Downing Street: A Dead-End In American Media

Thanks to “In These Times” for running this story. It provides an excellent critique of the media’s mishandling of the Downing Street memo issue. Any conservative rants about a “liberal” media are now officially bunk as the corporate press’ treatment of this story has been virtually non-existent so far. I know several conservatives who whine that the Washington Post is liberal. Well, now I can direct them to this story, which exposes Dana Milbank for the conservative mole he is.
Personally, I was so upset about the media’s non-coverage of the memos that I began handing copies of the memo out to the general public during my weekly anti-war protests. If the media refuses to cover this story, then the citizenry must picket, march, and rally until the complacent mainstream media does its job.

Yea, the lack of will for the MSM to expose the seriousness of the Downing Street Memos says volumes.  The sad thing is that it is no surprise.
I saw much of the coverage of the Conyers hearing on C-Span that took place in the basement.  They were investigating to see if there needs to be an investigation!  It was a breath of fresh air to hear the truth and to find some voices of honesty and reason left in our overly corrupt gov’t.. Here are some members of Congress willing to listen to the public and to take seriously the infractions of public trust.  It’s a real shame that the mainstream media is so complicit in the dishonest world of war propaganda.

Between this, and the CIA leak, and a thousand other reasons, this administration demonstrates an inability to put our nation before their own political agendas.

Sick of it? Vote to Impeach!
http://impeachbush.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=VTI_homepage

While reading this article, the following questions came to my mind:

1) Is it true that we (the US and international intelligence community) “knew” that Saddam had WMD? (For instance, did we “know” during the Clinton administration?)

1a) Does anyone know what happened to the WMD that Iraq had and inspectors cateloged? (Were they destroyed in secret? Shipped to terrorists? Or?)

2) Is it true that UN sanctions were imposed on Iraq due to WMD - and that these sanctions coupled with Saddams complete indifference to the suffering of his people - led to 100’s of thousands of deaths (many of which were children)?

3) Is it true that Saddam gassed (WMD) his **own** people?

4) Is it true that his torturing of Iraqis was hundreds (thousands. millions?) of times worse than anything the US is suspected (or proven) to have done in Iraq (including feeding people into plastic shreders)?

5) Is it true that UN inspections did not work, since Saddam would pretend to cooperate and then change his mind?

6) Is it not true that the US (or any other country, for that matter) has very little experience in nation building, and hence planning for it is very difficult? (I do recall we had some difficulties in reconstructing Europe after WWII.)

7) Finally, is it not true that many Muslims are being led by madman, whose main agenda is to kill infidels (a perfect example is the killing of Van Gogh recently - the killer was very vocal in his reasons and intentions).

(In tregards to “the war starting a year early” - is this a reference to the increased patrols in the no-fly zone?)

While i am not “pro-war” i wonder: what would have been a better alternative? To do nothing and allow Saddam and sanctions to further destroy Iraq? To lift sanctions and allow Saddam to pursue his agenda (anyone doubt he wanted to build WMD?) and continue to kill his own population (including his sons in law!!!)? Or???

Please don’t flame - take this at face value. I would love to be persuaded that a better alternative existed. . . i just really don’t see it.

You won’t be pursuaded. Why bother?

Thomas,
The reference to starting the war a year earlier deals with a massive increase in U.S. sorties against Iraqi military infrastructure. The bombings targeted sites that had nothing to do with the reason the no-fly zones were imposed in the first place, such as naval and communication facilities. Furthermore, the Downing Street memos give evidence that the U.S.-U.K., if they could not establish a pre-existing legal rationale for invasion, would attempt to induce Saddam into attacking western aircraft, thus giving a “casus belli” for an invasion.
Second, the U.N. weapons inspectors destroyed Iraqi WMD on-site throughout the 1990s. Saddam was a murderer, but not suicidal. So it is implausible that he would readily give away his WMDs to Muslim fanatics like Al- Qaeda and thus lose his only bargaining chip with the western world.
Finally, in 2001 the U.S. agreed to modify the sanctions against Iraq, the so-called “smart sanctions.” These would have prevented goods clearly compatible with military use from entering the country, but would have allowed civilian necessities like medicine and pencil erasers into Iraq.

Thomas,
To expand on my last posting:
First, on average, Saddam obstructed the U.N. weapons inspectors about once a month. Given that UNSCOM was traveling everywhere in Iraq and visited thousands of facilites, I would hardly say that Iraq was being “uncooperative.” In addition, if UNSCOM accounted for 95% of Iraqi WMD, then Saddam did not do much obstruction at all in the end!!
Second, the sanctions devastated the Iraqi people, not Saddam’s own policies. Prior to the 1990-1991 U.S. airstrikes which obliterated the domestic infrastructure, Iraq was a fairly developed and modern state whose universities were attended by students all across the Middle East. I am not downplaying Saddam’s atrocities, rather I am just comparing Iraq before and after the first Gulf War. A consequence of the sanctions was a 160% spike in the infant mortality rate, according to UNICEF. We all know that Saddam did not suddenly begin killing babies, so the sanctions are to blame.
Third, what Clinton thought about Iraqi WMD compared to Bush II are incomparable, since we know for certain that by 2002-03, Iraq had absolutely no WMD.  Clinton left office in 2001. It is also known that in 1995, Hussein Kamel, Saddam’s son-in-law, admitted that he had personally overseen the destruction of all of Iraq’s biological, chemical, and nuclear programs. Clinton presided over a different Iraq than Bush II. Kamel is the source Dick Cheney cited as he made his erroneous WMD claims. Looks like Cheney only told people certain parts of Kamel’s testimony.
Finally, it is true that Saddam gassed his own people, those being the Kurds. But since when does the U.S suddenly care about the Kurds, given that Turkey also massacred its domestic Kurd population, and that country is one of the largest recipients of U.S. military aid? Saddam killed all known communists and left-wing elements of his Baath party when he came to power. Those people account for the bulk of Saddam’s civilian massacres. I guess that’s why the U.S. did not seem to care at the time.

David Michael Green is correct that the media have allowed the Downing Street Memo to fade out. The Bush administration once again has been successful in deflecting the damning evidence that the WMD propaganda was “fixed” to suit their facts, brushing it off as “old news” which is just being warmed over.

Of course, that is the same way they treated the Karl Rove traitorous leak of CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame’s identity. They first downplayed it by saying that Rove was not involved in that disclosure and brushed it off as simply another Democratic attempt to smear Rove while Bush’s press secretary, Scott McClellan, called it “ridiculous.”

Now, we have been given another “leaked” memo, ostensibly from the Pentagon. The recent news a few days ago, based on a memo written by Robert Burns of the Associated Press, stated that the “Pentagon is eager to pull some of its 135,000 troops out of Iraq in 2006, partly because the counterinsurgency is stretching the Army and Marine Corps perilously thin.” The kicker is in the next statement that says that the troops strength will be cut to 66,000 by the middle of next year, timed just at the right moment to appease a few of those fence-sitting voters who may be inclined to boot out Republicans if they think Bush’s war will continue unabated with no exit plan in sight.

It’s bad enough that the current U.S. military in Iraq is undermanned and under-equipped but to leave over 60,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq to quell a growing insurgency and civil war there is absolutely unconscionable—or should I say, genocidal?

Yes, the Downing Street Memo should be evidence enough for the public to demand a full investigation by the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress, but like everything that Bush has been able to get away with, from lying about WMD to launching a vanity war of his personal choice, the stunning corruption and bribery activities of congressmen Tom DeLay and Randy “Duke” Cunningham, the threats against state and federal judges by Tom DeLay and other Right Wing extremists and the breathtaking lies spewed out by the traitorous Karl Rove and his White House defenders, all can be blamed on the weak, intimidated and jelly-spined, milquetoast mainstream media.

Any one of these egregious breaches of their oath of office would have been enough to impeach Bush and his entire administration. They are all outright liars, swindlers and corrupt government operatives who have put their self-interest and greed above the interests and security of the citizens of the United States. When the mainstream media can’t do their jobs and expose these horrific abuses of power and hold the out-of-control government to account, we have lost our democracy.

Richard,
Excellent post. I totally concur. In my opinion, national security is the ONE federal policy, at the very least, that should never, EVER, be politicized. The reason: lives are at stake. I have heard about that recently leaked British memo, and it makes perfect sense that 2006 would be the time to decrease troop strength given the upcoming midterm elections. It is sad indeed, that we have come to expect our politicians to put politics ahead of the national interest. Democracies do not do this sort of thing.

