Before the Bush regime invaded Iraq in March 2003, members of the regime had ominously raised the spectre of nuclear holocaust. (George W. Bush: "Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." -- CNN, October 2002. Condoleezza Rice: "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly [Saddam Hussein] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." -- CNN, September 2002. Dick Cheney: "And what we've seen recently ... is that [Saddam Hussein] now is trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium -- specifically, aluminum tubes." -- CNN, September 2002. Donald Rumsfeld: "After the Iraq war, Desert Storm, after they invaded Kuwait ... we went in and were able to find out that they were within six months to a year away from developing a nuclear weapon." -- CNN, September 2002.)
Could this real smoking gun be
Bush's personal mushroom cloud?
The Downing Street Memo -- the minutes of the July 2002 British government meeting that prove what we already knew: that the Bush regime fabricated from whole cloth its casus belli for its March 2003 invasion of Iraq -- seems to have legs.
By way of introduction, here is what downingstreetmemo.com says of the Downing Street Memo:
The Downing Street "Memo" is actually a document containing meeting minutes transcribed during the British prime minister's meeting on July 23, 2002 -- a full eight months prior to the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003. The Times of London printed the text of this document on Sunday, May 1, 2005, but to date U.S. media coverage has been limited. This site is intended to act as a resource for anyone who wants to understand the facts revealed in this document.
The contents of the memo are shocking. The minutes detail how our government did not believe Iraq was a greater threat than other nations; how intelligence was "fixed" to sell the case for war to the American public; and how the Bush Administration’s public assurances of "war as a last resort" were at odds with their privately stated intentions.
When asked, British officials "did not dispute the document's authenticity," and a senior American official has described it as "absolutely accurate." Yet the Bush administration continues to simultaneously sidestep the issue while attempting to cast doubt on the memo’s authenticity.
Nobody wants to go to war. We trust our leaders to shed blood in our name only when absolutely necessary. But the facts revealed by the Downing Street Memo force us to ask ourselves: Was I misled? Did President Bush tell me the truth when he said he would not take us to war unless absolutely necessary?
More than two years after the start of the Iraq war, Americans are just learning that our government was dead-set on invasion, even while it claimed to be pursuing diplomacy. Please join us in demanding that we get to the bottom of this issue.
If you haven't read it yet, here the memo is, copied and pasted from The Times of London's Web site (especially damning sections I have underlined):
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)
There you have it: The smoking gun, proof of what we already knew but for which we did not have physical evidence before the release of the memo. Neither the British government nor any other credible party has denied the memo's veracity (no high-ranking member of the Bush regime, of course, is a credible party).
I carefully monitored the news in the months before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. It was clear to me, as it should have been clear to anyone of at least average intelligence who was paying intention, that the Bush regime was going to invade Iraq no matter what Saddam Hussein did or did not do and regardless of what weapons capability Iraq did or did not possess.
It's obvious why the Bush regime has remained at least mostly mum on the Downing Street Memo -- it is proof of the treason and of the war crimes of the members of the Bush regime, who, as I have stated in past posts, deserve to be executed for their crimes. They deserve at least as much punishment as Saddam Hussein receives when his war-crimes trial is over. War crimes are fucking war crimes; war crimes committed by Americans -- even when the American war criminals use weasel words like "freedom" and "liberation" and "democracy" to justify their war crimes -- are not somehow OK.
It's not so obvious why the corporately controlled U.S. mainstream media have been largely silent on the Downing Street Memo, but here's an educated guess: They've remaining mostly quiet because they are guilty of having acted as cheerleaders for the Bush regime's illegal, immoral, unprovoked and imperialist invasion of Iraq in March 2003. They have as much egg on their faces as do the members of the Bush regime. ("Embedded" -- gee, doesn't that mean "in bed with"?)
What can you about the Downing Street Memo?
First and foremost, sign Michigan Rep. John Conyers Jr.'s letter to "President" Bush demanding an explanation for the Downing Street Memo. Click here now to sign the letter, which will be delivered to Bush (don't worry -- if Bush actually deigns to read it, someone [Laura, perhaps] will help him with the big words).
Second, you can tell the corporately controlled U.S. mainstream media to get off their fucking fascist asses and start reporting the God-damned news.
This is the e-mail that I sent to ABC, CBS and NBC today, with the subject line, "Want me back?":
Dear Madam or Sir:
I stopped watching U.S. TV network news shortly after the Bush administration invaded Iraq in March 2003.
Do you want to know why?
I stopped watching because the TV news networks acted like cheerleaders rather than journalists. They treated the invasion of Iraq like a video game, like entertainment. They never questioned: Why? Is this invasion a good idea? Is the United States attacking Iraq for good cause? What could the consequences of this invasion be? How many billions of the taxpayers' dollars could it cost? How many American and Iraqi lives could it cost?
No, instead the TV news networks treated the death and destruction in Iraq like a Hollywood action movie and as a TV ratings bonanza.
Consequently, I now get my news from the Internet (Yahoo! News especially).
Can the TV news networks get me and millions of others like me back?
Maybe -- if they start actually reporting the news.
