NY Times LIES! Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made

[Pryderi]

WHAT A LIE!!! HOW MUCH IS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION PAYING THE MEDIA???

Contact NYT and blast them to HELL!

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/politics/13downing.html

" By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: June 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 12 - A memorandum written by Prime Minister Tony Blair's cabinet office in late July 2002 explicitly states that the Bush administration had made "no political decisions" to invade Iraq, but that American military planning for the possibility was advanced. The memo also said American planning, in the eyes of Mr. Blair's aides, was "virtually silent" on the problems of a postwar occupation."

IF HE HAD READ THE NEW INFORMATION, HE WOULD HAVE SEEN THE FOLLOWING;

"2. When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine Crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted.

3. We need now to reinforce this message and to encourage the US Government to place its military planning within a political framework, partly to forestall the risk that military action is precipitated in an unplanned way by, for example, an incident in the No Fly Zones. This is particularly important for the UK because it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action. Otherwise we face the real danger that the US will commit themselves to a course of action which we would find very difficult to support. "

CHRIST! DAVID E. SANGER IS A LIAR/SHILL FOR THE FASCISTS!



# HOME OR OFFICE DELIVERY/CUSTOMER CARE

Place orders, temporarily stop service or inquire about billing or service by calling 1-800-NYTIMES or by visiting homedelivery.nytimes.com.
To write Sr. V.P., Circulation, send to:
[e-mail].

# LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
E-mail to [e-mail].

# OP-ED/EDITORIAL

For information on Op-Ed submissions, call [phone] or send article to [e-mail]. To write to the editorial page editor, send to [e-mail].

# NEWS DEPARTMENT

To send comments and suggestions (about news coverage only) or to report errors that call for correction, e-mail [e-mail] or leave a message at 1-888-NYT-NEWS.

The Editors
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

The Newsroom
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
[e-mail]; [e-mail]

# PUBLIC EDITOR

To reach Byron Calame, who represents the readers, e-mail [e-mail] or call [phone].

[blm]

1. NYT is run by those who are hawks on Israel. They want Bush's mideast wars

in the hope it will eventually help Israel.

Too bad the EndTimers are really only planning for Israel to be destroyed by their surrounding enemies to bring on the EndTimes. And the fascists will play along so they stay in power.

[Pryderi]

4. The columnist picked every non-military/non-invasion quote from the articl

That's hard to do, when at least half of the 22 points brought up mention military plans, build up, invasion and regime change.

Another large portion talked about setting up the conditions in order to invade. If you notice the Sanger skips all of these points and focuses on the weakest/non-damning portions of all of them.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758_1,00.html

[dweller]

2. why would Knight-Ridder lie?

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/11809605.htm

dp

[Pryderi]

3. Interesting, old article. It seems as if Americans don't care that we

were lied into a war. They just shrug and say, "Saddam was evil, and I'm glad he's gone."

[blm]

8. Americans don't KNOW enough to not care. The media protects Bush's image

when they should be telling the American people the TRUTH about Bush's incompetence, lies and coverups.

How many Americans do you know who heard that Bush was handed the Hart-Rudman Report on Global Terror on Jan 30, 2001 and he refused to read it? And Cheney and Rice ignored it, too.

It was a two and a half year study of global terror that included urgent proposals for homeland security. And BushInc refused to even read it.

[Pryderi]

15. The dismissive attitude by the MSM of this information is terrible.

They should stop just shut their doors, and we can get our news directly from Karl Rove.

[dweller]

11. here's the full list from Knight-Ridder on Iraq

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/7132720.htm

from then to now.

dp

[justice4all_1]

5. LOOKS LIKE KINSLEY IS DOING THE SAME THING...

I thought that M. Kinsely was usually pretty reliable, but he seems to take a pro-GWB view of the "memo":

June 12, 2005 latimes.com
Michael Kinsley:
The Left Gets a Memo

...
C's focus on the dog that didn't bark — the lack of discussion about the aftermath of war — was smart and prescient. But even on its face, the memo is not proof that Bush had decided on war. It states that war is "now seen as inevitable" by "Washington." That is, people other than Bush had concluded, based on observation, that he was determined to go to war. There is no claim of even fourth-hand knowledge that he had actually declared this intention. Even if "Washington" meant administration decision-makers, rather than the usual freelance chatterboxes, C was only saying that these people believed that war was how events would play out.

