Skip to main content

A big ten gallon hat tip goes to Corpus Callosum for this blockbuster.  It appears there is a new Downing Street memo in circulation that details the wishes  of president Bush to bomb the headquartersof Al Jazeera in Quatar.

The five-page transcript of a conversation between Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveals that Blair talked Bush out of launching a military strike on the station, unnamed sources told the anti-war-in-Iraq daily.

The transcript of the pair's talks during Blair's April 16, 2004 visit to Washington allegedly shows Bush wanted to attack the satellite channel's headquarters.

Blair allegedly feared such a strike, in the business district of Doha, the capital of Qatar, a key western ally in the Persian Gulf, would spark revenge attacks.

The Mirror quoted an unnamed British government official as saying Bush's threat was "humorous, not serious".

Al-Jazeera's perspectives on the war in Iraq have drawn criticism from Washington since the US-led March 2003 invasion.

The station has broadcast messages from Al-Qaeda terror network chief Osama bin Laden and the beheadings of Western hostages by insurgents in Iraq, as well as footage of dead coalition servicemen and Iraqi civilians killed in fighting.

A source told the Mirror: "The memo is explosive and hugely damaging to Bush.

"He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere. Blair replied that would cause a big problem.

"There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do -- and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it."

Another source said: "Bush was deadly serious, as was Blair. That much is absolutely clear from the language used by both men."

My oh my.  This certainly puts a different outlook on the question raised back in 2003 as to whether or not Al Jazeera was being targeted by our military.  As quoted in the above link:  
November 19th, 2001 – The Guardian reported about the bomb that destroyed Al-Jazeera’s offices in Kabul, Afghanistan. The reports states, “Al-Jazeera certainly believes it was a target. Speaking on the telephone to News World from Qatar, its chief editor, Ibrahim Hilal, said he believed that it's Kabul office had been on the Pentagon's list of targets since the beginning of the conflict”.  

The same report quotes spokesman, US Col. Brian Hoey as saying, "The US military does not and will not target media. We would not, as a policy, target news media organisations - it would not even begin to make sense."

Well it is beginning to make sense in hindsight Col. Hoey.  The article has a series of events that tend to show that the military was actively targeting Al Jazeera and other independent news organizations.  

So now we may begin to comprehend why it was that American media simply rolled over and played dead for the first 4 1/2 years of this administration.  They made an example of Al Jazeera when it came to news coverage that did not kow tow to the administration.  Thank god Mr. Blair has the sense to talk him out of it.  Bomb Qatar... now thats a real doozy.

Cross posted @  Club Lefty

Originally posted to bhfrik on Mon Nov 21, 2005 at 11:57 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  If Ann Coulter wants to see the Grey Lady (3.75)

    Why should this be a surprise?

    "the fools, the fools, they've left us our Fenian Dead" (Padraig Pearse - Gay Revolutionary)

    by padraig pearse on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 12:07:55 AM PST

    •  Particularly now that Judy's left... n/t (none)

      "Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering." - R. Buckminster Fuller -5.88/-5.23

      by Shadan7 on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 05:05:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  CNN Covers the Daily Mirror Story (none)
        •  Al-Jazeera >WAS< bombed by the US. (none)
          Not once, but twice.  

          The Pentagon apologized.  Or rather said they didn't do it on purpose.  But Al Jazeera seemed a bit skeptical.  In Baghdad, they had turned in the exact coordinates of their HQ, on the premise that it would safeguard them from being a target.

          See this story from BBC about the Baghdad blast in August 2003.  Who can forget this quote from then-Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clark?

          A war zone is a dangerous place. We continue to warn news organisations... you should not be there.

          Their office was hit in Kabul in November 2001.  Another BBC story here.

          [Al-Jazeera's managing director] Mr Jasim would not speculate as to whether the offices were deliberately targeted, but said the location of the bureau was widely known by everyone, including the Americans.
          Al-Jazeera confirmed later that it was a US missile that destroyed the building and damaged the homes of some employees.
          "This office has been known by everybody, the American airplanes know the location of the office, they know we are broadcasting from there," he said.
    •  yes, and this is about as important as ann coulter (1.16)
      wanting to bomb nyt.

      Bush is an idiot, but taking this garbage at face value is simply demeaning. There are so many things we know about and that are worth raising and fighting over, why resort to this shit? This is about as important an issue as the government plot to poison you with flouride in the drinking water. And probably about as real.

      •  Then, let me ask you something. (none)
        This is from The Mirror, a UK paper, and from AFP; two reputable mainstream media outlets.

        So, can you please read these articles and tell me specifically what about them makes you think these stories are not believable?

        I don't have a problem with skepticism about this article, but you need to be more specific about why you are skeptical.

        •  thanks for your 4 (none)
          and a big fuck you those of you who were so offended by my skepticism (and apparently take this so seriously) that you had to vent your anger by trolling me. I hope you feel good. Next time check the rest of my comments, see if maybe I haven't been around here for a few years.

          I'm not so blind or stupid to not realize that papers around the world are reporting this. Papers around the world report lots of stuff that is totally unimportant and is only good because it generates a "wow, i've got to read THAT" reaction. Ever heard of Natalee halloway?

          I'm not even really skeptical about what's reported in the artical. Sure, I can believe bush said some bullshit like this. But I don't believe that at the highest levels of government there was a serious discussion about whether it might not be a good idea to bomb al jazeera.

          picture for a minute what this would look like in the morning news if they actually had. Just imagine that. Then it's very easy to see what I mean. This is simply outside the realm of possibility.

          •  You never know. (none)
            But the memo in question was five pages, so if that was simply a casual joke, then it would barely have deserved a mention in the document. But I would like to see more info, including any discussions the US government may have had about bombing Al-Jazeera's office in Qatar.

            If this was just a big joke, then I have full confidence that the Bush administration or the Blair government will produce the document. If it was just a big joke, then what do they have to hide?

            But you have to expand the realm of possibility of barbaric things the Bush administration is capable of. For example, there is legitimate evidence that US prison guards used lions to torture two of their prisoners in Iraq a couple of years ago. The prisoners have come forward and appeared on Nightline; the ACLU has taken the case and has filed suit against the Defense Department.

            Furthermore, many people thought that Hitler committing genocide was outside the realm of possibility.

            You have to understand the nature of the Bush administration's game -- they do stuff percisely because people think certain things are outside the realm of possibility. People thought torture on our part was outside the realm of possibility; then the Abu Girhab photos surfaced. The fact that torture was off the realm of possibility for people meant that Bush could use it because nobody would be looking for such an outrage.

            •  you're missing my point (none)
              I don't think this was outside the realm of possibility because it was so atrocious--that hasn't stopped them before. It's outside the realm of possibility precisely because of the reaction this is generating right now around the world.

              Half the people printing the story are running it as if they can't believe it. Imagine if we had actually done this.

              The us government spends billions of dollars a year on PR and propaganda in the arab world and elsewhere, do you honestly think anybody would seriously consider an act like this that would shatter our image exponentially more than a war against a violent, belligerent dictator?

              Because that is the difference here. This would be totally unprecedented, and even though we all think it was atrocious to invade iraq, there was a real world justification for it that obviously was credible to a very large number of people, all over the world.

              But bombing an independent news organization, and unarmed, civilian operation in an allied country--seriously man? Do you really think this?

              •  But that's exactly my point. (none)
                The fact that half the world is incredulous about these latest revelations do not disprove them or make them less credible. In the same vein, the fact that about half the world was just as incredulous at reports of Nazis exterminating Jews in 1942 did not disprove the fact that the Nazis were doing it. That's exactly why Bush has done things like authorize the use of torture, because he was familiar with this form of collective denial.

                You have a valid point about Bush not wanting to do anything that would tarnish his image of wanting to spread democracy. But you have to understand the nature of anger. People can get so angry that they would do things in a fit of anger that they would never do when they are in a sober mood. We know that Bush has a huge anger problem and can be very irrational.

                It could be that Bush was never seriously interested deep down inside, which explains Blair's ability to calm him down. But I would like to see more evidence, like who was at that meeting in addition to those two.

  •  wow... I must have misread this... (3.92)
    I thought this story would get a lot of response...  I think this is huge.  What am I missing here?

    I am the neocon nightmare, I am a liberal with the facts.

    by bhfrik on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 12:14:48 AM PST

    •  I think everybody is in stunned silence (4.00)
      There aren't many things about which I would say, "Not even Shrubya is stupid enough to try that."  But this is close to the point at which I'd be inclined to say, "Nope, he's stupid enough to do a lot of really idiotic things, but this is too stupid even for him."

      But then again, time and time again, he's proven to be dumber than even his most severe critics thought, and suppose he really IS stupid enough not to realize the consequences this would almost certainly have had throughout the Middle East?  If he's really that stupid, who knows WHAT he might do in the next three years, and that's scary as hell.

      Without seeing exactly what was said, and the context and tone of voice in which it was said, I'm inclined to think the comment about bombing al Jazeera headquarters was probably one of the kinds of hyperbolic statements that most of us make from time to time when we're frustrated, and that we don't intend for anybody to take seriously.  But then again, I'm not really all that confident that he WASN'T serious, and thinking a President even MIGHT have seriously contemplated something like that is a very sobering thought.

      •  yeah... (4.00)
        I think I get impatient about my diaries too...  If there isn't a response in 5 minutes I'm all fretting that I didn't make a good post.  My bad.  :P

        I am the neocon nightmare, I am a liberal with the facts.

        by bhfrik on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 12:32:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  hey, not all of us can stay up all night (none)
          •  We were asleep (4.00)
            I'm posting at the earliest opportunity, having read the Daily Mirror article.  I was asleep, and I think others will comment as they become aware of this story.

            I notice that someone below "doubts" this report.  It would help if the full text of the memo was available, but there are several things which cause me to believe the thrust of the report:  first, a couple of people are being prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act there for leaking the memo; and second, of course, al Jazeera's Baghdad office WAS attacked (the British could veto an attack on its headquarters in Qatar, but no one could stop the neo-cons from ordering the strike in Baghdad).

            We're all in this together.

            by JTML on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 05:54:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Personally, I think alot of journalists (4.00)
              were targets. Goes along with Bushco Double Speak, we are fighting for freedom, right?, including freedom of speech? The end justifies the means in their eyes. When looking for the truth, believe the opposite of what they say.

              BIRTH CONTROL....the solution to many problems.

              by mattes on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:15:03 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (4.00)
        I'm somewhat skeptical about this claim. If it were true, it would reveal that Bush was contemplating either a military or terrorist action against a media organization, part-owned by the ruler of Qatar's family. Given that Qatar is an ally of the US, and that there is a major US military facility at Al Udeid which was used, for example, as a media centre for press briefings during the Iraq war in 2003, this would be an example of the most stunning ignorance on his behalf.

        It should be noted that the US definitely bombed the Al Jazeera offices in Kabul during the Afghan bombing campaign, and, IIRC, did the same with their offices in Baghdad.

        Clearly some bright press person should ask Bush/Blair if this account is correct.

        •  Dubya would have to read to know that info (4.00)
          Dubya doesn't read his briefings. He wouldn't know anything about royal family connections to Al Jaazeera in the first place. Hell, Dubya may not have even know al Jaazeera was in Qatar. Dubya sees Baghdad reports, and just assumes the Al Jaazeera is in Badhdad, for all we know.

          Dubya doesn't study nothin'. He points at shit and says, "Fuck it up."

          •  Neo-cons have made similar mistakes (4.00)
            You must be kidding.  The Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal identified by Col. Larry Wilkerson has made a cottage industry of ignoring the consequences of their shoot-'em-up policies.

