursor to a declared war.
"It was no big secret at the time," GlobalSecurity.org director John Pike told RAW STORY. "It was apparent to us at the time that they were doing it and why they were doing it, and that was part of the reason why we were convinced that a decision to go to war had already been made, because the war had already started."
Pike says the allied forces used their position in the 'No-Fly-Zone' to engage in pre-emptive action long before war was formally declared.
They I think had decided to take advantage of Southern Watch and Northern Watch to go ahead and take the air defense system apart and attack any other targets that they felt needed to be preemptively destroyed," Pike asserted.
"They explicitly altered the rules of engagement," he added, "because initially the rules of engagement had been that they would shoot back if [someone] shot at them. Then they said that if they were shot at, they would shoot at whatever they wanted to."
One U.S. Air Force vet told a hearing in Istanbul this weekend, "I saw bombing intensify. All the documents coming out now, the Downing Street memo and others, confirm what I had witnessed in Iraq. The war had already begun while our leaders were telling us that they were going to try all diplomatic options first."
Let the Spin Begin...
As evidence mounts, the silence and hypocrisy from some on the Right is staggering. I cant wait to hear how this one is spun. But I have a feeling it will be something along the lines of, "We knew this, nothing new here. It was legal, the no fly zones and all that, you moonbat, hippie, communist etc."
Ron Brynaert, who's Blog "Why are we back in Iraq," has been one of the top Lefty Investigative Blogs for at least the last year, has put together a piece I think everyone who wants to know the truth about Downing Street should read:
On Thursday, Michael Smith, the reporter for The Sunday Times who broke the Downing Street minutes story, wrote a must-read op-ed for the L.A. Times ("The Real News in the Downing Street Memos") which relates to an overlooked part of the memos and provides some more background on the "deep throats" who leaked the top secret documents:
"It is now nine months since I obtained the first of the "Downing Street memos," thrust into my hand by someone who asked me to meet him in a quiet watering hole in London for what I imagined would just be a friendly drink. At the time, I was defense correspondent of the London Daily Telegraph, and a staunch supporter of the decision to oust Saddam Hussein. The source was a friend. He'd given me a few stories before but nothing nearly as interesting as this."
"The six leaked documents I took away with me that night were to change completely my opinion of the decision to go to war and the honesty of Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush."
And the real news as Michael Smith sees it:
"American media coverage of the Downing Street memo has largely focused on the assertion by Sir Richard Dearlove, head of British foreign intelligence, that war was seen as inevitable in Washington, where "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. But another part of the memo is arguably more important. It quotes British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon as saying that "the U.S. had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime." This we now realize was Plan B."
"Put simply, U.S. aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone were dropping a lot more bombs in the hope of provoking a reaction that would give the allies an excuse to carry out a full-scale bombing campaign, an air war, the first stage of the conflict."
"In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq."
He has compiled some interesting statistics on the Secret War we were conducting in Iraq just before the declared war started. Read the whole thing, it is an incredible study in how we were decieved.
Michael Smith, the Sunday Times reporter who broke he story thinks he knows what "fixed" means. On June 16, he told the Washington Post:
"There are a number of people asking about 'fixed' and its meaning. This is a real joke. I do not know anyone in the UK who took it to mean anything other than fixed, as in fixed a race, fixed an election, fixed the intelligence. If you fix something, you make it the way you want it. The intelligence was fixed...the head of MI-6 has just been to Washington. He has just talked with George Tenet. He said the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. That translates in clearer terms as the intelligence was being cooked to match what the administration wanted it to say to justify invading Iraq."
I contacted a number of British friends who are close observers of the political scene, to get their opinion. Here is one recent email reply:
"Nobody that I have come across here in London interprets the term 'fixed' in this context as other than cooked/manipulated/selected. Fixed refers to trickery—as in 'the fix is in.' What Woolsey and Co. may think...that is completely irrelevant. It is what we British think that counts. The memo was written to be read by us British, not by Woolsey. It appears that he and his "neoconservative" friends are getting a bit desperate. He would probably be one of the people to go to jail at the end of this, given the key role he has played."
Or, from VIPS colleague Col. Patrick Lang, USA (ret), who tends to be more succinct:
The Honorable Pat Roberts, Chairman
The Honorable John D. Rockefeller, IV, Vice Chairman United States Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence
SH-211
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller:
We write concerning your committee's vital examination of pre-war Iraq intelligence failures. In particular, we urge you to accelerate to completion the work of the so-called "Phase II" effort to assess how policy makers used the intelligence they received.
Last year your committee completed the first phase of a two-phased effort to review the pre-war intelligence on Iraq. Phase I-begun in the summer of 2003 and completed in the summer of 2004-examined the performance of the American intelligence community in the collection and analysis of intelligence prior to the war, including an examination of the quantity and quality of U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the intelligence on ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and terrorist groups. At the conclusion of Phase I, your committee issued an unclassified report that made an important contribution to the American public's understanding of the issues involved.
In February 2004-well over a year ago-the committee agreed to expand the scope of inquiry to include a second phase which would examine the use of intelligence by policy makers, the comparison of pre-war assessments and post-war findings, the activities of the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG) and the Office of Special Plans in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and the use of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress.
