Outrage grows at Bush bomb claims

[malaise]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/outrage-grows-at-bush-bomb-claims/2005/11/25/1132703377862.html

<snip>
The Attorney-General's warning was "not on the grounds of national security but on the grounds of potential embarrassment to the Prime Minister or to any presidents he happens to have conversations with", he said.

Geoff Hoon, the leader of the House of Commons, replied saying Lord Goldsmith had a "legal responsibility". He added: "It is done only in certain limited circumstances. But it is an important power that needs exercising from time to time."

A former defence minister, Peter Kilfoyle, on Thursday tabled a Commons motion saying MPs were "appalled" by Mr Bush's reported comments and Mr Blair's apparent failure to restrain him by persuading him to moderate US tactics in Iraq. He said any note of the White House meeting should be published.

[aquart]

1. God, I hope someone gets upset about this.

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Why?

I don't get it. The claim was made in a tabloid magazine. Most people here don't believe the MSM, but now tabloid news is accurate? Is this "Men in Black?"

Is it possible that this was said...hell yes! But, the primary source was a tabloid. Does this mean Elvis is still alive and running a B&B in Vermont and two-headed vampire babies are the norm?

[xchrom]

3. won't know unless it's investigated, yes?

there's something a little more to it than just tabloid news -- or the reaction both from blair's end to the mps wouldn't be so feisty.

let's see it -- and let's see if it reveals more about the phony case for war.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. I am all for investigation.

Let's see how it pans out.

As for the reaction...I call you a pedophile...you going to react? From that rainbow flag, I bet you would because, as we both know, not all pedophiles are gay, but we also know that false charges are often laid at our feet!

Revealing more about this phony war? Other than the 36% that still support Shrub, does anyone think that this was not an oil expedition?!

[xchrom]

11. hmmm? listening to mild mannered opposition of

most of the powers that be -- i would think that many people would actually be relieved if bush and the poodle can redeem themselves.

rationally i don't think there's any way that can happen -- but there is a lot of very heavy guilt to go around.

and about the pedophile/gay flag thing -- if people don't want to be fierce about defending themselves from that ''hey look over there'' attack -- then there's little that can be done for them.

[Behind the Aegis]

12. perhaps

I disagree with you. I think most people would be vindicated if the Shrub and Blair thing was proven correct. There is no redeeming of those two. They led both our countries into illegal warfare. They did it under false pretenses and most of us (and the world) already know that fact.

I am confused about your last statement. If someone accused me of being a pedophile because I was gay, I would fight them...especially if they printed it in the news (then, I would sue them and use the money to move out of this fucking hell-hole of a state). So, if someone accused me of planning to bomb a news source I didn't like (and I didn't do it), I would act the same way. the problem is that the guilty would also react the same way.

[xchrom]

20. if you prove the statment about you are false

how the guilty act is of no consequence.
you would expect any fight to be tough.
you would expect them to ''protesteth too loudly''.
it's the essence of their attack.

i agree that ''the people'' knew that the war was illegal -- i was in london for some of the war protesting -- and here -- i was speaking of our officially sanctioned and elected leaders.

in london people supported blair as much for thinking his ''third way'' liberal leadership was at stake as anything else -- and here our democratic leadership folded as because of their inability to deal with labels they had been pasted with in the past.

[Behind the Aegis]

21. you seem to prove my point.

Guilty or not...if you defend yourself, you must be guilty. That is fucked up!

Just because someone says that they are not guilty, doesn't mean they are. Isn't it "innocent, until proved guilty?" Shouldn't that principle apply to our enemies too?

I have dealt with too many right-wingers to know that just because they say it "is so," doesn't mean it is! It also doesn't mean that there isn't truth there too!

[xchrom]

23. i have to give the big -- WHAT. EVER. at this point.

being human means your flawed -- and guilty of smething for craps sake.

that doesn't mean that you meet an ujustified accusation with timidity -- i.e. swiftboating.

it's not that people believed the lies about kerry -- it's that they didn't/coudn't/wouldn't believe his reaction.


most people would have had an i will take your ass and place it over you head attitude when saddled with those accusations -- even though they know they have a sullied past -- who doesn't?

[Behind the Aegis]

27. What is your point?

These accusations may be true, but they may not be. Shouldn't we wait until we have more info? It is one thing to express opinion, and another to express opinion as fact. Personally, I have dealt with those who express opinion as fact way too often!

Maybe you want to believe anything that comes out in your view to be true, but I don't. It doesn't mean I dismiss what I see...but sometimes, what black is not black, but a shade of gray.

[xchrom]

30. lol -- who said it wasn't gray?

i don't know what you are talking about -- if you accuse me of being a pedophile -- and it isn't true -- trust me -- we're gonna fight.

and it's gonna be ugly.

i know that my life isn't perfect -- but we're gonna drag both our lives into the spotlight at that point.

