 sj |
||
|
||
BS: What the faaaa...?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: freda underhill Date: 25 Nov 05 - 07:36 AM and.. Published in the December 12, 2005 issue of the Nation Bush Wanted al Jazeera Gone and He Wanted it Then by Jeremy Scahill Was President Bush's alleged plot to bomb al Jazeera's international headquarters an "outlandish" accusation as the White House now claims? Or was it a deadly serious option on the table? Until a news organization or British official defies the Official Secrets Act and publishes the 5-page memo, we have no way of knowing. But what we do know is that at the time of Bush's April 16, 2004 White House meeting with Tony Blair, the Bush administration was in the throws of a very public, high-level temper tantrum directed against al Jazeera. The Bush-Blair summit took place at the peak of the first US siege of Fallujah and al Jazeera was once again there to witness the slaughter and the fierce resistance. A day before Bush's meeting with Blair, Donald Rumsfeld slammed al Jazeera in distinctly undiplomatic terms: REPORTER: [C]an you definitively say that hundreds of women and children and innocent civilians have not been killed? SEC. RUMSFELD: I can definitively say that what Al-Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable. REPORTER: Do you have a civilian casualty count? SEC. RUMSFELD: Of course not, we're not in the city. But you know what our forces do; they don't go around killing hundreds of civilians. That's just outrageous nonsense. It's disgraceful what that station is doing. What al Jazeera was doing in Fallujah is exactly what it was doing when the US bombed its offices in Afghanistan in 2001 and when US forces killed al Jazeera's Baghdad correspondent, Tareq Ayoub, during the April 2003 occupation of Baghdad. Al Jazeera was witnessing and reporting on events Washington did not want the world to see. The Fallujah offensive was one of the bloodiest assaults of the US occupation of Iraq. On April 5, 2004 US forces laid siege to city in a revenge attack sparked by the killing of 4 Blackwater mercenaries days earlier. When the US forces, led by the First Marine Expeditionary Force, attempted to take Fallujah on April 7, they faced fierce guerilla resistance. A US helicopter attacked a mosque, hitting the minaret and killing at least a dozen people. Within a week, some 600 Iraqis were dead, many of them women and children. By April 9, some 30 Marines had been killed and Fallujah had become a symbol of resistance against the occupation. What was more devastating than the direct resistance US forces encountered in Fallujah was the effect the story of the defense and the slaughter of the innocents was having on the broader Iraqi population. A handful of unembedded journalists, most prominently from al Jazeera, were providing the world with independent, eyewitness accounts. Al Jazeera's camera crew was also uploading video of the devastation for all the world, including Iraqis, to see. Inspired by the defense of Fallujah and outraged by the US onslaught, smaller uprisings broke out across Iraq, as members of the Iraqi police and army abandoned their posts, some joining the resistance. Faced with a devastating public relations disaster, US officials did what they do best--they attacked the messenger. On April 11, with the unembedded reporters exposing the reality of the siege of Fallujah, Senior military spokesperson Mark Kimmitt declared, "The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda, and that is lies." A few days later, on April 15, Rumsfeld echoed those remarks calling al Jazeera "vicious." It was the very next day, according to the Daily Mirror, that Bush told Blair of his plan. "He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere," a source told The Mirror. "Blair replied that would cause a big problem. There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do -- and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it." To date, there has been no credible rejection of the Mirror's report from the White House or 10 Downing Street. Instead, the British government has activated its Official Secrets Act, threatening news organizations that publish any portion of the 5-page memo. Already, one British official has been accused of violating the act for allegedly passing it on to a member of parliament. Former British Defense Minister Peter Kilfoyle has called on Blair's government to release the memo. "It's frightening to think that such a powerful man as Bush can propose such cavalier actions," he said. "I hope the Prime Minister insists this memo be published. It gives an insight into the mindset of those who were the architects of war." The Bush administration clearly blamed al Jazeera for undermining the first siege on Fallujah and fueling Iraqi public opinion and resistance against the US occupation. Given Washington's record of attacking al Jazeera both militarily and verbally, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the Bush administration could have simply decided that it was time to take them out. What is needed now is for a British newspaper or magazine to publish the memo for all the world to see and if they face legal action, they should be backed up by every major media organization in the world. If true, Bush's threat is a bold confirmation of what many journalists already believe: the Bush administration views us all as enemy combatants. Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now!, has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: freda underhill Date: 25 Nov 05 - 07:32 AM more from the Guardian.. Published on Thursday, November 24, 2005 by the Guardian / UK Secrecy Gag Prompted by Fear of New Bush-Blair Revelations by Richard Norton-Taylor and Michael White Fears that fresh revelations about disputes between Tony Blair and George Bush on the Iraq conflict could damage Downing Street's intimate relationship with the White House prompted this week's unprecedented threat by the attorney general to use the Official Secrets Act against national newspapers. Senior MPs, Whitehall officials and lawyers were agreed yesterday that Lord Goldsmith had "read the riot act" to the media because of political embarrassment caused by a sensitive leak of face-to-face exchanges between the prime minister and the US president in the White House in April 2004. He acted after the Daily Mirror said a memo recorded a threat by Mr Bush to take "military action" against the Arabic TV station al-Jazeera. Mr Blair replied that that would cause a big problem, reported the Mirror. David Keogh, a former Cabinet Office official, has been charged under the secrets act with sending the memo on the Blair-Bush conversation to Leo O 'Connor, researcher to the former Labour MP Tony Clarke. Mr Keogh and Mr O'Connor will appear before Bow Street magistrates next week. The meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Blair took place at a time when Whitehall officials, intelligence officers, and British military commanders were expressing outrage at the scale of the US assault on the Iraqi city of Falluja, in which up to 1,000 civilians are feared to have died. Pictures of the attack shown on al-Jazeera had infuriated US generals. The government was also arguing with Washington about the number of extra British troops to be sent to Iraq at a time when it was feared they would be endangered by what a separately leaked Foreign Office memo called "heavy-handed" US military tactics. There were UK anxieties that US bombing in civilian areas in Falluja would unite Sunnis and Shias against British forces. The criticism came not only from anti-war MPs, but from Mr Blair's most senior military, diplomatic, and intelligence advisers. When Mr Blair met Mr Bush in Washington, military advisers were urging the prime minister to send extra forces only on British terms. General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the army, said while British troops had to fight with the Americans, "that does not mean we must be able to fight as the Americans". Andrew Nicol QC, a media law expert, said he was unaware of any case going to trial where a newspaper or journalist had been prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. He said Lord Goldsmith appeared to be trying to "put down a marker" to prevent further leaks or publication of further disclosures from the document already allegedly leaked. Last night the former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle tabled a Commons motion saying Mr Blair should publish the record of his discussion with Mr Bush. Downing Street stressed that the decision to take action was "entirely up to the attorney general" and was intended to "draw a line in the sand" on further leaks. © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: GUEST Date: 25 Nov 05 - 06:37 AM It's amazing how often the Official Secrets act is used to cover up inept, useless bungles that foul up many peoples lives. The official secrets act is about covering up the trail of destruction and leaving those damaged by blunders with shattered lives and no recourse to compensation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 25 Nov 05 - 06:33 AM I watched on TV as that US tank shot at the hotel room that the US military had been informed about with the journalists (killing one - that's a war crime!) - "the lens looked like a rocket weapon" yeah, and another country tried the "ambulance drivers carrying rockets not stretchers" too - funny how country is well backed up the USA... and I noticed that country is also being given some new submarines by Germany - do they need to raid another uranium shipment on the high seas and steal it for their weapons program? :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: Paul Burke Date: 24 Nov 05 - 09:12 AM Naive, self important, self obsessed crawling toady might be nearer the mark. Then lies to cover up afterwards. He simply doesn't get it. If he can get to be a barrister, anyone can. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: Wolfgang Date: 24 Nov 05 - 09:00 AM GUARDIAN article about how Blair was given wrong information by US Tony Blair had been "double-crossed" by Bush aides in the run-up to the Iraq war.... I think that Mr Blair really thought that he was getting involved in a disarmament campaign Would Mr. Blair prefer being portrayed as naive to being portrayed as a liar? Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: George Papavgeris Date: 24 Nov 05 - 05:04 AM It started with Capone, then there was that Catraz place... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: John MacKenzie Date: 24 Nov 05 - 04:32 AM Big Al Whittle? [I do hope not!] G ☺ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: Paul Burke Date: 24 Nov 05 - 04:26 AM Sort of makes you wonder about the bombing of the television station in Belgrade back then? But I suspect it's just a Republican thing, bomb anything that starts with with "Al". All ragheads. Al Cohol, Al Gore, Al Deburgh, Al Tontowers, Al Faromeo, Al Abama.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: bobad Date: 23 Nov 05 - 07:46 PM I'll bet the home of The Mudcat Cafe has a big X over it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: Bobert Date: 23 Nov 05 - 07:37 PM Yeah, and I understand that the Wsahington Post was also on Bush's hit list... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: Peace Date: 23 Nov 05 - 07:30 PM I don't doubt they have discussed the bombing of Canada, also. That's what war planners do. They plan wars. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: katlaughing Date: 23 Nov 05 - 07:23 PM And, there's more individual info at Journalists killed in 2005...42 at last count. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: katlaughing Date: 23 Nov 05 - 07:21 PM My emphasis: On Wednesday the International Federation of Journalists said reports of a plan to attack al-Jazeera raised concerns that the US attack on the station's Baghdad office in April 2003, in which a reporter was killed, was deliberate targeting of the media. "It is time for the United States to tell the truth about this attack and to take responsibility for its actions, which appear to be [a] gross violation of international humanitarian law," said Aidan White, general secretary of the IFJ. The IFJ said it supported full disclosure of the alleged Blair-Bush conversation and a reopening of the investigation into the 2003 bombing of the al-Jazeera offices in Baghdad. For an interesting read, try Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2005. The US slipped twenty places to number 44 in freedom of the press out of 167 countries. Another note, from last year: "These latest deaths brings to at least 25 the toll of journalists and media assistants killed in Iraq since the start of the war in March 2003. This shocking statistic means Iraq is now one of the world's most dangerous places for journalists," said Reporters Without Borders. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: Amos Date: 23 Nov 05 - 06:49 PM :This report is outrageous if true..." "Breathe a word and you're in the slammer..." ...kinda makes it sound true, doesn't it? These guys are such amateurs. They can't tell a lie worth a damn, and they can't rebut the truth very well. How did they get into politics? It's not like they are innately truthful, no -- they're pathological liars. They just aren't any GOOD at it!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: Barry Finn Date: 23 Nov 05 - 06:27 PM Could this happen in the US, has it already happened (only 1 guess, here?)? Freedom of the press as long as they're printing what's been approved, if not it's C4 th 4 u. I can see ol Ben Franklin & his brother, both news people, starting a revolt over such antics. I would think that Tony only protested for the sake of his own neck & not for humanity as for Bush he can't think or see beyond his intimate surroundings. Just saw this on Aljazeera's site, thought I post it hear UK gags paper over Aljazeera memo Wednesday 23 November 2005, 12:01 Makka Time, 9:01 GMT Blair is said to have talked Bush out of any military strike Related: Comments: Bush, Aljazeera memo Aljazeera probes Bush 'bombing' memo Memo: Bush wanted Aljazeera bombed Britain's Daily Mirror newspaper has been ordered to cease publishing further details from an allegedly top secret memo revealing that US President George Bush wanted to bomb Aljazeera. The gag order from Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith came nearly 24 hours after the paper published details of what it said was a transcript of talks between Bush and the British Prime Minister Tony Blair. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: George Papavgeris Date: 23 Nov 05 - 05:33 PM You're right, TBPL, I used in fact a line from the Mail report. Whether Blair in fact tried to dissuade GWB is immaterial, the issue is whether the subject was discussed as even a remote possibility. And the Government's response does seem suspicious and lends some credibility to the report.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: AlexB Date: 23 Nov 05 - 05:00 PM What makes that worse Don, Maggie liked Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister, because of how accurate they were!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: Don Firth Date: 23 Nov 05 - 04:43 PM Yeah, I heard something about this on the news this morning. On that bastion of the liberal media, NPR. I wonder how Fox News is covering this. I wonder IF Fox News is covering this! If I didn't laugh, I'd have to cry. From an episode of "Yes, Minister / Yes, Prime Minister":It just gets better and better, doesn't it? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 23 Nov 05 - 04:27 PM "The gag-order is there to protect the public" TheBigPinkLad To quote: What the faaaa...? Serves me right for breaking my own rule about daring to express an opinion on political threads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: Wolfgang Date: 23 Nov 05 - 04:21 PM All the circumstances lead to the only conclusion that it's true. One unnamed civil servant according to German reports has tried the following explanation: Bush was joking. Since the document is a transcript and not a tape this is a nice try. But those who have seen the document say that this explanation is unbelievable when the words are seen in the context. And why should Blair argue against a joke? No, this has the ring of a true and ugly story. With this information, one might be tempted to revisit the 'inadvertent' bombing of the Jazeera office in Kabul during the Afghanistan war. The only good about these news is that Tony B. sometimes dares to speak against Bush's plans. Couldn't he have done this much more often? Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: Ebbie Date: 23 Nov 05 - 04:18 PM "The gag-order is there to protect the public" TheBigPinkLad To quote: What the faaaa...? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 23 Nov 05 - 04:09 PM The FT article is citing another article in (gawd) The Daily Mirror. The line George uses as a link is not anywhere I can see in the text. Of course they discussed it. So what? Among many other options also not taken. That's what discussions are for. The gag-order is there to protect the public, but it gives trash newspapers carte blanche to speculate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: What the faaaa...? From: John MacKenzie Date: 23 Nov 05 - 03:45 PM Two men have been charged under the official secrets act for passing copies of a note about this actual event. The government also threatened to prosecute the editors of a national newspaper under the same act if they publish from or have copies of the relevant documents. It is definitely a true story and frightening inasmuch as it shows off what a loose cannon GWB actually is. Giok |
|
Subject: BS: What the faaaa...? From: George Papavgeris Date: 23 Nov 05 - 03:39 PM Apologies if a thread on this exists already, but I couldn't find one. Blair had to dissuade Bush from bombing al-Jazeera offices I have been seeing reports on this since last night, but this Financial Times report 45 mins ago clinches it for me. I believe there is fire behind that particular smoke, especially as the British Government threatened to use the Official Secrets Act on the matter. What do you think? |