The committee's efforts have taken on renewed urgency given recent revelations in the United Kingdom regarding the apparent minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blair and his senior national security advisors. These minutes-known as the "Downing Street Memo"-raise troubling questions about the use of intelligence by American policy makers-questions that your committee is uniquely situated to address.
The memo indicates that in the summer of 2002, at a time the White House was promising Congress and the American people that war would be their last resort, that they believed military action against Iraq was "inevitable."
The minutes reveal that President "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
The American people took the warnings that the administration sounded seriously-warnings that were echoed at the United Nations and here in Congress as we voted to give the president the authority to go to war. For the sake of our democracy and our future national security, the public must know whether such warnings were driven by facts and responsible intelligence, or by political calculation.
These issues need to be addressed with urgency. This remains a dangerous world, with American forces engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other challenges looming in Iran and North Korea. In this environment, the American public should have the highest confidence that policy makers are using intelligence objectively-never manipulating it to justify war, but always to protect the United States. The contents of the Downing Street Memo undermine this faith and only rigorous Congressional oversight can determine the truth.
We urge the committee to complete the second phase of its investigation with the maximum speed and transparency possible, producing, as it did at the end of Phase I, a comprehensive, unclassified report from which the American people can benefit directly.
The DSM and the other British memos, though, are significant and serious for another reason: They prove that Bush's primary case for war—the argument that Saddam Hussein, with his supposed connection to Al Qaeda, posed a direct WMD threat to the United States—was false (if not an outright lie). Moreover, they show that the issue is not bad intelligence—as Bush and his crew have suggested after no WMDs were found in Iraq—but the administration's purposeful misrepresentation of intelligence. This is the main point for DSM fans to make.
The Downing Street memo, for instance, notes that British Foreign Minister Jack Straw believed the WMD case for war was "thin." Presumably, he had access to the leading prewar intelligence, and none of it convinced him. As these documents demonstrate, British officials were indeed worried about Hussein and WMDs, but Straw, according to the minutes of that July 23, 2002, gathering, told Blair that "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." Other British memos go into more detail. A March 22, 2002, memo written for Straw by Peter Ricketts, the political director of the British foreign service, notes, "Even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or [chemical weapons/biological weapons] fronts; the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up." Another memo written by Blair national security aides reported that intelligence on Iraq's WMD was "poor," that Iraq's nuclear weapons program was "effectively frozen," and that its chemical and biological weapons programs have been "hindered."
Compare this to what Dick Cheney said in August 2002: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction….What he wants is time, and more time to husband his resources to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons program, and to gain possession of nuclear weapons." Cheney was conveying the impression that Iraq possessed active WMD programs. There was, he said, "no doubt" about this. The British memos show that Bush's number-one ally had a rather different—perhaps more reality-based—view. And, in retrospect, we know which one was closer to the truth.
Nowadays, Bush-backers like to claim that Bush, Cheney and Co. were led astray by the CIA and its faulty intelligence. But the British memos demonstrate that Bush and Cheney were not duped; they were doing the duping. The Brits looked at the existing intelligence and concluded the material was inconclusive and that Iraq's WMD programs were not strong. Yet the Bush-Cheney administration told the American public the intelligence was rock-solid and that Iraq was crazy with active WMD programs, including a project to develop quickly nuclear weapons. The DSM and the other documents are the evidence that blows apart the bad-intelligence defense embraced by the Bush administration.
Moreover, these records also show Bush was fiddling with the truth when he claimed before the war that Hussein was in league with Al Qaeda. That was a crucial component of Bush's case for the invasion. The argument he made at the time was not that Hussein would be so stupid as to use a biological or chemical weapon against a U.S. target (and risk retaliation that would certainly annihilate his regime) but that Hussein would slip such a weapon to his pals in Al Qaeda. According to these memos, Bush was essentially making this up. Ricketts wrote, "US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Aaida [sic] is so far frankly unconvincing." Other Blair aides noted there was "no recent evidence" of a link between Baghdad and Osama bin Laden. And Jack Straw wrote to Blair, "there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with [bin Laden] and Al Qaida. Objectively, the threat from Iraq has not worsened as a result of 11 September."
Notice the silence from the Right on this aspect of the memos?
If he's fucking the country then what is your party attempting to do with its ACLU, Rainbow/Push Coalition, and Howard Dean of course.
Proof? Okay, have you watched any of the Discovery or History Channel stuff on Saddam? Yet again, just because it's not in the news doesn't mean it isn't happening. We're talking about the guy that gassed his own people. Beheadings are a nicety compared to that. Or did you forget that little incident?
"Agreed, because if it did, Bush would be back to running businesses into the ground in Texas about now, instead of running our country into the ground."
What's your point there?
If the biggest failure in fighting terror was 9/11 then what about Clinton's wonton disregard for human life by not taking bin Laden when he had the chance? If I remember correct 9/11/2001 was less than 8 months after the current President took office. Do me a favor and read the 9/11 commission report. Bush isn't to blame.
My point is that the further you go with terrorism failures the more personal it becomes because of what I do every day.
I was going to answer with another comment, but it got too long, so I am going to post my response.