            We're all in this together.

            by JTML on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 05:58:17 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ignoring implies they bother to ask for briefings (4.00)
              IMHO, the neo-cons care so little about consequences that they don't even bother to have junior staffers compile briefings for them to sit through and ignore.
        •  Keep in mind the Arab backdrop (4.00)
          of Al Jazeera.  College educated Arabs throughout the Arab world and in the Diaspora (especially France and London) all watch Al Jazeera.  It was started by the Qatari royal family to expose news often not covered by government controlled national stations.  One of Al Jazeera's favorite targets (read blood enemy of the Qatari family) is the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia.  

          How many trips did Bandar Bush make to the White House?  or personal houses in Kennebunkport of the Bushes, leading up to this?  Any thoughts as to the info he planted regarding Al Jazeera as a center of terrorist activities?

          •  Aren't key al-Jazeera staff BBC alums? (none)
            I seem to recall that.  I'm pretty sure the head guy used to be with BBC.  Real journalistic experience and all that.  Given my druthers, I wish there were I way I could see their broadcasts, to better understand that point of view.

            BBC's international network of correspondents put the US news media to shame.  If there's something big going on in the world, BBC is likely to have coverage before US media.  Often, stories will break on BBC website before CNN (etc.) pick them up.

            And they give more time to the story.  The what? where? why? when? who?  Than the endless commentary from the media on this side of the pond.

            I so don't get people who are all gung-ho about blowing them up.  Even if you believe they are the enemy, isn't it wise to know your enemy?  Nevermind that taking out their headquarters would have meant bombing Doha.  Which is the peaceful capital city of a US ally.

            How do you simulate rolling your eyes from a computer keyboard?

        •  The conversation was reportedly (none)
          In jest.  Don't get me wrong, I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but Al Jazeera makes Fox News look like NPR.  If I was president, I'd crack a joke about bombing them occasionally.
          •  Ever watch "Control Room"? (4.00)
            Al Jazeera is much more a real news organization than Fox is. And, by the way, Bush HAS bombed Al Jazeera locations already, and killed their reporters. Some joke, huh?
          •  You place Fox and NPR in the same sentence. (none)
            You are "heroically" accurate by accident.
            You suggest that Al Jazeera is inaccurate and biased. It is far less biased for the Islamic point of view than the NYT or WaPo are for the American point of view. I suggest that, before proclaiming the mote in Al Jazeera's eye, you examine the beam in American journalist's eyes.
            Of course, if you rely exclusively on American media, including NPR, you will be sadly unaware of how stupid your comparison sounds, to any fair-minded person who has taken the time and trouble to actually study and compare the accuracy of world media organs.

            BTW, the only thing that stops me from saying "Well praise be that you're not president,"

            If I was president, I'd crack a joke about bombing them occasionally.
            is the fact that we already have someone even more foolish in the job.
            •  And no one in government writes a five page memo (4.00)
              about jests, or prosecutes the leaking of such "jests." A simple reading of the presented facts, in the diary and in the referenced article, should show you that "a government spokesman" is the sole source for the "speaking in jest" claim.
              If you're still believing government spokespersons, Scotty has a gaggle seat reserved for you.
      •  is it idiotic? (none)
        depends on what bush wants to accomplish.  we can't really judge his actions as clever or colossally idiotic unless we know his motivation and goals.

        here's an example... what if bush's goals were to punish al jazeera, threaten journalists in general and to provoke another terrorist attack?  then bombing doha would be clever - evil, but clever.

        not saying that is bush motivation, or even that the report is true.  just trying to give a reminder (to myself too) that this is an EXTREMELY secretive administration - and we really DON'T know what their goals are.  

        of course, not knowing is what freaks people out (me too) and is the source of endless theories as we feel need a need to try to make sense of it all.

        •  no, it would be idiotic (none)
          You make a good point, except for one thing: only an idiot would think he could order a military strike against a civilian target in a friendly country and not realize he just opened up a big ol' can of unimaginable trouble.

          Not only would it inflame the entire Arab world to take up arms against us, but we would incur the wrath of every single nation on earth, whether or not they were officially our ally at the time. The UN would be in an uproar, and he would lose all but the most wingnutty of his supporters here.

          If Bush had gone ahead with that attack, the calls for impeachment would be immediate and loud, even possibly from some members of the Republican Party.

          That is, if the attack had actually gone through. I tend to think that this is one of those orders that would be belayed somewhere along the chain of command. And then promptly hushed up.

          -8.25, -6.26 ain't "schadenfreude" if the bastards deserve it. this is infidelica...

          by snookybeh on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 08:52:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'll admit it would be a bit harder to pull off (4.00)
            but they'd just use the same ole arguments they've been trotting out for the rest of the take downs of journalists: they didn't know it was an Al Jazeera building, they had information that it was a terrorist site, etc., etc.
            Or they'd start one of those "investigations" (wink, wink) that never reaches any conclusion.
            •  the big problem... (none)
              with this is that we're talking about a military strike in a friendly, allied country way, way outside the theater of operations. I don't have a map of the Middle East, but I'm guessing that Qatar is hundreds of miles away from Iraq.

              those other journalist killings were done in the process of military operations in an ongoing war, in the theater of operations. What we're talking about would be about the same as Bush bombing a location in Mexico because he'd heard they were spreading anti-american propaganda.

              Ain't no f'ing way he'd get away with it. The very fact that he wanted to should be enough to impeach the bastard.

              -8.25, -6.26 ain't "schadenfreude" if the bastards deserve it. this is infidelica...

              by snookybeh on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:13:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  I'm inclined (none)
        to agree with you, except for the fact that the transcript is 5 pages long! If it was an offhanded comment, certainly it would have been laughed off and the conversation would have moved on to another topic.
        Who knows, maybe they did, the article doesn't say that all five pages were dedicated to the subject, but it makes it seem that way... (I like having an argument with myself, I can't loose!)

        When does 1984 end?

        by weelzup on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 04:49:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  it's a transcript of the full meeting (none)
          The remarks about bombing the Qatar offices are in there somewhere. They were discussing much more than killing journailsts. This is the transcript of Blair's meeting with Junior at the White House. I think it's unlikely we'll ever see the full memo released by the British Govt. for that reason.

          -7.00,-7.74 No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. -- Edward R Murrow

          by subtropolis on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 07:18:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Sort of like Ronnie RayGun (none)
        and his joke about pushing the button ... without realizing that the media mikes were hooked up and broadcasting live.  

        Can believe that the WPE would have joked about solving the problem by bombing Al Jazeera.

        Shrub is an idiot ... with an idiot's sense of humor ... Looking under the desk for WMD ... And, joking about bombing in an allied (coalition) country ...

        WPE certainly agrees with Putin about the role of a 'free press' ... If W and Dick had their way, about all we'd have would be Faux News, the Washington Times, and ...

        9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

        by besieged by bush on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 05:58:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure that there is anything... (none)
        ...that Shrubya isn't stupid enough to try.

        Thwarting the forces of conservatism since 1978. -7.63, -5.64

        by wiscmass on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 08:37:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  And People Wonder if Bush Wanted Plame Outed? (4.00)
        I believe, given the way this delinquent thinks the answer is a resounding "Hell, ya".
      •  Question: Do you ever follow the news? (4.00)
        If you are in stunned SILENCE because of the
        assertion that Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera
        in Qatar, then you must not like reading the
        news very much.

        The Bush administration murdered three journalists after Al-Jazeera showed pictures of
        the first slain American troops in Iraq.
        Bush/Rumsfeld had a tank fire on the Palestine
        Hotel (where the journalists were staying),
        and at the same time miles apart, dropped
        missiles on Al-Jazeera's and Al-Arabya's bureaus
        in Iraq... murdering three journalists.

        I guess as an American that didn't leave much
        of an impression with you ... maybe because
        murder is not such a big deal in your book??


        •  Well asked, (none)
          The Bush administration murdered three journalists after Al-Jazeera showed pictures of
          the first slain American troops in Iraq.[snip] I guess as an American that didn't leave much
          of an impression with you ... maybe because
          murder is not such a big deal in your book??
          and although I cannot, and would not, speak for the poster you addressed, I direct your attention (if you want an accurate assessment) to the ever-more-murderous nature of American culture. Grand Theft Auto, anyone?
          •  GTA?! (4.00)
            Listen here Mr poster...  I play Grand Theft Auto, Grand Theft Auto is a favorite game of mine...  Bombing Al Jazeera is not Grand Theft Auto Mr. Poster.  

            I am the neocon nightmare, I am a liberal with the facts.

            by bhfrik on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 11:00:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Remember the hit on the Palestine Hotel (none)
          which housed journalists in Baghdad. I actually saw a vido of the US tank slowly turn its turret, aim and fire directly at the hotel. "Ooops, so sorry, made a mistake" was the military's excuse. Am I skeptical? YES!

          This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

          by Agathena on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 02:56:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  This late at night... (none)
      Not a lot of conversation on dKos this late a night--especially at the beginning of the week.

      What comments lack, however, the recommend list confirms.  We care.

      Sign the petition for an open mid-term convention!

      by MadCasey on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 01:58:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Revelation" fatigue (4.00)
      has set in. The Pentagon just revealed what we knew years ago, that the US military used chemical weapons on civilians in Fallujah. Still stunned by this, Bush's evil desire to destroy al Jazeera, comes as no surprise. I have been following the Reporters without Borders reports on the deaths of journalists and media personnel in Iraq. (And for revealing this Eason Jordan was dismissed!!!)

      This above all: to thine own self be true,... Thou canst not then be false to any man.-WS

      by Agathena on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 04:20:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Your missing any evidence backing it up (none)
      "Unnamed sources" in an anti-Bush daily does not a conspiracy make. Bush is bad. That doesn't make every  speculative charge credible.
      •  What's wrong with you? (none)
        It's on AP now.

        How often does the British government prosecute civil servants for leaking nonexistent memos describing conversations that never happened?

      •  What's wrong with you? (none)
        It's on AP now.

        How often does the British government prosecute civil servants for leaking nonexistent memos describing conversations that never happened?

        •  Publish the document (none)
          I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying unnamed sources talking about a classified document aren't necessarily giving the whole picture. It's plausible that it was a very bad joke, ala Ann Coulter wishing the NYT was blown up. AP is only reporting on the other story, not adding anything to it. Just because it's classified doesn't mean it's some kind of smoking gun.

          I'm not defending Bush. In a world where by Bush's definition every person shot in Iraq is a terrorist I couldn't loathe the man more. But that doesn't mean this is anything more than an PR disaster. I'm prepared to be wrong but only when I see the actual documents.

    •  US Bombed Al Jazeera in Iraq (4.00)
      during the invasion of Iraq. I watched "The Control Room" last night. I had completely forgotten this incident. U.S. jets attacked Al Jazeera's offices (killing one of their reporters), another Arabic TV station's offices and the Palestine Hotel (where journalists resided), in each case claiming to have recieved enemy fire and in each case being contradicted by reliable eyewitnesses.

      "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

      by Christopher Day on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 06:38:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Blew up the Chinese embassy in Belgrade (none)
        some years back.

        And even shot down a civilian passenger airliner from Iran flying over the Persian gulf.  Back near the end of Reagan's second term.  July 3, 1988.  Today is my day for digging up BBC links for some reason.

        An American naval warship patrolling in the Persian Gulf has shot down an Iranian passenger jet after apparently mistaking it for an F-14 fighter.

        All those on board the airliner - almost 300 people - are believed dead.