You can start by covering the July 2002 British memo that demonstrates that the Bush administration created a bogus war in Iraq that the U.S. TV news networks treated like entertainment.
Otherwise, I and millions of other Americans will continue to get our news from the Internet, since we can't get it from you.
Sincerely,
Robert Crook
Sacramento, California
I was inspired to write these three major TV "news" networks by this e-mail that I received Friday from MoveOn.org:
Dear MoveOn member,
A London newspaper rocked British elections when it leaked a top intelligence official's report that President Bush was intent on invading Iraq long before he sought Congress' approval. Bush called Iraq an urgent threat, but the memo says "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."1 British officials are not denying the memo's accuracy, and a former senior American official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired."2
This revelation nearly cost Prime Minister Tony Blair his re-election, and it was all over the British press. But American newspapers barely mentioned this new evidence that Bush twisted the facts to justify war. The major newspapers ran one or two stories rehashing the British reports. Worse, TV network news shows haven't covered the memo at all.3
Readers of the New York Times recently demanded coverage of the British memo, and the newspaper finally wrote a full story.4 We can do the same for network news.
Please call or email the nightly news programs you watch, at:
ABC World News Tonight
Phone: 212-456-4040
PeterJennings@abcnews.com
CBS Evening News
Phone: 212-975-3691
evening@cbsnews.com
NBC Nightly News
Phone: 212-664-4971
nightly@nbc.com
PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
Phone: 703-739-5000
newshour@pbs.org
Identify yourself as a viewer, then say something like:
"Please investigate and report on the British memo suggesting the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to support its plans to invade Iraq. We need to know what really happened. Thank you for your time."
It's important to track our impact. Please let us know you're calling at:
http://www.moveon.org/mediacorps/britishmemo.html?id=5631-1454062-Y.Hm2paQEZJRFu_wF6d4OA&;t=1
The American media's failure to question the Bush administration led to an unnecessary war. Now the media's failure to cover the war is making it impossible for Americans to unite behind an exit plan. This won't get better until we demand more coverage of the war.
Thank you for all that you do,
– Noah, Wes, Micayla, Matt and the MoveOn.org Team
Friday, June 3rd, 2005
Sources:
1. The Downing Street Memo Web site http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
2. "'Downing St. Memo' fizzling in U.S.," Seattle Times, May 18, 2005 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=733
3. "Network Viewers Still in the Dark on 'Smoking Gun Memo,'" FAIR, May 20, 2005 http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2520
4. "New Public Editor Looks at 'Downing Street Memo' Coverage," New York Times, May 24, 2005 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=734
If you write to one or more of the corporately controlled TV "news" networks, I recommend that you write your own e-mail -- please don't copy all or part of mine or say what MoveOn.org or anyone else tells you to say. Your e-mail will have more impact if you put it in your own words.
Contrary to the MoveOn e-mail, I don't think it's necessary to state that you are a viewer -- especially if, like me, you aren't. (It was more powerful, I think, for me to state the truth: That I no longer am a viewer because of the shitty TV "news" coverage since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.)
I didn't send the e-mail above to PBS because, although I don't watch TV news anymore, I don't think that PBS is nearly as guilty of not reporting what really going on regarding Iraq as are the money-grubbing, war-cheerleading corporately controlled TV "news" networks. However, it's not a bad idea to also ask PBS to stay on top of the Downing Street Memo story.
And I didn't e-mail FOX because what would be the fucking point? Those fascist fucks are not going to change (and they probably sell the e-mail addresses of their detractors to spammers...).
If you want to do even more about the Downing Street Memo, click here for more things that you can do, including contacting your U.S. representative and your two U.S. senators. (I am fortunate to have one good senator, Barbara Boxer.)
Looking ahead, what's the best-case scenario with the Downing Street Memo?
It is, I think, this: The Democrats retake the U.S. House of Representatives (and hopefully the U.S. Senate, too) in 2006 -- and recent polls consistently show that people are more likely to vote for a Democrat than for a Republican in their local '06 House race -- and the House impeaches Bush (the currently Republican-dominated House wouldn't impeach Bush for killing and eating a newborn baby on live national TV). Dick Cheney and others within the Bush regime also would be held accountable for their war crimes, I surmise, so Bush's impeachment wouldn't mean that we'd have "President" Dick.
Call me a left-wing nutjob, but I'd say that George W. Bush's lying about the reasons for taking his nation to war -- resulting in the loss of thousands of Iraqis' lives and hundreds of Americans' lives and the stealing of billions and billions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars by Dick Cheney's Halliburton and other war-profiteering subsidiaries of BushCheneyCorp -- is a helluva lot more serious than was Bill Clinton's lying about having received a blow job in the Oval Office.
Bush deserves much worse than just being removed from office. For their treason and for their war crimes he and his henchpeople deserve to be executed. But I'm realistic; American war criminals never get prosecuted, much more executed, and it's perfectly OK to commit treason if you're the "president," especially a Republican "president."
So I'll most likely have to settle for impeachment. If nothing else, traitor and war criminal George W. Bush at least should go down in the history books as the most dishonorable president in the history of the United States of America.
7:34:49 PM 
|
