| Author | Message | | Alpha | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 11:29 pm Post subject: Politics: Memo to Mainstream Media |
| http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0523/050608_news_geovparrish.php
June 8 - 14, 2005
Politics: Memo to Mainstream Media
by Geov Parrish
I have a three-word response to the media frenzy that followed revelation of the long-secret identity of Deep Throat: Downing Street Memo.
Here's what John Dean, a key Watergate figure, wrote about Dubya's case for the Iraq war in a June 2003 column for www.findlaw.com: "To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. . . . Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be a 'high crime' under the Constitution's impeachment clause."
That's exactly what the Downing Street Memo, first reported a month ago by The Times of London, proves. The memo is an account of the report given to British leadership by Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's MI-6 (the equivalent of the CIA), after a meeting with top White House officials. Dearlove described, fully eight months before the invasion of Iraq, an American determination to go to war and to manipulate public and congressional opinion with what Dearlove characterized as a "thin" case for the presence of weapons of mass destruction and links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
It's hard not to contrast the frenzy that greeted the revelation of a 30-year-old secret with the thudding indifference U.S. media have given the Downing Street Memo. The memo has scarcely been mentioned in the country's leading newspapers and has been completely ignored by evening network news.
The reasons are numerous, but it adds up to a depressing reminder that Watergate, as reported in 1972–74, would never be reported today. The same secrecy, paranoia, and demands for absolute loyalty that were the undoing of the Nixon administration have been used, in our modern media climate, with resounding success by the Bush administration. Media outlets today are far less willing to invest the time and money in investigative journalism, far less willing to rock the boat or risk being tagged with the dreaded "liberal media" tag. The right-wing firestorm that followed the miscues of Dan Rather and Newsweek has further cowed big media outlets from taking risks, but the barriers were already there, as Gary Webb could testify if he hadn't killed himself last December. The career costs can be enormous for enterprising journalists who want to take on power, and the likelihood that your publisher will back you up these days, as Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were backed up by The Washington Post, is unpredictable. Webb reported and wrote a series of stories about the CIA and crack cocaine for the San Jose Mercury News in 1996. Under a flurry of criticism, including from other mainstream newspapers, his editors backed away from the series' findings. Two years later, the CIA confirmed some of Webb's major findings.
The information needed to impeach George Bush for lying to Congress, the United Nations, and the American public about the most serious imaginable matter—the misuse of military force—is all out there. It's been reported, in foreign media, in the alternative press, in the margins. But it has not been championed by major media, and so it has not been taken to heart by either the American public or Congress. Bush and his aides intentionally lied about the case for mounting an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country. The outcome has been a conflict that has so far left more than 1,400 American soldiers dead, many thousands more maimed, and has led to the deaths of an estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilians. The Downing Street Memo erases any doubt about the intentional nature of the disinformation campaign waged upon us to justify this war.
Obviously, a Republican-controlled Congress is not about to impeach its own president. Enormous public pressure would have to be brought to bear. But that public pressure has also been missing, starting with the media coverage. It's difficult to imagine, at this point, any sort of "smoking gun" sufficient to generate momentum against the Bush administration. Vietnam era dissident Daniel Ellsberg has been touring the country for the past year, urging federal officials within earshot to do as he did with the Pentagon Papers about the Vietnam War, which he leaked to The New York Times—to do as Deep Throat did with the Watergate cover-up, to leak to the press what they know of the Bush administration's misdeeds. But even that might not be enough, because there is no guarantee that the press would even carry, let alone highlight in proper context, such allegations.
We now know the identity of Deep Throat. Fine. But take a moment to mourn the fact that the courage and integrity displayed by Deep Throat would not be effective today, because there seems to be nobody in our country's major media willing to hear such secrets. We've lost an essential tool for accountability of our country's highest powers. They still lie and cheat—only, today, we no longer seem to care.
gparrish@seattleweekly.com | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 5:26 pm Post subject: What’s Up With the Downing Street Memo? |
| http://www.the-signal.com/News/ViewStory.asp?storyID=7284
What’s Up With the Downing Street Memo?
6/4/2005
Diana Sevanian Signal Staff Writer
If I had lost a loved one fighting in Iraq or currently had a soldier over there, I would be enraged over the Downing Street Memo. Even without that link, I am fuming about this formerly “extremely sensitive” and now public memorandum.
In case you’re unaware, the Downing Street Memo is the recently leaked minutes from a 2002 British government meeting between Prime Minister Tony Blair and his senior national security team. It pertains to their intelligence analysts’ concerns over President Bush’s determination to topple Saddam Hussein — despite “wobbly evidence” that Iraq posed a serious threat to its neighbors or to the United States.
Penned by top Blair aide Matthew Rycroft almost one year before we gave Iraq the shock and awe no one will ever forget, the top-secret memo spoke of how that cause for war would have to be scripted — because a desire for regime change was just not a good enough reason to send in the troops.
Per the minutes, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw concurred that Bush’s case to go to war was slim.
“Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran,” Straw said.
