| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:39 pm Post subject: After the Downing Street Memo: Case for Impeachment Builds |
| After the Downing Street Memo: Case for Impeachment Builds
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9066.htm
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/061305A.shtml
DOWNING STREET MEMO HEARING: US WENT TO WAR FOR ISRAEL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/06/17/downing-street-memo-hearing-us-went-to-war-for-israel.php
http://www.nowarforisrael.com
http://nomorewarforisrael.blogspot.com
Complete timeline of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq: Motives :
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq&general_topic_areas=motivesBehindWar
Democrats Cite Downing Street Memo in Bolton Fight :
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/061605W.shtml
FOCUS | New Memos Reveal Bush Deception on Iraq
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/061505Y.shtml
Republican Congressman Walter Jones 'Sees the Light' on the Iraq Quagmire:
http://gorillaintheroom.blogspot.com/2005/05/seeing-light-updated.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3054991.stm
AP account of Downing Street question differs from that of White House, Washington Post:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/AP_account_of_Downing_Street_question_differs_from_White_House_Wash._Po_0608.html
Sen. Kennedy speaks out on Downing Street Memo: 'Twisted intelligence; Distorted facts' :
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Kennedy_speaks_out_on_Downing_Street_Memo_Twisted_intelligence_Distorted_f_0607.html
House Judiciary Democrats to hold hearings on Downing Street:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/House_Judiciary_Democrats_to_hold_hearings_on_Downing_Street_mi_0609.html
http://www.AfterDowningStreet.org
Transcript: Joint Press Conference with President Bush and Prime Minister Blair:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060701118.html
Bush/Blair Lie to the world yet again:
http://www.djpauledge.com/blog.php?id=90
MILITARY FAMILIES CHARGE BLAIR WITH WAR CRIMES – WILL TAKE CASE TO INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2005/06/10/downing-street-hearings-6-16-05.php
The need to wrongfoot Saddam:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1309109,00.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print.html?path=HL0506/S00116.htm
Ministers were told of need for Gulf war ‘excuse’:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/06/12/ministers-were-told-of-need-for-gulf-war-excuse.php
Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Postwar Iraq Plan:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/06/12/memo-u-s-lacked-full-postwar-iraq-plan.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stephen Sniegoski" <hectorpv@comcast.net>
To: "Sniegoski, Stephen" <hectorpv@comcast.net>
Subject: Downing Street Memo
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:51:21 -0400
Friends,
Downing Street Memo
The recently revealed British secret documents clearly show that the Bush administration had decided upon war on Iraq by July 2002, and the British government believed it had to go along but sought some cover in order to make the aggressive attack appear legal by the standards of international law. The US, the British were informed, was going to try to provide a legal cover for the war. Richard Dearlove – then director of the Brit equivalent of the CIA – told Blair that "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."
Instead of trying to make an objective assessment of any danger that Iraq posed to the United States, the Bush administration selectively used the most exaggerated intelligence from the most unreliable sources, such as Ahmed Chalabi, in order to gain popular and Congressional support for a war on Iraq. The WMD story was simply a means to achieve a war that had other hidden motives, which apparently would not gain public support nor justify an attack on a country by the standards of international law.
The establishment media--the Washington Post, Michael Kinsley, Dana Milbank, Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC--have dismissed the new British revelations as, in the Post's words, adding nothing new to what "was publicly known in July 2002." The Post claims that "it was argued even then, and has since become conventional wisdom, that Mr. Bush, Vice President Cheney and other administration spokesmen exaggerated the threat from Iraq to justify the elimination of its noxious regime." Certainly, if the Post knew that the administration was deceiving the American people about the alleged danger from Iraq, it didn't make much effort to inform its readers. The Post views all this deception in an rather cavalier fashion, as if deception is to be expected in justifying wars; in fact, the Post and the other Establishment folk almost take the position that the war lies were simply a device, perhaps a necessary device, to gain public support for a "good war" against a "noxious" leader; and the Post did, in fact, support the attack on Iraq.
Yes, knowledgeable people should have discerned that the Bush administration WMD claims were false--that even if Saddam had some type of poison gas, as he had in the 1980s, he posed no threat to the US--but the great majority of the people needed to have this drilled into their minds in order to counteract the pro-war drumbeat from the Bush administration and its followers. The mainstream media not only failed to emphasize the Bush administration falsehoods but usually parroted the Bush propaganda, which the Establishment folk now claim they knew to be false.
Of course, this elitist concept of America's rulers doing what they deem to be "good" while lying to the American public completely contradicts the current justification of the war as a fight for democracy (though it does reflect the thinking of the neocon's anti-democratic icon Leo Strauss). In short, in order to bring about democracy, it is presumably necessary to act in completely undemocratic ways, undermining the existence of democracy where it already exists. That type of illogic resembles that of Dostoevsky's revolutionary-ideologue character Shigalov in The Possessed who explains with respect to his own plan for a future society: "I have started out with the idea of unrestricted freedom and I have arrived at unrestricted despotism."
As Prather points out in the first article, the Bush administration clearly violated American law in its deceptive justification for the war. And the issue was not simply one of not telling the truth. For if the administration had admitted that the US was not seriously threatened by Iraq, there would have been no justification to launch an attack. Prather points out how such a national emergency was absolutely essential for Bush to legally use the National Guard.
The second article is the Washington Post's editorial dismissing the importance of the recently-revealed British documents--the nothing-new spin.
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=6351
June 18, 2005
The Damning Downing Street Memo
by Gordon Prather
No thanks to the domestic and international neo-crazy media sycophants, you probably now know about the "Downing Street memo."
The memo is actually the minutes – stamped "Secret and Strictly Personal – UK Eyes Only" – of a meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his senior national security team.
The meeting was held at Downing Street on July 23, 2002, and the leaked minutes were first published by the Sunday Times of London on May 1, 2005.
No one in Bush's or Blair's government has questioned the accuracy or validity of what the Sunday Times published.
No one!
Perhaps the most damning revelation is that Richard Dearlove – then director of the Brit equivalent of the CIA – told Blair that "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."
Remember that these are minutes of a meeting, not an actual transcript. And much of the meeting concerned Bush's plans and decisions. So Bush and Blair have discounted the Downing Street memo, claiming that most of those plans and decisions were never implemented.
Consequently, the neo-crazy media sycophants are claiming the reason they didn't tell you about the Downing Street memo is that "there is nothing in it that we didn't know about at the time."
Well, maybe they already knew in July of 2002 that Bush-Cheney-Bolton-Wolfowitz-Feith had been "fixing" the intelligence for almost a year to fit the upcoming war of aggression. But did you?
For example, did you know that Bush-Cheney-Bolton had conspired in early 2002 to get Jose Bustani, director-general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), fired? Why did Bustani "have to go"? According to unnamed Bolton aides, because "he was trying to send [OPCW] chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad and that might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war."
As a result of the revelations contained in the Downing Street memo, constitutional lawyer John Bonifaz has established AfterDowningStreet.org and called for a "Resolution of Inquiry"; a formal congressional investigation into whether President Bush committed impeachable offenses in the run-up to – and launching of – Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Of course, once the inquiry is under way, it need not concern itself with the undisputed revelations contained in the Downing Street memo.
For example, since the war began in March 2003, at least 163 members of the National Guard – plus 45 Army Reservists and 45 Marine Reservists – have died in Iraq.
Until the president or Congress declares a national emergency, the president has no authority over National Guard units or the Guardsmen themselves.
Governors do, but not the president.
On Sept. 14, 2001, President Bush did issue a "Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks" on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and "the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States."
On the same day, citing that declaration, Bush issued an executive order "Ordering the Ready Reserve of the Armed Forces to Active Duty." But, that executive order – citing that declaration – makes no mention of the National Guard or the Reserves.
Bush has, nevertheless, misused that declaration and executive order to justify the federalization of the National Guard and the dispatch of National Guard and Reserve units to fight in Iraq.
By law, the constitutional powers of the president to "introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities" are limited, and can only be exercised "pursuant to (a) a declaration of war, (b) specific statutory authorization, or (c) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
On March 19, 2003, in invoking the authority of the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Armed Forces Against Iraq," President Bush sent his "determination" that Iraq posed "a continuing threat to the national security of the United States" by "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations."
But isn't that exactly what Richard Dearlove told Tony Blair on July, 23, 2002 that Bush had decided to do, and had been "fixing" the intelligence to that end?
And don't we now know that Bush did send members of our U.S. armed forces – including National Guardsmen and Reservists – to their deaths in Iraq on the basis of "fixed" intelligence?
if ( show_doubleclick_ad && ( adTemplate & SKY_RIGHT ) == SKY_RIGHT ) { placeAd('ARTICLE',commercialNode,4,'',true) ; } http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401383_pf.html
washingtonpost.com
Iraq, Then and Now
Washington Post
Wednesday, June 15, 2005; A24
AFTER LAGGING for months, debate on Iraq in Washington is picking up again. That's a needed and welcome development, but much of the discussion is being diverted to the wrong subject. War opponents have been trumpeting several British government memos from July 2002, which describe the Bush administration's preparations for invasion, as revelatory of President Bush's deceptions about Iraq. Bloggers have demanded to know why "the mainstream media" have not paid more attention to them. Though we can't speak for The Post's news department, the answer appears obvious: The memos add not a single fact to what was previously known about the administration's prewar deliberations. Not only that: They add nothing to what was publicly known in July 2002.