One thing I can’t figure out is why no one has yet organized a march on a major media outlet? How would it look when Al Roker took his morning walk into the Today Show crowd if he was met by thousands of faces and signs demanding a real media again?

Todd,
Good point. I bet that if the Washington Post or the New York TImes had 10,000+ people right outside demanding real coverage of the memos, they would capitulate. The article did point out some encouraging signs of grassroots activism, such as all the angry emails the Post received in response to Milbank’s column.

Our friend, Thomas, sounds like a “Push Pollster” to me.  Push Polls were devised by Karl Rove mentor, Lee Atwater (Daddy Bush’s Karl Rove), a campaign/marketing technique designed to make suckers out of voters/consumers.  It only works on conservatives, BTW. 

A push poll is a brainwashing technique masquerading as a political poll.  It is always based on a false premise - the conservative stock in trade.  Examples of Karl Rove push poll questions are:

“Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?”

“Do you approve of President Bush’s plan to feed starving children in Africa?”

Nice try Thom.  But all of your questions are frauds on their face.

Pick of the Litter, I don’t think it’s a lack of will. I think it’s a purposeful coverup.

Clearly, most of Thomas’s seven points can be viewed in hindsight and most of us would agree that Saddam Hussein’s departure was a good thing. But that was then and this is now and Saddam has been in jail since his capture in December 2003.

The questions I have don’t have anything to do with what Saddam Hussein did over 20 years ago and what a dictator he was.

After all, if one wants to argue getting rid of dictators and tyrants in this world is what our foreign policy should consist of, there is a dictator about 60 miles from the U.S. mainland, Fidel Castro. Throw in a few of the latest additions to that selective company and you could also make a case for ousting Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (I had to Google to get the spelling right), Pakistan’s dictator Pervez Musharraf, Saudi Arabia’s entire Faud monarchy, Kuwaiti’s entire al-Sabah family of monarchs, Syria’s Bashar al-Asad, who also is a Sunni Baathist like Saddam Hussein’s ruling party, and, well, maybe I’ve gone a bit far if I toss in Valdimir Putin, aka Pootie Poot to Bush Jr., whose iron fist government rule has slipped ever closer to a dictatorship.

And, let’s not forget that preemptive war rationale if you believe that China is well on their way to becoming a superpower and could, down the road (who knows how many years), even if they’re only thinking about it, be an imminent threat to our security. Certainly, given that Bush war hawk group think, China would qualify for a good old fashioned “shock and awe” treatment by G. W. Bush.

The point I’m making here is that if getting rid of the world’s ruthless dictators is the noble goal of the Bush administration and in particular, his proclamation that he wants to democratize the entire Middle East, he is going about it in a very expensive way. Just ask the families of the 1,755 U.S. soldiers who have come home in body bags, over 13,000 U.S. military wounded, almost half of whom suffered permanent injuries such as loss of limbs and eyes, including many paralyzed for life, and ask the U.S. taxpayer who have ponied up $200 billion (so far) for Mr. Bush’s war-minded adventures (currently running at about $5 billion per month).

And while some may applaud all the “good things” we’re doing in Iraq, whatever happened to all those fine words about America not being the world’s policeman and whatever happened to those same admonishments that Bush spouted that we should not be getting into nation-building?

So, how come we’re still in Iraq? Or, to ask the question that was asked in Time Magazine’s July 11 issue under the article heading, Letter From Baghdad, “One year on, Iraq has sovereignty, but what about power, water or security?”

The White House press corps seems to(in the last couple of days)have shown that they actually have some journalistic balls in their grilling of White House press secratary Scott McClellan.It’s about time.It’s also about time for our mainstream media to realize that they have been touting a losing horse.Between the Downing Street Memo and now,the Karl Rove leak job,this administration doesn’t pass the smell test by any definition.By comparison,Nixon was a jaywalker,and Clinton got a citation for pissing in the park.Facts don’t lie;G.W.Bush is a mass murderer.In fact, The whole administration should be impeached and prosecuted for treason.By the way,Neo-Conservatives are not Republicans.

The Republican House Majority wouldn’t give John Conyers a room to hold his meeting, but not too long ago, Republican Sen. John Warner allowed the Rev. Moon and his Moonies to use his senatorial office for a “coronation ceremony” of the Rev. Moon.

Look folks, It’s all well and good that more and more people are starting to open their eyes, but who in Congress is going to start impeachment of their glorious leader? And just how many of those corporate-owned politicians are going to sign up? We have a one-party dictatorship going here, and it’s getting stronger every single minute. Yes, it’s becoming (or is) a dictatorship, fascism in it’s most virulent form which after all is only an extreme form of capitalism, and you and I and our kids etc are going to experience the worst form of government imaginable in the very near future. Who controls the counting of votes? Who controls the picking of the candidates? Who controls the lack of jobs and lack of medical care and lack of historically accurate education of our young people? Who controls the military, the police, the National Guard who gunned down protesters just a couple of decades ago? We’ve got an attorney general who thinks torture is only when you die and the Geneva Conventions are quaint, a supreme court that is changing and destroying the very foundations of this country (not that the US has ever lived up to those ideals, read Howard Zinn’s “People’s History of the United States 2003 edition and then pass it on). We’re already well on our way to Germany of the 1930’s and it should scare the hell out of you.
What can we do about it? No good answers but you can read the Constitution about what citizens should do when the government becomes corrupt. Oh yeah, I forgot, that document isn’t valid anymore. I’m such a pessimist.

Where are the reporters who ask deep, provocative questions?..We who read, listen or watch, the news have been anxiously waiting for the Woodward of today...thank heavens for Conyers....but CSpan was the only station that dared to cover it...It is so scarey....we must be further down the road to losing our Democracy than any of us have understood.  Everyday we learn of more lies, deception, dishonesty, by this governing group. yet no actions.....it seems there must be evidence that calls for impeachment ..how can we begin?

The U.S. not been a Republic or a Democracy for over a century with corruption of both its founding beliefs and those who administer its governing functions growing in proportion to growth of its populations wealth.
The majority of its populace has never voted in any election, with the corporate or financial instituions always having the most influence upon governing regulations and peoples. The growth of departments within original framework have always been in response to needs of finacial interest, no matter the wordings of how it serves the populace. The only real break with the traditional management of government for those interest came during the Depression and into the World War era, as government first during depression with large projects, TVA, C.C.C. and others included vast amounts of populace working directly under government financed Corporate projects with an increased bureaucracy to administer programs.
It took a reworking of tax structures outside of Constituional restraints to help finance, with the difference being the amounts Government could borrow also increased , with the money coming from the very instituions who were getting the contracts because they now had a guaranteed income from the taxes, soc sec, income various local energy gas etc.
The political fervor of patritotic americans caried over until the fifties with Eisenhowers highway infrastructure programs and the military hyping the unpreparedness of Pearl harbor and the convenience of Communisms growth elsewhere.
Communism had been around from the twentys and thirtys in the states but had been mostly a localized situation with industry using us troops and local police to control its political and economic growth. the fear of communist now was used to increase the intelligence and military branches of government, as it was now a National threat.
The media, and its corporate board of directors, which was used to propagandize governments good intentions since the thirtys, never stopped being used as such. No matter the war, police action or political interfering in other countrys political systems it has stood behind “Official Government Actions”. It was only later during or after such actions had been undertaken did individual journalist report facts of industrial collusion and social abuses that occured because of our government interference and only when and if enough journalist could get the truth into print by the independent and smaller journals to build a mass of protest did they respond; not to end abuses but to diffuse the information and channel it away from corporate instigators.
The corporate media became a recreational media and by its increased wealth incorporated almost every small journalistic outlet under its umbrella.It having always served the minority interest now was part and parcel of that same interest and dependent upon the corporate, through tax and influence to continue to exist.
the governemtn meanwhile to try and conttol civil unrest due to imbalance of corporate growth at expense of domestic populace went into social s programs touting it as a democratic principals but in reality it was social restructuring and controlling.
To cut this long rambling essay short, If anyone had the tremity to say the US was heading towards a facist form of governmetn they were immediately labeled conspiracy nuts, foreign terrorist or an unpatriotic nutball. If one reads the history of Facism in Germany, Italy, Egypt and Latin American countries one can find that as Musollini once said,"Facism can best be defined as Corporatism”.
We had became what we had set out to destroy in World War Two, a Facist entity.
It therefor is not surprising that there is no outcry against U.S and Bush group tactics for they are the same as actions by both Democrats or Republicans and a complacent american public for many years.
The Truth has always been out there but who would want to admit we had become our own worst enemy.