        The plane, an Airbus 300, was making a routine flight from Bandar Abbas, in Iran, to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.

        The USS Vincennes had tracked the plane electronically and warned it to keep away. When it did not the ship fired two surface-to-air missiles, at least one of which hit the airliner.

        Navy officials said the Vincennes' crew believed they were firing at an Iranian F14 jet fighter, although they had not confirmed this visually.

        If Iran had "accidentally" shot down a US passenger airliner, we probably would have nuked Teheran.  This was back in the days when Saddam was till our "friend".

        Most of us have probably forgetting these things, or the younger ones never knew about it.  Or we virtually never think about it.  But you can bet the memory is more vivid in that part of the world.

  •  Holy Gipper, Batman! (none)
    This reminds me of "We begin bombing in five minutes."

    Chaos, fear, dread. My work here is done.

    by madhaus on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 12:18:34 AM PST

    •  You can almost imagine it.... (4.00)
      Bush making the suggestion and then looking at Tony Blair sitting there- in shock.  Blair starts to argue against the attack, and then Bush responds with "Ha ha ha.  Just kidding- gotcha there Tony!"  Sounds like a trial balloon being floated.  Had Bush been more literate, he could have paraphrased Henry the II, "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest."

      Don't forget the other unbelievable moments in recent USA history that should have been a joke:

      Assassination planned of Castro by Mafioso.
      Actual assasination of Chilean leader Allende.
      Nixon planning the dirty election tricks and subsequent cover-up of the Watergate break-in.
      Weapons for Hostages deals with Iran.
      Invasion of Greneda on a pretext.
      Invasion of Panama on a pretext.
      Illegal aiding of the Contra rebels in Nicaragua against the legal Sandanista government.
      Support for the death squads in El Salvador and probably Guatemala.
      Revealing the identity of an undercover CIA agent in order to smear her husband, who happens to be a credible source on the Bush effort to twist the intelligence on Iraq's WMD situation.

      I reluctantly believe it is possible that this government really did want to blow up the Al Jazeera offices.  

      Please feel free to add other international outrages perpetrated to this thread.    

      "At the very least, we should see to it that no one who works hard all week has to live in poverty and without access to good health care." William Raspberry

      by murrayewv on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 02:44:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ben Stiller in Dodgeball (none)
        I'm just kidding. But seriously, I'll bomb them.

        The dubya stands for freedom.

        by paraphrase on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 06:12:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Attempted Coup in Grenada (none)
        Invasion of Greneda on a pretext.

        The Grenada story is a little more complicated than that.  The Prime Minister, Maurice Bishop, had just been assassinated by a radical group, The New Jewel Movement (IIRC) which gave the Reagan admin a semi-legit reason to move in.

        •  Pretext was the medical school students... (none)
          supposedly needing to have American students at the medical school rescued after the coup.  But the ensuing invasion was more likely to have threatened the medical school students than anything.

          Reagan was convinced that Greneda was being taken over by Castro- Just like W is convinced Venezuela is being taken over by communists.

          "At the very least, we should see to it that no one who works hard all week has to live in poverty and without access to good health care." William Raspberry

          by murrayewv on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 09:14:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry, but little, if any (3.75)
          "semi-legitimacy" here.

          First, the invasion of Grenada was in large part to distract the US citizenry from the 241 Marines killed in Beirut just two days before.  Reagan didn't want to spend the next month being beaten to death with bad publicity over those dead soldiers when he had no plans to do anything in retaliation, so he made them "go away" by invading Grenada.  Of course, the decision to invade Grenada was made well before the Beirut car bombing.

          Second, the US backed the overthrow of Bishop.  The CIA had a government-in-exile, led by the brutal dictator Bishop replaced, Eric Gairy, already in place.  The US had cut off economic aid to Grenada since Bishop took office in 1979, and in 1981 conducted a practice invasion on the island of Vieques.  The problem was, the new PM was a Marxist, Bernard Coard.  The US couldn't have an even more leftist government in Grenada.

          The contention that Castro supported the coup is a lie; Castro was perfectly content working with Bishop and opposed the coup.  Another lie is that "thousands" of Cuban troops were on the island; when the US invaded on October 25, only 700 Cubans were on the island, and of that number, less than 100 were soldiers.  Another lie is that the Grenadan resistance collapsed almost immediately.  In reality, the Grenadans fought so fiercely that the US was forced to send in the first wave of reinforcements far sooner than expected.  Of course, by the time the US had 7000+ troops on the island, the Grenadans had no chance.

          Want more lies?  Supposedly US forces found a cache of sophisticated weapons for up to 10,000 soldiers, presumably Cuban; in reality, they found three warehouses less than 1/4 full of antiquated small arms confiscated from local militias.

          The most famous lie is that of the supposedly endangered US medical students, illustrated by the student kissing American soil after getting off the plane.  In reality, the students had every opportunity to leave the island before the invasion (the airport was not shut down by Grenadan authorities, as Reagan claimed).  Both Grenadan and Cuban military leaders took strong measures to ensure their safety.  90% of the students told school officials they did not want to be evacuated.  Many students did not leave even after the US occupied the island; most of the students gave anti-invasion statements to their military "debriefers," but only the pro-invasion statements were made public.  And if the medical school was in such danger, why did the US take three days to secure the facility?

          Of course, the new regime installed by the US is conservative, corrupt, brutal, and extremely favorable to US corporations (though things have relaxed a bit since the initial heavy restrictions of post-invasion 1983 and beyond).

          Don't feel too bad about getting Grenada wrong.  It was completely information-controlled by the Pentagon, with only happy, pro-US news (and fantasy posing as news) being reported.  Nice practice for later invasions.

          •  Thank you, Black Max, for your accurate summation (none)
            of the reality of our war against Grenada. Not all Americans were fooled at the time. I was lucky enough to be in close touch with quite a few Grenadians, some living in NYC [as I then was also] and some in Grenada. I started a paper on the true facts at the time, and was asked, by several Grenadian friends, not to endanger their lives by publishing my findings.

            Our nation has a long, long history of this sort of "just" intervention, dating back to before its founding.  

            •  I'd be interested (none)
              to know some of the details in your paper that your Grenadian friends were leery of having released.

              And thanks for the kind words!

              •  There was nothing, beyond the details you've (none)
                laid out; nothing provable. It was the fact that I would have been publicizing, immediately affter the invasion, facts which I could only have gotten from Grenadian eyewitnesses and/or their relatives and friends in NYC. If what they told me was lies, it still could have been an embarrassment to the administration. My witnesses would, at the very least, have been majorly harassed. If what I learned was the truth, it would still have been officially dismissed as lefty agitprop, but the perps would have known that they had been busted.
                Some of those same persons, when I announced my wish to publicize their accounts, pointed out that three days after the "federales" picked me up, the same thugs would be knocking on their doors. If they bothered to knock. These were all people who could have been murdered, with the death scenes staged to look like "a drug buy gone bad, that killed innocent neighbors."
                Considering what they had already convinced me that my government had done, I desisted. After Iran-Contra hit the news, I was glad I had listened to their warnings. Had it been only my own life, I doubt that fear would have silenced me [I was then, and still am that kind of fool.] but I could not put them at risk. When they talked to me, and told me things, it was because of friendship and out of outrage; they hadn't signed up for a crusade against injustice. I'm not good at accepting "collateral damage" when I go to "war."
                Now, more than 22 years later, I will share the [for me] most significant item of all; witnesses who said they saw the killing of Maurice Bishop, by non-Grenadian, non-Cuban strangers. These witnesses felt lucky at the time, to have escaped notice. Of course they shouldn't have told me but one was the brother of a dear friend --and I can be very persuasive.
                •  Jeez, so (none)
                  who the hell assassinated Bishop?  The US gov't didn't support the Coard uprising, but they did want Bishop out and had their own plans in the works.  (I assume they wanted to re-insert Gairy, which didn't happen.)  Castro didn't support the coup, and from what I understand was tolerant, if not particularly thrilled, by the Bishop government.  Mercenaries working for Coard?  CIA-paid assassins who knew the Coard regime was scheduled for a quick overthrow?  Little green men from the Reticulan Nebula?

                  Interesting, and debatable, that the Wikipedia entry for Grenada calls the New Jewel Movement "Stalinist" and claims Coard was a "Moscow agent."

                  •  Sorry to have missed your reply on (none)
                    Wednesday, holiday interrupted my schedule.

                    I've always assumed that it was CIA-sponsored assassins, acting to give an excuse for the US intervention. Just my opinion, no proof.

                    On Wikipedia political [and some other] definitions: I am of the opinion that a group compendium of "sacred truths" merely substitutes the biases of an aggregate of individuals for the bias of an individual author. This can lead to the enshrining of original error, under the rubric of "everyone accepts that.."
                    An individual author can be challenged on his/her assertions-as-facts much more readily than one can challenge groupthink which is based on lack of complete information [or mis-information].
                    In this specific case, I believe that it is always a mistake to label political movements as though they were mirrors of their originating ideologies. "People's movements" always possess some element of the circumstances which are specifically relevant to the culture they seek to alter. If they don't, they don't even make the news.

  •  Is he F___ing crazy? (4.00)
    But then we've seriously discussed taking over Saudi oil fields too.... (it was only a "discussion" - nothing "serious.")  

    Hey George - they are our ALLIES - as you keep saying....

    Besides they're all rigged to blow with dirty bombs (read "Twilight in the Desert").  Denies use of the fields to anyone who tries to take them over and if the House of Saud is overthrown, BOOM! and they're all off to Gstaad.

    A US Plan to do this was leaked by the UK in 84.  Made them nervous.  Probably why Hussein stopped at the Kuwait border too.  Think about it.... nothing was there to stop him...

    Carefully placed (and hidden) Semetex (? - Czech C-4) along with radioactive isotopes have supposedly been placed to destroy major fields and processing facilities - like degassigication and water separation plants.  The radioactivity makes the area unusable for 50-100 years.  

    Think of the effect on world oil supplies if THAT happens.....

  •  the united states would NEVER (4.00)
    attack journalists!!!

    what a "filthy lie"!  

    here are the REAL truths....

    three  after all, america RESPECTS the media! right?
    need i post more "truths"????  this is just a sampling....a quick and (very) dirty list - it no where NEAR covers the entire truth here...


    Voldemart lives again - in the white house!

    by edrie on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 12:24:22 AM PST

    •  Why has there been no coverage of this? (4.00)
      From link 3 above:
      "The number of journalists and support staff killed in Iraq since the start of the war in March 2003 now exceeds the toll among the media during two decades of fighting in Vietnam from 1955 to 1975, according to separate reports from two international journalists' organizations. The Brussels-based International News Safety Institute (INSI) said in a press release on 29 August: "Eighty-one members of the news media have died since the war began in March 2003, according to figures compiled by the Institute. More than half - 50 - were murdered by insurgents and other unidentified gunmen and bombers. American firepower is the next most significant cause of death. There is no firm evidence that US forces have deliberately targeted the news media. But there is widespread suspicion that American troops do not take adequate precautions to try to ensure the safety of journalists. None of the other Coalition forces has killed any journalists."

      Inquiring minds want to know?

      (-5.63,-6.10) "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

      by CyberDem on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 04:57:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  how do you spell (4.00)
        t a r g e t......

        our media is scared - of not being let in on the "inner circle" - of not being "embedded" - of not being "accepted".

        just listen to cnn and hear the repub talking points being recycled over and over without question.

        today, case in point:  bolton attacking the u.n. and another repub political hack whose name escapes me was also attacking.  NOT a single question or balance from the talking barbi doing the interview, she just let the slanted slurs pass on through...

        our media isn't.  period.  end of story.