Jesse Jackson is not the Democratic Party. Howard Dean is someone I and many others including the Democratic leadership take issue with, but he is also NOT the Democratic Party. The ACLU is not part of the Democratic Party, so again I ask you what is your point?
As for the 9/11 Report, I have read it, ALL of it. And unless you read a different version than I did, It does not support your points. There were plenty of people to share the blame on 9/11, including the President, Past President(s), the FBI, the CIA and others, demonizing Clinton on the issue is getting old, and does not wash.
As for the War on Terror being personal for you, yes I understand. I also understand that every man and woman in Uniform feels the same, as do thousands of others in our intelligence agencies, homeland security, etc. My point was, is and will be, that the War in Iraq was not a justifiable component in the War on Terror. If I am proven wrong I will acknowledge it, but at this point YOU and most Conservatives don't even want an investigation, just as you did not want a REAL investigation of 9/11, Gitmo or anything else that has potential to blow away your perceptions of Bush.
After 8 years of investigating everything Bill and Hillary Clinton ever did, how you can honestly say that conservative attitudes about investigating the current administration isnt bullshit, I don't know. Every American, Every American who loves our Constitution should WANT to know the truth, and should demand an investigation of DSM, Gannongate, Gitmo, Abu Gharib and Election Fraud. An independent investigation with Supeona powers. What are you so affraid of?
Do I believe in every conspiracy theory related to Bush... No. But I do believe that our form of government demands openess, the kind of openness that the Bush Adminsistration has been reluctant to support from day one of the administration.
The reason so many of us, even those of us who consider ourselves moderates are up in arms over the DSM, is because we believe that our President should be held to a higher standard of accountability. We believe that our government owes us answers and that telling us that something is "not important," is not for our government to decide.
I try not to be a partisan player. A search of this blog will show that the very Howard Dean that Chris attempts to hang arround my neck is NOT my man. All Democrats do not think in lockstep. Likewise I am often appalled by the antics of the ACLU, and Jessie Jackson is no more my Leader than Luis Farakhan.
My challenge to my Conservative Bretheren is a simple and logical one. You want to shut me up? Support an independent investigation of the DSM! If you are not willing to do so, don't call me an idiot, nor question my patriotism or imply that I support murderers like Saddam Hussien. It does not take much research to uncover the KNOWN ties between Saddam and Ossama and multiple American Administrations, most of them Republican....
Lets see how the Right responds to the lattest MSM commentary on The DSM. Here is a Juicy bit from Jay Tea of Wizbang's back yard:
IT'S BAD enough that the Bush administration had so little international support for the Iraqi war that its ''coalition of the willing" meant the United States, Britain, and the equivalent of a child's imaginary friends. It's even worse that, as the British Downing Street memo confirms, they had so little evidence of real threats that they knew from the start that they were going to have to manufacture excuses to go to war. What's more damning still is that they effectively began this war even before the congressional vote.
---
I follow Iraq pretty closely, but was taken aback when Charlie Clements, now head of the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, described driving in Iraq months before the war ''and a building would just explode, hit by a missile from 30,000 feet." ''What is that building?" Clements would ask. ''Oh, that's a telephone exchange." Later, at a conference at Nevada's Nellis Air Force Base, Clements heard a US general boast ''that he began taking out assets that could help in resisting an invasion at least six months before war was declared."
---
Earlier this month, Jeremy Scahill wrote a powerful piece on the website of The Nation, describing a huge air assault in September 2002. ''Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace," Scahill writes. ''At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers, and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist."
What does all this mean? Well, one does not have to be a military genius to understand that these attacks were designed to take out Iraq's defense capabilities... "a month before the congressional vote, and two months before the UN resolution."
I know, Old news.. Nothing we didn't know already... etc. etc.
"We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens,"
---
"Some may disagree with my decision to remove
Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror," said the president.
"These foreign terrorists violently oppose the rise of a free and democratic Iraq, because they know that when we replace despair and hatred with liberty and hope, they lose their recruiting grounds for terror," he argued.
"Our troops are fighting these terrorists in Iraq so you will not have to face them here at home."
Eh... Mr. President. There were no Terrorist in Iraq before you ordered an invassion of the country. In fact, a logical argument could be made that the invassion of Iraq has created terrorist. But I should also point out to you in case you forgot. Iraq did NOT attack the United States on September the 11th...
Question..."I believe in loyalty as much as the next man, but how long are you folks on the right going to keep swimming with this boat anchor around your neck?"
"Why are the Republicans so opposed to an investigation of the Downing Street Memo? They certainly had no problem investigating the hell out of the Clintons over eight years for things that may or may not have happened decades earlier."
Mother Jones provides one of the best arguments I have seen so far.
Imagine that the Pentagon Papers or the Watergate scandal had broken out all over the press -- no, not in the New York Times or the Washington Post,
but in newspapers in Australia or Canada. And that, facing their own
terrible record of reportage, of years of being cowed by the Nixon
administration, major American papers had decided that this was not a
story worthy of being covered. Imagine that, initially, they dismissed
the revelatory documents and information that came out of the heart of
administration policy-making; then almost willfully misread them,
insisting that evidence of Pentagon planning for escalation in Vietnam
or of Nixon administration planning to destroy its opponents was at
best ambiguous or even nonexistent; finally, when they found that the
documents wouldn't go away, they acknowledged them more formally with a
tired ho-hum, a knowing nod on editorial pages or in news stories.