the kurds were gassed with mustard gas, something that the iranians had, but saddam didn’t.  the kurds were intent on an independent state, while saddam was willing to offer them autonomy.  from an outside view saddam’s offer seems reasonable.  that in the iranian war, the iranians dropped gas on the kurds, later to be trumped up by kurds as a saddam atrocity, is not anything totally unbelievable.

i’m sorry but i’m a cynic; i’ve tracked the migration of the DSM from the UK to the US and to an outsider, i see only blogosphere indignation (and left of centre one at that).
I think Cindy Sheenhan’s (sp?) assessment is spot on; that many people now see the error of the iraq war but lack the personal integrity to admit that and hold someone reponsible. over here in the UK, we’d rather not talk about it.
As for the Rove matter...well, if you can’t convince fence sitters or red-staters that the DSM hint at a massive disinformation campaign perpetrated by the adminstration on the general public, then how could they be convinced that Rove’s actions were, at the very least, worthy of sacking?.
It seems to me that part of the problem is that the opposition has no central figure that can rally all these different strands of discontent. Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, Edwards-all paper-weights and all compromised by their previous enthusiasm for a bad policy. Dean? Too abrasive. Hillary? Too ‘moderne’ (latte-liberal?). I just can’t see anyone with the formidible intellect, personal integrity and televisual appeal to put one over GW. No ‘new Labour’ which heralded the arrival of Tony Blair (not that he’s done us any good mind).

Richard,

I don’t know what you mean when you say that “Thomas’s seven points can be viewed in hindsight.” If the implication is hindsight is 20/20 - that the seven points are factually true, there is nothing clear about that.  They are classic “push poll” lies, based on false premises, designed to brainwash suckers.

Second, most of us, who are capable of independent thought, do NOT agree that “Saddam Hussein’s departure was a good thing.” Not compared to who’s in charge in Iraq now - who has allowed it to become a staging ground for al Qaeda.

This commentary forum might interest some of you as it sees right thru the bullshit:

http://mediamatters.org/comments/latest/200507080006

“The US INVASION of Iraq is a resounding success!!!!!!!!!!!!.............. Huh?

Contrary to the suppositions that the Administration fraudulently conjured up for the reasons which have led US into a LOSE-LOSE situation, ie WMD ,Saddam hates US, and now the evolving and bogus rationale of and I will digress here to the’ Texan vernacular’ “ Bringin Freedumb” to the Iraqis, NeoCon strategists can now rejoice with glee!! Why, well, despite the daily reports of carnage and despair flowing out of Iraq like a tragedy with no end, the REAL REASON for our folly has resulted in a NeoCon dream come true and that is the” The “Balkanization” of Iraq or in more defined prose,’Civil War’ with our ECONOMIC INTERESTS well suited for by the likes of Halliburton et al.

It is my contention THAT the NeoConmen strategists knew full well what our invasion of Iraq would result in given the indisputable condition that there is no universally defined ‘Iraqi’ personna as defined by what we know as an’American’, a ‘Britisher’ or other national identification. A Shia predominance now prevails and the Sunnis with some help from ‘Jihadists’ are now responding to a loss of power as a result of OUR disenfranchising such in the aftermath OUR toppling the Baathist regime. So, in essence, WE simply added fuel to the fire among warring factions WHO have seem fit to ‘do each other in’ for decades according to tribal, religious and power-cenric circles . And let US not forget the Kurds who for all practical purposes are operating a ‘de facto federation’ independent of the designs of US puppets in Baghdad.In the southern provinces, Shia Law is the RULE with Taliban-like constraints in full swing on a muncicipal level. WHY one US soldier is held hostage to such a ‘witches brew of civil unrest’ is contemptible! But the fractious and what appears NOW to be a never-ending cauldron of “CIVIL WAR” suits the NeoConmen just fine and the other’ partners-in -crime, ie, Halliburton, Blackwater Corp, etc STAND to gain big! But in any enterpise level subterfuge, There are Losers........ WHO? The American people and the people of Iraq!!!

by Navy Guy - Monday July 11, 2005 10:08:27 AM EST

I also think that the mainstream U.S. press code of ethics depend upon their fat corporate paychecks and we know that Bush is the corporations’ best friend.

This is a good article (lengthy):

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/063005X.shtml

“ The Supremacy of the Super-Citizen
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Thursday 30 June 2005

Unless you become more watchful in your States and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges, you will in the end find that the most important powers of Government have been given or bartered away, and the control of your dearest interests have been passed into the hands of these corporations.
—Andrew Jackson, farewell address, 04 March 1837 “

last paragraph:

“ In the end, the existence of incredibly powerful entities that enjoy the status of citizens demote the vast majority of average citizens to second-class status. If the ideals we hold sacred have any truth to them, if the myths we sleep by have any basis in reality, such a division is intolerable and must be changed. “All men are created equal” once excluded vast swaths of Americans from their basic rights. Battles were fought to change that. Today, a battle to realign the balance of power between the citizen and the super-citizen must also be fought. It must be won.  “

“ William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence. “

I also recommend checking out Norman Solomon’s new book “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death” see: http://www.warmadeeasy.com/

Of course the DSM is a failure.  The country has to come to grips with the fact that democracy here is utterly ‘gone’ now that the press is so politicized that it’s not ever likely to report any ‘truth’ that the Bush cabinet hasn’t cranked out on it’s xerox machine.  What’s even more alarming is that given the severity of the crimes committed (TREASON), it’s also quite startling that nobody is screaming to re-institute the INDEPENDENT COUNSEL mechanism at a time when it most desperately is needed.  This last five years has been like a very very bad dream in that virtually all vestiges of legitimacy of our government have faded into history, and we now live in a republic where a small group of neocon’s
can break any law with no fear whatsoever that they will either be investigated, indicted, or brought to trial.  Sad thing is, let any of the rest of us do so much as steal a can of SPAM at a convenience store, and we’re going up the river for that one.  This is the administration, if you can glorify it with that title, that will be the undoing of america’s freedom and it’s goodness, and this nation will itself someday face civil war strictly because at some point, centralized dictatorial government will have to be soundly and resoundingly rejected by the sheeple.  These are very dark days for us and they are unlikely to brighten anytime in our lifetimes with this slime holding the power levers.

The US Government and its Corporate State Controlled Media should be tarred and feathered for lying us into illegal Wars of Conquest/Territorial Pissings in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan!

Thanks Bud for the update. It is refreshing to be able to discuss the issues, as opposed to merely making assumptions (e.g., Lefty and pick of litter responses). At least the discussion did not degenerate into a name calling festival (which occurs far too often, imho).

I assume the smart sanctions you refered to is the Oil for Food program?

I still wonder what better alternative existed. Would the world really have been better off if we simply did nothing? Or was there a better solution out there, one that we can now see with the benefit of having hindsight? (If so, i am unable to see it.)

Lefty, I agree with you that the person “who’s in charge in Iraq now - who has allowed it to become a staging ground for al Qaeda.” And as far as Thomas’s seven points, I also agree that framing questions in a way to get the desired results is a favorite of many of the pollsters who you also accurately call “push-pull.”

But, taking each of Thomas’s points on one-by-one is a waste of time. Anyone can go back to 20 years ago to prove that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to “gas his own people” but few of the Bush acolytes will admit that it was a Republican Reagan-Bush administration that armed and sided with Saddam Hussein against Iran and supplied the helicopters that were used to gas the Kurds in northern Iraq, then simply turned the other way.

See how much space that explanation on Thomas’s point #3 took up?

But, I do not side with those who believe that keeping Saddam Hussein in power would have been a good thing. The method of getting him out of power was not. One way or another the severe 12-year UN-imposed sanctions on Iraq were bound to come to a head. It’s quite possible that the Iraqi people may have evenutally risen up and gotten rid of him. But Bush senior thought the same thing and that was when he had over 500,000 troops on the ground in the Gulf War and chose to let the Republican Guard escape, allowing Hussein to remain in Baghdad. He was wrong. 

The way I see it, the oil wealth in Iraq is still there, much of it in untapped, undeveloped oil fields. All that wealth can still help the Iraqi people and take a lot of pressure off of the rest of the industrialized world that is consuming more of it. The Chinese, whether we like it or not, have already increased their demand by over 30% in the last five years and it’s going to increase even more as they emerge as the next global superpower.

But, I agree that the Bush preemptive war policy has been a disaster because his use of unbridled military might has inflamed the Arab world and resulted in recruiting more Islamic militants.

I have no idea what things would be like if Saddam Hussein was still in power so I’ll leave that one to Thomas to figure out. That’s hindsight for sure.