The memo also told of how Bush’s decision to strike was already set prior to his presenting the plan to Congress; that the National Security Council lacked patience with the United Nations’ route and had no zeal for releasing information on Iraq’s regime record; and that there was “little discussion” in Washington to plan an aftermath to military action.
Here’s the kicker: The former head of British Secret Intelligence Services, Richard Dearlove (who had just gotten back from meetings in Washington, D.C.), was sure Bush wanted to “remove Saddam Hussein through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. ... But the intelligence and the facts were being fixed around the policy.”
Facts “fixed”?
Isn’t that like manufacturing evidence?
How do you explain that to kids who signed on to fight evildoers and secure their WMDs, only to come home in flag-draped boxes to a nation where, according to a recent Gallup poll, almost 60 percent of its citizens now feel the war was a total mistake?
How do you explain it to grieving parents who thought their sons and daughters died in a war where military power had been used only as the absolute last resort — like Bush said it would be?
While Blair’s cabinet has acknowledged the authenticity of the memo, White House spokesman Scott McClellan stiffly discounted it, saying “there is no need to respond” to it.
I am not surprised at that reaction.
Now for another disturbing twist: This whole memo story has largely gone to the back burner of our nation’s consciousness. Although it was first divulged in Great Britain more than one month ago, you just aren’t hearing or reading much about it here.
Someone who is quite vocal about it, however, is Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee who, along with 88 other Congressional Democrats,, has formally requested answers from President Bush.
To date, no reply.
So what does this silence say?
It says,, ignore the issue and the people will forget about it.
Further, it says that “we the people” do not matter; what matters is preserving the cold-steely dogma that drives this human meat-grinding machine our leaders have set into voracious motion.
Senior statesman Conyers feels the mainstream media have ignored the story and helped let the president off the hook.
Why this reticence in reporting? After all, the “liberal” media is considered by many to be a mongrel that’ll bite any bone if it makes the administration look bad.
I know some folks are saying, “They’re not writing about it because it is a non-issue. We are in a war now. That’s what matters.”
Others, like McClellan, will just deny its validity.
But I believe this paucity of front-page attention is more complex. Possibly some journalists are so burned up with — or burned out by — this historic debacle that they’ve chosen to stay mum and see what unfolds. Perhaps they feel there’s too much fresh residue from the Newsweek and Dan Rather incidents to stick their necks out.
Maybe a pervasive numbness has enveloped many of us. Each day the horrific news from Iraq, as well as the White House PR spin on it, give people more reason to feel sick, worried, mad, misguided and hopeless.
It could also be that some people who have voiced their concerns over this cursed Pandora’s Box and the fact that we have no exit strategy from it — just a new generation of dying soldiers and hemorrhaging pockets — are weary from speaking out and being excoriated. After all, when they do voice their opinions, the “real” patriots of this nation viciously label them cowardly, liberal, un-American, gun-absconding, fetus-killing, commie-wacko traitors who deserve to be deported.
Speaking of communism, or totalitarianism or socialism, or any “ism” that strays from what this nation’s founding government was supposed to be about, how far off are we from being under what many would consider an aberrant regime if we cannot depend on straight answers from the top?
Democrats are not the only folks fired up over this situation. Republicans are coming forward, too. Count in Paul Craig Roberts, a conservative Republican and syndicated columnist.
A Hoover Institution senior fellow and former Reagan Administration economic policy cabinet member, Roberts says, “George W. Bush and his gang of neocon warmongers have destroyed America’s reputation.”
In his recent column, “A Reputation in Tatters,” Roberts writes that our dismal standing will likely prevail unless drastic measures are taken — including the same penalty served on our former commander-in-chief.
“As intent as Republicans were to impeach President Clinton for lying about a sexual affair, they have a blind eye for President Bush’s far more serious lies. Bush’s lies have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people, injured and maimed tens of thousands more, devastated a country, destroyed America’s reputation, caused one billion Muslims to hate America, ruined our alliances with Europe, created a police state at home, and squandered $300 billion dollars and counting,” he said.
So, Mr. President. What about a bona fide, non-scripted face-the-nation about the memo and this war? This is a democracy and you are supposed to listen to our concerns — and responsibly address them.
Validate our right to know the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
You owe us that, Mr. Bush.
You especially owe it to the more than 1,600 soldiers who have died in Iraq, those still serving there, those bound to go, and all the people who love them.
Diana Sevanian is a Stevenson Ranch resident. Her column represents her own views, and not necessarily those of The Signal. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:27 am Post subject: A Lie of Historic Proportions |
| A Lie of Historic Proportions
Iraq has been the tragic Lie of Historic Proportions of Washington, DC since before the first Gulf war. For years, Saddam was one of our government's propped up and militarily supported puppets. Many people have seen the famous footage of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. I suppose the two are smiling so big for the cameras because they are kindred spirits. After all of the hand-shaking and weapon brokering, when did Saddam become such a bad guy to Bush, Cheney, Halliburton and Co.? (Insert your favorite reason here).