        Voldemart lives again - in the white house!

        by edrie on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 06:14:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The Liberal Media (none)
        is too COWARDLY to cover some of the stories that you would think a liberal media would cover.

        I did NOT make up that talking point. It was used in a real political conversation when I started pressing a conservative about what he meant by "liberal media."

        That's why conservatives can't lose. They are masters of circular logic and lame rationalizations. (And if you tell them that, you are a mean, shrill liberal who is too stubborn to see outside of your narrow, bigoted views.)


        America: It's a good IDEA for a country ...

        by Tony Seybert on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 07:05:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Waiting for Dubya to bomb Air America (none)
      Of course Dubya would bomb Al Jaazeera. The better question is when he will try to take out Air America and Jones Radio (Ed Shultz).
  •  wow (4.00)
    He'd have to bomb the APTV offices in NYC and DC too, I suppose.  I did some freelance work for them several years ago (prior to 9/11, but would have afterwards as well had I been looking for some).  I used to do satellite feeds of their NYC stuff back to Qatar.  All of the Al Jazeera folks were quite nice to work with--both in the US and in Qatar who I only knew over the phone.
    •  al jazeera is bookmarked on my (none)
      computer and is a source i check regularly - the coverage is excellent - the journalists more honest that many american counterparts - they have many international correspondents whose stories are vastly superior to the pap that cnn puts out - AND, where else can we get a reading of what it feels like to be on the "other" side!

      where have we all been?  reading and REreading the articles because this is just to atrocious and serious to grasp with one reading.

      thank you SO much to bhfrick for posting this story!!!

      Voldemart lives again - in the white house!

      by edrie on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 12:41:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rumsfeld on Al-Jazeera (4.00)
           During the escalation to war, I was a journalism student in an Ethics in Media class. I had been curious about the full context of a Rumsfeld sound bite that was running all over American TV, but the US news had only the quickie version. I knew he had said a lot more than that, because I had jammed a tape into the VCR when I came across him being interviewed on Al-Jazeera TV. I searched everywhere for the text of what he said, and again, it was ONLY the English-language website of theirs that had it.
           So, I went to class armed with my info, and got as far as saying, "well, it got it from Al-Jazeera tv..." before the class erupted into booing my source. They never knew or even cared what Our Secretary of Defense was saying to the other side of the world, having somehow grown up indoctrinated by the idea that listening to anyone but ourselves is bad. They never even let me make my point after that, and had no sympathy even for the idea that understanding your "enemies" is part of The Art of War.
           Yes, those are the journalists of the future, (these same college students couldn't understand why the OSP was making me so mad...) standing there with fists raised protecting the status quo, while from behind, GWB & co. catapult the propaganda. As long as it's over their heads they don't care what it's aimed at.

        Personally, I think it's George W. Bush who hates people's freedom.

        ...learn something new every day...

        by nhwriter on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 04:01:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But, but, but ... (none)
          Academia is run by America-hating liberals! All academia is practically run by the al Qaeda/Al-Jazeera/Al Gore Axis! There is no way your story could have happened because liberals in academia force their students to get all their news from Al-Jazeera! And journalism students are well-known to be the Stalin's shock troops!

          (end of snark)

          America: It's a good IDEA for a country ...

          by Tony Seybert on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 07:14:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Where was the professor? (none)
          I can't imagine allowing my students to boo a classmate. Egads.
          •  At that point (4.00)
            I think he thought it was a lost cause. And this was an upper-level class full of people majoring in the subject... They point blank did NOT believe me when I stood up in the early spring before the war and said to them "Hey- I'm old enough that when I was your age a certain President Reagan sent a certain Donald Rumsfeld as our envoy to make deals with Saddam Hussein. I can remember jumping up and down and yelling then that he can't do that!" I managed to dredge up a grainy photo on the internet and they still were very reluctant to accept that history happened. These are "journalism" students who didn't know what "beneath the fold" meant, and and no one besides the myself and the prof knew the definition of the word "hegemony." The Age of Acquarius has spawned the Age of Attention Deficit. I certainly hope my school is a fluke. God help us if it isn't.

            ...learn something new every day...

            by nhwriter on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 09:24:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  oops "Aquarius"- and (4.00)
              by the way, these students were young enough that they could barely identify the Kent State photo, and had no clue what was happening in the naked-girl-running-from-Napalm photo. I hope it's just youth and inexperience, not pure apathy. Journalism Majors should be looking at, reading, and mentally filing everything they get their hands on. The ones I've met so far needed remedial English although it's their only language.

              ...learn something new every day...

              by nhwriter on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 09:32:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  My brother was in Iraq for a long time (4.00)
        He said that if you want to know what's happening in the Middle East, go to the media sources that (a) know the country and (b) are broadcasting stories to an informed and interested audience, namely people who live in the Middle East.

        For some strange reason, neither American broadcasters nor American viewers qualify.

        It's only Nero-esque if the city is burning. :)

        by cskendrick on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 04:58:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  i've been checking the middle east (none)
          news sites ever since shrub started the drumbeat for war - i wanted to see the view from the eyes of those most affected.  i've bookmarked every middle eastern site that is in english and frequent them on a regular basis - al jazeera, on a daily basis.  their articles are well written, well documented and MUCH less biased than anything produced in the american media.

          i also use pravda and other sources - and have started to search out south american sources.  i really regret being limited to english - it is a definite handicap.

          in the early days of aljazeera, it was not uncommon for the site to be "jammed" - not available - it was really quite pitiful - whenever i tried to email a response to a story, i got blocked.  ain't the patriot act grand!

          it is somewhat better now, but sometimes downloads hang up - a little too conveniently when the stories are not particularly flattering and i am sending them to gee! i wonder why THAT happens!

          Voldemart lives again - in the white house!

          by edrie on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 06:10:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Media Terrorism (4.00)
        Here is a link to the well-written al Jazeera article about the 5 page memo.  Important points:  the conversation was in 2004(!) and the person in Britain who leaked the memo is to face charges this Wednesday.

  •  I mean... (none)
    wow. Just wow. This certainly seems big to me. (You know you've got a problem when evidence surfaces the the government intentionally killed journalists and no one seems surprised)
  •  Well (none)
    1. It's the Mirror.  That's a tabloid.  You know, like the National Enquirer.
    2. In Qatar?  That's where the US press conferences were coming from at the start of the war.

    Come on, guys, use some common sense.  Google is so easy to use.  Try it sometime.

    You enter "US" and "Qatar" and the first hit is from the State Department:

    Background note: Qatar

    Qatari forces played an important role in the first Gulf War, and Qatar has supported U.S. military operations critical to the success of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Qatar hosts CENTCOM Forward Headquarters.


    Bilateral relations are strong and expanding... Ties between the U.S. and Qatar are excellent and marked by frequent senior-level consultations in Doha and Washington. Amir Hamad visited Washington in May 2003 and President Bush went to Qatar in June. Qatar and the United States coordinate closely on regional diplomatic initiative, cooperate to increase security in the Gulf, and enjoy extensive economic links, especially in the hydrocarbons sector.

    I wear the black in mournin' for the lives that could have been/ Each week we lose a hundred fine young men. -- Johnny Cash

    by Page van der Linden on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 12:36:42 AM PST

    •  I think thats what is shocking about this... (4.00)
      That we would contemplate bombing an ally.  

      As to the trustworthiness of the report, I originally saw it from a blog that linked to 9msm, and thats where I got the mirror link.  I suppose I could have just linked to msm and have let it rest on that but I sourced the story.  There seems to be something to it if the office of the prime minister refuses to comment on leaked documents.  I think the part that rings true is the whole downing street memo mystique...  Regardless I'm sure it will be denied vociferously by the administration if it gains traction at which point I would actually tend to believe it even more given their track record with the facts.

      I am the neocon nightmare, I am a liberal with the facts.

      by bhfrik on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 12:45:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  but (none)
      Sometimes those "rags" have an uncanny ability of breaking stories despite all the garbage they usually publish.
    •  qatar has been a "grudging" member (4.00)
      of this shakey coalition from the outset.  i read this site regularly - and while qatar is our supposed "allie" - they dance a fine line in the arab world.

      besides, al jazeera is not a part of the government - it is an independent news station.    

      our government "banned" their ability to broadcast in iraq - our politicians constantly deride the station - yet, from what i read on a regular basis, the news presented is in a very balanced form - even when from the arab perspective.  the problem with al jazeera is that they do not JUST present the "american" party line!

      Voldemart lives again - in the white house!

      by edrie on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 12:59:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not so much a tabloid as you think (none)
      The Daily Mirror under Piers Morgan took proactive steps to become more serious and enlisted a wide variety of "no-nonsense" commentators to write for them.

      They still do the sensational headline stuff, but definitely not in the same league as The Sun, The Sport and The Daily Star.

      •  Ok, I'll take your word for it... (none)
        ... but it just sounds so unlikely to me.  But then, I've been told that I'm too much of a skeptic, at times ;-)

        I wear the black in mournin' for the lives that could have been/ Each week we lose a hundred fine young men. -- Johnny Cash

        by Page van der Linden on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 03:05:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Mirror is a different animal (4.00)
          Than the Enquirer or otherwise here in the US.  In the ultra-liberal media climate that reigns in most of Europe (oh if only the Neocons knew what a MODERATE press we have!), dirt on politicians is just as good as dirt on celebrities, and stories like this are investigated as such.

          The difference is, where US tabloids will write 15 to 20 articles a month about "Brad and Jen," the British ones will do the same about Tony Blair, if the story permits.  While its true that much of the articles are still fashioned out of rumor and heresay, that doesn't change the fact that the pictures of Kate Moss really WERE of her snorting cocaine, Brad and Jen really DID break up, Angelina really DID adopt a new child, etc; and it doesn't mean that the Downing street memos aren't real.

          The British public takes their society more seriously than Americans do, and as a result, their pop journalism covers more serious issues.  The reporting is just as fervent and annoying, but at the same time, the Mirror more often breaks very SERIOUS and controversial stories which, unlike their American counterparts, sometimes have absolutely nothing to do with drugs and sex.

          Sign the petition for an open mid-term convention!

          by MadCasey on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 04:34:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  All that's missing is DHinMI cussing at people... (none)
          ...and we'll have the whole "Americans would never do such a thing" team.
        •  On Balance (none)
          How many of the tinfoil stories of the last five years have ended up being true, or even underestimated?

          Everybody told me i was nuts to think:
          2000 FL vote was rigged
          2004 OH vote was rigged
          Patriot Act was reincarnation of J.Edgar Hoover
          2004 vote meant end of legal abortion
          Torture is US policy
          They really would push Creationism in schools
          They want to remake PBS into Fox News
          Neocons would out a CIA agent for political revenge...
          And on and on.

          Skepticism is great for making us go digging for data, but it so often confirms paranoia with this bunch.
          Today NPR had the story of Bushco trying to bankrupt Amtrak then give it to corporate cronies.
          Add it to the pile.

          Whenever I think "No, even THEY wouldn't go that far" I get reminded of Paul Wellstone.