You think the US media is bad, it took the Stop the War Coalition (STWC) here in the UK until 22nd June before they posted an article about the DSM. The left wing papers of groups such as the ‘Socialist’ Workers Party ignored it, but then again the convenor of STWC is on central committee of ‘S’WP. Both have reiterated their calls for troops out of Iraq completely missing the issue that the US wants UK Troops to move to Afghanistan. Their answer about the DSM is that we knew BLiar lied so what!
The only issue they were writing about was the George Galloway piece of theatre at the Senate hearings. It really does make you think ‘which side are the ‘S’WP on.
More of a mystery is why Rupert Murdoch would give permission for the original DSM to be published in one of his better known papers. As with the recent bombing in London the question is who benefits, with London it is easy to see from the reactions of the US/UK/Israel that they benefited, but how does Murdoch benefit from releasing a memo that should by rights destroy the Administrations of Bush, Blair and all the other Administrations of the ‘coalition of the killing’.

Thomas,
The smart sanctions were different than the oil-for-food program, which was started in 1996 as a way for Iraq to pay off its reparations to Kuwait for the 1990 invasion. Part of the proceeds from Iraqi oil sales went into an escrow account fo that purpose, and the rest paid for ostensibly civilian goods. While it is true the program was rank with corruption, it is a much smaller financial scandal in comparison to the lack of transparency the CPA had in its dealings with the roughly $24 billion in Iraqi reconstruction money alloted to it in the wake of the invasion. I have heard that as much as $8 billion of that money cannot be accounted for by the coalition.
Final note: the U.S. and U.K. had veto power over any contract under the oil-for-food program that they did not like, but NEVER exercised that authority. So those corrupt contracts were essentially given approval by the U.S. and U.K.!!

The American media have blood on their hands as they are just as much to blame for the illegal Iraq war as Bush does.

Richard,
Bush I was prescient enough to understand the consequences of following Saddam into Baghdad and getting rid of him. If you check out his post-presidency biography written before the invasion, his predictions of what would have followed such an invasion foretold exactly what is happening now in Iraq. That is why Bush I did not topple Saddam and that is why he opposed Gulf War II.

Thomas,
You have asked what else could we have done, and would the world be better off if Saddam were still in power. I recently read a very good article concerning that subject, and I wish I could remember the name of the author in order to give credit. However, since I can’t remember where I read it, I’ll just cover the premise.

The article compared the ousting of Saddam by destroying the country and killing its people to the following scenario (paraphrased and retold very loosely):

Suppose my spouse discovered a poisonous spider in our house and responded to it by jumping in the car and ramming into the wall at 100 miles per hour, not killing the spider, but running over our pet cat, smashing furniture, irreparably ruining all the photographs and priceless artwork hanging on the walls, and sending the spider into hiding where it had to be searched out and put in a cage to be handled later. Then if I criticized my spouse, he might say “Well! I guess you’d be happier if that spider were still here endangering our children.”

No. I’d be happier if my house were still intact, my pictures of my kids and the rest of my belongings were safe, and my cat were still alive.

I hope this clears up some of the misunderstanding.

I think the world would also be a much better place without Karl Rove, Richard Perle, and the myriad neo-con hoards that now run our government. But I don’t advocate bombing Washington to the ground to ensure their demise.

There are dozens of dictators out there without whom the world would be a better place. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, but Iraq is not in better shape for his ouster, due to the mishandling and gross overkill of the US war. Using that 20/20 hindsight, we could have done much less to assist Saddam back in the 80s (ever see the photos of Rumsfeld shaking hands with SH?) when our government supported him. He was just as evil when the US considered him to be a friend. It was only when his agenda did not suit American purposes that he became an enemy. And don’t forget that when Iraq invaded Kuwait, they sent out feelers to our government who told them that we would not be involved in their affairs. Something (I’m not aware of what that something was, so maybe someone can inform me) changed our minds. I assume it had something to do with oil.

We, as a country, are not innocent of Saddam’s crimes. And destroying Iraq in order to save it was not the answer, nor does it atone for our complicity. Our middle east policies are at least partly to blame for the conditions that brought Saddam to power, along with much of the rest of what is wrong in that part of the world and the resentment of the Muslim community.

For some reason, our society looks upon diplomacy as a cop-out wimpy path to peace and reconciliation. The Bush administration attempted in several ways to provoke the Iraqi government to war. When those attempts failed, shock and awe were the result. This war was not the only way, and other ways were not even really tried. Is there anyone out there who still believes that the war is about freedom and removing a dictator rather than about free-market ideology and monetary (read oil) issues?

LeeAnn,
To the best of my knowledge, the Bush I administration was not expecting Saddam to actually overhtrow the Kuwaiti government. My impression was they thought Saddam was using his military to stop the Kuwaiti’s from siphoning off Iraq’s oil. When it became clear that Saddam was independent minded and followed his own course, the Bush I administration realized he would no longer serve as a puppet for the U.S. That is when all of the harsh rhetoric about “aggression” and the false stories of baby-killing began to surface.

LeeAnn - I have seen the pics of Rummy shaking hands with SH - pretty disgusting. I am all too aware of our support of him in the Iranian-Iraqi war, also disgusting. It seems all too ofter the US, with the best of intentions, supports an evil dictator, in hopes that that dictator is somehow the lessor of two evils. .  .

I like your analogy. However, it seems to me that the house was mostly destroyed before the war, partly by the spider (SH) and partly by sanctions (and possibly by the increased sorties under the no-fly zone as pointed out by Bud earlier in this thread).

Perhaps on the eve of the war, the choices taken were already such that no good solution existed? Invade and we get the mess we see, keep the status quo (i.e., keep the UN sanctions) and SH was free both to kill his people with impunity added to the misery that the sanctions imposed, or lift the sanctions and let SH persue his agenda which his past record made ptetty clear?

The one thing that is crystal clear to me is that we should not give the middle east technology or dollars - it is like giving guns to children! Rather we should spend whatever it takes (~10’s of billions of $$$ / year) to break our addition to oil and distribute it to the rest of the world. Then the middle east can come out of the middle ages at its own pace, without endangering the rest of the planet.

It seems odd to me that someone who positively identified an individual as someone’s wife that that information wouldn’t be precisely the same thing as revealing that person’s name. Do the Bush propagandists still think everyone is as stupid as they are?

Apparently so because the Bush mob, staying on message, aka staying on the lie, is still playing that silly little game they played when trying to cover for their lies over the false claim of WMD. They figure if you keep “catapulting the propaganda” (Bush’s words) long enough people will believe it.

What if I said that LB told a scurrilous joke in front of a White House correspondents’ dinner about “milking” a male horse, referring to herself as a “desperate housewife” and that GWB maybe couldn’t tell the difference between a male horse and a mare? Gosh, I sure didn’t mention any names now, did I?

Well, did KR know that JW’s wife, was a CIA covert agent who sent JW off on a trip to Niger to investigate whether SH procured yellowcake uranium from that country? And how else would KR have known that JW’s wife, who may have been named either VP or VW, even worked for the CIA to begin with?

How presumptuous of me to think that anyone could possibly draw the conclusion that I was referring to anyone in particular?

Cui bono?  Only one country in the whole world has benefitted from the ‘War on Terror’ launched by the US/UK.  And when you look at who owns and edits the ‘Mainstream Media’ in the US/UK, you find an awful lot of people who have relatives in that ‘Only Democracy in the Middle East.’ Suppressing the memo, particularly in the U.S., is of benefit to the interests of one ethnic group exclusively.  You know, the one that proclaims in the US/UK that ‘we are all brothers’ and ‘race does not exist’ while they build an apartheid wall on stolen land adjacent to their own country.  Don’t count on their ethnic brethren on the political left pointing out who controls the corporate media filters.

The only question in my mind is: “Did KR know Plame was *covert*, or did he merely know she worked for the CIA?”.

If he knwe she was covert, his was a criminal act. Otherwise, not.

Curious, looks like your’re asking a question that will be the automatic out for Rove if people buy it. It’s the old rope-a-dope angle when people caught in potential scandals are asked, “what did you know and when did you know it?”

The fact is, Karl Rove as White House deputy chief, is high enough up in the administration to have known precisely what he was doing. He was counting on anonymity from Matthew Cooper in order to have his cake and eat it too.

Putting his and Bush’s partisan smear tactics ahead of the security of the United States without checking first to see if Plame was a covert agent, he should still should be fired outright for abusing his office for strictly partisan political reasons. Use all the nuances you want, but any way you cut it, Rove committed a traitorous act.

There is no doubt in my mind that he knew Plame was a covert agent and simply didn’t care as long as he thought could hide under the cloak of his perceived immunity.

