 |
| |
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:34
|
|
There has been more damning evidence against the Bush administration coming out of the UK recently. The Dpwning Street Memo has started a firestorm in the British press and now several more memos have come to light. The newest British mem says the Bush Administration gave "little thought" to post war Iraq, reconstruction, or even the final post war political situation. Just about everything the British gave warnings about has come true and the Bush administration ignored them.
quote:
By Walter Pincus
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON — A briefing paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the British memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of that country.
The eight-page memo, written in advance of a July 23, 2002, Downing Street meeting on Iraq, provides new insights into how senior British officials saw a Bush administration decision to go to war as inevitable, and realized more clearly than their American counterparts the potential for the post-invasion instability that continues to plague Iraq.
In its introduction, the memo "Iraq: Conditions for Military Action" notes that U.S. "military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace," but adds that "little thought" has been given to, among other things, “the aftermath and how to shape it."
< snip >
Saying that "we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective," the memo’s authors point out, "A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise." The authors add, "As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden." |
Washington Post requires registration to read their content.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
|
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:34
|
|
Steve Artois is another blogger with a good reputation and he's got some smart analysis on supporting evidence of the Downing Street Memo.
quote:
"Steve Speak
Conyers listen:
First and most damaging to me, why would the White House see a need to build a strategic information campaign using White House staff to manipulate media coverage in favor of a war months in advance of going to the UN, Congress, and the American people if the issue and decision had not already been made? Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner wrote a little-noticed but never disputed paper that outlined the steps the Bush Administration took to build what in essence was a strategic influence and disinformation campaign to manipulate the media and sway public opinion in favor of a war that Bush says he hadn’t yet decided upon.
These efforts started with the creation of the Coalition Information Office by none other than Karen Hughes at about the same time the Downing Street Memo said that Bush had made up his mind. Colonel Gardiner feels that organization was in fact put together at the time of the memo, and that the “marketing” of the war began in September when Congress returned from summer recess. Since his study came out, Colonel Gardiner has received confirmation from a number of sources including sources inside the Bush Administration that almost all of his initial conclusions were correct.
Even though the whole study is chilling, pay particular attention to his material from Page 50 onward to see how the Downing Street Memo can be supported with Gardiner’s work. Perhaps Congressman Conyers can call Colonel Gardiner as a witness next week to lay out the involvement of the White House and outside GOP public relations firms in selling a war to the Congress and the American people through an intimidated and spoon-fed media, a campaign that actually commenced around the same time that the Downing Street Memo indicated a decision had already been made. And yes, I've talked with Gardiner today, and Colonel Gardiner is willing to share his information with Conyers.
Second, none other than Bob Woodward himself in his wet-kiss book “Bush at War” reported that Bush authorized Rumsfeld to move approximately $700 million from Afghanistan reconstruction to the establishment of a logistical infrastructure to support an Iraq invasion, without the required congressional notice and authority. When did this happen, as Woodward notes with a great deal of risk of legal problems for the White House? It happened in July 2002, at about the same time as the Downing Street Memo was written saying the decision had already been made by Bush, within a month of the Downing Street Memo. Perhaps Conyers can call Bob Woodward as a witness to testify about what he found in researching his book on this congressionally-unauthorized transfer of funds from Afghan reconstruction to Iraq war planning during the Summer of 2002.
And lastly, it has been reported that Bush dropped in on a White House meeting in Condi Rice’s office in March 2002, and blurted to the three startled US senators Rice was meeting with “**** Saddam, we’re going to take him out.” Perhaps Conyers can call the three senators as well as Michael Elliott and James Carney of Time Magazine to confirm what Bush said and did, three months before the Downing Street Memo said that a decision had already been made.
Again, the key for Conyers is not to get trapped into building his case primarily upon the fixed intelligence claim in the memo, but to build also a circumstantial case as well that supports the bigger claim that the decision had already been made by the White House to go to war in the Summer of 2002, despite what was being told to Congress and the American people." |
http://atrios.blogspot.com/
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:34
|
|
Actually, the memo's right here:
http://www.boozle.net/leak/
And here it is typed up:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0506/S00116.htm
Regarding authenticity, from the WaPo story today:
quote:
That memo and other internal British government documents were originally obtained by Michael Smith, who writes for the London Sunday Times. Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post, and the material was confirmed as authentic by British sources who sought anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter.That memo and other internal British government documents were originally obtained by Michael Smith, who writes for the London Sunday Times. Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post, and the material was confirmed as authentic by British sources who sought anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter. |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5061100723.html
Yes, nothing at all behind it. Clearly there's a vast media conspiracy trying to frame Dear Leader driven by that bastion radicalism, the Times of London. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
It will matter not at all in the United States. There is no one left who cares. "Move On" is our official credo.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
So, as I've said on numerous occasions, the justifications for the war were a fig leaf. We all know that many in the current US adminstration wanted to invade Iraq before Bush was even made President, and we know (from Bob Woodward no less, IIRC) that Iraq was first on the agenda when Bush came in to office.