Three summers ago the pages of this and other newspapers were filled with reports about military planning for war to remove Saddam Hussein and Mr. Bush's determination to force a showdown. "Debate over whether the United States should go to war against Iraq," we stated in a lead editorial on Aug. 4, "has lurched into a higher gear." Concern that the Bush administration was not adequately prepared for a postwar occupation -- another supposed revelation of the British memos -- prompted widely reported public hearings by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee starting on July 31, 2002.
One observation in the memos is vague but intriguing: A British official is quoted as saying that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Yet it was argued even then, and has since become conventional wisdom, that Mr. Bush, Vice President Cheney and other administration spokesmen exaggerated the threat from Iraq to justify the elimination of its noxious regime. And the memos provide no information that would alter the conclusions of multiple independent investigations on both sides of the Atlantic, which were that U.S. and British intelligence agencies genuinely believed Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that they were not led to that judgment by the Bush administration.
Debate over whether the war should have been fought is appropriate and no doubt will continue for many years. But it ought not distract from what should be an urgent discussion of the present situation in Iraq. After a lull following January's elections, violence -- and U.S. casualties -- have returned to the level of last fall; the political process is stuck on the inability of Shiite and Sunni leaders to reach an accommodation, even as the time allotted to completing a constitution slips away. Recent in-depth reports by The Post and the New York Times have suggested that training of the new Iraqi army continues to yield mixed results and that it will be several more years, at least, before Iraqi units can take the place of U.S. troops.
All this should call into question the Bush administration's present rhetoric and apparent strategy, which assumes that the Iraqi insurgency is, as Mr. Cheney put it, in its "last throes"; that Iraqi units will be ready before the U.S. military, now facing a recruiting crisis, is broken by the strain of deploying more than 130,000 troops; and that the United States can still afford to take a relatively hands-off approach to the political process, leaving Baghdad without an ambassador for months at a time. In fact, the U.S. mission in Iraq seems to be drifting dangerously -- and the president, once again, is not talking frankly to the country about the sacrifice that may be required, or where the troops and other resources for such an effort will come from. Those ought to be the questions at center stage this summer.
Last edited by Alpha on Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:27 am; edited 22 times in total | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:44 pm Post subject: A Lie of Historic Proportions |
| http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/060905Z.shtml
'Downing Street Memo' Gets Fresh Attention
By Mark Memmott
USA Today
Wednesday 08 June 2005
A simmering controversy over whether American media have ignored a secret British memo about how President Bush built his case for war with Iraq bubbled over into the White House on Tuesday.
At a late afternoon news conference, Reuters correspondent Steve Holland asked Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair about a memo that's been widely written about and discussed in Europe but less so in the USA.
It was the most attention paid by the media in the USA so far to the "Downing Street memo," first reported on May 1 by The Sunday Times of London. The memo is said by some of the president's sharpest critics, such as Democratic Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, to be strong evidence that Bush decided to go to war and then looked for evidence to support his decision.
The Sunday Times said the memo is the minutes of a meeting that British Prime Minister Tony Blair had with some of his top intelligence and foreign policy aides on July 23, 2002, at 10 Downing Street, the prime minister's official residence. The story said the memo indicates that Blair was told by the head of Britain's MI6 intelligence service that in 2002, the Bush administration was selectively choosing evidence that supported its case for going to war and ignoring anything to the contrary. The war began in March 2003.
"Intelligence and facts were being fixed" by the Bush administration "around" a policy that saw military action "as inevitable," the newspaper quoted from the memo.
"There's nothing farther from the truth," Bush told reporters as Blair stood at his side. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," Bush said in response to a question about the memo. "It was our last option."
Blair added, "The facts were not being 'fixed' in any shape or form at all."
Bush said that at the time the memo was written, no decision had been made about going to war. He pointed out that it was written two months before he went to the United Nations and asked for a Security Council resolution calling on Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction or face "serious consequences."
The Sunday Times' May 1 memo story, which broke just four days before Britain's national elections, caused a sensation in Europe. American media reacted more cautiously. The New York Times wrote about the memo May 2, but didn't mention until its 15th paragraph that the memo stated U.S. officials had "fixed" intelligence and facts.
Knight Ridder Newspapers distributed a story May 6 that said the memo "claims President Bush ... was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy." The Los Angeles Times wrote about the memo May 12, The Washington Post followed on May 15 and The New York Times revisited the news on May 20.
None of the stories appeared on the newspapers' front pages. Several other major media outlets, including the evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC, had not said a word about the document before Tuesday. Today marks USA TODAY's first mention.
Some activists who opposed Bush's decision to attack Iraq have been peppering editors with letters and e-mails to push the media into more aggressive coverage. Last week, a group known as Democrats.com offered $1,000 to anyone who can get Bush to answer "yes or no" to this question: Did he or his administration "fix the intelligence" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and alleged ties to terrorism?
"We want what the Michael Jackson, Paris Hilton and Star Wars stories have gotten: endless repetition until people have heard about it," says David Swanson, one of Democrats.com's organizers.
Robin Niblett of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank, says it would be easy for Americans to misunderstand the reference to intelligence being "fixed around" Iraq policy. " 'Fixed around' in British English means 'bolted on' rather than altered to fit the policy," he says.
Ombudsmen at both The New York Times and The Washington Post have been critical of their newspapers for not covering the story more aggressively.
USA TODAY chose not to publish anything about the memo before today for several reasons, says Jim Cox, the newspaper's senior assignment editor for foreign news. "We could not obtain the memo or a copy of it from a reliable source," Cox says. "There was no explicit confirmation of its authenticity from (Blair's office). And it was disclosed four days before the British elections, raising concerns about the timing."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
An interview with Cindy Sheehan:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/zeese2.html
http://www.projo.com/news/bobkerr/projo_20050608_wedco08.261e277.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush Acted Illegally in Push for Iraq War
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/05/27/bush-acted-illegally-in-push-for-iraq-war.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 8 - 14, 2005
Politics: Memo to Mainstream Media
http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0523/050608_news_geovparrish.php
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's Up With the Downing Street Memo?
http://www.the-signal.com/News/ViewStory.asp?storyID=7284
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/ci_2781868
Article Last Updated: 6/06/2005 01:18 PM
"Downing Street memo" on Iraq met mostly with silence
Bush officials mum despite calls for answers on Brit report
By Josh Richman, STAFF WRITER
Inside Bay Area
It's been more than a month since The Times of London published a secret British government memo from mid-2002 describing the Bush administration's resolve to invade Iraq whether it posed a threat or not.
It's been about a month since 89 House Democrats — including six from the Bay Area — asked the president to explain himself in light of this memo.
And it's been almost three weeks since the White House press secretary said that isn't going to happen.
So now what?
The blogosphere still burns with items about what's often called the "Downing Street memo," named for the site of the British prime minister's home and office.
And House Judiciary Committee ranking Democrat John Conyers, D-Mich., who authored the House Democrats' letter, has put a version of that letter on his campaign Web site, www.johnconyers.com, so the public can add their "signatures" for submittal to the White House; about 89,000had signed by Wednesday.
Otherwise, there's nothing doing.
Apparently authored by a foreign-policy aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Downing Street memo contains minutes from a July 23, 2002, meeting of high-ranking officials. Sir Richard Dearlove, head of the British secret intelligence service MI6, had recently met with CIA officials in Washington and was quoted as saying, "(m)ilitary action was now seen as inevitable."
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD (weapons of mass destruction)," the memo says. "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
The memo also said Foreign Secretary Jack Straw indicated he would discuss the issue with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell later that week. "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
Blair's office told The Times the memo contained "nothing new." White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan more than two weeks later said claims that intelligence was fixed to justify the war are "flat-out wrong," adding he hadn't seen the "specific memo" but only reports of its content.
The lawmakers' May 5 letter to President Bush asked him to publicly state, among other things, whether his administration tried to manipulate intelligence and create an ultimatum to justify the war. Among those signing the letter were Barbara Lee, D-Oakland; Pete Stark, D-Fremont; George Miller, D-Martinez; Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo; Lynn Woolsey, D-San Rafael; and Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose.
McClellan said on May 17 that the White House saw "no need" to respond to the Conyers letter. Stark said Thursday he's not surprised.
"If the President won't respond to the deaths of more than 1,600 U.S. troops and more than 20,000 Iraqi civilians, why would I expect him to respond to a memo?" he said. "America doesn't trust the president or his administration on Iraq, and when further evidence of their lies become public, it's just as expected as the discovery of another shady relationship between a lobbyist and (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay."
Lee said Friday the memo "is strong evidence that the Bush administration not only manipulated intelligence data to justify the invasion of Iraq, but deliberately misled Congress and the American people about it while telling the truth to the British government.
"Given the gravity of the questions this memo raises, I think the Bush administration's silence speaks volumes. Our nation deserves answers."
Among those who didn't sign the Conyers letter were House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, the House International Relations Committee's ranking Democrat.