The question I have, especially after all this time that has gone by is, “What did Bush know, and when did he know it?” Put this little twit under oath and ask him that question. He has Liar written all over his face. Bring on the impeachment!

We need to keep this alive as much as we can we need to fight for our Country.  What was done was wrong and it should not go unpunished.  This man needs to be thrown out of office and put in jail. I know that we need a democratic congress in order to achieve this and next year we will have it, but in the mean time we need to get The Minutes to everyone we can, and we need to keep bringing it up and not letting go. Let’s put up a good fight everyone, this is for our Country.

The american people had better wake up to the fact that the main stream news media is not going to report on crimes committed by republicans. The Downing Street Memo is a classic example of how the news media will cover up anything in their support of the lying George W Bush and his love for war. Until the american people starts to to campaign against the news media, the news media will continue to help the republicans with their lies and attack and smear campaigns. As of 7-14-05 just 41% of the american people think George W Bush is an honest president but the news media supports him 100%. Doesn’t that add up to a terrorist attack against this country like the one that happened in London?

I can’t even get my republican family to read one simple article that describes the Downing Street Minutes much less have a discussion about how BUsh began the war 9 months before the public knew about it and diverted $700 million dollars without consulting with congress. Rove should go down no doubt but I’m exhausted.

The people who should listen just refuse. The one’s who seem to get it just want to go about their business and then there is people like me who can’t sleep at night and actually breakdown on a regular basis. It’s as though this huge amount of people just can’t be bothered by any of this.

The one thing I don’t get is why the Washington Press Core is going after Rove like nobodies business when they just let the Downing Street Memo stuff just float past.

The mainstream media promoted this war and now fails to seriously address the Downing Street Memo and even the Rove scandal has not been put into context.  The mainstream media seems preoccupied with the notion of whether Rove leaked the name Valerie Plame or simply stated “Wilson’s wife,” as if this were relevant.

Rove’s confession to being one of the sources of the leak shows that the Bush administration was willing to go to any lengths, even possibly criminal lengths to silence or discredit anyone who challenged the prewar hype based on false intelligence.

It’s somewhat heartening to hear the White House press corps lay into Scott McClellum for refusing to comment on his blatant lies in 2003 concerning ROve’s role in the leak.  But up until now, the mainstream press has been more concerned about reporting missing teenagers in Aruba, fallen pop stars, and summer rainstorms.  The television media justifies their actions by claiming themselves to be a form of entertainment, but since why is news supposed to be entertainment?

Thomas Jeff, don’t read too much into that WSJ/NBC poll. Even at 41% approval, Bush’s lowest in his tenure, congress is even lower.

As to K Austin’s comments about needing a Democratic congress to bring back some semblance of checks and balances, don’t bet on it. Look at the total number of seats that are up for grabs in the U.S. Senate. I believe it’s around 32, with Democrats needing to defend 17 and the Republicans 15. In just about every election 95% of the incumbents win. Unless there is a sea change in the voter mentality and mood, don’t count on Democrats winning either the House or the Senate.

I know I was not alone in predicting (correctly) that the Democrats would lose all five Democrat Senate seats up for grabs below the Mason-Dixon line in 2002 and 2004. I think the Democrats can forget about the Dixiecrat, Bible Belt South because the Republican apparatchik has that entire part of the country in their back pockets.

The economy doesn’t mean squat down there anyway when you consider that 26 out of the poorest 28 states all voted for Bush. You know, it’s “moral values” and what that means is any Republican is better than any Democrat in that part of our country. Even an Adolf Hitler would win in the South if he ran as a Republican (what else)?

Democrats could win Sarbane’s seat in Delaware but that’s only staying even. Democrats could also win in Pennsylvania once the voters there get a load of Santorum’s anti-privacy, anti-Fourth Amendment statements and his overall disgustingly moralistic, tolerance-for-none stance and his blind loyalty to Bush. Hillary Clinton should win easily and so should Dianne Feinstein in California. Robert Byrd will be 88 and West Virginia has been leaning more solidly Republican. Bush won there in 2000 and 2004 and Byrd may get the boot. But gaining enough to win back the Senate? It will take a miracle.

Just my thoughts, so now I’m ready for the slings and arrows.

Some excellent comments on the weakness of our media.  But where is our craven congress in the Iraq atrocity and Bush/Rove lies?  They voted a “resolution” giving Bush war-making authority instead of taking seriously their duty to declare war. A similar congressional cop out 40 years ago put me in Viet Nam just in time for Tet.  Also, we need to clean out the bunch of traitors who put this over on an ignorant president and weak congress.  They are the so-called “neo-conservatives”

Brian Miller, you wrote, “The mainstream media promoted this war and now fails to seriously address the Downing Street Memo and even the Rove scandal has not been put into context.  The mainstream media seems preoccupied with the notion of whether Rove leaked the name Valerie Plame or simply stated “Wilson’s wife,” as if this were relevant.”

I think that’s the crux of the problem that the msm have in glomming on to whatever is the story du jour and hanging their hats on Nielsen numbers. “Well”, they’re saying, “what is the hottest story of the day, Karl Rove or still the London bombings?” Bush/Rove are laying low with the confidence that the Rove story will be seen as just another catfight between Republicans and Democrats.

Look what happened to CBS’s Dan Rather of 60 Minutes. It’s now referred to as Rather-gate and the story of Bush’s failure to produce records of his final year of military obligation have evaporated.

The real story was and still should be, what happened to G. W. Bush’s last year of Texas Air National Guard that there is no record of him completing? On the contrary, he flunked his physical, lost his flying status and nobody can remember him reporting to any Guard unit either in Alabama or Texas. But the media story was CBS and the fake documents and the rest all faded away concerning Bush’s military records.

The same thing is happening now with the DSM. Karl Rove is a temporary glitch for the White House and the DSM has conveniently faded away for Bush unless the media pursues both of these and stays on top of them. But, at least the msm isn’t afraid to start asking questions as they did with Scott McClellan. But getting McClellan to squirm is no big deal. After all, he’s paid to lie, and if he has to squirm for the media that’s all part of his job.

I have enjoyed reading your posts Richard among others.  I don’t think, however, that everbody in the Southern states love Republicans.  The ratio of votes have been similar to the national election, almost 50/50 with slim margins for winners.  But the repubs run dirty tricks and use smear tactics all the time.  Crazy religious extremists send many letters to papers demonizing Democrats and they actually question people’s faith based on political affiliation. Remember the Baptist church schism in Waynesville, NC? 
It is so insane, it’s like the Hatfields and the McCoys!

btw, Media Matters for America is doing an excellent job of covering MSM’s handling of the Rove scandal, exposing the efforts of pundits and reporters who just echo RNC talking points rather than do their jobs.

http://mediamatters.org/

I have enjoyed reading the posts by Richard on the Plame-leak as well. It is true that the SOuth is out of bounds for Democrats because of the “values” issue, whic has been warped by the GOP into two narrow categories: abortion and gay marriage. There are so many southerners who vote for a candidate based solely on their standpoint with respect to abortion. The hope for the Democratic party lies in the interior western states that narrowly went to Bush in 2004 such as New Mexico and Nevada. The main issue for voters out there is gun control. Dems in those states have been getting elected by ceding their party’s stance on gun control so they can focus on other issues such as the environment, healthcare, and education. A lot of the voters in these states are outdoorsmen who want to protect the environment, but vote republican becuase of their opposition to gun control. If Kerry took Nevada and New Mexico in 2004, he would have had another 10+ electoral votes and may be in the Oval Office now. Colorado is another swing state as well, given the election of Ken Salazar to the Senate in ‘04. While he may not be the most progressive of democrats, he is still better than any republican I can think of.

pick of the litter, I agree totally with your statement, “ I don’t think, however, that everbody in the Southern states love Republicans.”
All one needs to do is look at the presidential returns and even in Bush’s home state of Texas over 2 million people voted against him.

Having said that, I’ll still say Democrats’ chances of winning major public offices in the South are next to nil. Barring any catastrophic political bombshell for the Republicans, any Democratic candidate running for the presidency in 2008 will start off with almost a 200-electoral vote deficit, most of it all in the Bible Belt South. You can throw in automatic Republican electoral votes in Utah (one of the biggest Bush win margins), Idaho, Wyoming and even Colorado where Bush won easily. 

The situation for Democrats is not as cut and dried with only a couple of slam dunk Democrat electoral vote states such as California, New York and Massachusetts.