          Keeping tabs on this cabal is like watching cannibalism. It's the extremity of unpleasant, but don't let sensibilities detour you from monitoring their actions.
          What would you do if

          1. You had NO morality or conscience, and
          2. Global domination was the goal

          Murder? Done. Ask an Iraqi.
          Perjury? Only if you count lying in the SOTU.
          War for profit? Uh huh.
          Historical levels of fraud? Daily.
          Sleep with an intern? OK, you got me there.
    •  Nope it's real... (4.00)
      and if you read the full Mirror article carefully to the end you'll see why. A Civil Servant and a Parliamentary researcher are currently being prosecuted in the UK under the Official Secrets Act (remember that's the law Patrick Fitzgerald explained WASN'T applicible in the US when dealing with the Plame leak). The case is already underway but until now the only information about what was in it refered to "movements of British troops" obviously to impress how dangerous and sensitive the information was and how important it was to keep it secret. This seems now to have been a bit of spin to mask the real meat and explains why the civil servant wanted to leak it in the first place - to an anti-war Labour MP. The MP didn't bite (possibly fearing entrapment? As you say the story is so outrageous) and immediately returned the document to the authorities. Howeever, almost as incredibley, his researcher is still being prosecuted for RECEIVING the document - yes that's right, under the Law you can be taken to court for being the recipient of classified information. Given the MP's comments at the end of the story I wonder if this has lead to another classic "own goal" by the authorities?
    •  ah, common sense (4.00)
      Yes, Qatar is a small country, but you do realize that this isn't about carpet bombing, don't you? CENTCOM isn't headquartered next door to the al-Jazeera offices. Read the Mirror article.

      -7.00,-7.74 No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. -- Edward R Murrow

      by subtropolis on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 06:08:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Perils for journalists from US forces (4.00)
    I was thinking about journalists being killed in the dozens yesterday.  There is no doubt in my mind that it is a deliberate part of the military campaign in this spin-oriented, propoganda-driven war.  Those who report truth are the enemies of those who promote fictions.

    From the Boston Globe:

    The Committee to Protect Journalists says 58 journalists and 22 media workers -- which includes support staff such as translators and drivers -- have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of the war in March 2003. An estimated 66 journalists were killed covering the Vietnam conflict over two decades, and an estimated 68 during World War II.

    In Iraq, insurgents are believed to be responsible for the deaths of at least 34 journalists, including five Iraqi reporters killed in the city of Mosul by unknown gunmen.

    The circumstances of many deaths are unknown. But 13 deaths came at the hands of the US military, according to an analysis by the Committee to Protect Journalists, which filed Freedom of Information Act petitions on the military investigations of the deaths.

    Reporters Without Borders has counted at least 10 journalists killed by US forces.

    "Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing - after they have exhausted all other possibilities." Winston Churchill

    by LondonYank on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 12:45:07 AM PST

    •  perils for ANYONE from both sides (none)
      I don't think that Globe article supports any arguement that journalists are being targeted by US forces. Yes, the pace of journalists being killed or injured is much higher than in Vietnam, but one must consider that much of Iraq has become extremely dangerous to operate in. Unlike Vietnam, much of the conflict in Iraq has been urban in nature, making it much more likely to be caught up in any violence.

      Remember during the invasion, watching live pictures of tanks on a bridge in downtown Baghdad? At one point, a Warthog ground attack aircraft strafed journalists who were filming. One of the tanks opened fire on the balcony. Were they deliberately targetting journalists? More than likely not. More probably, someone mistook the cameraman as a defender with an anti-tank weapon. Fog of war, and all that. I just haven't seen any evidence to make me believe that there has been deliberate targetting of journalists.

      I don't mean to belittle the deaths of these journalists at all. I know all too well that it's an extremely dangerous occupation in areas of conflict. A few years ago, a friend of my girlfriend's, Ian Stewart, was shot in the head in Sierra Leone by a drunken rebel while travelling with Nigerian peacekeepers. He survived (though gravely injured) but Miles Tierney, an AP TV producer, was killed instantly.

      In any case, though, this memo is very troubling. Unfortunately, nothing will come of it, i imagine.

      -7.00,-7.74 No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. -- Edward R Murrow

      by subtropolis on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 06:37:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hesus Christay! (none)
    that seals it.

    he really is what we all think he is...

    jesus... attempted murder? and why aren't they arresting him exactly? this memo would seem to to be telling us all that bush is guilty of the attempted terrorist bombing and murder of a news agency headquarters?

    that's osama-style terrorism.

    if fucking bush had dark skin, he'd be in a chicken coop in cuba by now. 100%.

    we're all in a lot of danger.

    f this blog thing... this freak's gonna start gunnin' for us next.

    psycho... jesus...

    you know. you always figure he does all this shit because he thinks it's for the longterm good or some crap... long term vision... crappy long term vision... but somehow...


    totally blown away here... i guess i shouldn't be so surprised... but this is really psycho. in your face psycho... now i start to realize why blair might have played along... merely to keep this lunatic under control.

    this fucking piece of shit needs to be in prison.


    and i guess this means he really did order hits on the journalists...


    so he tried to kill sgrena too?

    psycho... total psycho.


    this guy thinks he's his dad...

    only he doesn't know what the fuck he's doing.

    first rule. don't get caught.


    dumbass psycho killer wants to be his dad... what a fucking loser... fry him.

    U.S. blue collar vs. CEO income in 1992 was 1:80; in 1998 it was 1:418.

    by Lode Runner on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 01:24:07 AM PST

    •  Yeah... like this will get one moment of M$M time (none)
      You think this will ever hit the US M$M?

      Maybe a Sat. edition page 22 two paragraph mention in the WP and NYT. That's gonna be it.

      •  I am stunned (4.00)
        by how many people here are surprised that the Bushies would do such a thing.

        One thing these thugs are more than aware of is the importance of media control and that is all that this is to them.

        I think that the most surprising thing is that they ran the idea past a non-cabal member even if it was the poodle.

        'Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it'. - GBS

        by stevej on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 06:26:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not. (none)
          I'm not going to pick at scabs that aren't really healed yet right now. That said, I think it's fair to say that topics that were "speculative" in nature and not yet breaking through into the mainstream media were not and are not terribly welcome at DKos. Some sort of mainstream media authentication is required before the "America would never do such a thing" team would back off and stop handing out troll ratings and cussing at people.

          By that, I don't necessarily mean the network TV and the NYT, but you at least had to have something from a source like The Nation, Vanity Fair, sometimes maybe Village Voice, etc.

          Threads that could be described as "speculative" or "group-thinking-out-loud"... not terribly welcome.

          •  This site doesn't welcome facts either (none)
            The fact is that the assaults on the
            Palestine Hotel, Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabya
            were co-ordinated.  And were intended to
            send journalists a message.  Rumsfeld murdered
            three innocent reporters... with depraved
            indifference to the loss of innocent human life.

            What more FACT CHECKING do you need to do than
            to read the facts about:

            1) Rumsfeld being furious that Al-Jazeera showed
            pictures of dead American soldiers in the early
            days of the war, and

            2) That at virtually the exact same time U.S. forces attacked three discreet buildings in different parts of Baghdad, miles apart --al Jazeera's bureau in Baghdad; al-Arabya's bureau
            in Baghdad; and, the Palestine Hotel which was known as the place where journalists were
            staying in Iraq.

            Two questions for Kos!

            1)These dots aren't too hard to connect, are they?, and

            2) Will you state unequivocally that you do not
            turn over information regarding individuals who post on your website to the government (CIA, DOD, etc.)?


        •  Agreed. No shock here (4.00)
          You know those guys calling in to Hannity and saying we should bomb Mecca? George W. Bush IS that guy. He has that EXACT same mentality. He came of age around yahoos whose political philosophy revolved around far, far right wing idiocies. "Fuck paying taxes for welfare cheats, fuck the blacks, fuck the poor, bomb the fucking commie homos, we shoulda nuked Hanoi, FDR was a fucking traitor, execute the fuckers, if you're accused of somthin you're guilty..."

          And so on. There is no barrier between the rabble and this administration. None. That guy calling Hannity is the fucking UN Ambassador. Or the Undersecrtary of Defense for Policy.

          Nothing should shock us. nothing.

          The Right is killing America

          by grushka on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 09:49:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  What makes you think (none)
          he is not a member of the cabal. I think I've heard he has a place with the Carlyle Group eventually. I think he is a paid-up member.

          The most courageous act is still to think for yourself. Aloud. -Coco Chanel

          by Overseas on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 02:10:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  you forgot to include (none)

      Voldemart lives again - in the white house!

      by edrie on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 06:26:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  no doubt... (none)
        i can't help but like chavez... despite all his dictatorial crap...

        taking land away from rich white landowners and giving it to the poor original inhabitants/squatters...

        that's just exactly the type of thing that needs to happen all over the world in my opinion. i give a fuck about development. people need to be able to grow their own food.


        i just can't argue against that.

        U.S. blue collar vs. CEO income in 1992 was 1:80; in 1998 it was 1:418.

        by Lode Runner on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:04:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  not to mention his offer to sell (none)
          the u.s.of a cheap gas and fuel for the winter!  talk about screwing bush's friends in texas...


          Voldemart lives again - in the white house!

          by edrie on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:27:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Rumsfeld Ordered Attacks on Palestine Hotel, .... (3.25)
    I am in possession of information that proves
    Rumsfeld personally ordered the attacks on
    the media in Baghdad.

    Remember when the first U.S. casualties in Iraq occurred?  There were 10 U.S. service men who
    were killed and their corpses were shown lying
    on the ground in a vacant building.

    RUMSFELD WAS FURIOUS... In fact he literally
    went storming through the Pentagon on a rampage.
    He personally ordered attacks on the media
    through channels that are top secret and go
    directly to an elite command.

    The VERY NEXT DAY, U.S. forces mounted a co-ordinated attack on the Palestine Hotel killing Spanish and Ukranian journalists.  At the very same time, U.S. missles struck Al-Arabya and Al-Jazeera in Baghdad. . . killing Tarek Ayoub, a cameraman with a three year old daughter.

    Donald Rumsfeld is a war criminal.  He has the blood of three journalists on his hands.
    He was under criminal complaint in Belgium for war crimes, but he vowed not to attend a NATO meeting in Brussels in 2004 unless the Belgians changed their law --as you may recall, he threatened to have the NATO headquarters moved to eastern Europe.  Sadly, the Belgians withdrew the war crimes complaint.

    Our leaders are war criminals, America!  And the only thing Americans are angry about is how damn expensive gas is.  Corruption to the soul of a nation... and the people can't even see how deep the corruption is... corrupted priorities... corrupted souls... money, status, possessions...
    = American dream.... money, status, possessions... that's about as profound as it gets for the average American citizen.


    •  Personal possession? (none)
      You should share it with someone like Seymour Hersch or Keith Olbermann.

      Fast, before anyone comes after you.

      •  Yes, Super Top Secret Information (none)
        It's called reading between the lines of
        the NYT, WaPo, Washington Times, the blogs...


        •  Separate fact from 'analysis' / 'speculation' (none)
          You asserted that

          "I am in possession of information that proves Rumsfeld personally ordered the attacks on the media in Baghdad."

          These are, clearly, quite strong words.  "... proves ... personally ..."

          This clearly implies that you have something that could, basically, stand up in court and that could be critical for a Seymour Hersh or other true journalist.  

          What does this comment tell other Kossacks?  That your comment is based on your 'analysis' or, perhaps, 'speculation' based on the reporting of the Palestine Hotel incident.

          You are asserting that Don Rumsfeld, in a traceable act here, personally gave orders to commit a war crime.  It would have been a far more reasonable posting to state that "I believe that ..." or "All the evidence points to ..." rather than your assertion of having "proof".  

          You don't have proof, you have speculation ...

          This is, IMHO, unproductive ...

          9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

          by besieged by bush on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 06:10:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  See below (none)
            for links to the reports. On that same day April 8, 2003, in Baghdad,  
            1. US bombed Al Jazeera offices with a smart missile,
            2. US attacked and surrounded Abu Dhabi TV offices,
            3. hit the Palestine Hotel, that was well known  by everyone to house the int'l independent journalists.  