Actually, they claimed, these documents didn't add up to much because
they had run stories just like this back then themselves. Yawn.
This is, of course, something like the crude pattern that coverage in the American press has followed on the Downing Street memo, then memos. As of late last week, four of our five major papers (the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, and USA Today) hadn't even commented on them in their editorial pages. In my hometown paper, the New York Times, complete lack of interest was followed last Monday by a page 11 David Sanger piece (Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made) that focused on the second
of the Downing Street memos, a briefing paper for Tony Blair's "inner
circle," and began: "A memorandum written by Prime Minister Tony
Blair's cabinet office in late July 2002 explicitly states that the
Bush administration had made ?no political decisions' to invade Iraq,
but that American military planning for the possibility was
advanced."
But then I am sure the Right Wingers will just say Mother Jones is the official organ of the Radical Left or something...
We are not going away...
The boys at Wizbang cant decide which defense to use... Either the Downing Street Memosare fake.... Or they are old news, not worthy of concern, either way, NO NEED TO INVESTIGATE THEM... move on, nothing to see here.
Normally, I refrain from publicly disagreeing with Kevin and Paul, as it really is rather gauche behavior. But Paul's piece last night about the Downing Street memo has prompted me to put out my own take on the matter.
First of all, I don't disagree a whit with what Paul pointed out last night -- the memos being cited are now of completely inadmissible status in any court. By the journalists' own admissions, they are third-generation (at best) reproductions (not even copies) of the originals. Their legal value is zero.
That being said, I have to agree with the guys over at Powerline. I believe that the memos released are, for the most part, accurate representations of actual official documents. But the significance of those memos have been vastly overstated. They are the OPINIONS of one person on what other people THOUGHT other people were THINKING. It's speculation piled upon presumption.
Further, the wording itself is open for interpretation -- the key word the left focuses on, "fixed," has several meanings. The definitions of "repair" and "get revenge" doesn't seem to apply here, so that leaves "attached or based on a single point" and "arrange for a predetermined outcome." And with the phrasing of "fixed around," that pretty much leaves out the latter meaning. Besides, that definition is far more of an Americanism than a Britishism.
But to that I say, "so what?" Removing Saddam from power had been the clearly-stated goal of the United States for years at that point, endorsed by two Presidents, the Congress, and numerous government officials of both parties. And if the cause of WMDs was being faked, why did the memo express such concern about dealing with their potential use?
Someone said yesterday that I am guilty of just rehashing what others think about the DSM, so let me be clear on my own thoughts.
I am not Tas, I don't have the time of INCLINATION to report on stories like DSM. I am a technologist, not a journalist. Now having said that, there are some very smart people, including Tas, and the folks at the BBA, that are kicking ass on this story.
So here are my thoughts, and they have NOT changed since before this war started.
1. This war was a vendetta for George W. Bush. As much as we find it hard to believe that The President of The United States would use the power of our nation to settle a personal score, that is my belief.
2. We HAVE been lied to and decieved. And I believe that these lies were told in the Spirit of "This is what is best for the American People."
3. I can not even comprehend why people who would impeach a President of the United States who was doing a fantastic job, for a blowjob, would SHOW NO INTEREST in this story, when the implications are staggering. If I were a Republican, I would NOT believe the story, but I would demand that my President address it. WHY do Conservatives and Republicans seem to content to want to brush this story asside?
In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war.
"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts says in the memo. "For Iraq, 'regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."
So the "Nothing New Here, Move along....." did not work, more and more media are starting to cover the story, so the new tact is to say the memos are not authentic.
Right-wingers are going bananas over this one, especially on Free Republic and Moonbat Central: Michael Smith, who broke the story about the Downing Street Minutes in the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Times, has told the Associated Press
he "protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents
from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the
originals." In short, for the right-wingers, this is conclusive
evidence of another
'fake document" scam (like the Dan Rather fake
document scam on Bush’s National Guard service). Right-wingers are
ecstatic and dancing like Israelis on nine eleven and we should expect
them to harp on this over and over until it is actually given credence
by the corporate media—the same corporate media that grudgingly
provided coverage on a story that would be, beyond the realm of
Bushzarro world, of major significance with awesome political
ramification.
Did not take Wiz-n-bang long... Funny, since they were the ones screaming at the top of their lungs that the Memos prove nothing. But then... That did not work... DID IT? Hehe.. This is getting comical... Only thing is, one cant really laugh with all the dead soldiers, napalmed Iraqi civilians and what not... Can we?
Now for a sanity check, read this.
Shakespear's Sister continues to lead our efforts to keep the Downing Street Memo in the public eye... And yeah, despite the attempts to silence the issue by some of the biggest of the Right Wing Blogs, and outright silence on the part of others. This one is NOT going away. Received this email today:
Wow - so much is happening, I don't even know where to begin! This is a long dispatch, but I tried to condense it as much as possible while still including the most important information we should all know.