Democrats will still have trouble winning in so-called swing states like Ohio (20 electoral votes) which is traditionally conservative but which now has one of the most corrupt state governments in the country. I believe Republican Governor Taft has less than 30% approval there plus there’s that messy little coin-gate scandal that just grows and grows. Florida with its 23 electoral votes will stay in the Republicans’ win column because Jeb Bush is popular there and may even run for the presidency in 2008. 

And I know that everybody isn’t as big a political junkie as I am or others on this forum who try to stay on top of the news. But what is appalling to me, in spite of those who cherry pick polls like the recent WSJ/NBC poll showing Bush’s honesty (what a joke!) ratings at 41% the other parts of the poll show by 61% to 34% the public agrees with Bush ‘s assertion that the war in Iraq is part of the broader war against terrorism. Bush loves numbers like that because it ratifies what he’s doing in Iraq and gives him a green light to continue this slaughter in Iraq of both U.S. military and civilians which we read about daily. I’m adding this report which some of you may have read but I believe it underscores one of the big reasons why Republicans with their well-oiled political apparatchik know how to tap into the voter psychology.

February 1, 2005

WASHINGTON – Most American high school students lack a full understanding of the freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a survey released yesterday said. 

Seventy-five percent of 112,000 students surveyed said it is illegal to burn the American flag as a means of political protest, and nearly half believe that the government can censor the Internet.

The survey, commissioned by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and conducted by researchers at the University of Connecticut, includes responses from 544 randomly selected public, private and parochial high schools.

The survey found that 36 percent of the students believe that newspapers should not be allowed to publish without government approval of stories, and 17 percent of the students believe that the public is prohibited from expressing unpopular opinions.

Overall, the survey found that high school students express little appreciation for the First Amendment’s tenets: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble and the right to petition the government.

Nearly three-quarters of student respondents said they either don’t know how they feel about First Amendment freedoms or take them for granted.

The survey’s findings are “distressing,” said Michael Maidenberg, vice president and chief program officer at the Knight Foundation.

Noting President Bush’s recent call for expanding democracy around the world, Maidenberg said it is critical that American youth understand why the First

pick of the litter, I called up that link you provided to Media Matters. Though I make it a point of tuning out Limbaugh I couldn’t help but note the opening words of a story that appeared there: “Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh blasted RNC chairman Ken Mehlman’s plans to apologize for his party’s notorious Southern Strategy at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Responding to Mehlman’s planned renunciation of the race-based electoral strategy, Limbaugh—whom Bush described as a “good friend” in an August 2004 appearance on Limbaugh’s show—accused Republicans of planning “to go bend over and grab the ankles.”

What is particularly odious to me and representaive of the entire Bush mob is their strong reaction to anyone or anything that criticizes them in any way. I remember Bush last year going to the Martin Luther King memorial to put in his obligatory appearance but was audibly booed by spectators. Bush’s immediate response to this rebuke of him was to use his recess appointment authority to place the racist, bigoted Charles Pickering on one of the appeals court vacancies. This was a nominee vehemently opposed by civil rights and environmental groups who saw Pickering as a person hostile to individual liberties. Although Pickering eventually left that position knowing that he would still be filibustered by Democrats on the committee after his year was up, the gesture by Bush was blatantly and transparently vindictive on his part.

The point is, Bush appointed Pickering out of personal revenge, mainly to get back at blacks, the majority of whom perceive Bush as anti-affirmative action and anti-civil rights. It was no coincidence at all that Bush made this appointment as an in-your-face slap at those who had the audacity to boo him in public.

This is interesting:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071405B.shtml

Election Fraud: Team Bush Paid $8 Million for Dirty Tricks to Suppress Votes - and Tried to Hide It
By Mark Crispin Miller and Jared Irmas
The Baltimore Chronicle

Wednesday 13 July 2005

a couple excerpts below:

“ In the months before the 2004 presidential election, a firm called Sproul & Associates launched voter registration drives in at least eight states, most of them swing states. The group - run by Nathan Sproul, former head of the Arizona Christian Coalition and the Arizona Republican Party - had been hired by the Republican National Committee.

Sproul got into a bit of trouble last fall when, in certain states, it came out that the firm was playing dirty tricks in order to suppress the Democratic vote: concealing their partisan agenda, tricking Democrats into registering as Republicans, surreptitiously re-registering Democrats and Independents as Republicans, and shredding Democratic registration forms. “

“ In any case, all the payments by the RNC to Sproul add up to a whopping $8,359,161 - making it the RNC’s eighth biggest expenditure of the 2004 campaign.

Sproul is currently under investigation by the Oregon Attorney General’s office, for altering the voter registration forms of several thousand students in that state. Whether the new numbers are in part mistaken, they represent a huge expense for the Republicans. Given Sproul’s history of serious electoral mischief, affecting countless Democratic voters in the last election, it is important that we ask some sober questions: Where did all that money come from? Why did the RNC suppress their real expenditures? And what exactly did Sproul do for all that pay? If we’re going to get some reasonable answers, the FEC must undertake a very thorough audit of the books.  “

Is it any wonder that the RNC wins elections when they pay people to cheat?  Not to mention the paperless voting machines made by Diebold.

That study/survey of high school students is a sad reflection of our future and it shows why the public is so easily duped.

Mike said: “. . . It’s as though this huge amount of people just can’t be bothered by any of this. . . .”

Isn’t it though.  I don’t understand it either.  And then there are even more people who torture logic to defend this miserable piece of human sewage masquerading as president.

Richard said: “As to K Austin’s comments about needing a Democratic congress to bring back some semblance of checks and balances, don’t bet on it. Look at the total number of seats that are up for grabs in the U.S. Senate. I believe it’s around 32, with Democrats needing to defend 17 and the Republicans 15. In just about every election 95% of the incumbents win. Unless there is a sea change in the voter mentality and mood, don’t count on Democrats winning either the House or the Senate.”

Richard, don’t count on democrats winning much of anything as long as private corporations, like Diebold, are tabulating and counting the votes.

Richard said: “The real story was and still should be, what happened to G. W. Bush’s last year of Texas Air National Guard that there is no record of him completing? On the contrary, he flunked his physical, lost his flying status and nobody can remember him reporting to any Guard unit either in Alabama or Texas. But the media story was CBS and the fake documents and the rest all faded away concerning Bush’s military records.”

My understanding is that Bush didn’t show up for his physcial because he couldn’t pass the drug screening - he was hooked on cocaine.

In an interview, I heard Bush explain the reason why he drank so much whiskey was because: “I lahked du way it tehsted.” Unfortunately, the interviewer didn’t have the balls to ask him why he snorted so much cocaine.  I can hear the answer anyway: “B’cuz ah lahked du way it smells.”

My thinkng is that certain members in the CIA has been waiting for this moment. This administration has been using the agency like rag-dolls from the beginning - it’s pay-back time. Getting Rove is huge. Once he’s out of the way then the Downing memo’s become important along with all the other crimes that will spill forth without Rove around to control the message. Not to worry.
However, if Rove can somehow slime his way out of this mess - than forgetaboutit - pack your bags and leave because anywhere but here would be preferrable.

Please ignore all comments by “Lefty” on this board, he is sponsored by the CATO Institute to
give the left a bad name.
All answers to all the world’s political problems
are found in my books. I have always been right on
everything and that is why I am the Pope of the American left. The USA and Israel are the big and
little satans and are responsible for ALL the world’s problems.
Only the very naive or willingfully ignorant refuse to acknowledge my absolute perfection and
the fact that I have the answers to all the world’s problems. Do not waste your time on the
Democratic Party, Watergate was less important than Nixon, our last liberal President, indicated.
JFK’s assasssination was no more noteworthy than a
Saturday night shooting in the Roxbury section of
Boston.
I am the most precious intellectual alive and only
the Bible has been quoted more.
Only Z Magazine is worth reading on the left.

gonnuts said: “My thinkng is that certain members in the CIA has been waiting for this moment. This administration has been using the agency like rag-dolls from the beginning - it’s pay-back time.”

From your mouth to God’s ear, GN. One little problem with that theory.  Remember when Bush appointed Porter Goss (Bush flunky) as the new head of the CIA, and then Goss required all CIA agents to sign oaths of loyalty to Bush, or be fired, and many resigned?  ‘Member dat!

What I want to know is, when a dem gets elected in 08’, will he then fire every agent that signed the oath of loyalty to Bush on the grounds that they have a conflict of interest in the investigation of the Bush crime family?

Noam is really Michael Hardesty, aka Martin, Steverino, Mikey, Peter, Jack Barnes, etc., etc., is a paid conservative TROLL who posts under numerous names (including hijacking other posters’ screen names, like mine), and has conversations with himself in order to disrupt liberal discourse. JUST IGNORE HIM.