Pelosi always has said the war lacked adequate justification, spokesman Brendan Daly said Thursday. "This (memo) basically told us what we already knew, it verified what we already knew."
As for the letter, Pelosi often supports efforts like this without actually signing on to them, Daly added. "She felt her position was already clear, so she didn't feel a need to sign it."
Lantos spokesman Lynne Weil said Friday that "the Conyers letter escaped notice (in Lantos' office) until after the deadline to sign it had gone by." She didn't comment on what Lantos — who supports the war in Iraq but has criticized President Bush's handling of it — thought of the Downing Street memo.
Critics complain U.S. news media have been mostly silent on the memo. Cursory searches this week turned up four stories about the memo at CNN.com, and one each on the Web sites of Fox News, the New York Times and the Washington Post.
"I think that the media is afraid to follow up on the very grave implications of this story because they have grown accustomed to being bullied by the Bush administration, and because the story implicates the media for giving the Bush administration a free ride in deliberately misleading the American people into an unnecessary and increasingly disastrous war," Lee said. "Sadly, the type of courageous, independent journalism that uncovered the Watergate scandal is nowhere to be found today."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See the entire Downing Street memo at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
See the Congressional letter to President Bush at http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/letters/bushsecretmemoltr5505.pdf.
Contact Josh Richman at jrichman@angnewspapers.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turning Point On the War?
This past week, widely scattered newspaper editorialists roused themselves from seeming acceptance of the continuing slaughter in Iraq to voice, for the first time in many cases, outright condemnation of the war.
(June 06, 2005) -- Suddenly there seems to be something in the air -- the smell of death? Or something in the water -- blood? In any case, this past week, widely scattered newspaper editorialists roused themselves from seeming acceptance of the continuing slaughter in Iraq to voice, for the first time in many cases, outright condemnation of the war.
While still refusing to use the "W" word in offering advice to Dubya -- that is, "withdrawal" -- some at least are finally using the "L" word, for lies.
Memorial Day seemed to bring out the anger in some editorial writers, who at that time are normally afraid to say anything about a current conflict that might seem to slight the brave sacrifices of men and women, past and present. Maybe it was the steadily growing Iraqi and American death count, or the increasing examples of White House "disassembling" (to quote the president this week), or the horror stories emerging from Gitmo.
Or perhaps it's a hidden trend that might have even more impact than the rest: the writing on the wall spelled out by plunging military recruitment rates. That only adds to the sense that, overall, the Iraq adventure has made America far less safe in this world.
For whatever reason, it's possible that more than a few editorial pages may finally be on the verge of saying "enough is enough." Perhaps they might even catch up with their readers, as the latest Gallup polls find that 57% feel the war is "not worth it," and nearly as many want us to start pulling out troops, not sending more of them.
There were numerous signs of editorial unrest in the past week, too many to cite. The Sun of Baltimore, in its Memorial Day editorial, declared: "If the president truly wished to honor their memory, he would demonstrate to the nation that the government that has botched so much of the war at least has some inkling as to how to draw it to a successful conclusion -- so that the dead will not have died in vain." The Minneapolis Star-Tribune called Iraq "an unnecessary war based on contrived concerns. ... President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes."
Steve Chapman, syndicated columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune (and generally considered a conservative), on Thursday declared: "The dilemma the U.S. faces in fighting the insurgents is that military methods are not enough to solve the problem and may make it worse. If the movement is a reaction to the U.S. military presence, keeping American troops in Iraq amounts to fighting a fire with kerosene.
"That explains why the longer we stay, the more suicide attacks we face. And it suggests that the only feasible strategy is to withdraw from Iraq and turn the fight over to the Iraqi government. The alternative is to stay and keep doing what we've been doing for the last two years. But that approach has shown no signs of fostering success. It only promises to raise the cost of failure."
But perhaps the most powerful denunciation came from an unlikely source, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. An editorial in that Hearst paper this past Wednesday, just after Memorial Day, really thundered, and deserves reprinting here:
"President Bush was among the 260,000 graves at Arlington National Cemetery when he said it. But it was clear Monday that the president was referring to the more than 1,650 Americans killed to date in Iraq when he said, 'We must honor them by completing the mission for which they gave their lives; by defeating the terrorists.'
"Bush insists on clinging to the thoroughly discredited notion that there was any connection between the old Iraqi regime -- no matter how lawless and brutal -- and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
"U.S. military action against an Afghan regime that harbored al-Qaida was a legitimate response to the 9/11 attacks. The invasion of Iraq was not.
"As of Memorial Day 2003, Bush had declared major combat operations at an end, predicted that weapons of mass destruction would be found and that U.S. forces were in the process of stabilizing Iraq. One hundred sixty U.S. troops had died.
"The U.S. death toll has grown more than tenfold. No weapons of mass destruction were found. More than 700 Iraqis have been killed since Iraq's new government was formed April 28.
"Bush said of the insurgents at a news conference yesterday, 'I believe the Iraqi government is plenty capable of dealing with them.'
"Of course, this is the same president that assured the world that military intervention in Iraq was a last resort and that the United States would make every effort to avoid war through diplomacy. Giving lie to that as well is the so-called Downing Street War Memo, which shows that as early as July 2002, 'Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD ... the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.'
"Perhaps all presidents' remarks in military graveyards are by nature self-serving. But few have been so callow as the president's using the deaths of U.S. troops in his unjustified war as justification for its continuance."
At the close of the editorial online, the paper polled readers, asking if they thought it was "time to begin the careful but quick withdrawal of American forces from Iraq?" These highly unscientific surveys usually should be ignored. But the result in this case, from over 2,600 votes, was so one-sided it deserves mention: Nearly 92% called for the beginning of a pullout.
(gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com) is the editor of E&P.
Links referenced within this article
gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com
mailto:gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com
Find this article at:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000946738
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Americans turn against Bush and a war on Iraq that is getting nowhere
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=645323
By Andrew Gumbel
09 June 2005
Most Americans no longer believe the war in Iraq has made their country safer, and more than 60 per cent of the country believes the military is bogged down in a conflict that was not worth fighting in the first place, according to a new opinion poll offering only bad news to the Bush administration.
The poll for The Washington Post and ABC News poll, published yesterday, was the first survey in which a majority of Americans rejected the White House's argument that invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein was good for domestic security. The poll also suggested that opinions were almost exactly evenly divided between those with a positive impression of President Bush's "war on terror" and those it viewed it negatively.
The findings were particularly stunning, since security was among the leading issues on which Mr Bush won re-election last November. At that time, his approval ratings on anti-terrorism policy were roughly 60-40.
The poll also reflects a broader dissatisfaction with the second Bush administration. Almost every issue on which the White House has focused in recent months - social security reform, salvaging its most extreme judicial nominations, agitating to keep the comatose Terri Schiavo alive against the wishes of her husband - has proved unpopular. If Mr Bush's ratings on the terrorism question have fallen, it is in part because he has barely mentioned the topic. The Iraq findings were the most striking, because the public has clearly rejected the line put out by President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney that the US is turning the corner and that the insurgency is in its last throes. Almost 900 Iraqis and Americans have been killed in the past six weeks. Iraq's oil pipeline to Turkey was hit by a new sabotage attack yesterday.
The Downing Street memo about an early decision having been taken to go to war and of the need for justification to be found for the Iraq invasion, is unlikely to have played much role as it has been given little prominence in mainstream US reporting.
But despite the findings of the survey, President Bush can draw some consolation. While he and his party are growing ever more unpopular, the Democratic Party's ratings are equally dismal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kerry to call for Impeachment of George Bush
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=8681
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JINSA Zionist Operative Bolton Orchestrated Unlawful Firing
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/06/05/jinsa-zionist-operative-bolton-orchestrated-unlawful-firing.php
Last edited by Alpha on Fri Jun 10, 2005 5:49 am; edited 13 times in total | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 11:28 pm Post subject: "Downing Street memo" on Iraq met mostly with sile |
| http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/ci_2781868
Article Last Updated: 6/06/2005 01:18 PM
"Downing Street memo" on Iraq met mostly with silence
Bush officials mum despite calls for answers on Brit report
By Josh Richman, STAFF WRITER
Inside Bay Area
It's been more than a month since The Times of London published a secret British government memo from mid-2002 describing the Bush administration's resolve to invade Iraq whether it posed a threat or not.
It's been about a month since 89 House Democrats — including six from the Bay Area — asked the president to explain himself in light of this memo.
And it's been almost three weeks since the White House press secretary said that isn't going to happen.
So now what?
The blogosphere still burns with items about what's often called the "Downing Street memo," named for the site of the British prime minister's home and office.
And House Judiciary Committee ranking Democrat John Conyers, D-Mich., who authored the House Democrats' letter, has put a version of that letter on his campaign Web site, www.johnconyers.com, so the public can add their "signatures" for submittal to the White House; about 89,000had signed by Wednesday.
Otherwise, there's nothing doing.
Apparently authored by a foreign-policy aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Downing Street memo contains minutes from a July 23, 2002, meeting of high-ranking officials. Sir Richard Dearlove, head of the British secret intelligence service MI6, had recently met with CIA officials in Washington and was quoted as saying, "(m)ilitary action was now seen as inevitable."