So what does this have to do with 9/11?
Nothing. Well nothing unless the adminstration knew about 9/11 before it happened, and only the most hardened conspiracy theorists are saying that.
What does this have to do with Al Qaeda?
Nothing. One could make a case that the focus on Iraq was part of a long term strategy for removing terrorism by democratizing the Middle East (in fact that is the current excuse for the war).
However, that case is conclusively dismantled by the documented fact that the administration had almost no interest in Al Qaeda before 9/11. Poor old Richard Clarke talked himself blue in the face trying to get Rice and others to recognize the danger from Al Qaeda, and I have not see any reasonable refutation of his claims.
In conclusion, it just isn't clear why the administration was so focused on Iraq. Some speculate that they wish to simply extend the Monroe doctrine to the Middle East. I don't know about that, but at least it fits the available facts.
But of course the media are jumpy about reporting this. They have been under constant and (often, but not always) unfair attack from the right, and it is still the case that a large proportion of Americans believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 despite the fact that there is no evidence of that (and the fact that a Saddam Al Qaeda alliance is plainly ludicrous given the nature of the parties involved). So perhaps they are worried that, whatever the merits of the memo, that it is simply political suicide to attempt to do something about it.
On the other hand, it could be that they just don't know what to do. It is hard for a country such as the US, which invests so much moral authority in its system of government, to acknowledge that its leaders have engaged in such high crimes. Clinton's impeachment was certainly never an issue, since most Americans (correctly IMHO) regarded the whole thing as a disgraceful political stunt. Nixon's impeachment was for personal failings. He attempted to cheat within the system for his own political gain. Note that his disgraceful conduct w/regard to Vietnam was never going to be the reason for his removal from office – in that case the United States would have lost face. In Watergate, only Nixon lost face as it was seen as a matter of personal and not governmental failure. It's hard to know what to do when people you have put such trust in are content to blatantly and criminally abuse it.
This inability to admit national failure is not, I should add, unique to the USA. It's just that US failings in this respect have much bigger consequences for the world. During the Cold War most allies were prepared to put such acts behind them as a matter of national interest. But the rules have changed – it is no longer in the national interest of other than a few small banana republics and Britain (I was just going to include Britain in the banana republics, but I thought people wouldn't get the joke) to support US national interests.
Thus we risk falling back into the jungle of alliance politics. The US simply does not have the wherewithal or will to run the world, and it has now lost, probably for a generation, any moral authority (soft power) it once had among the rest of us. It's very dangerous.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
|
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:34
|
|
Great stuff from the New York Times' Frank Rich:
quote:
This is the kind of lapdog news media the Nixon White House cherished. To foster it, Nixon's special counsel, Charles W. Colson, embarked on a ruthless program of intimidation that included threatening antitrust action against the networks if they didn't run pro-Nixon stories. Watergate tapes and memos make Mr. Colson, who boasted of "destroying the old establishment," sound like the founding father of today's blogging lynch mobs. He exulted in bullying CBS to cut back its Watergate reports before the '72 election. He enlisted NBC in pro-administration propaganda by browbeating it to repackage 10-day-old coverage of Tricia Nixon's wedding as a prime-time special. It was the Colson office as well that compiled a White House enemies list that included journalists who had the audacity to question administration policies.