Do a Google search for Michael Hardesty.  You’ll find that he does the same thing on other liberal message boards.

Richard said: “ “‘What did Bush know, and when did he know it?’ Put this little twit under oath and ask him that question. He has Liar written all over his face. Bring on the impeachment!”

Like his brother, Jeb, when he speaks in public he can barely contain his laughter at what a bunch of idiots the electorate is.  They just can’t believe how easy it is to be the biggest crooks in America, and be cheered for it.

Wow!  That schizoid jerk is still following us around, eh, Lefty?!

Whatever...couldn’t care less.  He is a waste of air.

But back to Downing Street, I think we won’t see a great wave of change happen until the election campaign of ‘06.  Then Democrats and Independents and the few moral Republicans that still exist will start to call the Roves, DeLay’s and their slimey ilk out on the carpet for their crimes in an attempt to distance and differentiate themselves.

The MSM WILL be covering that because it’s a critical election.  I think a lot of education is going to be quickly done in a side-stream manner at that time for the public.  Personally, I can’t tell you how many Republicans I know who are getting pretty fed up with Bush and the GOP in general.

I think that the Democrats will make some good inroads into Congress, and will undertake official House investigations in Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rice, Rumsfeld and DeLay at that time.  Since the Plame case dovetails into the Downing Street memos and related papers/releases, I think it will be reactivated at that time to excellent effect.

One can certainly hope!

Well, it just keeps getting worse. Just when I thought Karl Rove couldn’t tell any bigger lies than his claim that he didn’t know the name of CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame, once again, he’s topped himself.

Here’s the latest whopper: Source Says Rove Testified He Got Agent’s Identity From Reporter. But Rove Didn’t Recall Who According to a source, the top Bush aide told the grand jury that by the time reporter Robert Novak gave him the agent’s name, he recalls having had similar information from another member of the news media.

So, Rove, McClellan and the Bush White House initially swore they had no involvement in the leak of the name of a CIA agent’s cover. Then two days ago Rove said he spoke with Time Magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about the CIA agent but didn’t mention her by name. Today, he admits talking to Robert Novak but that he had gotten “similar” information from another unnamed member of the news media. And here it gets even more ludicrous because Rove now claims he doesn’t remember the name of that mysterious reporter. Is it possible that it might have been Judith Miller who is now in jail and swears she will take this information to her grave? One would think that even Karl Rove wouldn’t be so stupid as to think the public would think he really forgot her name.
So, who is this unnamed reporter and why can’t we know who it is who jeopardized national security?

Why, I ask, is it that a shadowy, as-yet-to-be-named reporter has access to classified national security information, including the names of undercover CIA agents, but yet Karl Rove doesn’t have that information?

This presents a bigger problem (and bigger lie) than if Rove had just admitted that he inadvertently blurted out Valerie Plame’s name without thinking.

Now we have some reporter revealing top secret information compromising national security while White House deupty chief Rove sits idly by instead of becoming furious that this unnamed reporter had such easy access to classified information. If this is Bush’s idea of Homeland security that undercover CIA agents’ names are common knowledge that any reporter can get hold of, we are all in deep, deep doo-doo. 

Karl Rove, in not acting on this damaging information immediately is not only derelict in his responsibility to protect our country, but he is even more complicit for not going to the CIA to demand a full investigation immediately.

Instead, the public only recently learned of Rove’s direct involvement, in total contradiction to everything the White House claimed in July 2003. This is a gargantuan coverup of a political smear campaign that is backfiring on the Bush administration big time.

But, Rove is betting that Bush will once again put personal loyalty and politics ahead of the security and welfare of the citizens of the United States.

Will our 10-second MTV attention span mainstream media once again relegate this story to the dust bin of yesterday’s papers? Probably. And that’s Bush’s ace in the hole.

Well, ya know, Richard, if they covered unimportant news like Rove’s treason, we might miss the vital stuff like what’s happening with Natalee Holloway in Aruba…

Richard said: “But, Rove is betting that Bush will once again put personal loyalty and politics ahead of the security and welfare of the citizens of the United States.”

Rove is right.  Bush would defend Rove if he was caught on tape with a kitchen knife in one hand and Valerie Plame’s head in the other.

Bush is a pimp of the highest order, and so is Rove.

Ronald Reagan once compared the function of a politician to that of (what else) a cowboy: ride around the range until you find a stampeding herd of cattle and then gallop to the head of the herd, shouting, “Follow me, boys!” Aside from his obviously demeaning comparison of voters to cattle, which virtually every politician shares, he meant to imply that any successful politician needs to determine the over-riding concerns of his or her constituents before even considering the possibility of campaigning for the office, and then appeal to those concerns during the campaign.

The general demographic trend for at least the last thirty years has been the migration of blue collar workers from their traditional urban centers in the Northeast, Midwest and the West Coast (the blue states) to the South and the West (the red states), where the cost of living is lower and the costs of production are more attractive to those who own the means of production and can afford to move them there.  The majority of these migrants tend to be working-class whites, less educated or skilled, and highly receptive to Republican racist and religious appeals to their resentments and grievances against illegal immigrants, atheistic liberals, union corruption and the crime, drug addiction and welfare-induced indolance of the blacks who originally migrated north to obtain employment in the industrial centers of the Democratically-controlled cities.  That they were forced to compete against their white, unionized counterparts served to exacerbate the hostility and racism that already existed between them.

The point is, most people don’t have the time to evaluate the moral implications of the Downing Street Memos, which were released by Murdoch to revive the prospect of an eventual Tory victory over the Liberals, or Rove’s complicity in the Plame controversy, which was initiated to divert attention from the Downing Street Memos.  Most people are too busy working their butts off at two or more underpaid jobs in order to pay off their bills, or their children’s college tuition, or worrying about losing what job security they currently possess.  They don’t enjoy the luxury of an analytic perspective which you seem to believe is required, and resent the people who do.

It seems to be hugely overstating the case that “Rove jepordized national security” by his actions. While there is no doubt that he and the White House have been dishonest, it is not at all clear that any law has been broken. It is certainly not illegal to say someone works for the CIA **UNLESS** they are being outted as a spy (actually the test is a bit more stingent that this). Nothing i have read compels me to believe that Rove outted Plame - he merely said she worked for the CIA (but did NOT identify her as a covert agent - in fact, Wilson sorta did that).

The real crime is putting people in jail over this. It boggles the mind that the a prosecutor is willing to imprision a reporter on such a thin case.

Final note - i am no fan of Rove or the current occupants of the WH. But i do know that lying is a way of life of politicians or all stripes and all parties. Playing hardball with the little people (reporters) serves no one.

Beth,

Yes, most politicians are basically self-serving liars. 

But to understand why our national security WAS grossly compromised by Rove’s actions, you have to understand Valerie Plame’s job within the CIA and with whom she trafficked.

She was assigned to a special forces group to find Weapons of Mass Destruction worldwide.  She would be sent to a certain area to maintain old and develop new moles within whatever place she was.  Through these moles, she would gather intelligence regarding that state’s nuclear, chemical, viral, etc. technologies, as well as their intentions to use these technologies.

When she was outed, she was “hot”, that is, actively undercover in hostile territory.  So not only did everyone know her identity and what she was doing, but all her contacts were then “outed”.  So the governments and any terrorist factions immediately knew who was associated with Valerie Plame, and we don’t know how many of them were arrested, tortured, killed.

Any leads that they had at that time were abruptly cut off, and who knows what terrorist acts went forward unfettered because of this leak.  Our country suddenly was left wide-open to terrorists from that area because no one was watching the store anymore.

So, in summary, Rove’s outing left our agent wide open, our contacts wide open and our country wide open to anyone who wanted to move fast and take “the bomb” through that unwatched area quickly.

How do you know that the Madrid bombers didn’t use that gap?  I don’t know either, but I’m sure you get my drift.

Not only that, it is a felony to out an undercover agent.  Hope the gravity his of misdeed is clearer to you now.

Beth, you wrote, “It seems to be hugely overstating the case that “Rove jepordized national security” by his actions”

Well, let me say that years ago I may have thought that was a nice way of saying, “Gee, can’t we all just get along?” Oh yes, you’re right that having a measured, kindly and logical debate is a good and healthy thing for our democracy. But that all went down the toilet with Karl Rove and the rest of the smear mongering Republicans who made it a point to politicize both our American flag and Religion (captial R intended). These slime balls want to hear the Democrats or any opposition talk just like your post—practically grovellling and apologizing for demonizing poor Karl Rove, Bush’s doppelganger who is hired to do to Democrats all the things you revile.

