Welcome

Peace, Love, and Rock-n-Roll from a proud Lefty, Liberal, Socialist Hippie

Friday, May 06, 2005

The Smoking Gun?

"The memo, first disclosed in full 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.
A White House official said the administration wouldn't comment on the leaked document.
However, a former senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during Dearlove's visit to Washington.
Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is circulating a letter among fellow Democrats asking Bush for an explanation of the charges, an aide said. "
An excerpt from May 6th, Seattle Times.

John Conyers is heading this thing up. That's good news because impeachment proceedings start in the House Judiciary committee. It's got to be heading that direction...I mean it just has to, doesn't it?? Well, truthfully, it may go nowhere. All the Bushies have to do is deny it. Point to the findings of the Senate commission on Intelligence. And the people will buy it, just like they have bought the last five years of garbage expounded by this administration. Isn't it interesting, however, that Blair called for elections, and that the elections took place the very day before this memo was leaked? Do you think he would have been reelected if this thing had gone public before his election? Was it leaked purposely by his administration to give him post-election time to recuse himself, distance himself from Bush?

Anyway, I'm e-mailing Conyers tonight to urge him to start impeachment proceedings. There was criminal violation of the Constitution, and it's time.

Another story; the Republicans are going to hammer PBS for having so-called liberal bias. These fascists - they don't let up, do they? Here's my letter to the papers today - it hasn't been published yet, but hopefully in the next day or two.
_____

....It would appear that the last bastion of liberal media (and by ‘liberal’ I mean ‘reporting with accuracy and telling the truth’), the Public Broadcasting Service, is about to be reigned in by our own Minister of Disinformation and Propaganda, Karl Rove. Under Rove’s ever-watchful eye, the Republicans have appointed former Reader’s Digest editor Kenneth Tomlinson as chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Mr. Tomlinson has created an office to oversee the content of PBS television, investigating what the Republicans undoubtedly see as bias in public media. The folks who have been hired to do this overseeing are another former Reader’s Digest editor, and a fellow at the Hudson Institute. This is how we are going to insure “fair and balanced”, no doubt. The soon-to-be appointee as president of CPB is Patricia Harrison, former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee.

The lie began with the depiction of PBS as biased, when in fact PBS has aired many conservative and pro-corporate shows, including shows hosted by Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, and Peggy Noonan. I guess that real balance is not enough.

So what more needs to be said here? This is a right-wing coup of public airwaves. The next step is for public (taxpayer) funding of PBS to be slashed in favor of large private donations. Any guesses as to who the big donors will be? Wake up, sheeple. This is a strategy that Goebbels himself would be proud of.

2 comments:

SoulRebel said...

Here is the link to e-mail the Democrats on the House Judiciary committee: http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/contact.html

Here is my letter to them:
Honorable Representatives,
Based on the 'leaked' memo from the British that indicates our inglorious impostor Bush forced 'facts' to fit his policy, it is high time that proceedings to impeach him began. The president is not above the law. You, I, and millions of other Americans and world citizens know that he has broken both international and domestic laws by illegally taking our country to war against a nation that posed no threat to us or its neighbors. We have lost worldwide respect. Even now, potential real threats to US security are posed by North Korea, and our military capacity as admitted by General Myers has been stretched to the breaking point. Is this not treason?

I left the Democratic party after the election, and I joined the Green party because the Democrats in the Senate showed no unity, no backbone, no conviction in supporting Senator Barbara Boxer and her efforts to present our election crisis to the American public. There was little support in the Senate for Senator Boxer's efforts to expose Condoleezza Rice as an ineffective National Security Advisor, and consequentially for the ineffective Secretary of State she will surely turn out to be.

On the other hand, I was so proud of Rep. Waters and others after the 2000 election, and Rep. Jones following the recent debacle. Please restore my faith in elected officials. Begin impeachment hearings now. It is time.

Chad Shue said...

For those who have not read the entire memo, I offer it here with the link to the Sunday London Times where it originally appeared.

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

The secret Downing Street memo


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)