Tuesday, June 28, 2005
John Kerry has written a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee, requesting answers on the Downing Street Memo. Read here.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
From the New York Times of June 24th, interesting article of Paul Krugman, titled "The war president".
Excerpts:
[...] Leading the nation wrongfully into war strikes at the heart of democracy. It would have been an unprecedented abuse of power even if the war hadn't turned into a military and moral quagmire. And we won't be able to get out of that quagmire until we face up to the reality of how we got in.
Let me talk briefly about what we now know about the decision to invade Iraq, then focus on why it matters.
The administration has prevented any official inquiry into whether it hyped the case for war. But there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that it did.
And then there's the Downing Street Memo - actually the minutes of a prime minister's meeting in July 2002 - in which the chief of British overseas intelligence briefed his colleagues about his recent trip to Washington.
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam," says the memo, "through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It doesn't get much clearer than that.
[...]
On one side, the people who sold this war, unable to face up to the fact that their fantasies of a splendid little war have led to disaster, are still peddling illusions: the insurgency is in its "last throes," says Dick Cheney. On the other, they still have moderates and even liberals intimidated: anyone who suggests that the United States will have to settle for something that falls far short of victory is accused of being unpatriotic.
Read the whole article here.
Friday, June 17, 2005
17 June 2005
American officials lied to British ministers over the use of "internationally reviled" napalm-type firebombs in Iraq.
Yesterday's disclosure led to calls by MPs for a full statement to the Commons and opened ministers to allegations that they held back the facts until after the general election. [Read the whole article here]
And again regarding the George Bush's mendacity on his war plans, today the New York Times (read here) reports on a forum held in Washington on the issues raised by the Downing Streem Memo.
The Washington Post published an interview with Michael Smith yesterday (read here). Michael Smith is the Sunday Times' reporter who started the coverage of the Downing Street Memo. An interesting part of the interview regards the meaning of "fixed" in British English. Some American people, likely in blind love with Bush, were arguing that the black is white by saying that "fixed" only meant "attached to" in the Downing Street Memo. Which is a pathetic interpretation. Here is Michael Smith's reply:
Michael Smith: There are number of people asking about fixed and its meaning. This is a real joke. I do not know anyone in the UK who took it to mean anything other than fixed as in fixed a race, fixed an election, fixed the intelligence. If you fix something, you make it the way you want it. The intelligence was fixed and as for the reports that said this was one British official. Pleeeaaassee! This was the head of MI6. How much authority do you want the man to have? He has just been to Washington, he has just talked to George Tenet. He said the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. That translates in clearer terms as the intelligence was being cooked to match what the administration wanted it to say to justify invading Iraq. Fixed means the same here as it does there. More leaks? I do hope so and the more Blair and Bush lie to try to get themselves off the hook the more likely it is that we will get more leaks.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
The Memogate keeps building up
Other secret documents leaked, further substantiating the content of the Downing Street Memo, and proving that George Bush and his administration were bent on waging a war against on Iraq, and cooked up a case to pursue his intention, despite public assertions of considering war the last resort were diplomatic efforts to fail.
Read this interesting timeline published by The Raw Story, which opportunely mentions the organisation called Project for a New American Century.
The Raw Story is one of the independent news providers on the frontline to provide a coverage of the Downing Street documents, which mainstream media have dealt with in a scant way for a month after the publication of the first secret document on May 1st on the Sunday Times.
However in the last couple of weeks the story have received some coverage. The latest example is an article by the Newsweek (read here).
In the meanwhile Rep. John Conyers will head today a forum on the Downing Street Memo, which will be followed by a rally in front of the White House. John Conyers also plans to deliver to the White House over 500,000 signatures of American citizens to a petition asking George Bush a detailed reply on the issues raised by the Downing Street documents (read here).
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Another secret document leaked from the British Cabinet Office , was published today by the published today by the Sunday Times.