Republicans no longer represent anything to me but Evil personified. They trash every person’s character as soon as possible, run Swill Boat smear ads like the ones they used against John Kerry who they accused of being a traitor and then got their proxies on Screech Radio to disseminate their slime. Recently, the same pukes ran a floater ad against AARP depicting the 35 million members of that organization as hating our military and supporting gay marriage—all filthy lies and disgusting, inflammatory propaganda.

Beth, you need to wake up and realize that “take no prisoners” is exactly what James Carville meant when he urged Democrats to fight back, don’t give in to one issue, don’t say, “Well, gosh, I guess you have a point there and we should discuss this.” Carville says, “Crap!” to that, take on these lower-than-whale-crap Republicans every chance you get, go for the jugular and don’t concede one single issue or point.

We won’t win squat until we begin to realize the fact that Republicans attack everyone with a furor and virulence exactly as if they are waging a full-on war. We have the weapons to fight back. Use them!

Do yourself and your friends a favor, get the book written by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, The Banana Republicans. Of all the books on political tactics, this is the best one I’ve ever read and one which I recommend to anyone wanting to understand the Politics as War mentality of what we’re up against with these vicious, anti-democracy, anti-civil liberties and anti-U.S. Constitution Republicans who now control every branch of our government.

Maybe I’ll tell you what I really think sometime. Ha, ha.

Thomas
One thing’s for sure. The U.N. weapons inspectors were not allowed by Bush to finish their work this last time because the only reason Bush and Blair proposed having the UN send them back was in the hopes that Sadaam would refuse to allow them, thus providing an excuse to invade. The Downing Street Memos make this pretty clear. Face it Thomas, Bush was determined to invade even before he stole the election of 2000 and would engage in any subterfuge necessary in order to be able to do it. This is an abominable subversion of democracy.

Beth,

If it looks like sh** and smells like sh**, it is sh**.  Joe Wilson publicly called Bush a liar concerning Iraq’s aquisition of nuclear material from Africa.  The next thing you know, Joe Wilson’s wife’s cover is disclosed by Robert Novak.  Robert Novak testified that he got the Information from Rove and another of Bush’s staff.  Plame’s life was endangered by the leak, which sole purpose was retaliation for calling Bush a liar. 

You don’t have to be a genius to connect the dots Beth.  There are 3 items of direct evidence that Rove disclosed Plame’s name: 1) the testimony of Novak, 2) the testimony of Time reporter, Cooper, and 3) an email from Rove to Cooper. And there is circumstantial evidence that he did it for the purpose of retailiating against Joe Wilson and to send a message to anyone else who publicly disagrees with Bush, that Rove was willing to commit a federal crime, and possibly treason, to exact revenge against any and all political enemies.

Classic Rove tactics.  It’s got Rove’s fingprints all over it.

Do WH Deputy Chiefs of Staff get lifetime Secret Service protection?  Rove’s going to need it, if he doesn’t end up in prison, where he and his 2 bosses belong.

Margaret wrote:

>When she was outed, she was “hot”, that is, actively undercover >in hostile territory.

I’d never heard that before, Margaret.  If true, it makes whatever involvement Rove had in the matter much more relevant.  I’m curious as to your source for this information.  Will you provide?

Thanks

Natalie,

Read any major newspaper today.

Natalie,

Just to make life simpler:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9480.htm

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/07/novaks-own-statement-contradicts-story.h html

There’s plenty more, but I have to go practice-driving with my 16-year old son right now.

Enjoy!

Bill Moyers recently said, “Money ruined democracy in America. Washington is gone. Grassroots is our only hope”. Thank God for the internet. It may be our last, best hope to save OUR democracy from the fascists who have stained OUR White House.

Margaret,

I trust you made it back from your drive safely.  Glad I’ve got a few more years before I must face such terror. ;-)

I looked at your links, (second one had a slight typo, but figured it out) but did not see any reference to Plame being “hot and actively undercover in hostile territory”.  Perhaps I missed it.

I wasn’t too impressed with the journalistic accuracy of the piece by Jason Leopold, as he kept saying that Bush claimed that Iraq had bought Uranium in Niger, not “sought”.

He has either no knowledge of or no curiousity about the fact that much of what Wilson claimed in op-eds and on TV upon returning from Niger was at variance with his actual CIA report.

I remain curious, however, about your source for the “hot actively undercover in hostile territory” reference.

Mark said:

“Bill Moyers recently said, “Money ruined democracy in America. Washington is gone. Grassroots is our only hope”. Thank God for the internet. It may be our last, best hope to save OUR democracy from the fascists who have stained OUR White House.”

Mark, it’s all mental masterbation when the conservatives in power have given over the collection and tabulation of the vote to corrupt, biased private corporations like Diebold.  It doesn’t matter what the majority thinks, or how they vote, if the vote count is a fraud.

Based on what happened in Ohio and in Florida (in the last 2 elections), I have no confidence in the accuracy of the vote count.

Hi Margaret - Thanks for the post. I had just read in my local paper that Plame was no covert when the leak took place (i have no reference, it was probably an AP story). Anyway, i too would like to see more on her actual status at the time of the leak.

And is there nothing that can be done with the troll who obviously is impersonating people? He/she adds nothing but noise and confusion to this site. Fortuanately, s/he is pretty transparent. . .

from: http://mediamatters.org/items/200507150009

“ It’s super-double-secret information for a reason: Outing covert agents has consequences

Too often lost amid the irrelevant noise about whether Rove said Plame’s name, whether he was trying to warn reporters away from incorrect stories, or how often Valerie Plame went to Langley, is any substantive discussion of the consequences of Plame’s outing. Covert agents, after all, are covert for a reason, and disclosing their identity has real-world implications.

In October 2003, Time magazine reported that Plame was a “CIA spy tracking weapons of mass destruction (WMD).” Former CIA officer Jim Marcinkowski told Time, “Her career as an undercover operative is over. ... She will no longer be safe traveling overseas.” In other words, the outing cost the CIA an intelligence asset—and may have put Plame’s life at risk.

But that’s not all, as Time explained:

[I]n this case, the officer was one who was working on the most vital security issue of all, the proliferation of WMD. At a time when good intelligence and successful spying has never been more essential to the nation’s defense, the deliberate unmasking of a spy sent shudders through the secret web of spooks worldwide. When a U.S. operative is unmasked, foreign spy agencies go back, retrace his steps, review his contacts and try to figure out how the CIA operated in their country. “Anyone who was seen with her overseas is tainted now,” warns a former officer who knew Plame. “If she went to the grocery store and talked to the grocer, people will say, ‘I wonder if he was working for her?’”

In Plame’s case, the damage may go even deeper. Plame was an NOC, meaning she did her job overseas under nonofficial cover and not out of an embassy or government office. Many in her family did not know she worked for the agency. Such unofficial covers are often with private companies to further disguise an operative’s real work. Plame had worked with Brewster Jennings & Associates, an obscure energy firm that may have been a CIA front company. Deep covers take time, luck and work to develop; the outing of an NOC also blows the cover of the involved business or private entity.

Maybe that’s why former President (and Director of Central Intelligence) George H. W. Bush said at the 1999 dedication of a CIA building named for him, “I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.” “

That last post under my name was not me at all. Clearly, it was just someone impersonating my likeness in a puerile smear campaign. Ignore the impostor!

from:  http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705X.shtml

“What I Told The Grand Jury”
By Matthew Cooper
Time Magazine

Monday 25 July 2005 Issue

“Matthew Cooper reveals exactly what Karl Rove told him--and what the special counsel zeroed in on.”

last paragraph:

“ So did Rove leak Plame’s name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the “agency” on “WMD”? Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don’t know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me. At this point, I’m as curious as anyone else to see what Patrick Fitzgerald has.”

from: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705B.shtml

“Follow the Uranium “
By Frank Rich
The New York Times

Sunday 17 July 2005

excerpts:

“ Even so, we shouldn’t get hung up on him - or on most of the other supposed leading figures in this scandal thus far. Not Matt Cooper or Judy Miller or the Wilsons or the bad guy everyone loves to hate, the former CNN star Robert Novak. This scandal is not about them in the end, any more than Watergate was about Dwight Chapin and Donald Segretti or Woodward and Bernstein. It is about the president of the United States. It is about a plot that was hatched at the top of the administration and in which everyone else, Mr. Rove included, are at most secondary players.

To see the main plot, you must sweep away the subplots, starting with the Cooper e-mail. It has been brandished