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD (weapons of mass destruction)," the memo says. "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
The memo also said Foreign Secretary Jack Straw indicated he would discuss the issue with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell later that week. "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
Blair's office told The Times the memo contained "nothing new." White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan more than two weeks later said claims that intelligence was fixed to justify the war are "flat-out wrong," adding he hadn't seen the "specific memo" but only reports of its content.
The lawmakers' May 5 letter to President Bush asked him to publicly state, among other things, whether his administration tried to manipulate intelligence and create an ultimatum to justify the war. Among those signing the letter were Barbara Lee, D-Oakland; Pete Stark, D-Fremont; George Miller, D-Martinez; Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo; Lynn Woolsey, D-San Rafael; and Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose.
McClellan said on May 17 that the White House saw "no need" to respond to the Conyers letter. Stark said Thursday he's not surprised.
"If the President won't respond to the deaths of more than 1,600 U.S. troops and more than 20,000 Iraqi civilians, why would I expect him to respond to a memo?" he said. "America doesn't trust the president or his administration on Iraq, and when further evidence of their lies become public, it's just as expected as the discovery of another shady relationship between a lobbyist and (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay."
Lee said Friday the memo "is strong evidence that the Bush administration not only manipulated intelligence data to justify the invasion of Iraq, but deliberately misled Congress and the American people about it while telling the truth to the British government.
"Given the gravity of the questions this memo raises, I think the Bush administration's silence speaks volumes. Our nation deserves answers."
Among those who didn't sign the Conyers letter were House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, the House International Relations Committee's ranking Democrat.
Pelosi always has said the war lacked adequate justification, spokesman Brendan Daly said Thursday. "This (memo) basically told us what we already knew, it verified what we already knew."
As for the letter, Pelosi often supports efforts like this without actually signing on to them, Daly added. "She felt her position was already clear, so she didn't feel a need to sign it."
Lantos spokesman Lynne Weil said Friday that "the Conyers letter escaped notice (in Lantos' office) until after the deadline to sign it had gone by." She didn't comment on what Lantos — who supports the war in Iraq but has criticized President Bush's handling of it — thought of the Downing Street memo.
Critics complain U.S. news media have been mostly silent on the memo. Cursory searches this week turned up four stories about the memo at CNN.com, and one each on the Web sites of Fox News, the New York Times and the Washington Post.
"I think that the media is afraid to follow up on the very grave implications of this story because they have grown accustomed to being bullied by the Bush administration, and because the story implicates the media for giving the Bush administration a free ride in deliberately misleading the American people into an unnecessary and increasingly disastrous war," Lee said. "Sadly, the type of courageous, independent journalism that uncovered the Watergate scandal is nowhere to be found today."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See the entire Downing Street memo at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
See the Congressional letter to President Bush at http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/ letters/bushsecretmemoltr5505.pdf.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact Josh Richman at jrichman@angnewspapers.com. | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:08 am Post subject: |
| 'A Clean Break'(War for Israel) agenda of the Likudnik JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocons (pages 261-269 of James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book"):
Then Bush addressed the sole items on the agenda for his first high level national security meeting. The topics were not terrorism--a subject he barely mentioned during the campaign --or nervousness over China or Russia, but Israel and Iraq. From the very first moment, the Bush foreign policy would focus on three key objectives: get rid of Saddam, end American involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and rearrange the dominoes in the Middle East. A key to the policy shift would be the concept of pre-emption.
The Blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors. Soon to be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. Ironically the plan was orginally intended not for Bush but for another world leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
At the time, the three officials were out of government and working for conservative pro-Israel think tanks. Perle and Feith had previously served in high level Pentagon positions during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. In a very unusual move, the former--and future--senior American officials were acting as a sort of American privy council to the new Israeli Prime Minister. The Perle task force to advise Netanyahu was set up by the Jerusalem based Institute for Advanced Stategic and Political Studies, where Wurmser was working. A key part of the plan was to get the United States to pull out of peace negotiations and simply let Israel take care of the Palestinians as it saw fit. "Israel," said the report, can manage it's own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.
But the centerpiece of the recommendations was the removal of Saddam Hussein as the first step in remaking the Middle East into a region friendly, instead of hostile, to Israel. Their plan "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," also signaled a radical departure from the peace-oriented policies of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by a member of an extreme right-wing Israeli group.
As part of their "grand strategy" they recommended that once Iraq was conquered and Saddam Hussein overthrown, he should be replaced by a puppet leader friendly to Israel. Whoever inherits Iraq, they wrote, dominates the entire Levant strategically. Then they suggested that Syria would be the next country to be invaded. Israel can shape it's strategic environment, they said.
This would be done, they recommended to Netanyahu, by re-establishing the principle of pre-emption and by rolling back it's Arab neighbors. From then on, the principle would be to strike first and expand, a dangerous and provocative change in philosphy. They recommended launching a major unprovoked regional war in the Middle East, attacking Lebanon and Syria and ousting Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Ten, to gain the support of the American government and public, a phony pretext would be used as the reason for the original invasion.
The recommendation of Feith, Perle and Wurmser was for Israel to once again invade Lebanon with air strikes. But this time to counter potentionally hostile reactions from the American government and public, they suggested using a pretext. They would claim that the purpose of the invasion was to halt Syria's drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure located there. They were subjects in which Israel had virtually no interest, but they were ones, they said, with which America can sympathize.
Another way to win American support for a pre-empted war against Syria, they suggested, was by drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program. This claim would be that Israel's war was really all about protecting Americans from drugs, counterfeit bills, and WMD--nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.
It was rather extraordinary for a trio of former, and potentially future, high-ranking American government officials to become advisors to a foreign government. More unsettling still was a fact that they were recommending acts of war in which Americans could be killed, and also ways to masquerade the true purpose of the attacks from the American public.
Once inside Lebanon, Israel could let loose--to begin engaging Hizballah, Syria and Iran, as the principle agents of aggression in Lebanon. Then they would widen the war even further by using proxy forces--Lebanese militia fighters acting on Israel's behalf (as Ariel Sharon had done in the 80's)--to invade Syria from Lebanon. Thus, they noted, they could invade Syria by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.
As soon as that fighting started, they advised, Israel could begin striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper [emphasis in original].
The Perle task force even supplied Nentanyahu with some text for a television address, using the suggested pretext to justify the war. Years later, it would closely resemble speeches to justify their own Middle East wars; Iraq would simply replace Syria and the United Staes would replace Israel: Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria's require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side's good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive towards its neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organizations.
The task force then suggested that Israel open a second front in its expanding war, with a focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq--an important Israel strategic objective in its own right--as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions.
For years the killing of Saddam Hussein had been among the highest, and most secret, priorities of the Israeli government. In one stroke it would pay Saddam Hussein back for launching Scud missiles against Israel, killing several people, during the Gulf War. Redrawing the map of the Middle East would also help isolate Syria, Iraq's ally and Israel's archenemy along its northern border. Thus, in the early 1990's, after the US-led war in the Gulf, a small elite team of Israeli commandos was given the order to train in absolute secrecy for an assassination mission to bring down the Baghdad ruler.
The plan, code-named Bramble Bush, was to first kill a close friend of the Iraqi leader outside the country, someone from Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. Then, after learning the date and time of the funeral to be held in the town, a funeral Hussein was certain to attend, they would have time to covertly infiltrate a team of commandos into the country to carry out the assassination. The murder weapons were to be specially modified "smart" missiles that would be fired at Hussein as he stood in a crowd at the funeral.
But, the plan was finally abandoned after five members of the team were accidently killed during a dry run of the operation. Nevertheless, removing Saddam and converting Iraq from threat to ally had long been at the top of Israel's wish list.
Now Perle, Feith, and Wurmser were suggesting something far more daring--not just an assassination but a bloody war that would get rid of Saddam Hussein and also change the face of Syria and Lebanon. Perle felt their "Clean Break" recommendations were so important that he personally hand-carried the report to Netanyahu.
Wisely, Netanyahu rejected the task force' plan. But now, with the election of a receptive George W. Bush, they dusted off their pre-emptive war strategy and began getting ready to put it to use.
The new Bush policy was an aggressive agenda for any president, but especially for someone who had previously shown little interest in international affairs. We're going to correct the imbalances the previous administration on the Mideast conflict, Bush told his freshly assembled senior national security team in the Situation Room on January 30, 2001. We're going to tilt it back toward Israel. . . .Anybody here ever met Ariel Sharon? Only Colin Powell raised his hand.
Bush was going to reverse the Clinton policy, which was heavily weighted toward bringing the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinians to a peaceful conclusion. There would be no more US interference; he would let Sharon resolve the dispute however he saw fit, with little or no regard for the situation of the Palestinians. The policy change was exactly as recommended by the Perle task force's "Clean Break" report.
I'm not going to go by past reputations when it comes to Sharon, Bush told his newly gathered national security team. I'm going to take him at face value. We'll work on a relationship based on how things go. Then he mentioned a trip he had taken with the Republican Jewish Coalition to Israel. We flew over the Palestinian camps. Looked real bad down there, he said with a frown. Then he said it was time to end America's efforts in the region. I don't see much we can do over there at this point, he said.