[Behind the Aegis]

31. that is my point!

You will fight if not true. It doesn't mean you are guilty!

If you and I were enemies, I would want the fight...bring it into the open!

The Shrub admin doesn't want that...daylight is poison to them. However, not all charges are real.

[xchrom]

36. of course not all charges are real

but the depth of deception that it takes to take a country to war -- or to steal an election -- demands that people aggressively shine the light into the corners.

al jazeera certainly looks like it would a tartget for someone as paranoid as bushco.
and there are certainly cases of journalist that have been killed that look suspicious.

bushco has used the media ruthlessly -- why not rid themselves of a media outlet that seemed like a foe to them?

when this much power, greed, and money are in play -- one must look at all of these allegations carefully.

[Catrina]

42. And don't forget, Al Jazeera WAS bombed, TWICE!

It is currently banned from Iraq. One of its journalists was killed (targeted according to many sources) in the Palestine Hotel, others detained (one still in Guantanamo Bay) and treated like criminals.

Aside from which, there has been no denial that the memo is real. In fact two people have been placed under arrest for releasing it. And the excuse was made that Bush 'was just kidding'. That seems to say that it is true. That the memo does exist, and that's why neither Bush nor Blair have denied it. Instead, they are doing what they always do, distract. Yell 'National Security' and 'Terror, Terror' only that is getting old now, and doesn't work the way it used to.

My conclusion from all that I've read, including the British AG trying to silence the press from even mentioning the memo (if it doesn't exist, why do this) is that Bush did say it, and that he meant it. If not, let us see the memo, let the press cover the story, and the truth will emerge.

As rightwingers always say when I complain to them about the Patriot Act shredding the 4th Amendment ~ 'why are you worried? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about'. Those same righties all of a sudden are not so smug when it comes to this situation, but I say, let's go with that ~ if Bush has nothing to hide, he has nothing to worry about. Show us the memo!!

[xchrom]

46. indeed -- we've seen the pattern of journalists killed

or in the case of al jazeera bombed -- and we've had nothing ''official'' to hang it on -- no document or stated policy.

bush may have -- off the record -- stated that policy and now we have some evidence.
or at least it very much looks that way.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

32. Oil expedition. Excellent.

New acronym. BFOE.

[jeff5]

4. The Attorney-General Confirmed It

Mr Bush's alleged comments about bombing Al-Jazeera's building in Doha are reported to be contained in a note of the meeting. The British Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, warned newspapers they could be charged under the Official Secrets Act if they published further material from the note.

If it was just a smear job the A-G wouldn't be threatening them over "further" disclosures.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Your source?

You have a quote and no source. Not to say it isn't accurate, but where did it come from?

As for your question...if it was a smear job would the AG threaten over further disclosures? YUP!

I never said it wasn't true, I just said that it originated from a questionable source.

[proud2BlibKansan]

40. Do a search right here on DU

This has been posted here a couple times already in the last day or so - with links.

[julianer]

47. Why cast doubt on the Mirror?

It has a good reputation. It is a left of centre paper, popular but serious.

Many of the details were also published in the Sunday Times a couple of days before - at least that's what I heard on the news the other night.

[Stella_Artois]

48. Not all that good a reputation

It was seriously damaged when the editor resigned after he authorised the printing of photographs that appeared to show British troops urinating on a Iraqi prisoner. The photos were fake and the incident never happened.

[julianer]

52. The exception that proves......

[China_cat]

13. Bombing Doha would be really, really dumb

if you consider that a lot of oil execs and geologists (and their families) are based there. Not just from the US but from a lot of our allies. (I know one who was stationed there until he got moved to Oman) And the ex-pat community is very near that building they'd like to take out.

I think, if nothing else, Cheney would put a halt to any idea of this. Not good for the bottom line to go bombing the people who make you rich.

[oblivious]

6. Are you serious? The leakers have been charged and you still doubt it?

Cabinet Office civil servant David Keogh has been charged under the Official Secrets Act of passing the memo to former Labour MP Tony Clarke's researcher Leo O'Connor.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4472648.stm

[Behind the Aegis]

9. Serious as a heart attack!

Was the memo real or not? It is possible it is very real. But, it is just as possible that it was an anti-war move.

I am all for the whistle-blowers to step-up and show what is really happening, but I am also suspect that the choice of media source was tabloid.

[oblivious]

14. I'm wondering if was leaked to others.

But only the Daily Mail would publish it.

Is it fair to link the Daily Mail with papers like the National Enquirer that publish 'two-headed vampire baby" stories and all?

[Behind the Aegis]

17. Speculations.

My understanding is that this was published first in the "Daily Mirror," a tabloid.