            All by accident [wink-wink], Rumsfeld claimed.
            •  I am not denying possibility .. (none)
              And have, since 8 April 2003, been concerned about the circumstances of these incidents along with the general question of how -- by happenstance -- it was Al Jazeera facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq that got hit, but not CNN or FauxNews.  

              These are serious issues that are, sadly, among the tens ... hundreds ... perhaps thousands of serious issues that will not get a real examination as long as BushCo holds the reins of power.  They merit investigation and ... perhaps ... even prosecutions.

              But, Rumsfeld's snide dismissal of the implications of the attack and claims that they are all accidents does not, necessarily, translate into his giving orders for such attacks.

              As well, having been one who spent years living amid operational environments, it is quite problemmatic to claim "well known by everyone" about anything.  Truth be told, there are a lot of 'everyones' amid a military operation, there is a tremendous amount of information/knowledge to be known, and 'left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing' is a common (and real) affliction of military operations.  

              While regrettable, it does not strike me as impossible that Palestine Hotel was heat of battle ... it becomes troubling, as you argue, when this is put into a larger pattern.

              9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

              by besieged by bush on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 06:52:20 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  U have got to be a military person! (none)
                There is no way on earth you are not military.
                Your methodology is military, and your remarkable capacity to ignore facts that conflict with your fixed notions is stunning.
                I wrote that I observed Rumsfeld at a news conference (yes, I saw him on TV ...oooh how subversive!!) and he was s-h-a-k-i-n-g mad
                about the depictions of dead U.S. troops on
                Arab stations.  
                So that is part of the "secret information" I
                I also read the newspapers, and read about
                the attacks on the Palestine Hotel... and
                that to a man, not a single civilian indicated
                that there was any munitions fire in the area
                until the U.S. military opened up on the hotel.
                I read about the simultaneous attacks on
                Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabya.  American attacks, btw.
                Rumsfeld wink-winked and said they "would investigate" and speculated it might have been
                an accident.  Well, sir, if you have any
                belief that these attacks were accidents...
                you're not even worthy of discussion. You're a shill, pure and simple...Transparent.. like so many of the lies the Pentagon has perpetuated...
                the Jessica Lynch lie... the Pat Tillman lie...
                the "last throes" lie... the "2,000 dead-enders" lie (that was 2,000 in 2003!...We've killed more than 8,000 by the Pentagon's own count since then!)... the lies about civilians killed...
                the lies about White Phosphorous... just yesterday they lied again... saying three
                civilians died... when in fact five died....
                The Pentagon must have a policy of dividing the
                actual civilian death tally by 2.  [I've noticed this time and time and time again... people on the ground say six civilians were gunned down by American troops... and people on the ground from various sources say it was 12.... just yesterday
                the U.S. Army spokesman said three civilians died... people in the morgue and on the street said it was 5.]

                Also, I couldn't care less how you rate my posts.
                Why should I care what a psyops DOD employee thinks... ?

                I'm stopping... You're a shill and a psyops person. I don't know why I'm wasting my time.

                •  Excuse me ... (none)
                  but your rants continue ...

                  No ... not military.  No, not PSYOPs ...  Could you try to explain why a PSYOP person would waste their time arguing this with you?  Not sure why I am wasting mine ...

                  I fully agree with you about the immorality of how the BushCo has continued to act -- for years -- as if running the government is somehow the same as running an ugly political campaign.  That it is, somehow, appropriate to put campaign communications lackeys directly into military public relations spots.  That truth is somehow, legitimately, beneath them and something that the American public does not deserve.  Their lies and distortions are across all policy issues -- not just Lynch and Tillman, White Phosophorus ... but how about the inflated count of 'coalition partners' in the days before the invasion started ... how about the dishonest framing about medical, food safety, environmental, and so many other issues ... That, across the board, the word 'investigation' has a different meaning for Rethugs than the general public and that there has yet to be a BushCo regime investigation that we can trust to have been done honestly and been honestly reported to the nation.  See -- we are in tremendous agreement ...

                  But ... but ...

                  There is that old expression, "pot calling the kettle black" ... seems quite apropos re "remarkable capacity to ignore facts that conflict with your fixed notions is stunning."  

                  Nowhere did I write that I "knew" that the US forces did not deliberately attack journalists. Don't even think I posted that I thought this was not the case ...

                  What I have posted -- numerous times now -- are challenges to your leaps between items of information to define causation when that causative leap is not present.

                  Your rants remain rude and libelous -- again, not just against me but also other here.  You write 'ignorant' ... 'shill' ... 'Bush crooney' ... your rudeness demeans any thoughts that you bring to the table. And, that is sad ...

                  9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

                  by besieged by bush on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 12:44:48 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Some people are REALLY gullible. (none)
            HERE'S MY PROOF:

            1) Rumsfeld being furious that Al-Jazeera showed
            pictures of dead American soldiers in the early
            days of the war, and

            2) That at virtually the exact same time U.S. forces attacked three discreet buildings in different parts of Baghdad, miles apart --al Jazeera's bureau in Baghdad; al-Arabya's bureau
            in Baghdad; and, the Palestine Hotel which was known as the place where journalists were
            staying in Iraq.

            I take it that you find these dots so hard to
            connect.  God forbid that you should ever serve on a jury.  Yes, I think Nos 1 and 2 above
            are sufficient to establish the link to Rumsfeld.
            God only knows that less evidence was required to indict military leaders in Nurenberg.
            Circumstantial evidence is still evidence, my friend. And this is compelling circumstantial evidence.

            Let's see... who is ultimately responsible for what happens in Iraq... I think Bush and Rumsfeld
            are reasonable answers to that... respondeat superior is the Latin phrase that means the
            boss is responsible for what the lower-downs do.
            And, let me ask you this question: Do you think
            the Pentagon acted alone without consulting Rumsfeld or Bush (who micromanages too much in the Pentgon anyway)... before they bombed three media outlets in Iraq?  

            You must believe that these the well-documented attacks were just some cosmic coincidence...
            you know... like the missiles just had a mind of their own... and wouldn't you know it, they just coincidentally happened to hit the news outlets that had so incensed Rumsfeld!  Golly gee, I think I'll believe the Pentagon that there was no intention to strike journalists... How old are you by the way... born yesterday, I'm hoping, for your sake!

            So that's my proof... let's hear the military defender's response.


            •  Proof ???? (none)
              Your place two dots on a paper and then assert that a line connects them.

              This shows a clear lack of understanding, at a minimum, of how large organizations work.

              If Rumsfeld was, as you claim, ranting and raving at "virtually the exact same time" the attacks occurred, how did the military machine have the ability to translate his anger into those attacks?  There is planning, orders, moving forces around, etc ...

              Your 'conspiracy' theory here places an incredible amount of capability in DODs ability to operate incredibly effectively on the spur of the moment, something that has sadly been proven all too often is not the case.

              There are enough substantive and factual reasons for indicting BushCo for their arrogant incompetence and damage that they have done to the nation (and the world) without having to create conspiracy theories.

              Again, as noted elsewhere, at the end of the day, you might be proven right.  However, in this discussion, in your heated rhetorhic, you have not provided anything like proof and we are left with supposition.

              9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

              by besieged by bush on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 11:41:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Besieged by Bush... You MUST be a Bush croney! (none)
            You're very pathetic. And obviously aren't interested enough in what is happening in Iraq to form much of a credible opinion.
            My response to your libel is just below.
            •  You lower yourself further ... (none)
              in tenor, tone, and content.

              You suggest that my comments "libel" you by questioning you about sources while you choose to label me a "Bush crooney" which, in this environment, is closest to the worst epithet that someone can throw around. (For any Kossack who is concerned, hit my name and check out my diaries / comments / etc ... don't think my record here suggests 'Bush crooney' or anything Rethug.)

              You continue this with "pathetic" etc ...

              Try checking out my diaries ... my substance ... before you start throwing around libelous labels.  My problem with your entire discussion in this thread is that you take facts (the fact that US forces hit Al Jazeera facilities; that many journalists have died), assert something that might be true but does not seem to have been generally reported (Rumsfeld storming around raging about Al Jazeera reports); and make a linkage asserting that Rumsfeld -- evidently in his rage -- directly ordered that these attacks occurred.

              You stated that you were in possession of facts that "proved" this.  When challenged, you stated that this was from 'reading between the lines' of press reporting. 'Reading between the lines' suggests speculation -- perhaps even informed speculation -- but is not proof.

              You are ranting around here in this diary -- badmouthing multiple Kossacks other than myself.  

              Perhaps your passion is to be admired ... but not at how you express it or throw it around.

              Earlier I stated why I rated you as unproductive -- with this comment, that was generous.

              9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

              by besieged by bush on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 11:30:56 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Apologies for the Ad Hominems.... (none)
              Didn't mean to make this a personal thing...
    •  Exactly, except it was (none)
      Rummy and Shrubya.  Remember the 'hacking' of Al-Jazeera's website was right after those same events, and the English Al-Jazeera page remained down for the duration of the war.  

      And though the FBI supposedly 'investigated', no one knows just how this happened.

      Mark Twain -Let me make the superstitions of a nation and I care not who makes its laws or its songs either.

      by Kingsmeg on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 05:05:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rumself is a HUGE war criminal (none)
        The fact is that the co-ordinated attack on the
        media outlets throughout Baghdad came shortly
        after Donald Rumsfeld's haired was CURLED by
        anger when the Arab news agencies showed
        evidence of dead American soldiers on their
        websites and news broadcasts.  Rumself was
        obviously incensed  -you could see that on the TV.  

        Then came the attacks... on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad...
        ... on the Al-Jazeera Baghdad Bureau a couple
        of miles away... and...
        ... on the Al-Arabya bureau...some distance from
        The Pentagon lied about the attacks (as usual),
        saying that there was something that looked
        like a weapon that they had to fire at.
        They killed three journalists. Non-combatants.

    •  Basis for claims ... (none)
      "RUMSFELD WAS FURIOUS... In fact he literally
      went storming through the Pentagon on a rampage."

      *  Do you have traceable sources about this?

      "He personally ordered attacks on the media through channels that are top secret and go directly to an elite command."

      *  Again, sources???

      "The VERY NEXT DAY, U.S. forces mounted a co-ordinated attack on the Palestine Hotel killing Spanish and Ukranian journalists."

      *  Having read the materials that day and since re Palestine hotel, coordinated certainly would not be the word that I would use to describe the confusion that seemed to reign.  In addition, if it was an 'elite command', why was the Palestine Hotel attacked by a regular unit (rather than some form of black Special Forces element)?

      9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

      by besieged by bush on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 06:55:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So what is your office in the Pentagon. (1.00)
        Look, if you're working for Rumsfeld,
        the Belgians had arrest warrants in the works for
        him... None of this is mysterious or "top-secret"
        stuff.  Tell Don to stop sweating about my posts on this site.  I'm a guy who reads the newspaper and nothing more ... I've never worked for government (thank god!)!  The Pentagon's lies and prevarications are not as sophisticated as you might think.  I find them quite transparent and can so often see EXACTLY what is happening behind the scenes.  Maybe my statements sound as though I must have some "inside" information.  Believe me, you guys telegraph more "inside" information without even realizing it even as you're lying about what's happening, sorry to say. That's why 65% percent of Americans don't trust you guys any more.

        Tell you what, I have a lot of other dots I've connected from what I read in the various papers and blogs and TV news... I do read papers from overseas too, which are invaluable for some information that we never get here.