Colin Powell, Secretary of State for only a few days, was taken by surprise. The idea that such a complex problem, in which America had long been heavily involved, could be simply brushed away with the sweep of a hand made little sense. Fearing Israeli-led aggression, he quickly objected.
He stressed that a pullback by the United States would unleash Sharon and the Israeli army, recalled Paul O'Neill, who had be sworn in as Secretary of the Treasury by Bush only hours before and seated at the table. Powell told Bush, the consequences of that could be be dire, especially for the Palestinians. But Bush just shrugged. Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things, he said. Powell seemed startled, said O'Neill.
Over the following months, to the concern of Powell, the Bush-Sharon relationship became extremely tight. This is the best administration for Israel since Harry Truman, said Thomas Neuman, executive director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs "JINSA" a pro-Israel advocacy group. In an article in the Washington Posttitled "Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical on Middle East Policy," Robert G. Kaiser noted the dramatic shift in policy.
For the First time, wrote Kaiser, a US aministration and a Likud government in Israel are pursuing nearly identical policies. Earlier US administrations, from Jimmy Carter through Bill Clinton's, held Likud and Sharon at arm's length, distancing the United States from Likud's traditionally tough approach to the Palestinians. Using the Yiddish term for supporters of Sharon's political party to the new relationship between Bush and Sharon, a senior US government official told Kaiser, "The Likudniks are really in charge now."
With America's long struggle to bring peace to the region quickly terminated, George W. Bush could turn his attention to the prime focus of his first National Security Council meeting; ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein. Condoleezza Rice led off the discussion. But rather than mention anything about threats to the United Staes or weapons of mass destruction, she noted only that Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region. The words were practically lifted from the "Clean Break" report, which had the rather imperial-sounding subtitles: "A New Strategy for Securing the Realm."
Then Rice turned the meeting over to CIA Director George Tenet, who offered a grainy overhead picture of a factory that he said "might" be a plant "that produced either chemical or biological materials for weapons manufacture." There were no missiles or weapons of any kind, just some railroad tracks going to a building; truck activity; and a water tower--things that can be found in virtually any city in the US. Nor were there any human intelligence or signals intelligence reports. There was no confirming intelligence, Tenet said.
It was little more than a shell game. Other photo and charts showed US air activity over the "no fly-zone," but Tenet offered no more intelligence. Nevertheless, in a matter of minutes the talk switched from a discussion about very speculative intelligence to which targets to begin bombing in Iraq.
By the time the meeting was over, Treasury Secretary O'Neill was convinced that "getting Hussein was now the administration's focus, that much was already clear," But, O'Neill believed, the real destabilizing factor in the Middle East was not Saddam Hussein but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--the issue Bush had just turned his back on. Ten years after the Gulf War, said O'Neill, "Hussein seemed caged and defanged. Clearly, there were many forces destabilizing the region, which we were now abandoning."
The war summit must also have seemed surreal to Colin Powell, who said little during the meeting and had long believed that Iraq had not posed a threat to the United States. As he would tell German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer just a few weeks later, "What we and other allies have been doing in the region, have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions. . . .Containment has been a successful policy."
In addition to the "Clean Break" recommendations, David Wurmser only weeks before the NSC meeting had further elaborated on the way the United States might go about launching a pre-emptive war throughout the Middle East. America's and Israel's responses must be regional not local, he said. Israel and the United Staes should adopt a coordinated strategy, to regain the initiative and reverse their region-wide strategic retreat. They should broaden the conflict to strike fatally, not merely disarm, the center of radicalism in the region--the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tehran, Tripoli, and Gaza. That would re-establish the recognition that fighting with either the US or Israel is suicidal. Many in the Middle East will then understand the merits of being an American ally and of making peace with Israel.
In the weeks and months following the NSC meeting, Perle, Feith and Wurmser began taking their places in the Bush administration. Perle became chairman of the reinvigorated and powerful Defence Policy Board, packing it with like-minded neoconservative super-hawks anxious for battle. Feith was appointed to the highest policy position in the Pentagon, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. And Wurmser moved into a top policy position in the State Department before later becoming Cheney's top Middle East expert.
With the Pentagon now under Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz--both of whom had also long believed that Saddam Hussein should have been toppled during the first Gulf War--the war planners were given free reign. what was needed, however, was a pretext--perhaps a major crisis. Crisis can be opportunities, wrote Wurmser im his paper calling for an American-Israeli pre-emptive war throughout the Middle East.
Seeing little reason, or intelligence justification, for war at the close of the inaugural National Security Council meeting, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was perplexed. Who, exactly, was pushing this foreign policy? He wondered to himself. And "why Saddam, why now, and why [was] this central to US interests?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385506724/qid%3D1106243696/sr%3D2-1/ref%3Dpd%5Fka%5Fb%5F2%5F1/103-6200440-0847015
Michael Duffy's review of James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book can be read via the following URL:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040614-646366-2,00.html
You can hear Richard Perle basically lying to Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) about 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda via the link at the following URL:
http://gorillaintheroom.blogspot.com/2005/04/operating-off-different-agenda.html
You can read the transcript of Perle and Chris Matthews related to discussion of 'A Clean Break' and Perle denying that he had anything to do with it via the following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/01/20/hardball-s-chris-matthews-asks-neocon-about-a-clean-break.php
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More on James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/02/28/james-bamford-iraq-war-for-israel.php
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sales Pitch Begins - Iran
http://gorillaintheroom.blogspot.com/2005/04/sales-pitch-begins-iran.html
Jewish JINSA/PNAC Neocon (Richard Perle) Calls for the invasion of Iran for Israel:
http://gorillaintheroom.blogspot.com/2005/05/perle-calls-for-invasion-of-iran.html
Zionist agenda for Lebanon:
http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/sacred_terror.html#Chapter_5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JINSA Israel firsters: 'IRAQ DOWN, IRAN LEFT TO GO':
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/04/06/jinsa-israel-firsters-iraq-down-iran-left-to-go.php
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventing a Pretext for War - an Interview with James Bamford:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/05/23/inventing-a-pretext-for-war-an-interview-with-james-bamford.php
I also think that most of the Zionist (Israel first) JINSA/CSP/PNAC Neocons only have one allegiance and that is to Israel.. Cheney, Woolsey and others seem to be in the game to benefit financially.... Check out the following URL:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/nc-green.html
Israeli Origins of Bush II's Iraq War:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/04/26/the-israeli-origins-of-bush-ii-s-war.php
The following should be unacceptable as well (for any patriotic American who serves the best interests of America first):
Treason at a high level: Pentagon Zionist Neocons, AIPAC and Israel:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2004/09/08/treason-in-high-places-pentagon-zionists-aipac-and-israel.php
Scott Ritter: Sleepwalking to Disaster in Iran:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/03/30/scott-ritter-sleepwalking-to-disaster-in-iran.php
Leading America into the ABYSS:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/04/10/leading-america-into-the-abyss.php
Eric Alterman: Can We Talk (about the Jewish Neocons)
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030421&s=alterman
Last edited by Alpha on Tue Jun 07, 2005 1:19 am; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:19 am Post subject: 'Pretext for War' |
| http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040801/news_lz1v1pretext.html
'Pretext for War'
... finds a slew of flaws and abuses
Reviewed by Michiko Kakutani
August 1, 2004
In the walk-up and wake of the Iraq war, it's no secret that one of the most bitter battles in Washington has been between the CIA and the State Department on one side, and neoconservative hawks in the Pentagon and White House on the other.
Intelligence and State Department officials have characterized the neocons as hawkish ideologues who entered office before 9/11 with an agenda to depose Saddam Hussein. They have accused the hard-liners of cherry-picking and hyping intelligence in order to sell the war against Iraq.
The hawks have characterized the CIA as a bunch of risk-averse, bean-counting bureaucrats, hobbled by what Richard Perle has called "ideologically liberal assumptions." They have accused the agency of continuing intelligence failures, from the overthrow of the shah's government in Iran in 1979 to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
As James Bamford, the author of two respected books on American intelligence, tells it, there is plenty of blame to go around. His new book, "A Pretext for War," draws a damning portrait of the country's intelligence agencies as woefully ill-equipped to deal with the threats of terrorism and a post-Cold War world. It also draws a scathing picture of ideologues in the Bush administration, manipulating dubious evidence about links between al-Qaeda and Saddam and flawed information about weapons of mass destruction in the push toward war.
In addition, Bamford suggests that the CIA caved to pressure from administration hard-liners. He quotes a CIA case officer who says that in January 2003, one of the agency's higher-ups called a meeting and said, "You know what – if Bush wants to go to war, it's your job to give him a reason to do so." And he writes that the CIA chief George Tenet said of the provocative intelligence about Iraq that Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the United Nations in February 2003: "I'm standing behind it 100 percent," even though much of that intelligence later turned out to be flawed, and Tenet stated this year that his agency "never said there was an 'imminent' threat" from Saddam.
Much of the information and many of the theories in Bamford's book will be familiar to readers from earlier magazine and newspaper articles, and other books: most notably, Bob Woodward's "Bush at War" and "Plan of Attack"; "Ghost Wars," Steve Coll's exhaustive history of the CIA, Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan; the former counterterrorism czar Richard A. Clarke's best-selling expose of the war on terror, "Against All Enemies"; and "Inside 9-11," a detailed chronicle of the terrorist attacks of 2001 by Der Spiegel journalists.