As for fair about linking, well, I have seen articles that broke in tabloid mags first, then in MSM and, more often than not, tabloid articles that were shit. So, the possibility exists that this is real, but it also could be shit.

[grytpype]

44. Mirror is a tabloid like Daily News or New York Post.

OK? You seem to be having problems with what that word means.

A tabloid is a newspaper that is folded over so it is smaller, like the Daily News or NY Post (or, yes, like the Enquirer).

The other kind of newspaper is called a broadsheet, like the NYT or WaPo, or most other newspapers.

[mrfrapp]

19. Attorney General

The Attorney General has said not to publish the memo. It's a wild guess but I would suggest that he wouldn't say not to publish the memo unless the memo existed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JYT23ESKWWRA3QFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2005/11/23/njazeer23.xml

"Most people here don't believe the MSM, but now tabloid news is accurate?"

"Tabloid news" means something different in the US. When the Daily Mirror is described as a tabloid newspaper, it isn't meant to draw comparisons with the National Enquirer.

To clarify: In another comment, you referred to the Daily Mirror as a "tabloid mag". The Daily Mirror isn't a "tabloid mag" it's a newspaper, a part of the "Mainstream Media".

[Behind the Aegis]

24. Publish

And the memo could contain other things vital to national security (but that is speculation).

If it is real...investigate. I just don't trust "news" coming from a "tabloid" source, until it eventually is shown to be true.

I called the "Mirror" a tabloid mag because that is my understanding is that what the publication is, even if it is a "left-leaning" one. Is that not true?

[mr blur]

35. Tabloid is simply a description of it size/layout.

It hasn't always been that shape. The Independent is now in Tabloid format and no-one would ever accuse that of being a "tabloid rag". Having said that, there is an accusation of "trashy" associated with the term tabloid over here, which would certainly work for The Sun, which is a joke (full of sport, celebrity gossip and TV "news") even though it now blindly backs Blair's every ridiculous utterance, and has the largest circulation of any UK daily newspaper. No reports of the "Aliens Stole My Baby!!!" variety though, unless to ridicule anyone who claims such a thing.

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. Here are some previous posts on this topic - with links:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5449148#5450026

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5449148#5450026

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1943321

[DanCa]

5. Now if this happened on President Clinton, or President Carter's watch

It will be all over tv and everyone will be crying wag the dog.
The rethugs make me ill.

[Behind the Aegis]

10. You are so correct!

But, could it be "wag the dog?"

Does anyone really think that this administration is not beyond bombing an enemy, real or perceived?! Well, 36% may think that, but the rest don't. However, it doesn't mean that ever piece of info that comes out supporting our beliefs is also real.

[Roy]

15. doesn't mean it's false either.......

Launch the investigation and/or release the documents and end all the speculation.

Why should there be a rush to bury our heads in sand because we are not sure whether this is true or not?

[Behind the Aegis]

16. no it doesn't...anymore than it means it is real...

I am all for an investigation. I don't trust this administration.

But, why should there be a rush to accept this as fact without an investigation or, at least, a hardcore source?

[malaise]

18. Do you think British MPs

would be making so much noise if they did not know it was true? Remember it was leaked to a former labour MP. There is no hiding facts - truth will out.

Edit - a former labour MP.

[Behind the Aegis]

22. Former...

Agendas...everyone has them. Could it be true? Hell yes!

What I have found here is too many are willing to believe anything that supports their beliefs. Hmmmm...sound familiar?

Press for an investigation. Go for the truth...just don't make it up!

Let the truth come out, but don't expect it to be what 'you' want it to be.

[malaise]

25. We would all that but

so far with regard to the illegal invasion of Iraq, many of us have been correct from day one.

[Behind the Aegis]

26. And....

...that means that everything that comes out in our "favor" is correct?

[malaise]

28. Not at all but we all know

that Bushco and Blair lied about everything so I expect nothing different here. Still, in my business I like to see facts so I'm waiting for the memo. Truth will out.

[Behind the Aegis]

29. Very good.

Wait for the memo. I don't deny it may be very true, but some seem to be willing to accept the publication as fact.

Here is a test for you:

"Report: The Washington Post has reported that Castro is planning to amass ships and subs on the FLA coast." You ready to believe it now?

[thebigidea]

33. so its safe to assume you have an agenda

and safer still to dismiss it.

[Behind the Aegis]

34. as safe as it is to dismiss yours.

[DanCa]

37. Or have this administration use war and tragedy for thier personal gain.?

Heaven's not our good "christian" leader :D Jk. Good post aegis you nailed it.

[DemonFighterLives]

38. It rings very true to me

They wanted embedded reporters only. Many reporters were knocked off.
Here is more on the story.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1124-22.htm

Clip-
A day before Bush's meeting with Blair, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld slammed Al Jazeera in distinctly undiplomatic terms:

REPORTER: Can you definitively say that hundreds of women and children and innocent civilians have not been killed?
RUMSFELD: I can definitively say that what Al Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.
REPORTER: Do you have a civilian casualty count?
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 Falluja is exactly what it was doing when the United States 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.