Let me start by giving us all a collective pat on the back, because we are making a difference. That Colored Fella emailed me to let me know the Big Brass Alliance had been mentioned on MSNBC, and Matt of Tattered Coat pointed me in the direction of One Woman Wrecking Crew's report on the mention:
"His smile of satisfaction was unmistakable as Ron Reagan Jr. covered the "Downing Street Minutes" and the Conyers hearing on the popular MSNBC show Connected. The Big Brass Alliance blogs were also credited for bringing the DSM to the attention of the mainstream media by Tony's Tab, the noted blog analyst. The DSM blog swarm was represented with an impressive chart, that went, well, off the charts! The Big Brass Alliance website was also displayed."
Tony's Tabs reports:
"On May 30, a blogswarm was formed. For those of you who might be less techie hip that means that many blogs got together on an issue and formed a new blog called "Big Brass Alliance." Their icon is a big set of brass balls. Funny. This blog is a conglomerate of almost 500 other blogs and collectively they support the After Downing Street Alliance in their efforts to get MSM attention for the Memo, as well as a congressional inquiry. Their ultimate goal is impeachment proceedings for President Bush. It has since gotten an increasing amount of play in the press, and as of yesterday Rep. John Conyers has a forum underway on the Hill, a begin to the process of discovery on the issue. Again, this is my cobbled together history, but I think it is relatively accurate. More than the nuts and bolts of dates and specific blogs, it illustrates the powerful potential of the Internet to expose the stories MSM has missed, ignored, or simply gotten wrong. And I want to stress my feeling that, coupled with the Rathergate scandal, this shows interesting potential for a checks and balances system that calls crap what it is, whether it's blue or red."
I'm wondering if you could define the phrase "last throes" for me, since it doesn't appear to mean what I thought it meant. See, in just 15 days, June 2005 saw more American soldiers die in Iraq than in either of the previous two Junes.
But Kevin is STILL SURE, that we dont need to ask any questions of the Administration....
For Wizbang and other conservative blogs that just wish it would go away.... The Downing Street Memo is gaining momentum.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress should conduct an official inquiry to determine whether President Bush intentionally misled the nation about the reasons for toppling Saddam Hussein, a senior House Democrat suggested Thursday.
New York Rep. Charles Rangel was among Democratic House members who participated in a forum to air demands that the White House provide more information about what led to the decision to go to war in Iraq.
"Quite frankly, evidence that appears to be building up points to whether or not the president has deliberately misled Congress to make the most important decision a president has to make, going to war," said Rangel, senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.
Rep. John Conyers and other Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee organized the forum to investigate implications in a British document known as the "Downing Street memo."
The memo says the Bush administration believed that war was inevitable and was determined to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify the ouster of Saddam.
Conyers pointed to statements by Bush in the run-up to invasion that war would be a last resort. "The veracity of those statements has -- to put it mildly -- come into question," he said.
Bush should respond to questions raised by the Downing Street memo, says a letter signed by Conyers and over 90 other members of Congress, as well as a half-million Americans.
In the opening hours of the forum, witnesses spoke mainly about their views on the decision to go to war and not the memo, which the Bush administration has dismissed.
"We are having this discussion today because we failed to have it three years ago when we went to war," former Ambassador Joseph Wilson said.
As more MSM begin to cover the Downing Street Memo, and RAW STORY continues to dig and find additional documentation, the Conservasphere continues to ignore or attempt to pooh pooh the news.
At the same time almost 600,000 Americans have signed a letter to the President demanding accountability. The letter has been ignored thus far, but the escalating reporting on the issue, and continuing revelations may soon create an atmosphere that even the Republicans can not ignore.
BBA
"What a handful of C-SPAN3 viewers will be treated too is a bunch of Democrats, many of whom are members of the Judiciary Committee attempting to hold a hearing without the Chairman and majority members. Given the moonbat factor I suspect that every member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (note their website is hosted by the lone Socialist in Congress - Rep. Bernie Sanders) will find a way to get some face time."
Eh... Are we suppossed to find it shocking that a Republican House that refuses to even acknowledge the stink coming from Tom DeLay's office, will not support a legitimate investigation into the allegations posed by the Downing Street Memo? Eh... You can do better than that.
Update: From Raw Story, Rep. Conyers releases a statement before todays hearing:
Few issues are more important under our constitutional form of government than the decision to go to war and place our soldiers lives at risk.
It is no insignificant matter when in the fall of 2002 President Bush told us that war would be his last resort. It is not unimportant when on March 6, 2003, the president promised us, "I've not made up [my] mind about military action."
Over the last two months, the veracity of those statements has - to put it mildly -- come into question:
*
On May 1, the London Times released the now infamous Downing Street Minutes, in which the head of Britain's intelligence agency reported "military action [by the U.S.] was now seen as inevitable ... and "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." A former senior U.S. official subsequently told Knight Ridder that the minutes were "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired."
*
On May 29, further documents were released revealing that in the summer of 2002, British and U.S. aircraft had doubled their rates of bombing in Iraq, in an apparent attempt to provoke an excuse for war.
*
Last Sunday, the London Times released six new British documents corroborating the Downing Street Minutes and indicating that as early as March of 2002, our government had decided it would be "necessary to create the conditions" to justify war.
*
Today Newsweek is reporting that two high ranking British Officials confirmed that by 2002, Iraq's nuclear weapons program was "effectively frozen" and there was "no recent evidence" tying Iraq to international terrorism.
If these disclosures are true - and so far no one from the Bush Administration has bothered to respond to our letters -- they establish a prima facie case of going to war under false pretenses. This means that more than 1,600 brave Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis would have lost their lives for a lie.
That is why we are here today. That is why 122 Members of Congress -- which as of today includes the Minority Leader -- have asked the president to explain his actions. That is why more than 550,000 Americans are joining with us in demanding answers from the Administration.
122 Representatives and 550,000 Americans are demanding answers, and yet "Good Republicans," like Kevin seem to think that is is some kind of lunacy to even question the Administration's pre-war intentions. I am at a complete loss as to why this is. I mean the Right has tired to put a lock on patriotism as a uniquely Conservative trait for the last two years+, and yet what is more patriotic than demanding accountability from our Government.
This issue for me is not about who is right on this issue. It is about OUR Right to know, one way or the other...
Conyers and other Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee were recently told the Republican majority staff had instituted a new policy to deny any request from a Democrat to use a committee hearing room.
GOP Judiciary spokesman Jeff Lungren told The Hill Tuesday Republicans were upset Congressmembers were addressing Conyers as “Mr. Chairman.”
“They were unwilling or unable to make those changes,” Lungren added. “At this point, if they want to hold these forums, they’ll have to find some other place to do it.”
I always find it interesting that Bush is always talking about the White House being, "The People's House," and I would assume that would also extend to the Capital itself... And yet, Republicans can deny duly elected members of Congress use of a meeting room...
Okay.... Unlike some of my Left Wing friends, I happen to have quite a few Conservative Friends whom I respect. But there is something that has me completely confounded.
And I am going to ask point blank. Despite the fact that none of you seem to believe that the Downing Street Memo and other information that has been released over the last few years seems to point to a Bush Administration set on a war in Iraq, regardless of the legality or necessity... WHY are you so dead set against even investigating the charges.
Forgive me if I see hypocrisy... When the Swift Boat allegations came out, you were quick to embrace the charges... And forgive me for saying so, but who cares what happened 30 years ago. On the other hand, there is a distinct possibility that our President and members of his administration led us into a war resulting in Hundreds of Billions of Dollars of expenditures, thousands of shattered lives, and by some counts over 100,000 Iraqi dead... under false pretences.
I want to know, and it is a simple and honest question.... WHY don't you want to know the absolute truth, one way or the other. It would seem to me that ALL of you would be demanding an investigation to clear your President, if for nothing else. But the silence is deafening at this point.
So, someone give me an answer. And not one like, "This is old news," or "The charges are ridiculous," because the same thing could have been said about the Swift Boat charges, and yet you felt they were worthy of investigation.
For those who thought they could pooh, pooh this story into irrelevance... SORRY...
Aint gonna happen. The following list is from Freiheit und Wissen's post on the Second Memo.
Now Enquiring minds want to KNOW, when Right Wingers are going to get off of John Kerry's college transcript long enough to determine if Our President sent over 1000 young men and women to die in Iraq on false pretenses?
MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.
The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.
The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair's inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was "necessary to create the conditions" which would make it legal.
This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.
"US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia," the briefing paper warned. This meant that issues of legality "would arise virtually whatever option ministers choose with regard to UK participation".
The paper was circulated to those present at the meeting, among whom were Blair, Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of MI6. The full minutes of the meeting were published last month in The Sunday Times.
I know you wish we would...
I know you wish we would just shut up about this... After all... There is "NOTHING NEW HERE".... But we wont go away. We will continue to demand an investigation. The troops that all the Right Wing claim to support... Deserve nothing less...
The Washington Post: For the first time since the war in Iraq began, more than half of the American public believes the fight there has not made the United States safer, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
While the focus in Washington has shifted from the Iraq conflict to Social Security and other domestic matters, the survey found that Americans continue to rank Iraq second only to the economy in importance -- and that many are losing patience with the enterprise.
Nearly three-quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down and nearly six in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than four in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam.
Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it has. It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home. In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and three months ago 52 percent thought so.
Wonder how Americans will feel when the Administration asks for the next $80 Billion?
Well Gee Wilikers Batman, I guess that settles it... Two Politicians who stand the most to lose from being exposed as having colluded in an illegal invasion, say they did no such thing. I am sure convinced!
The Washington Post:
The Times report was intriguing: It showed that the head of British foreign intelligence told Blair seven months before the invasion of Iraq that Bush saw military action against Saddam Hussein as "inevitable" and that intelligence in Washington was "being fixed around the policy." In part, the memo never gained traction here because, unlike in Britain, it wasn't election season, and the war is not as unpopular here. In part, it's also because the notion that Bush was intent on military action in Iraq had been widely reported here before, in accounts from Paul O'Neill and Bob Woodward, among others.
Just one thing has me scratching my nappy head... Why is the fact that this has come out before... and been ignored, reason to be any less outraged?
Ever notice that the Conservative Approach to killing a negative story on Bush is nearly always, "nothing new here."
Lefty bloggers are in titters over a Fox News article about the Downing Street Memo; an article in which I was one of those interviewed.
Kelley Vlahos of Fox News called me last week to comment on the Downing Street Memo, having seen my story on the memo - Secret Downing Street Memo Fails To Sizzle. Several readers had queried me as to why conservative bloggers were not reporting on the story, and not wanting to disappoint I had a look at the story. It turns out that the story broke in the heat of the British election and had been promptly forgotten. Scant attention was paid to the memo in the major media, though it did merit three separate mentions in The New York Times prior to my article. My contention, and that of New York Times Washington Bureau chief Phil Taubman, the British government, and the White House, and others, is that there wasn't anything particularly new to be learned from the memo. Given the lack of new information in the memo the collective yawn from American media outlets is hardly surprising.
I got this in an email from Big Brass Alliance member Green Lantern today:
"I notice a few of the major American bigwig liberal blogs are missing from the alliance. What gives? I guess I just find it sad that we have Canadian bloggers signing up for the BBA yet major liberal American blogs are absent.
Now I don't mean to be nasty, and it's not "about us" or anything, it's the CAUSE thats important, and I do see some of the blogs have joined the Daily Kos alliance, which was formed later on. And Im glad they're on that ball. I'm just disappointed. I just find some kind of warped irony in us working on email campaigns to the mainstream media when we can't even get the attention or support of our own larger liberal blogs?"
My answer.... Maybe because one of them did not come up with the idea in the first place???
I don't even want to get started again about the class system in the Liberal Blogsphere, so I will just say this. We are doing fine without them. Screw them, and lets focus on the real issue, which is continuing to work together without ego, to bring this issue to light!
In perhaps one of the largest turnarounds in modern political history, only six months after winning reelection, Bush has apparently squandered his mandate and now finds himself a lame duck, his powerful political capitol spent. Yes, dear readers, America is finally on to the man and it is doubtful that his presidency will survive the next two years.
So unlikely is his political survival that we here at the RECOVERING LIBERAL feel completely comfortable in beginning what amounts to as a countdown to IMPEACHMENT (Drum Roll Please!).
And what a lovely impeachment it will be, televised and tivo'd, and commented on by AL and Randi at AIR AMERICA while being dutifully dissected by our brothers and sisters in the BLOGGING COMMUNITY Including: BLONDESENSE, AMERICAblog, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, and of course here in the red, white and blue pages of the LIB.
We are confident that in the next twenty-four months Dubya and the gang will be relegated to their rightful place in history as the war criminals, thieves and zealots that they most definitely are.
"When I go back [to Washington] on Monday, I am going to raise the issue. I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home. And it's amazing to me the way it escaped major media discussion. It's not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that."
Looks like Kerry Reads Blogs...
Too bad these people don't... Or at least don't read the right ones...
"Do you think that Americans if they really understood it would feel that way knowing that on Election Day, 77 percent of Americans who voted for Bush believed that weapons of mass destruction had been found and 77 percent believe Saddam did 9/11? Is there a way for this to break through, ever?"
I aint buying the outrage over protecting the Koran... You see these same people would be foaming at the mouth and calling for Nukes if someone SHIT on the Bible, and I would be right there with them.
This OP/Ed piece was published the other day, but I just got around to reading it. Nader consolidates some key points about the decision to go to war, and flat out calls for impeachment of The President and Vice President, if it is proven that they deliberately deceived the American People.
Eighty-nine members of Congress have asked the president whether intelligence was manipulated to lead the United States to war. The letter points to British meeting minutes that raise ''troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war." Those minutes describe the case for war as ''thin" and Saddam as ''nonthreatening to his neighbors," and ''Britain and America had to create conditions to justify a war." Finally, military action was ''seen as inevitable . . . But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Indeed, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, nor any imminent threat to the United States:
The International Atomic Energy Agency Iraq inspection team reported in 1998, ''there were no indications of Iraq having achieved its program goals of producing a nuclear weapon; nor were there any indications that there remained in Iraq any physical capability for production of amounts of weapon-usable material." A 2003 update by the IAEA reached the same conclusions.
The CIA told the White House in February 2001: ''We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has . . . reconstitute[d] its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Colin Powell said in February 2001 that Saddam Hussein ''has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."
The CIA told the White House in two Fall 2002 memos not to make claims of Iraq uranium purchases. CIA Director George Tenet personally called top national security officials imploring them not to use that claim as proof of an Iraq nuclear threat.
Regarding unmanned bombers highlighted by Bush, the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center concluded they could not carry weapons spray devices. The Defense Intelligence Agency told the president in June 2002 that the unmanned aerial bombers were unproven. Further, there was no reliable information showing Iraq was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons or whether it had established chemical agent production facilities.
When discussing WMD the CIA used words like ''might" and ''could." The case was always circumstantial with equivocations, unlike the president and vice president, e.g., Cheney said on Aug. 26, 2002: ''Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
The State Department in 2003 said: ''The activities we have detected do not . . . add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing . . . an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons."
The National Intelligence Estimate issued in October 2002 said ''We have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against US territory."
The UN, IAEA, the State and Energy departments, the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center, US inspectors, and even the CIA concluded there was no basis for the Bush-Cheney public assertions. Yet, President Bush told the public in September 2002 that Iraq ''could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given." And, just before the invasion, President Bush said: ''Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
The president and vice president have artfully dodged the central question: ''Did the administration mislead us into war by manipulating and misstating intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to Al Qaeda, suppressing contrary intelligence, and deliberately exaggerating the danger a contained, weakened Iraq posed to the United States and its neighbors?"