The document provides yet another confirmation of the secret minutes published by the British newspaper on May 1st 2005, known as the Downing Street Memo - which prove that despite his public assertions of privileging diplomacy, George Bush had planned (though the proper word would be 'conspired') for at least one year the war on Iraq, only concerned to "fix" intelligence and facts around his policy.
The Sunday Times writes: "The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal."
The new document leaked adds new insight on the situation that led to the war and clearly expresses doubts by the Blair administration regarding the American ally's awareness of the problems posed by a war aftermath: the "US military plans are virtually silent" on the possibility that a "post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise".
An excerpt of the new document leaked:
1. The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.
[...]
19. Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular, we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective as set out in paragraph 5 above. A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point.
This new secret document leaked has been commented on the first page of the Washington Post today, with an article by Walter Pincus.
Meanwhile the petition of the letter of Rep. John Conyers to George Bush has reached nearly half a million signatures.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Pretty much like thinking that we have storms with thunder and lightning because Zeus gets pissed off.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
I had wondered why Sen. Kerry had not yet publicly mentioned the Dowing Street Memo. However, the Standard Times now reports today some statements by Mr. Kerry:
"When I go back (to Washington) on Monday, I am going to raise the issue," he said of the memo, which has not been disputed by either the British or American governments. "I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home. And it's amazing to me the way it escaped major media discussion. It's not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that."
He questioned Americans' understanding of the war and the sense that criticism equals disloyalty, saying, "Do you think that Americans if they really understood it would feel that way knowing that on Election Day, 77 percent of Americans who voted for Bush believed that weapons of mass destruction had been found and 77 percent believe Saddam did 9/11? Is there a way for this to break through, ever?" TRUTH AND DECEIT
In an article in the New York Times, significantly titled "Truth and Deceit", Bob Herbert tackles how those in power may sometimes turn facts into deceiving pretenses. Aptly the article mentions the Watergate and the Vietnam war, quotes Ronald Reagan's "Trust, but verify", and then mentions the Downing Street Memo:
"Now, with George W. Bush in charge, the nation is mired in yet another tragic period marked by incompetence, duplicity, bad faith and outright lies coming once again from the very top of the government. Just last month we had the disclosure of a previously secret British government memorandum that offered further confirmation that the American public and the world were spoon-fed bogus information by the Bush administration in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
President Bush, as we know, wanted to remove Saddam Hussein through military action. With that in mind, the memo damningly explained, 'the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.'
That's the kind of deceit that was in play as American men and women were suiting up and marching off to combat at the president's command. Mr. Bush wanted war, and he got it. Many thousands have died as a result."
Also in Afghanistan "the lies have been legion", adds Bob Herbert. For instance in the case of the death of soldier Pat Tillman, killed as a consequence of "friendly fire", an episode transformed into a phony story of heroism for the interests of the Army. "Soldiers who knew the truth were ordered to keep quiet about the matter. Corporal Tillman's family was not told how he really died until after a nationally televised memorial service that recruiters viewed as a public relations bonanza." writes Herbert.
One might have hoped that the Watergate and the Vietnam war should have been enough to develop prudence in people, if they retained some historical memory. But obviously it is not so:
Read the whole article by Bob Herbert here.
Other news providers cover the Downing Street Memo:
On the Boston Globe, Ralph Nader writes:
THE IMPEACHMENT of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, should be part of mainstream political discourse. [...]
President Clinton was impeached for perjury about his sexual relationships. Comparing Clinton's misbehavior to a destructive and costly war occupation launched in March 2003 under false pretenses in violation of domestic and international law certainly merits introduction of an impeachment resolution.
And, lo behold, even Fox News wrote about the Downing Street Memo, after having ignored it for exactly one month.
In the meanwhile, Rep. John Conyers' raising of signatures to a letter to Mr. Bush is continuing. As soon as the number reaches 100,000, Rep. Conyers will deliver the letter directly to Mr. Bush. From last Friday to Monday nearly 60,000 have clicked on a link to the petition page.
People want to know. If you haven't yet, sign the petition here.