        Let me know if you want to make contact and I will tell you guys why you're coming across as

        •  Stop your name calling (none)
          and other wrath in this diary ... both against me and others.

          So, what makes you think that I have a problem with international (or US) arrest warrants for Rumsfeld or other members of this regime?

          Why in the world would you think that you have some great advantage over other Kossacks re reading foreign press?  You think that isn't a trait among many of us? That many Kossacks are also looking at EuropeanTribune -- just to mention one international blog environment?  As for me, do you want to duel as to how many languages you are reading press in versus me every day?  Based on statistical norms for US college graduates, odds are pretty high that you won't match my count.

          By the way, why brag "I've never worked for government (thank god!)!"??  There is an old creed: if you want the government (or name your organization) to be honest, capable, ..., don't you want honest and capable people working for it.

          Same line re 'liberal' / 'progressive' / etc ...

          You write of government as an 'evil', evidently, which seems right in line with BushCo (which is, government is evil if it is not funding BushCo friends and interests).  In my mind, government is a tool that -- when working correctly -- helps society work better and move forward.

          9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

          by besieged by bush on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 11:51:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  SEVEN LANGUAGES (none)
            passable MANDARIN
            weak JAPANESE

            And your languages are?

            •  Fair enough ... (none)
              you do top me ...

              my daily reading includes material in French and Russian with occasional reading in my less capable German, Italian, and Spanish.  Have other languages, but am not reading in them.

              9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

              by besieged by bush on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 12:29:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So, are you psyops? (none)
                So, are you psyops?  Must be kind of interesting.

                The oriental languages are my favorite...
                the most challenging too. And so
                now you know something personal about me.
                Should I be worried? The reading in Mandarin has taken years and years. Japanese is similar (the Kanji) but also contains Hiragana, Katakana alphabet etc.

                As for the Rumsfeld thing, I'd just really like to see justice done some day for the deaths of those three innocent family men.  Wouldn't you?
                I find it quite outrageous that we would be targeting journalists that way. Hell, our own
                military EMBEDDED troops. I guess they were expected to be cheerleaders for the war... which
                they were.  That's not a journalist... that's a shill... a propagandist.  The United States is better than that!  

                I think because the causus belli is so weak and
                diffused, that selling the war was so critical.
                That's a bad sign when you have to so all kinds
                of psyops operations on YOUR OWN PEOPLE in order
                sell a war.


              •  So where abouts do you live... you in the DC area? (none)
                How did you get interested in languages?
              •  Just read your response below... (none)
                Much of what I've written here is answered
                in your post below.
          •  Apologies for any personal attacks... (none)
            See above... regarding your position.. if
            you are psyops... you're wasting your time
            on this site.. these people are fairly savvy.

            Oh, and by the way... I admire KOS and really
            like what he's doing... but if it turns out
            he's involved with identifying people who do
            not support Bush on this war... there'll be
            hell to pay from his readers.

            •  Doubt that ... (none)
              PSYOP or IO community has enough time to be posting like this and creating a track record (like you can see via diaries and comments) on a quite broad range of issues to then stand in and try to create discord on a specific issue.  On the other hand, considering the Rolling Stone account of John Rendon, maybe there is enough resources going to contractors to do that sort of thing.

              And, to be clear, I am not a government employee and have not been one for over 20 years.  And, I doubt that a part-time job in a library counts as the type of government service that you were accusing me of.

              As for Kos, wonder what he'd do if giving papers under the Patriot Act.  Actually would be not at all surprising if he has been hit with this requirement already at some time ...

              9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

              by besieged by bush on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 12:33:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  No transcript? (none)
    I will be interested to read full transcript, or better yet a photocopy of original document.  Not that I don't trust the media ......
  •  Crazy (4.00)
    The thing that this really shows is how crazy Bush is.  We're talking batshit fucking crazy, Caligula crazy, Hitler-chewing-the-carpet crazy. And he's President of the most powerful country in the world, with an arsenal of nukes.

    You just better hope he doesn't take a dislike to Daily Kos...

  •  Eating my skeptical words (4.00)
    The AFP has the story:

    US President George W. Bush planned to bomb pan-Arab television broadcaster al-Jazeera, British newspaper the Daily Mirror said, citing a Downing Street memo marked "Top Secret".

    The five-page transcript of a conversation between Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveals that Blair talked Bush out of launching a military strike on the station, unnamed sources told the daily which is against the war in Iraq.

    The transcript of the pair's talks during Blair's April 16, 2004 visit to Washington allegedly shows Bush wanted to attack the satellite channel's headquarters.

    Tony Blair is such a tool.

    I wear the black in mournin' for the lives that could have been/ Each week we lose a hundred fine young men. -- Johnny Cash

    by Page van der Linden on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 03:20:30 AM PST

    •  thanks for the correction, pp (4.00)
      here, have some louisiana hot sauce to go with your snack....

      what struck me in the article in the mirror was the specificity and the citing of clark, kroegh and o'connor.  seems they are being charged with releasing secret documents (UNLIKE their american counterparts) - that lent the credibility i was looking for...


      Voldemart lives again - in the white house!

      by edrie on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 06:17:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Might as well scare a few Senators, too... (4.00)
    If you want to intimidate the press, maybe you could threaten to poison them too.... Gosh, SOMEBODY also sent anthrax* to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Pat Leahy, right when the legality of the Patriot Act was being "discussed." Oh, and they sent some to that pesky, nosy damn Democrat running the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham. Oh, and noted pesky, nosy, loudmouth Democrats Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Dianne Feinstein and Joe Lieberman got some too, as well as that pesky, back-talking rebel Republican Arlen Specter.* So, what's the big deal about killing a few foreigners? :) :) :)

    *(proudly made in the U.S.A., by the way)

    *(But they're BOUND to catch the real poisoners anytime now. Really - they ARE.)

  •  Maybe (none)
    it's because of all the boils and pockmarks on his ass, which made Bush suppose that perhaps terrorists had already succeeded in bombing his own hindquarters.
  •  Top Secret' War Memo? Change of title on Sky News (4.00)
    how interesting

    Calls For Blair/Bush Talks Transcript
    Top Secret' War Memo

    •  Mirror says the same (none)
      Apparently, the memo also discusses 'troop movements', so, yes, it would have been 'top secret'. At the time, of course. Not much need to keep that info classified anymore, but i don't doubt that there's other sensitive information in the document.

      -7.00,-7.74 No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. -- Edward R Murrow

      by subtropolis on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 06:41:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is HUGE (none)

    Tarheel born, tarheel bred! And when I die, I'll be tarheel dead.

    by NCYellowDog on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 04:58:29 AM PST

  •  Thanks for finding this. (none)
    My sister (who lives in London) told me about it this morning, but she could not provide a link as she heard it on the radio. I tried to find one, but couldn't.

    Gee, George, why DON'T you just bomb Kuwait... our ALLIES.

    What a tool.

    "Lies, lies, lies, ye-ah... they're going to get you." --The Thompson Twins

    by modchick65 on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 05:05:55 AM PST

  •  Makes you wonder (none)
    ...what other batfucking crazy stuff he was talked out of that we don't know about!
  •  Bush targetting Al Jazeera (none)
    What a surprise.


    Thanks for the info! Rec'd.

  •  Control Room (4.00)
    If you haven't seen it, rent it.  Excellent documentary on Al Jazeera showing day to day operations and interviews on how and why they report.  And then the film shows what happens when one doesn't report the news the way the US wants it reported.
      Was Bush joking? I'm sure that if the question comes up, Scotty McClellan will certainly present it that way.  But looking at the number of dead journalists and what Al J has endured, I doubt it.

    Why did we bother to beat the Soviet Union if we were just going to become it? Molly Ivins

    by offred on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 05:17:13 AM PST

    •  I second that recommendation (none)

      -7.00,-7.74 No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. -- Edward R Murrow

      by subtropolis on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 06:44:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Also seconded (none)
      Definitely rent Control Room. See it all, including the extra material on the DVD.  

      I think if "freedom and democracy" do emerge in the Middle East, al-Jazeera will be one of the catalysts of it. They're the closest thing the Arabic-speaking world has to a free press -- not perfect, certainly not unbiased, but also not under any governmental control (in fact, they regularly irritate government officials in the Middle East as well as the Bush Administration -- Saddam didn't like them much either).

      I was also pleased and impressed to see women working (with and without traditional garb) in their offices, as technicians and reporters.

      "Everyone is entitled to an opinion... What most people fail to realise is that they are not entitled to have that opinion taken seriously." --Adam Tinworth

      by JanetT in MD on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 08:17:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  it is huge - if it checks out (none)
  •  In Amy Goodman's documentary on the media (4.00)
    lead up to the war, she claims that Al Jazeera specifically gave the military their exact coordinates in the Palestine Hotel so that they could be "protected".  That, she implied, was perhaps their fatal mistake.

    While Bush might not have been willing to attack them in another country, Iraq, being the war zone that it was, was evidently fair game.  Their were witnesses who claimed they tried to prevent the US forces from shooting directly at the Palestine Hotel.  There was no way that was an accident.

    Now, we know.  This should be front-paged.  Maybe our woken up media will now revisit this travesty.

    •  no, we DON'T know (none)
      To all here who are suggesting that this latest 'bombshell' about how much of a lunatic is Junior somehow proves that US forces have been deliberately targetting journalist, please read this.

      Permission to Fire

      [AP reporter Chris] Tomlinson, who has himself served seven years in the army, noted that, "The first thing they teach you when you're a tanker or an infantry man is to kill the forward observer...that's the highest priority target." He continued, "If you can kill the forward observer, you have no one to direct the ground forces [or artillery fire]. And therefore you completely take away their value."


       The immediate reaction from U.S. commanders to the attack on the Palestine Hotel was anger and consternation. Lt. Col. Philip DeCamp, Captain Wolford's commanding officer, began screaming over the radio, "Who just shot the Palestinian [sic] Hotel?" according to Tomlinson. Tomlinson listened as DeCamp confronted Wolford. "`Did you just f***ing shoot the Palestinian [sic] Hotel?'" he demanded of Wolford.


      "I know, I know," [Colonel] Perkins told  Tomlinson. "I have just given the order that under no circumstances is anyone to shoot at the Palestine Hotel, even if they are taking fire, even if there is an artillery piece on top of the roof. No one is allowed to shoot at the Palestine Hotel again."

      I watched this happen on CNN and understood immediately that the journalists were probably mistaken for unfriendlies.

      -7.00,-7.74 No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. -- Edward R Murrow

      by subtropolis on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 07:04:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why is Anyone Surprised? (none)
    We're talking about Dumbya "Bring it on" Bush.

    This is the same evil idiot who invaded and occupied a sovereign nation on false pretenses.

    This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

    by Mr X on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 05:50:37 AM PST

  •  Punishing journalists (4.00)
    One of the interesting things about the recent Rolling Stone article is the way it links the US disinformation campaign to control of the international press. I think if one reads between the lines of Bamford's piece, he is saying the same thing about al-Jazeera as this diary is:

    On the other hand, there is the case of Tareq Ayyoub. Bamford is careful here, but read this carefully:

    [Bamford:] The top target that the pentagon assigned to Rendon was the Al-Jazeera television network. The contract called for the Rendon Group to undertake a massive "media mapping" campaign against the news organization, which the Pentagon considered "critical to U.S. objectives in the War on Terrorism." According to the contract, Rendon would provide a "detailed content analysis of the station's daily broadcast . . . [and] identify the biases of specific journalists and potentially obtain an understanding of their allegiances, including the possibility of specific relationships and sponsorships."