Of course, if "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," rather than vice versa, that is pretty good evidence of Bush's intentions, as well as a scandal in its own right. And we know now that this was true. Fixing intelligence and facts to fit a desired policy is the Bush II governing style, especially concerning the Iraq war. But C offered no specifics, or none that made it into the memo. Nor does the memo assert that actual decision-makers told him they were fixing the facts. Although the prose is not exactly crystalline, it seems to be saying only that "Washington" had reached that conclusion.


-----------------------------------------------

If MK is reflecting the MSM view then this whole siluation is pretty hopeless.

[Pryderi]

6. I want to exercise the nuclear option on the press! What is their problem?

I'm am completely flummoxed and disgusted. If Clinton had done 1/10th of the shit that this administration has done, it'd be front page news every god damned day.

[blm]

7. Unfortunately the belief that Bush's policy may benefit Israel in the

future is what's driving some of these editorials from the hawks on Israel contingent.

Israel is so effed by Bush's sabre-rattling towards the Arab world, they now need the US even more. They're scared.

They have to reward Bush's policy with their hope because that's all they have left.

[leesa]

19. "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out" Is this not an explicit enough quote

from Dubya?

I see, it's "governing style"...nothing to see here!

[Dr Fate]

9. What is the offical DNC response to these lies?

????????????????????????????????????????????

[Just Me]

10. Conyers is holding hearings on them this week.

Of course, I have learned that you have very high standards and are not easy to please when it comes to the Democrats.

[Dr Fate]

12. I asked what the official DNC response was.

What is the DNC's offical position on the UK minutes issue?

It's not about high standards at this point, I'd just like to know what "our" (The DNCs) offical position is.

Are they concerned? Are they "looking into this?" Have they issued a statement, a Dean TV appearance, or a press release that counters the media propaganda?

A grunt? A sigh? A yay or a nay?

It's not about high standards at this point, it's about having an opinion, one way or the other on the matter.

What is the DNC's official opinion?

[Pryderi]

18. I just called the DNC, and was told that this Thursday will be kicking off

the DSM attack by the Dems and Howard Dean. Kennedy and Conyers will be holding a press conference that day.

Now, if the MSM will cover it, we should see the battering of Bush soon.

[Dr Fate]

21. They need to go on interview & debate shows.

I'm sick of DEMs saying "Boo hoo- we tried to fight Bush- we even held a press conference but that mean old media ignored it....Now, about that donation check.."

I'm no longer excepting that as an excuse- they need to be on those interview & debate shows talking about this. Blaming the media is no longer an excuse- DEMs need to be front and center talking about this in every possible format-

You cant just hold a press conference and say "Oh well, we tried to fight Bush, now, about that check..."

[flpoljunkie]

13. To say this, they must pointedly ignore what Jack Straw said in the DSM!

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/11574296.htm

The newly disclosed memo, which was first reported by the Sunday Times of London, hasn't been disavowed by the British government. A spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington referred queries to another official, who didn't return calls for comment on Thursday.

A former senior U.S. official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity.

A White House official said the administration wouldn't comment on leaked British documents.

In July 2002, and well afterward, top Bush administration foreign policy advisers were insisting that "there are no plans to attack Iraq on the president's desk."

But the memo quotes British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, a close colleague of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, as saying that "Bush had made up his mind to take military action."

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kimchi]

16. I am going to be so busy tomorrow.

Oh to be one of the braindead ones without a care...

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bklyncowgirl]

20. They missed the part about fixed intelligence.

Of course the Times rolled over at the time this was going on and they're rolling over again. In the meantime we're stuck in this slow torture of a war thanks to Bush's incompetence and the willful collaboration of the powers that be including the corporate media.