But Bamford unearths new details about everything from the identity of one of the undisclosed locations used by Vice President Dick Cheney after 9/11 (Site R, a secret military command post on the Maryland-Pennsylvania border) to the failures of a special CIA unit charged with tracking bin Laden, and he connects the many dots, both old and new, to create a vivid, unsettling narrative.
Discursive in organization, "A Pretext for War" provides selective context for the failure to prevent the attacks of 9/11 and the Bush administration's path to war. Bamford is highly persuasive in recounting the many ways in which American intelligence agencies failed to adapt to the end of the Cold War: They lacked specialists in many key Middle Eastern languages and a sufficient number of analysts to grapple with an avalanche of cyber-age data, and even though Americans like John Walker Lindh had been secretly joining al-Qaeda, operatives appear to have made little effort to penetrate terrorist organizations, preferring the decorous, low-risk tack of trying to recruit foreign embassy officials at cocktail parties.
Bamford does not address the broader question of how Cold War paradigms shaped the thinking of key Bush administration members such as national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Cheney. And unlike James Mann in "Rise of the Vulcans," he does not delve into many of the larger factors shaping the hawks' thinking – from their experiences in dealing with the Soviet Union to their appropriation of the Wilsonian idea of exporting democracy.
What he does focus on is the role that Israel has played in shaping American policy. Bamford contends that "the blueprint for the new Bush policy" on the Middle East "had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisers" (Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser) for the Israeli prime minister at the time, Benjamin Netanyahu (who rejected the plan), and that when they entered office in January 2001, all these hawks needed was "a pretext" for war against Iraq. Citing a report from the British newspaper The Guardian, Bamford adds that the Office of Special Plans, a Pentagon unit set up by Feith, "forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence unit within Ariel Sharon's office in Israel," which "was designed to go around the country's own intelligence organization, Mossad."
In recounting the failures of intelligence before 9/11, Bamford points to missed clues about the hijackers and the poisonous rivalry (not to mention fatal lack of communication) between the CIA and FBI. He also writes that a special unit of the CIA named Alec Station, which was set up in 1996 "with the sole mission of collecting intelligence" on bin Laden and "disrupting his network," had an abysmal record. He notes that "after four years and hundreds of millions of dollars," it failed "to recruit a single source within bin Laden's growing Afghanistan operation." He adds: "It was George Tenet's biggest secret. Not only was al-Qaeda never penetrated, neither the Counterterrorism Center nor Alec Station ever picked up a single piece of usable intelligence on bin Laden or his organization, the country's greatest threat."
Bamford is equally scorching on the subject of an alternative intelligence gathering operation (called the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group) set up at the Pentagon by Feith and Wurmser, arguing that it "was little more than a pro-war propaganda cell" designed "to produce evidence to support the pretexts for attacking Iraq."
He also denounces the Pentagon's heavy reliance on intelligence acquired through Ahmed Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress and a longtime friend of many prominent administration hawks. Though much of the information from Chalabi's sources about weapons of mass destruction later turned out to be incorrect or fabricated, Bamford writes, it was funneled to the White House and to the press – most notably, The New York Times – to help sell the "war to the American public."
Both President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush are taken to task in these pages as well. In describing the country's vulnerability in the face of terrorism, Bamford repeatedly notes that budget cutbacks during the Clinton administration weakened the country's intelligence agencies, and he writes that the now famous Aug. 6, 2001, President's Daily Brief – titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." – seemed "to have made little impression" on Bush.
He observes that when Tenet, the head of the CIA during both administrations, declared war on terrorism – in the wake of the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa – it was so low-key that senior officials at the Pentagon and the FBI had not heard of it. And he points out that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who actually controls a large portion of America's spy world, was "far more concerned with downsizing the Pentagon than reorganizing and reinvigorating the intelligence community" when he entered office.
In the end Bamford's conclusions are alarming, if not unfamiliar ones: that incompetence, timidity and a lack of readiness contributed to the failure to prevent the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and that misinformation, ideological agendas and poor intelligence led to the decision to go to war against Iraq.
©New York Times News Service
A Pretext for War
9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies
James Bamford
Doubleday, 420 pages, $26.95 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:52 am Post subject: Poll Finds Dimmer View of Iraq War |
| washingtonpost.com
Poll Finds Dimmer View of Iraq War
52% Say U.S. Has Not Become Safer
By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, June 8, 2005; A01
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.
Overall, more than half -- 52 percent -- disapprove of how Bush is handling his job, the highest of his presidency. A somewhat larger majority -- 56 percent -- disapproved of Republicans in Congress, and an identical proportion disapproved of Democrats.
There were signs, however, that Bush and Republicans in Congress were receiving more of the blame for the recent standoffs over such issues as Bush's judicial nominees and Social Security. Six in 10 respondents said Bush and GOP leaders are not making good progress on the nation's problems; of those, 67 percent blamed the president and Republicans while 13 percent blamed congressional Democrats. For the first time, a majority, 55 percent, also said Bush has done more to divide the country than to unite it.
The surge in violence in Iraq since the new government took control -- 80 U.S. troops and more than 700 Iraqis died in May alone amid a rash of bombings -- has been accompanied by rising gloom about the overall fight against terrorists. By 50 percent to 49 percent, Americans approved of the way Bush is handling the campaign against terrorism, down from 56 percent approval in April, equaling the lowest rating he has earned on the issue that has consistently been his core strength with the public.
The dissipating support for the Iraq war is of potential military concern, because, as Marine Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis wrote in a note to his troops as he led them back into Iraq in February 2004, "our friendly strategic center of gravity is the will of the American people."
Some authorities on war and public opinion said the figures indicate that pessimism about the war in Iraq has reached a dangerous level. "It appears that Americans are coming to the realization that the war in Iraq is not being won and may well prove unwinnable," said retired Army Col. Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor at Boston University. "That conclusion bleeds over into a conviction that it may not have been necessary in the first place."
That is the view of poll respondent Margaret Boudreaux, 63, a casino worker living in Oakdale, La. "I don't think it's going well -- there's too much killing," she said, worrying that the Iraq invasion could move more enemies to violence. "I think that some of the people, if they could, would get revenge for what we've done."
"You hear a lot about Saddam but nothing about Osama bin Laden. I don't think he [Bush] does enough to deal with the problems of terrorism. . . . He's done a lot of talking, but we haven't seen real changes," said another poll respondent, Kathy Goyette, 54, a San Diego nurse. "People are getting through airport security with things that are unbelievable. . . . I don't think he learned from 9/11."
While Bush has shelved his routine speeches about terrorism, and Congress has turned to domestic issues, fear of terrorism has receded from the public consciousness. Only 12 percent called it the nation's top priority, behind the economy, Iraq, health care and Social Security.
The drop in Bush's approval ratings on fighting terrorism came disproportionately from political independents. In March, 63 percent of independents approved of Bush's job combating terrorism. By April this had fallen to 54 percent. And in this weekend's survey, 40 percent gave him good marks.
The poll suggests that views on the Iraq war's impact also remain highly partisan. Three in four Republicans said the Iraq invasion has boosted domestic security, while three in four Democrats said it has not. Political independents lean negative on the issue: About six in 10 said the war has not made Americans safer.
Overall, Bush's 48 percent job approval rating was essentially unchanged from the 47 percent rating he received in a late-April poll. And there was growth in the proportion of people who said the economy was doing well: 44 percent, up from 37 percent in April.
But the public took a generally gloomy view of the White House and Congress. A plurality said Bush is doing worse in his second term than in his first, and 58 percent said he is not concentrating on the things that matter most to them -- the worst showing Bush has had in this measure in Post-ABC polls.
Congress fared no better. The proportion of the public disapproving of the legislative body was at its highest since late 1998, during President Bill Clinton's impeachment. More people said they would look at a candidate other than their sitting representative than at any point in nearly eight years. For the first time since April 2001, Democrats (46 percent) were trusted more than Republicans (41 percent) to cope with the nation's problems. But at the same time, favorability ratings for the Democratic Party, at 51 percent, tied their all-time low.
A total of 1,002 randomly selected adults were interviewed by telephone June 2 to 5 for this Post-ABC News poll. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus three percentage points.
The poll also found disapproval or division when it came to Bush's performance on several other recent, high-profile issues. One-third of those surveyed approved of the way Bush is handling federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, while 55 percent disapproved. The public was divided on the president's handling of judicial nominations, with 46 percent approving and 44 percent disapproving. And half said they were opposed to drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a proposal backed by Bush and being debated in Congress.
But the most striking trend identified by the survey was the spreading impatience over Iraq and national security matters. While six in 10 were confident that the United States was not violating the rights of detainees at the military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Americans were more skeptical that the government is protecting the rights of U.S. citizens at home. Only half said Americans' rights were being adequately protected, down from 69 percent in September 2003.