Such is the equivalently supine state of much of the news media today that Mr. Colson was repeatedly trotted out, without irony, to pass moral judgment on Mr. Felt - and not just on Fox News, the cable channel that is actually run by the former Nixon media maven, Roger Ailes. "I want kids to look up to heroes," Mr. Colson said, oh so sorrowfully, on NBC's "Today" show, condemning Mr. Felt for dishonoring "the confidence of the president of the United States." Never mind that Mr. Colson dishonored the law, proposed bombing the Brookings Institution and went to prison for his role in the break-in to steal the psychiatric records of The Times's Deep Throat on Vietnam, Daniel Ellsberg. The "Today" host, Matt Lauer, didn't mention any of this - or even that his guest had done jail time. None of the other TV anchors who interviewed Mr. Colson - and he was ubiquitous - ever specified his criminal actions in the Nixon years. Some identified him onscreen only as a "former White House counsel." |
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/o.../12rich.html?hp
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Don't you find that alarming, that your leader is allowed to do what the hell he liked provided he isn't discovered for a few years? Don't you feel he should be brought to account for his actions? This clarifies that his actions were utterly criminal... |
Yeah, but in this part of the country I wouldn't be too open about it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Still doesn't mean turning a blind eye to his actions is acceptable. It strikes me as more of an indictment on your fellow countryman... |
Oh really? If Tony knew that the whole "WMD" and "al_Qaida link" rationale for the invasion was a scam why did he go along with it? Doesn't that make him a sort of co-conspirator? Didn't you guys just re-elect him?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
So, as I've said on numerous occasions, the justifications for the war were a fig leaf. We all know that many in the current US adminstration wanted to invade Iraq before Bush was even made President, and we know (from Bob Woodward no less, IIRC) that Iraq was first on the agenda when Bush came in to office.
So what does this have to do with 9/11?
Nothing. Well nothing unless the adminstration knew about 9/11 before it happened, and only the most hardened conspiracy theorists are saying that.
What does this have to do with Al Qaeda?
Nothing. One could make a case that the focus on Iraq was part of a long term strategy for removing terrorism by democratizing the Middle East (in fact that is the current excuse for the war).
However, that case is conclusively dismantled by the documented fact that the administration had almost no interest in Al Qaeda before 9/11. Poor old Richard Clarke talked himself blue in the face trying to get Rice and others to recognize the danger from Al Qaeda, and I have not see any reasonable refutation of his claims.
In conclusion, it just isn't clear why the administration was so focused on Iraq. Some speculate that they wish to simply extend the Monroe doctrine to the Middle East. I don't know about that, but at least it fits the available facts.
But of course the media are jumpy about reporting this. They have been under constant and (often, but not always) unfair attack from the right, and it is still the case that a large proportion of Americans believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 despite the fact that there is no evidence of that (and the fact that a Saddam Al Qaeda alliance is plainly ludicrous given the nature of the parties involved). So perhaps they are worried that, whatever the merits of the memo, that it is simply political suicide to attempt to do something about it.
On the other hand, it could be that they just don't know what to do. It is hard for a country such as the US, which invests so much moral authority in its system of government, to acknowledge that its leaders have engaged in such high crimes. Clinton's impeachment was certainly never an issue, since most Americans (correctly IMHO) regarded the whole thing as a disgraceful political stunt. Nixon's impeachment was for personal failings. He attempted to cheat within the system for his own political gain. Note that his disgraceful conduct w/regard to Vietnam was never going to be the reason for his removal from office – in that case the United States would have lost face. In Watergate, only Nixon lost face as it was seen as a matter of personal and not governmental failure. It's hard to know what to do when people you have put such trust in are content to blatantly and criminally abuse it.
This inability to admit national failure is not, I should add, unique to the USA. It's just that US failings in this respect have much bigger consequences for the world. During the Cold War most allies were prepared to put such acts behind them as a matter of national interest. But the rules have changed – it is no longer in the national interest of other than a few small banana republics and Britain (I was just going to include Britain in the banana republics, but I thought people wouldn't get the joke) to support US national interests.
Thus we risk falling back into the jungle of alliance politics. The US simply does not have the wherewithal or will to run the world, and it has now lost, probably for a generation, any moral authority (soft power) it once had among the rest of us. It's very dangerous. |
I was going to mention Clarke and the 9/11 information.
Agathon, unfortunatley, most people don't realize how much power has evaporated from us the past 3 years. People still think we're the top dog that brought down Nazi Germany singlehandely. It's like nothing else matters except World War 2.
People don't realize that every time Condi goes to yet ANOTHER country (she does this WEEKLY, now) and scolds them for lack of "democracy" people just laugh at her, and this just makes us look like even more of a joke.
We scold Syria for intervening in Lebanon, but here we are doing the exact same thing next door in Iraq. We scold the world for having nuclear weapons, yet here we are spending more than any other nation combined, in developing new ones. We invade another nation on the the pretense of an oppressive regime that tortures people, and then we go in and torture the same people we said we were there to save. We talk about freedom and liberty, yet we lock up innocent people indefinitley, and only release them when our closest allies ask for them back.
It is plain to see what the hell is going on here, we are doing stupid **** all over this planet. The last 3 years have shown nothing but hypocricy. And still nobody has owned up to it. I am ashamed to be an American. 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-06-2005 15:47
"
|