During the Clinton regime the US-UN led sanctions against Iraq and the weekly bombing raids killed tens of thousands of people in Iraq. Many of them were children, but since one of her children didn't have to be sacrificed to the homicidal war machine, Madeline Albright, thinks the slaughter during the “halcyon” Clinton years was “worth it.” More lies.
Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of current events understands that this invasion/occupation of Iraq was not about Saddam being a “bad guy.” If that logic is used, then how many innocent Iraqi people have to die before the citizens of America wake up and know that our government is a “bad guy?” We also know that Iraq was not about WMD's. They weren't there and they weren't going to be there for at least a decade, by all reports. Another reason, so wispy and more difficult to disprove, is that America invaded Iraq to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. When one tries to dispute this particular deception, one is accused of being unpatriotic or hating freedom. Even though correct, the statement “Freedom isn't Free” is very insulting to me. False freedom is very expensive. Fake freedom costs over one billion of our tax dollars a week; phony freedom has cost the Iraqi people tens of thousands of innocent lives; fanciful freedom has meant the destruction of a country and its infrastructure. Tragically, this fabricated notion of freedom and democracy cost me far more than I was willing to pay: the life of my son, Casey. The Lie of Historic Proportions also cost me my peace of mind, I do not feel free and I do not feel like I live in a democracy.
One of the other great deceits that is being perpetuated on the American public and the world is that this occupation is to fight terrorism: If we don't fight terrorism in Iraq then we will have to fight it “on our streets.” In fact, terrorist attacks have skyrocketed in Iraq and all over the world. So much so, that the State Department has stopped compiling the statistics and quit issuing the yearly terrorism report. I guess if one doesn't write a report, then terrorism doesn't exist. All of Casey's commendations say that he was killed in the “GWOT” the Global War on Terrorism. I agree with most of GWOT, except that Casey was killed in the Global War Of Terrorism waged on the world and its own citizens by the biggest terrorist outfit in the world: George and his destructive Neo-con cabal.
The evidence is overwhelming, compelling, and alarming that George and his indecent bandits traitorously had intelligence fabricated to fit their goal of invading Iraq. The criminals foisted a Lie of Historic Proportions on the world. It was clear to many of us more aware people that George, Condi, Rummy, the two Dicks: Cheney and Perle, Wolfie, and most effectively and treacherously, Colin Powell, lied their brains out before the invasion. The world was even shown where the WMD'S were on the map. We were told that the “smoking gun” could come at any time in the form of a “mushroom cloud” or a cloud of toxic biological or chemical weapons. Does anyone remember duct tape and plastic sheeting?
Finally, the side of peace, truth and justice has our own smoking gun and it is burning our hands. It is the so-called Downing Street Memo dated 23, July 2002, (almost 8 months before the invasion) that states that military action (against Iraq) is now seen as “inevitable.” The memo further states that: “Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action”, justified by the conjunction of “terrorism and WMD's.” The most damning thing to George in the memo is where the British intelligence officer who wrote the memo claims that the intelligence to base Great Britain and the US staging a devastating invasion on Iraq was being “fixed around the policy.” Now, after over three years of negligent propaganda, it is difficult to distinguish the proven lies from the new “truth:” that this occupation is bringing freedom and democracy to the people of Iraq.
Casey took an oath to protect the US from all enemies “foreign and domestic.” He was sent to occupy and die in a foreign country that was no threat to the USA. However, the biggest threat to our safety, humanity, and our way of life in America are George and his cronies. Congress made a Mistake of Historic Proportions and waived its Constitutional responsibility to declare war. It is time for the House to make up for that mistake and introduce Articles of Impeachment against the murderous thugs who have caused so much mindless mayhem. It is time for Congress to re-validate itself by holding a hearing about the Downing Street Memo. The reader can help by going onto www.AfterDowningStreet.org and signing a petition to Rep. John Conyers so he will know that the American people are behind him to convene an investigation in the House Judiciary Committee. You can also write your Congressional Representative to help push the inquiry.
It is time to put partisan politics behind us to do what is correct for once and reclaim America's humanity. It is time for Congress and the American people to work together in peace and justice to rid our country of the stench of greed, hypocrisy, and unnecessary suffering that permeates our White House and our halls of Congress. It is time to hold someone accountable for the carnage and devastation that has been caused. As a matter of fact, it is past time, but it is not too late.
Cindy Sheehan
Mother of needlessly slain soldier, Casey Sheehan.
Cofounder of Gold Star Families for Peace www.gsfp.org
(Organizational Supporters of www.AfterDowningStreet.org)
Scindy121@aol.com | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 7:03 pm Post subject: George Washington's Farewell Address: Passionate Attachment |
| "So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a
variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion
of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists,
and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a
participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate
inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite
nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the
nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld . . .
"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe
me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly
awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the
most baneful foes of republican government . . . Excessive partiality for one
foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate
to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of
influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the
favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes
usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.
" . . . nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate
antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others
should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings
toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an
habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a
slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to
lead it astray from its duty and its interest."
-- President George Washington
Farewell Address
September 26, 1796
Todays Holy Wars News:
http://www.antiwar.com | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