Much has been made of the MSM's failure to cover this story. My belief is that the Rather and Newsweek scandals have had a chilling effect on MSM willingness to directly confront this administration. Having said that, I think it is also important that Howard Dean and the Democratic Party needs to be much more aggressive in DEMANDING answers to these questions. Kerry apparently has finally started making a little noise on the issue, but every Democratic leader needs to raise their voice at this time.
It has been my believe from day one that our troops were sent to Iraq becuase George W. Bush felt his father's failure to remove Saddam was a bit of unfinished business that he needed to tend to. This was after all, "The man who tried to kill my daddy," and it is clear by now that GW is a man who takes a personal approach to governance.
The memo is additional evidence that The President had an obsession with Iraq and Saddam, and at minimum, he owes it to the American people to answer the questions posed by Representative Conyers.
Today begins a series of diaries aimed at helping to lift the virtual news blackout on that political bombshell, the Downing Street Minutes. Though it was published one month ago, the US news media has produced just a small trickle of reports to date. Many of us have appealed for more coverage by the news media, but with only limited success. It is high time to wake the MSM up. We will need to focus, coordinate, and sustain our efforts if we wish to get their attention. Clearly a scatter-shot approach will not get this information before the wider public, which deserves to know about it.
Therefore every weekday this month I will post a diary listing three news outlets. Please email, fax, or call all three on that day requesting politely that they report on DSM. The contacts for today are:
(A) CBS Evening News. email: evening@cbsnews.com phone: 212-975-3247
My last post on the Downing Street Memo, has got some interesting discussion going.
Boyd started it off:
And here I thought you had been paying attention, David. Don't let your dislike (I won't say hatred, in your case) of President Bush cloud your thinking. Just go back and read all the different rationales for invading Iraq (I can think of about ten off the top of my head).
Don't get sucked into the idiocy and hysteria of the unthinking Left, David. You're too smart for that. Because only someone supremely uninformed, or a flat-out liar, would say that the only reason we invaded Iraq was because of WMD, and that the President lied to us about it. Neither of those claims is true, and it's been proved over, and over, and over, and over, and over.
Take a deep breath and rejoin reality, brother.
I am going to address Boyd's comments in a moment, but first I want to excerpt something I got in an email from Shakespear's Sister yesterday:
"I would also like to share the following from Dan O'Donnell of Blony, which is really important:"
"Forgive me if I'm preaching to the choir here - just a thought of caution. Remember, even if essentially correct, CBS and Rather were discredited and destroyed by their lack of discipline. Likewise, Newsweek.
Paul Craig Roberts says: The top secret British government memo that was leaked to the London Times proves beyond all doubt that Bush invaded Iraq for none of . -- Mr. Roberts has called explicitly for impeachment.
The Hon. Mr. Roberts is incorrect. The Downing Street Memo is opinion, albeit by a professional whose job it was to provide his take to the British government. The memo contains no proof, no quotes. It is no "smoking gun"; Roberts goes too far in making so much of it and exposes his own assertions to what the administration has proven adept at. McCain has already simply said, "I don't believe it" and brushed it off as did McClellan.
We're supporting the position of Conyers and the Bonifaz Resolution of Inquiry in this swarm. They strike a careful tone in demanding a response from the administration and an inquiry by Congress. I urge discipline in formulating support for After Downing Street, to present the case while refraining from providing ammunition that might be used to discredit the effort. Mis-statements or excess of zeal that a Coulter, for example, can amplify to obscure everything else and make the administration appear as victim of liberal Bush-bashers needs to be denied the administration's very expert propaganda machine."
That is MY POSITION. The questions need to be asked... I am not going to get into a pissing contest over what justifications were used and WHEN for entering the war in Iraq. We all remember Collin Powell's now infamous appearance at the UN. We also remember The President's speeches in which he implied that Saddam was a clear and present danger to the U.S.. I dont believe the American Public would have supported a war in Iraq if they had known that no WMD's existed.
If the speculation that the President was planning an invassion of Iraq well before the claims of WMD were made, turn out to be true. Then he should be impeached. I again stress that ALL Americans should be asking for answers, verifiable answers...
As for Boyd's comments... My recollection is that all these OTHER reasons for invading Iraq were only stressed AFTER it was proven more or less conclussively that the WMD's did not in fact exist.
SPECIAL NOTE:
Visit After Downing Street to register your support. Sign Congressman Conyer's letter here. Write to your Congresspeople here.
And if you run a blog of your own and want to join our alliance, which is currently blogswarming this story until the mainstream media hears our collective voice, email Shakespear's Sister.
The Blogswarm: The Blogswarm: Big Brass Alliance members who have posted on the Memo in the last couple of days:
And I don't need no "Stinking $1000 to ask the question..." It is one ALL of us, Right and Left need to be asking, and demanding an answer to. So I challenge my friends on the Right to join those of us who are asking it!
It is time to get off the political partisan bandwagon boys and girls. If our President sent men and women to war under false pretenses, he MUST pay! One way or the other, he owes it to us, to answer the charge!
Source for News on Business in Central America
