Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

All major US newspapers are hiding the Blair/Bush memo call and complain

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Melodybe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 02:53 PM
Original message
All major US newspapers are hiding the Blair/Bush memo call and complain
Edited on Fri May-13-05 03:26 PM by Melodybe
the Washing Post, the New York Times, the LA times, USA today. etc are all trying to bury the story, along with trying to down paly its significance. This should be front page news call them and tell them off!

Here are their phone #'s:

the Washington Post:
1 202 334 6000

the New York Times:
1 212 556 1234

The LA Times:
1 213 237 500

USA Today:
1 703 854 3400

There are a few exceptions, San Fran, you rock!

Edited to add their e-mails so that we can send them the memo.

New York Times:
nytnews@nytimes.com

USA today:
http://asp.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-online.aspx?type=12

I can't find the WP or the LA times feedback address, anyone that has it please post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. Either they're under orders not to run it (though I can't imagine why)
Edited on Fri May-13-05 03:36 PM by rocknation
Or they know it would expose them as accomplices after the fact.

:headbang:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. Is there a copy of the memo??
If there is why don't we flood the news with copies.
Send it every news paper and news outlet.
and to all members of congress.

Don't let them forget about it

:grr: :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhatHappenedToTheGOP Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. The MEMO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Thanks
I will be sending this to the coporate whores who pretend to represent me.

:evilgrin: :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtbymark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. copy of memo
i wouldn't think i need permission eh?

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY



DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. 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. The NSC had no patience with the UN 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.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this 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 neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
6. I think that the Washington Post and the LA times may have had
some coverage today. Can anyone find out for sure? LA DUers? DC DUers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melodybe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. On page A 13 or some shit
No Front Page article declaring Proof that Bush lied, saddly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlrschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Begala just now said page A-18...:
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
8. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
9. Maybe, instead we should be calling and
praising them for running it, tell them that you are hearing it all over the street, that the interest in it is high. You know Punk Them...into thinking they have hit on a really big story and should promote it more....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cestpaspossible Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
10. Maybe it's time for self-publishing. Blanket the US in leaflets
if the corporations won't spread the news, maybe the people will have to do so.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Melodybe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-13-05 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Send everyone you e-mail a link to the times article and downingstreetmemo
Please this must get the attention it deserves.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

www.downingstreetmemo.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 03:08 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC