Imagine a world where “Deepthroat” went public, and the evidence behind Watergate was there for all to see…
…but the media decided not to report it.
It didn’t happen in the 1970s, but it sure as hell is happening right now.
There is a “smoking memo” that confirms that the Bush Administration went to war on false pretenses. It has been validated, and, although the memo generated huge pre-election headlines in Britain, its existence has hardly been mentioned by the American media.
On May 1, the Sunday Times of London published the confidential minutes of a meeting held almost three years ago, in July of 2002, between Tony Blair and members of his Cabinet. They discussed the British government’s ongoing consultations with the Bush administration over Iraq. Those in attendance included the defense secretary, the foreign secretary, the attorney general, the intelligence chief and Blair’s closest personal aides.
The full text of the minutes of that meeting, set down in a memorandum by foreign policy advisor Matthew Rycroft, is available here.
Example quotes (comments and emphasis in bold added by me):
“C (the codename of the head of MI6) 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.”
and:
“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.”
Months after this meeting, when Bush signed the congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq on Oct. 16, 2002, he was lying when he assured Americans and the world that he still hoped war could be avoided. “I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary,” he said at the time. “Hopefully this can be done peacefully. Hopefully we can do this without any military action.”
Yet the memo clearly shows that the invasion was a fait accompli, months earlier, and that the “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
So, where is the American media on this story? Why is this not the headline of every major newspaper and filling hours of TV time?
Is anyone else terrified by the implications of the silence?
Obviously a clever ploy by the liberal-biased media to, uh… um…
I got nothin’.
Apathy
It wasn’t even that big a deal here, we just re-elected a prime minister who’s been shown to have, at best, seriously misrepresented the legal position on the war. At worst he outright lied to parliament and the country.
I suggest a dose of Transmetropolitan for everyone, it’s required reading in this age.
I posted something on this today, except from the USA. See it here.
The US media is noticably missing from this story and I suspect that George Bush has the media watch dogs on a short leash. In fact, if there is dissent, that person/agency is perceived as a “National Threat”. It parallels the Nazi regime from the early to mid 20th century.
Things are changing here in the USA and its not for the best, believe me.
I would love to have your feedback and maybe get you involved in some discussion. I fyou have the time, sift through some of my back posts. They might spark your interest, particularly the politial skewers.
I also agree that Tony Blair’s reelection has a funny feel to it, also. He and Bush seem to be getting away with murder, almost completely unchecked.
Honestly, “It parallels the Nazi regime from the early to mid 20th century.”
Let’s get a little perspective here. Are you actually implying Bush has that level of control over the media? Read the New York Times much?
We can debate the merits of the Iraq War but to start throwing around Nazi comparisons is bordering on hysteria.
Is that *sniff, sniff* pretension I smell?
Can you deny his families ties to ClearChannel communications? I think that our media is certianly working to distract us from real news. Look at how much coverage the American Idol scandal has received. I assure you that I am nowhere near hysteria. I am,however, very familiar with the early workings of the Nazi party and how they accomplished their various goals.The Bush family also comes up in study of that particluar snippet of time and not in a favorable light.
This shady administration has similar goals of “global sanitation” and bred rampant paranoia amongst its citizens. Children turning in their parents for having for having opinions that differs from the popular one, for example. And I sincerely feel that we are heading down a similiar road with similar fallout, if we continue to be apathetic or blind. Except, instead of Jews, we are breeding hate and fear of Arabs/Muslims. The Iraq war and the events and fabrications that have lead up to it are one facet of this administration.
I don’t think it’s pretension at all. I think throwing around words like “Nazi” is just an attempt to get people stirred up.
I’ll plead ignorance on ties to Clear Channel, but with all the newspapers, blogs, CNN, etc I find it hard to believe Bush controls anything in the media.
Your point on American Idol simply demonstrates that media is a “business.” It sells newspapers and raises ratings. If you really want to debate something, debate the general apathy of an American Public more interested in American Idol and Michael Jackson than the real issues surrounding us that need debate in the public marketplace. And that’s debate, not hysteria, name calling and screaming matches.
Speaking of hysteria. Show me the rampant fear of Arabs/Muslims. Airport security can’t even have a raised awareness of Arabs/Muslims in security when it was Arabs/Muslims that made the attacks on 9/11. Instead we have small children, little old ladies and the late Ray Charles getting the full court press.
In addition the Bush owned media on Fox feel the need to put a disclaimer about and support of Arabs/Muslims in front of “24.” Maybe that’s just a dodge perpetuated by the Bush Administration too?
Global sanitation and paranoia? Come on, it ain’t paranoia when someone is after you. And I hate to let you down but Bin Laden is out to get us.
Finally, exactly how is Bush (or worse, Cheney) convincing children to turn in their parents in some mass initiative? Maybe it’s the Saturday morning cartoons?
Sorry for the delay. Nice to have some points to counter.
Yes, our society is bred on apathy and quick fixes. It is a sad state of affairs. American Idol is easier for those with ADD to follow. People seem unnaturally interested in celebrity, when their society is changing right under their noses.
I don’t understand the point of your explanation of debate.There has been no name calling or screaming here.
I see the fear all over our nation, everytime anyone “not white” walks into a room. I see purses get clutched tighter and menacing looks flashed. People pull their children closer and whisper. I saw intensify when the “terror levels” were spiking up. Can you deny that Japanese Americans weren’t feared and relocated following Pearl Harbor, even though the official word was to “Not be afraid of the Japanese living on our soil?”?
I agree with you that airport security, all of Homeland security for that matter, is so busy hassling all kinds of innocent people, that I’m surprised they can actually catch any real threats.
Yes, global sanitation. The extermination of people and nations who don’t look, think or shop like we do. That very narrow minded mentality that causes race riots and wars. Should we have invaded Iraq because of Bin Laden? Should we be tense with Iran or Libya because of Bin Laden? I hate to let you down, as you put it, but in a few years time, we’ll be chums with Bin Laden (and everyone who helped him)again and the real war will be with Iran/Russia/the UK/enemy du jour.
The children information network was in Germany and was only used as an example. You sarcasm is duly noted. However, are you familiar with the TIPS network here in the US? Its for neighbors to snoop on each others activities, families to spy on each other. Anything that might be viewed as “a threat or Anti-American” (read: speaking out about the War, getting a group discussion going about, say, the lies told to get to the point we all are at now.)shoiuld be reported. Completely anonymous and confidential. Even if its unfounded. Which is completely subjective to each individual. It is a very real thing and has very real complications with the FBI for those under scrutiny.
Under the Bush administration, you’re either “for us or you’re against us”. And if you’re against us, its treason and you’re out. The very same mentality our forefathers wrote the Constitution to prevent.
As far as using the term Nazi for shock value or to stir things up, that wasn’t my goal, although it did get a rise out of you. I can easily pull parallels to that regime’s actions and Bush’s today. Take the Reichstag fire, for example, which gave Hitler a much needed boost. Riding the crest of that attack, President Hindenburg and Chancellor Hitler invoke Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which permits the suspension of civil liberties in time of national emergency. This Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State abrogates the following constitutional protections:
* Free expression of opinion
* Freedom of the press
* Right of assembly and association
* Right to privacy of postal and electronic communications
* Protection against unlawful searches and seizures
* Individual property rights
* States’ right of self-government
A supplemental decree creates the SA (Storm Troops) and SS (Special Security) Federal police agencies and people go under a police state where the administration could do as they pleased.Communists were quickly blamed for the fire, but many scholars/historians believe that the Nazi party did it themselves to gain power.
Tell me that this doesn’t sound familiar. Patriot Act/Patriot Act 2, for example. These are all very real examples and I, for one, don’t want it happening here, even though it is.It just has a better PR spin. Most folks won’t even be bothered by losing their liberties, as long as it doesn’t interfere with their favorite shows. There might be another Nipplegate afterall.
Hopefully, this lends some clarification to my earlier post(s).
Um….guys?
Who are you, and why are you arguing on my journal?
A bit more, since there is a LJ limit
It is not clear whether the Nazis intentionally set the Reichstag fire in order to create a national crisis, or whether the Nazis simply were opportunistic, the event was used as justification for a sharp curtailment in constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties.
The Nazis took advantage of the additional Federal police powers to suppress opponents. It is clear that in other situations, the Nazis did use the tactic of creating a “law and order” crisis so that they could provide a solution which further eroded civil liberties and entrenched their power.
The right-wing Nazis and the left-wing communists were cut from the same cloth, much like I feel that our Republican and Democrat parties are today. Look at Kerry’s agenda vs Bush’s. They are very similar.
Re: A bit more, since there is a LJ limit
Again, I have to ask—who are you guys, and why are you engaged in this pissing match in my journal?
Hi, We just thought we’d make your post as loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong as humanly possible and drive your friends to drink.
I’m Mars and I happened upon your post through a friend earlier tonight. It reminded me of a post I had also made on Friday and thought that I’d post here to you and get your take and have lively discussion with you.
I used the word “Nazi” which sparked this, um, debate…as for my “friend”, I just met him/her tonight through your journal, but its been a fun romp thus far. Would you like us to take it outside? *grins*
It very nice to *ahem* meet you.
Re: A bit more, since there is a LJ limit
Just some dorks who happened to fall into this chat.
I happened upon your post through a friend earlier tonight.
Which friend? Just curious – I’m trying to see the connections here.
Well, it was actually a friend of my wife. Not sure who it was, she is quite chatty, but I can ask her this weekend. They were chatting and her friend made mention of seeing a post with content similar to mine and sent her the link and she shared it with around the time of my first post. The rest, they say, is history!
Sorry to be so long winded about these things, but I had to clarify my points.
Re: A bit more, since there is a LJ limit
Sorry to coopt your Journal. I’m a friend of Ross Winn’s going way back to high school. He and I have only recently reconnected and I happened upon your journal while checking out his.
Frankly I have never posted to anyone’s journal but Ross’ but Mr Luxa’s Nazi comment set me off. Apologies