[xchrom]

39. ah yes -- the world according to rumsfeld.

[DemonFighterLives]

45. We do killing right rumsfeld

:argh:

[malaise]

50. That simple really

I'm dying to see the memo - it will be published somewhere.

Edit -sp.

[DemonFighterLives]

54. I hope we see it

I'm sure dubby will try to come off as the big jokester that he is.
:+

[Marr]

43. Our government classifies things to protect the careers of officials all

the time. In fact, I think most of the formerly-classified items I've read, or things that have become classified even though they're public knowledge (like Sybil Edmonds), were made so to protect careers- not for national security.

I'm quite impressed with the British press for pointing that fact out. Our own press would *never* do that.

[Straight Shooter]

49. "national security" has become a euphemism for "cover our ass"

Think of all the information withheld from the Senators in the rush to war, with the claim of "national security" as the basis to withhold that information.

Think of all the information the people of the U.S. will never know regarding September 11, 2001, LIHOP or MIHOP, in the interest of so-called "national security."

I don't trust those bastards to keep me secure. Show the document. End the speculation. I'm seeing so much smoke, I suspect there might be a fire somewhere.

[Rex]

51. Why do The Powers That Be continue to act shocked?

As if the fact that Boosh is a murdering tyrant is news! Everyone but the morans know how much Chimpy loves death and suffering.

Stop being outraged and DO something about it!

[symbolman]

53. Anyone recall the Irish Reporter at the start of the "war"

would was warned that anyone with an unauthorized uplink satellite dish would be TARGETED and KILLED?

About the time they were INBEDDING reporters :)

They've literally SHOT cameramen on the scene with full knowledge that they were aiming at a guy with a camera ON THEM.

Remember that cartoonist Ted Rall that went over to Iraq to report and what his story was? He basically said that he was LEFT BEHIND, as were other reporters, some with broken legs, etc when the troops moved out.. left on their own to find a taxi I guess in the middle of the desert..

Then the night before they pulled down Saddam's statue they aimed a TANK at the Press Hotel at the exact FLOOR where the press was staying, the building that was across the town center where the statue was to be pulled down and BLASTED THAT WHOLE FLOOR.. THEN sent up troops to roust them after that..

As well as having bombed the AL Jazerra press buildings TWICE at minimum.. they bombed the RED CROSS as well so THEY couldn't report conditions..

They were at WAR with the Media there and I believe this is NOT a Joke, that Bush is perfectly capable of saying and doing just what this memo suggests..

So in the words of Reagans' Attorney General Edwin Meese (later indicted along with over 100 other Reagan admins), "If you have nothing to HIDE why should you be worried?"

Let's see the report/memo and put our public minds at ease, easily cleared up, just show US THE REPORT...

Hell, AP itself was SUEING them for attacking their reporters, I thought for SURE the REAL stories would flow after they attacked AP reporters..

Just another war crime, another day in the Bush administration, eh?

[oblivious]

55. US soldiers threaten to shoot Wash Post reporter in Afghanistan.

Washington Post reporter Doug Struck claims that U.S. soldiers threatened to shoot him if he proceeded with an attempt to investigate a site where civilians had been killed; Struck has stated that for him, the central question raised by the incident is whether the Pentagon is trying to "cover up" its actions and why it won't "allow access by reporters to determine what they're doing here in Afghanistan" (CBS, "The Early Show," 2/13/02).

http://www.zmag.org/content/TerrorWar/pentagon_propaganda.cfm
second last paragraph

[DemonFighterLives]

56. Here is a report on reporters deaths

http://www.rsf.org/special_iraq_en.php3

Article on the deadly year for reporters
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=13652
Iraq is the world’s most dangerous country for journalists and the place where the most are kidnapped. 56 journalists and media assistants have been killed there since the fighting began on 22 March 2003 and 29 kidnapped.

The Iraq conflict is the deadliest inter-state war for journalists since the one in Vietnam, when 63 were killed, but over a period of 20 years (1955-75). During the fighting in the former Yugoslavia (1991-95), 49 journalists were killed doing their job.

57 journalists and 20 media assistants were killed in Algeria between 1993 and 1996 but this was during an internal (civil) war.

The media was targeted from the first day of the fighting in Iraq, when cameraman Paul Moran, of the Australian TV network ABC, was killed by a car bomb on 22 March 2003. Eleven journalists and media assistants were killed in March and April that year. The situation then gradually improved until early the following year, when bomb blasts and attacks by armed groups increased throughout the country, with nine killed in May 2004. Almost every month since then, one or two journalists have been killed, nine of them so far this year.