James Burk, a sociologist at Texas A&M University, said disillusionment about Iraq may have grown to the point that policymakers will have difficulty reversing it. "People all across the country know people in Iraq [so] there's a direct connection to the war," he said. Burk sees a "disjuncture" between upbeat administration rhetoric and realities the public perceives. "These data suggest we will soon reach the point, if we haven't yet reached the point, where that kind of language will seem too out of touch."
Polling director Richard Morin contributed to this report. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 7:08 pm Post subject: Joint Press Conference with President Bush and Prime Ministe |
| http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060701118.html
washingtonpost.com
Transcript: Joint Press Conference with President Bush and Prime Minister Blair
FDCH E-Media
Tuesday, June 7, 2005; 4:20 PM
The following is a transcript of a joint press appearance by President Bush and United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair.
BUSH: Thank you all. Good afternoon. Laura and I are really honored to welcome the prime minister and Cherie back to the White House. Welcome, Tony. Glad you're here. Congratulations on your great victory.
It was a landmark victory, and I'm really thrilled to be able to work with you to spread freedom and peace over the next years. Our alliance with Great Britain is strong, and it's essential to peace and security.
Together, our two nations worked to liberate Europe from fascism. Together, we defended freedom during the Cold War. Today, we're standing together again to fight the war on terror, to secure democracy and freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan and the broader Middle East, and to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
As we face the challenges and opportunities of a new century, our alliance is stronger than ever. Prime Minister Blair and I share a common vision of a world that is free, prosperous and at peace. When men and women are free to chose their own governments, to speak their minds and to pursue a good life for their families, they build a strong, prosperous and just society.
This is the vision chosen by Iraqis in elections in January. And the United States and Britain will stand with the Iraqi people as they continue their journey toward freedom and democracy. We'll support Iraqis as they take the lead in providing their own security.
Our strategy is clear: We're training Iraqi forces so they can take the fight to the enemy, so they can defend their country, and then our troops will come home with the honor they have earned.
By spreading freedom throughout the broader Middle East, we'll end the bitterness and hatred that feed the ideology of terror. We're working together to help build the democratic institutions of a future Palestinian state. We support Israel's disengagement from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. We're advancing the vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.
We also share a commitment to help the people of Africa build strong democratic institutions and healthy economies. The prime minister has made the promotion of reform and development in Africa a centerpiece of the G-8 summit that the United Kingdom will be hosting next month. And I'm grateful for your vision and I'm grateful for your leadership on this important subject.
Helping those who suffer and preventing the senseless death of millions of people in Africa is a central commitment of my administration's foreign policy. We're making historic progress in helping the poorest countries in Africa gain a fresh start and to build a future of greater opportunity and prosperity. America will continue to lead the world to meet our duty in helping the world's most vulnerable people.
Over the past four years, we have tripled our assistance to sub- Saharan Africa, and now America accounts for nearly a quarter of all the aid in the region, and we are committed to doing more in the future. We also agree that highly indebted developing countries that are on the path to reform should not be burdened by mountains of debt.
To develop and make available clean and efficient technologies that'll help attain these goals has got to be part of our dialogue at the G-8. I look forward to also continuing our discussion to support freedom and democracy in the broader Middle East. The United States congratulates the United Kingdom as it takes over the presidency of the E.U. on July the 1st.
The United States has a wide-ranging and active agenda with Europe, and we're determined to work together to meet the global challenges common to us all. The prime minister and I believe a strong Europe that acts in partnership with the United States is important for world peace. I appreciate your leadership, Tony Blair, I appreciate your friendship, I appreciate your courage, and I appreciate your vision. Welcome back to America.
BLAIR: Thank you very much indeed, Mr. President. And say how delighted we are to be back here in the White House and to say thank you for your warm welcome. And we've, obviously, got a busy agenda ahead of us in the international community over the coming months.
We've, obviously, discussed, as the president has just indicated, the issues to do with the G-8 summit. And on Africa, I think there is a real and common desire to help that troubled continent come out of the poverty and deprivation that so many millions of its people suffer.
In a situation where literally thousands of children die from preventable diseases every day, it's our duty to act and we will. But we know that there are two things very clear about Africa today. The first is that, though it is important that we commit the resources to Africa that are necessary, it's not just about resources. It's also about debt, it's about trade, it's about making sure that we deal with these diseases, HIV/AIDS, malaria, TB, polio that are killing so many people. It's about conflict resolution and having the proper peacekeeping and peace enforcement mechanisms.
And it's about making sure that in doing this that it's not a something-for-nothing deal. We also need to make sure that there is a commitment on the part of the African leadership to proper governance, to action against corruption, to making sure that the aid and the resources that we are prepared to commit actually go to the people that need it and do the job that it's supposed to do.
So we're trying to create a framework in which we deal not just with one of the issues to do with Africa, but all of them together; and deal with them on the basis of a partnership with the African leadership that's prepared to embrace the same values of democracy and freedom that we embrace.
In respect of debt and debt cancellation, I'm pleased with the progress that we're making. And I think we are well on the way. I hope we're able to conclude a deal at the finance ministers' meeting this weekend, but one that will involve 100 percent debt cancellation and also the commitment of the additional funding necessary to make sure that the institutions aren't penalized as a result of that. And if that substantial funding is added also to the debt cancellation, I think it will make a real difference to those African countries.
But we know there's a lot more to do. And over the coming weeks, in the run-up to the summit that will take place in Scotland, we want to carry on working on the specific programs in relation to things like education and infrastructure and dealing with the killer diseases that allow us to make the commitment that we need.
On climate change, I think everyone knows there are different perspectives on this issue. But I also think that it's increasingly obvious whatever perspective people have and from whatever angle they come at this issue, there is a common commitment and desire to tackle the challenges of climate change, of energy security and energy supply.
And we need to make sure that we do that. And again, I hope over the coming weeks we will work closely on this. On the Middle East and the Middle East peace process, of course we had a discussion about this. I would just like to emphasize again the vital necessity of making sure that democracy succeeds in Iraq.
Our troops work together very, very closely there. And I would like to pay tribute not just to the bravery of the British troops that work there and other coalition troops, but to the United States forces that do such a magnificent job there and often in very, very difficult circumstances. And yet it is absolutely vital for the security not just of that country and of that region, but of the world, that we succeed in Iraq. And the reason it's tough is because people know what's at stake. And what's at stake is the ability of Iraq, finally, to function properly as a democracy run for the good of its people. And our help in ensuring that Iraq can attain that goal is of vital importance, not just to our countries, but to the future of the world.
In addition, of course, the progress that's being made in respect to the Middle East peace process is very welcome. Mr. President, I'd like to thank you for your leadership on that issue, which has been extremely important. We also had an opportunity to discuss issues to do with Iran and Libya and Afghanistan, and a range of different matters. But once again, let me thank you very much for inviting me here to come back after my reelection.
Thank you for the kind words about that. And I look forward to working not just on the issues to do with the G-8, but on the full range of the international agenda with you. It's a good alliance and a good partnership for our two countries and I believe for the wider world. Thank you.
BUSH: Thank you. We'll answer two questions a side.
QUESTION: Prime Minister Blair has been pushing for wealthy nations to double aid to Africa. With American aid levels at among the lowest in the G-8 as a proportion of national income and the problems on the continent so dire, why isn't doubling U.S. aid a good idea?
BUSH: Well, first, as I've said in my statement, we've tripled aid to Africa. Africa is an important part of my foreign policy. I remember when I first talked to Condi, when I was trying to convince her to become the national security adviser, she said, "Are you going to pay attention to the continent of Africa?" I said, "You bet."
And I fulfilled that commitment. We've convinced Congress to triple aid. We've got a significant HIV/AIDS initiative that we're undertaking. We started what's called the Millennium Challenge Account. And we'll do more down the road. Now, in terms of whether or not the formula that you've commented upon is the right way to analyze the United States' commitment to her, I don't think it is. I don't think -- there's a lot of things that aren't counted in our desire to spread compassion.
But our country has taken the lead in Africa, and we'll stay there. It's the right thing to do. It's important to help Africa get on her feet. And by the way, I think one of the things that many African nations have come to discover is that through trade they can develop a more hopeful society rather than through aid. I mean, aid helps.
But we passed what's called AGOA, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, and have extended it. It was passed during President Clinton's period; my administration extended it with Congress. And it's made an enormous difference to young economies.
When you open up your market to entrepreneurs and small businesses, it helps spread wealth, and that's, after all, what we're trying to achieve. So I'm proud of our accomplishments, and we'll continue to take the lead on the issue.
BLAIR: OK. Andy?
QUESTION: Thank you.
BUSH: Andy's still with you.
BLAIR: He is.
QUESTION: For a brief period, Mr. President. Could I ask both leaders, I understand from what you say that you're pretty close to cracking the differences between you about how to pay for debt cancellation for the poorest countries. Is that the case? And can you tell us any more about that? And also, if I may, to the president, Mr. Blair's Africa commission has really raised the ante quite a lot in Africa, talking about this being a historic moment for the world and the continent. Do you see it that way, too?
BUSH: I do. That's why we have tripled aid. I see we've got a fantastic opportunity, presuming that the countries in Africa make the right decisions. Nobody wants to give money to a country that's corrupt, where leaders take money and put it in their pocket. No developed nation is going to want to support a government that doesn't take an interest in their people, that doesn't focus on education and health care.
We're really not interested in supporting a government that doesn't have open economies and open markets. We expect there to be, you know, reciprocation. That's what the prime minister talked about. But absolutely, it's a great opportunity. And I'm honored to be working with the prime minister on this important subject.
BLAIR: I think in relation to the debt cancellation, yes, I think we're well on the way to agreement on that. But it's important to realize, we need, obviously, America and the U.K. to be in agreement, but then we need to get the agreement of the others.
So we've got to watch how we manage that process and bring everyone into it. But, yes, I think there is a real desire to make sure that we cancel the debt, and cancel the debt in such a way that it doesn't inhibit or disadvantage the international institutions. I think in relation to Africa more generally, it's important -- in respect to the Africa Commission report -- we set out a figure of the doubling of aid, and the $25 billion extra is effectively what that would mean.
But the important thing is not to take the figure out of the air but to realize the Commission for Africa reached that figure on the basis of an analysis of what Africa needs. And I think that this is what we can do over the coming weeks. In relation to specific areas where we have said there is a real need and we can act and we can act in a way, what is more, that is not going to waste the money we give them but is going to put it to the use to which it's supposed to be put -- on education, on malaria, on HIV/AIDS, on things like water sanitation, you know, on the peacekeeping/peace enforcement aspect of conflict resolution in Africa -- we have got the chance over the next period of time to make a definitive commitment.
But it is a two-way commitment. We require the African leadership -- this is what the president is saying -- we require the African leadership also to be prepared to make the commitment on governance against corruption, in favor of democracy, in favor of the rule of law. Now, there are African nations that are prepared to make that commitment today. They're going to get help. What we're not going to do is waste our country's money.
So that is the nature of what we are trying to put together. And, obviously, there's going to be a lot of discussions over the next few weeks to -- because it's at Gleneagles that we will get the final package there. But I'm hopeful, after the discussions that we've had today, that we can get there.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street Memo from July, 2002, says, "Intelligence and facts remain fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military actions." Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?
BLAIR: Well, I can respond to that very easily. No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all. And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations. Now, no one knows more intimately the discussions that we were conducting as two countries at the time than me.
And the fact is, we decided to go to the United Nations and went through that process, which resulted in the November, 2002, United Nations resolution to give a final change to Saddam Hussein to comply with international law. He didn't do so. And that was the reason why we had to take military action. But, all the way through that period of time, we were trying to look for a way of managing to resolve this without conflict.
As it happened, we weren't able to do that because, as I think was very clear, there was no way that Saddam Hussein was ever going to change the way that he worked or the way that he acted.
BUSH: Well, you know, I read, kind of, the characterizations of the memo, particularly when they dropped it out in the middle of his race. I'm not sure who "they dropped it out" is, but I'm not suggesting that you all dropped it out there. (LAUGHTER) And somebody said, "Well, you know, we had made up our mind to go to use military force to deal with Saddam."
There's nothing farther from the truth. My conversations with the prime minister was how could we do this peacefully, what could we do. And this meeting, evidently it took place in London, happened before we even went to the United Nations -- or I went to the United Nations. And so it's -- look, both of us didn't want to use our military.
Nobody wants to commit military into combat. That's the last option. The consequences of committing the military are very difficult. You know, one of the hardest things I do as the president is to try to comfort families who've lost a loved one in combat.
It's the last option that the president must have, and it's the last option I know my friend had as well. And so we worked hard to see if we could figure how to do this peacefully, to put a united front up to Saddam Hussein, so the world speaks. And he ignored the world. Remember, 1441 passed the Security Council unanimously. He made the decision. And the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.
QUESTION: You've talked of what you've hoped to do for Africa. Do you regard the phrase "make poverty history" as rhetoric from rock stars or do you really believe it in your gut that this is a year it could happen? And, Mr. President, if I may as well on climate change. You didn't talk about climate change. Do you believe that climate change is manmade and that you personally, as the leader of the richest country in the world, have a responsibility to reverse that change?
BUSH: Let me address your first question. You said, I'm willing to talk about what we're going to do. I want you to focus on what we have done, for starters. I mean, part of this world we got a lot of big talkers.
What I like to say is my administration actually does what we say we're going to do; and we have. When I say we're going to make a commitment to triple aid in Africa, I meant it; and we did. When I said we're going to lead an HIV/AIDS initiative the likes of which the world has never seen before on the continent of Africa, we have done that, and we're following through.
And so when I say we're going to do more, I think you can take that to the bank, as we say, because of what we have done. We have taken a leadership role. Second question, do I believe in my gut we can eradicate poverty? I do believe we can eradicate poverty. By the way, Bono has come to see me. I admire him. He is a man of depth and a great heart, who cares deeply about the impoverished folks on the continent of Africa. And I admire his leadership on the issue.
And so I do believe. I don't view -- I can't remember how you characterized the rock stars, but I don't characterize them that way, having met the man. In terms of climate change, I've always said it's a serious long- term issue that needs to be dealt with. And my administration isn't waiting around to deal with the issue; we're acting. I don't know if you're aware of this, but we lead the world when it comes to millions of dollars spent on research about climate change. We want to know more about it. It's easier to solve a problem when you know a lot about it.
And if you look at the statistics, you'll find the United States has taken the lead on this research. Secondly, we're spending a lot of money on developing ways to diversity away from a hydrocarbon society. America must do that for national security reasons and economic security reasons. And that's why I laid out the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Initiative with the understanding that our country is going to have to diversify away from the type of automobiles we drive. And it's beginning to happen here.
We'll have more cars driven by fuel cells on the road next year than we had the past year and more after that. We're beginning to change. Technology is changing how we can approach energy and the technology, mating technology and energy independence from hydrocarbon also will produce a cleaner environment. We're spending a lot of money on clean coal technology. That's going to be very important for a country like ours, and a country like China. And one of the issues we've got to figure out how to deal with is how we share that technology with developing nations.
You cannot leave developing nations out of the mix if you expect to have a cleaner world. I strongly believe that the world needs to share technologies on nuclear power. I don't see how you can be diversified away from hydrocarbons unless you use clean nuke. And so we need to work together on developing technologies that will not only ensure people that nuclear power will be safe, but that we can dispose of it in a safe way. I tell you, an interesting opportunity, for not only here but for the rest of the world, is biodiesel.
That is a fuel developed from soybeans. I'd kind of in jest like to travel our country saying, "Wouldn't it be wonderful if some day the president sat down and looked at the crop report? He'd say, 'Man, we got a lot of soybeans. Means we're less dependent on foreign sources of energy.'" We're spending money to figure out how best to refine soy into diesel.
See, there's a lot of things we're doing in America. And I believe that not only can we solve greenhouse gas, I believe we will. And I appreciate the prime minister bringing this issue up. I look forward to sharing that which we know here in America with not only the G-8 members, but equally importantly with developing countries.
And not only that, I am convinced that we can use technology to help keep the air cleaner and the water purer, and develop economies around the world at the same time. That's going to be one of the great advances in technology in the coming years. Thank you for your question. Good to see you all. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:23 pm Post subject: Co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace, Cindy Sheehan |
| From: TILLAWI@aol.com
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 14:51:35 EDT
Subject: Current Issues- Interview uploaded with Cindy Sheehan and John Schowrtz.
To: TILLAWI@aol.com
See the interview at www.currentissues.tv
Co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace, Cindy Sheehan' interview with "Current Issues with Hesham Tillawi ' received an excellent review by our audience. "Cindy lost her son Casey in Iraq and was speaking frankly from the heart, unlike John Schwarz who was seen as trying to put a spin on the issues of the War against Iraq." noted one viewer via email. We believe both guests had done a nice job in explaining what the new group, www.AfterDowningStreet.org is all about. To see both interviews please go www.currentissues.tv then click on " Watch this week's show"
We owe it to all those who were killed on September 11 2001 and all those who were killed in Iraq including but not limited to Americans and Iraqis, to know the truth about why they perished.
Please send our link to all on your list and add our link to your website. This is the only way to beat big media outlets in their own game and force these issues to be debated in every house in America.
Next week, Thursday June 16 2005 don't miss our interview with Mark Glenn, Historian , educator, writer, and author. His books about the conflicts in the Middle East are excellent references regarding the Palestinian tragedy, and human loss. Mark tells it from the heart, he is trying to get the truth out regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. As a historian, Mark has an interesting look at the history and cooperation between Islam and Christianity.Did Islam and the Arabic culture end the Dark Ages in the West? We will see what Mark has to say about that. Its a must see for everyone. See it next Thursday June 16 at 8:00 PM CT by going to www.currentissues.tv
from...AfterDowningStreet.org
478,348 Signatures and Counting
With a big boost from MoveOn.org, the count of signatures on Congressman Conyers' letter to Bush asking for answers to the Downing Street Minutes is 478,348 and climbing. Clearly we will pass the goal of 500,000 before the Congressman delivers the letter to the White House on Thursday and we all rally in Lafayette Square Park.
Sign the letter
http://www.johnconyers.com
124 Organizations and Growing Fast
Thus far 124 organizations and blogs have joined the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition.
See top right of this page:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org
The Current Issues team
www.currentissues.tv | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