    The secret targeting of foreign journalists may have had a sinister purpose. Among the missions proposed for the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence was one to "coerce" foreign journalists and plant false information overseas. Secret briefing papers also said the office should find ways to "punish" those who convey the "wrong message."[/Bamford]

    If you remember, CNN's Eason Jordan lost his job after remarks at a Jan. 27, 2005 panel in Davos, Switzerland. It was reported that he said that 12 journalists who were killed by coalition forces in Iraq had been targeted. Later he claimed he only meant that they had been targetted because they looked Iraqi. He was fired anyway. Some reports said Jordan had also told a story about an Al-Jazeera columnist that had been tortured at Abu Ghraib prison (See AP's Bauder, "CNN executive says he doesn't believe military intended to kill journalists").

    No doubt he was refering to, among others, the death of the Jordanian Al-Jazeera reproter who was killed when network's Baghdad office hit in U.S. bombing campaign on April 8, 2003. Now, am I asserting that Rendon killed the al-Jazeera reporters and cameramen who died as a result of bombings or car accidents? No. Did Rendon effectively compile an "enemies list" of reporters that others might have acted on? The article sure implies this.

    I would add one note of caution about documents of unknown provenance. If Rove thought that this information would come out, one strategy would be to "60 Minutes" the story by circulating a falsifiable account that contains the real story. I think there is a real story out there, but let's be careful about sourcing.

  •  Blair (none)
    I've often wondered why Blair (who doesn't strike me as a fool) has gone along on this crazy ride.

    More and more now, I'm suspecting it's because he understands just how unhinged President Bush is, and  he hoped to be a voice of sanity on the inside to put the brakes on at least the worst of the insanity.  Maybe that's giving him too much credit, though.

  •  This must be looked into (none)
    The military does not dispute the fact of so many journalists being attacked during this war --merely the justification for it. They claim they have been collateral damage.

    This memo provides evidence that the attacks are deliberate! While we must not automatically jump to assume this memo is authentic, the main stream media MUST investigate this further!  If the memo proves to be true --and the others have all bourne out so far--journalists are being targeted!

    Amidst the ruling elite, evil is spelled g-r-e-e-d.
    Amidst the people they lead, evil is spelled f-e-a-r.

    by Dan Hrkman on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 06:12:09 AM PST

  •  Recommend (none)
    Nothing surprises me anymore with these thugs.  My hope is that this story will hit the RWCM now that the momentum of public opinion is sinking the Dumbya/Darth Cheney cabal.  But I predict the right wing shills will make a big joke about it, discuss what a great idea it was, and label Blair a wimp for not going ahead and bombing the bajesus out out Al-Jazeera. Congress will ignore it.  There will be no investigation with the thugs in power.  
  •  Errh.... Bush DID bomb Al Jazeera offices in (4.00)
    both Kabul, Afghanistan  in November 2001, and Baghdad,Iraq on April 8, 2003.  On that same day US also bombed the Baghdad offices of Abu Dhabi TV and struck the Palestine hotel with M1 tank rounds.

    Ayoub, a 34-year-old Palestinian Jordanian, was killed in a direct missile strike on Al-Jazeera's Baghdad offices. Surviving Al-Jazeera staff sought shelter in the nearby offices of rival satellite station Abu Dhabi TV, which then also came under US attack.

    At one point, Abu Dhabi TV correspondent Shaker Hamed issued an emergency on-air call for help, saying "Twenty-five journalists and technicians belonging to Abu Dhabi television and Qatari satellite television channel Al-Jazeera are surrounded in the offices of Abu Dhabi TV in Baghdad."

    Hamed called on the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Organization of Journalists, Reporters Sans Frontieres and the Arab Journalists Union "to intervene quickly to pull us out of this zone where missiles and shells are striking in an unbelievable way."

    Shortly after the Al-Jazeera strike, two cameramen died when a US tank fired on Baghdad's Palestine Hotel, which houses more than 200 international correspondents--nearly all of the "non-embedded" journalists left in the besieged city. The victims were Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk, 35, a Ukrainian national, and Jose Couso, 37, who worked for the private Spanish television station Telecinco. Another three members of the media were injured.

    The strike on Al-Jazeera's broadcasting facilities was undoubtedly deliberate. Al-Jazeera had written to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on February 23 giving the precise location of its office so as to avoid being targeted.

    This must be what they call "perception management" in Bushie military-speak.

  •  Control Room (none)
    In the documentary, The Control Room, there is some footage of when the Al-Jazeerah HQ in Baghdad is attacked by coalition forces and an Al-Jazeerah reporter is killed.  Several other news outfits were also "accidently hit" around the same time and it had a rather chilling effect on news coverage.
  •  two thoughts (4.00)
    • if meant seriously, this is quite the insight into the abscess that is Bush's unchecked brain.
    • if a joke, this reminds me a lot of Reagan's "the bombing begins in five minutes" quip. Not funny, it has deadly serious implications.

    Our president is an idiot, a dick, and a fucking 10-year-old child.
  •  Watch "Control Room" (none)
    They do bomb Al Jazeera.  I haven't seen the movie in quite a while, but I recall footage of Rumsfled saying that the Al Jazeera network spouts negative, anti-American propaganda; hence, it's a threat to the American mission.
  •  Ah, the global world we live in... (4.00)
    I've just started reading the article in Rolling Stone about The Rendon Group, but this type of Pentagon strategy to target/control the media and information is specifically mentioned.

    and I quote:

    The report also concludes that military planners are shifting away from the Cold War view that power comes from superior weapons systems. Instead, the Pentagon now believes that "combat power can be enhanced by communications networks and technologies that control access to, and directly manipulate, information. As a result, information itself is now both a tool and a target of warfare."

    •  They seem to have lost sight of (none)
      the former opinion of U.S. leaders that we can safely allow free expression because the truth favors our side.
    •  I manitain (4.00)
      that such psyops were in full play during the Katrina disaster. I believe these groups spread the rumors of rapes, shooting at relief helicopters and so on, as it became clear that Bush was letting tens of thousands of American citizens sit helplessly.

      I also believe they set those mysterious warehouse fires to bring a further sense of chaos to excuse the administration.

      I posted as much here during those critical 5 days; many Kossacks told me I was insane, that of course rapes and murders were to be expected in such a situation.

      Only I was proved 100% correct, and those stories were all discredited.

      My overall point: an informed democracy cannot survive with these kinds of dirty tricks and propaganda efforts. We cannot get anything accomplished in the face of this. Look at the Osama tape right before the election; it MAY have tipped the scales against us.

      How can we win against this?

      The Right is killing America

      by grushka on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 09:42:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Al Jazeera (none)
    bush is truly a nutcase.
  •  It was very obvious that US Mil was a running (none)
    a 'War on Al Jazeera' and other independent media journalists not controlled or in bed with the US,  certainly the PR sense, and evidently also in a literal sense based on the pattern, number and circumstances of journalist killings in Iraq.

    I remember  Rumsfeld, his yes-men and professional liars like Mark Kimmitt and Dan Senor standing up at numerous CPA press conferences in Iraq smearing Al Jazeera and ranting about the lying uncontrolled media aiding and abetting the "dead-enders", and serving as Osama bin-Laden's mouthpiece:

    "If somebody sees it a different way than we do, that's OK. If somebody's got a different editorial view, that's OK. But when they start telling intentional lies, that goes beyond the pale," says Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the authority's military spokesman in Baghdad.

    On Thursday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called reports by Al-Jazeera that U.S. troops were terrorizing Iraqi civilians "vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable. They are simply lying."

    In recent weeks, officials have begun to strictly monitor, then check, all of the reporting of Al-Jazeera; they're going public with errors in hopes of putting pressure on the network.

    This is not the first time the Bush administration has quarreled with Al-Jazeera, which it has at times branded as Osama bin Laden's "mouthpiece."  But it is the most public stance yet against the network's reporting.

    (This was before Bushies had fully changed over to their new Emanuel Goldstein Bogey-man brand: the New and Improved Zarqawi.)

    Then there are the frightening cases of Sgrena Guilliana and Marla Ruzicka which US Mil just wants to keep ignoring and changing the subject about.

    •  Dan, can you spell r-e-t-a-r-d-e-d?? (none)
      These documents "need to be looked into"...???
      I'm laughing off my chair here!
      We need to see if this was "intentional"????
      C'mon... three media outlets attacked at the same
      time by American forces... AND YOU BELIEVE THERE'S EVEN A 1 in a trillion chance this was
      purely accidental... or coincidental...

      NO MORE BRAINS!?!?!?!?


  •  Bush joked (4.00)
    about it being easier to be a dictator - only I doubt now that he was really joking. He did/does want to be a dictator protected by a gloss of false democracy. Is it surprising he wanted to take out any information that would undermine the spin?

    Theocracy is tyranny

    by Druidica on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 07:23:48 AM PST

    •  Why do you think Dubya and Putin get along well? (4.00)
      Twin sons of different mothers, as it were.

      Putin was KGB. Bush the son of a CIA director. Putin and Bush took the exact same steps vs. mass media in their countries. What they could not get on their side, or get allies to acquire, they got rid of.

  •  Context around 4/16/04 - Important! (4.00)
    Much of the comments about this story are trying to tie it in to events in 2003 (the Al Jazeera offices getting shelled, etc.).  But, the story says that the conversation took place on April 16, 2004!

    Why is that date important?  What could have set Bush off so much that he wanted to bomb Al Jazeera?

    Well, quite simply, Iraq was going to Hell in a handbasket!

    Remember, it began on March 31, 2004.  Four Blackwtarer-USA contractors were killed in Fallujah, dragged through the streets, and left hanging on a bridge.  Al Jazeera broadcast this image over and over and over again.

    Events began to spiral after that, when U.S. troops began an assault on Fallujah to quell the insurgency.

    Believe it or not, this NewsMax article succinctly summarizes all of the events in Iraq that were going on just before Bush's visit to Blair that would have driven him to think of bombing Al Jazeera:

    • U.S. forces were battling al-Mahdi militants in Kut (Ukrainian forces had abandoned the city in the face of heavy fighting with al-Sadr's followers).
    • Militants were holding at least six foreign hostages in unknown locations in the country. Japan's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi vowed not to withdraw 530 troops in the south after kidnappers threatened to burn three Japanese captives alive unless the troops leave the country.
    • U.S. troops were involved in the assault on Fallujah, and the ferocity of the attack had angered even pro-U.S. Iraqi politicians: "'These operations were a mass punishment for the people of Fallujah,' Adnan Pachachi, a senior member of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council, told Al-Arabiya TV. 'It was not right to punish all the people of Fallujah, and we consider these operations by the Americans unacceptable and illegal.'"
    • U.S. forces also announced they were launching a new operation called "Resolute Sword," designed to destroy al-Sadr's al-Mahdi Army militia, which was in control of Kut, Kufa and the central part of Najaf.
    • Al Sadr was attempting to unite Sunni and Shiite resistance fighter/insurgents, saying in a statment "This ordeal has shown that all the Iraqi people are united."

    Remember, Al Jazeera was broadcasting images and commentary on all of these events.  There was a real danger that Shiites and Sunnis might actually join forces to drive American troops out of Iraq, and eventually overrun the nascent Iraqi government. Al Jazeera was helping this movement, and Bush had absolutely no control over this network, which was widely watched and supported in the Arab world, and by Arabs in the Western world.

    He likely thought that bombing Al Jazeera might have been the solution to his growing problems.

    •  Timing (4.00)
      Note the full court anti-Al Jazeera PR assault in  the US media by Rummy and the Pentagon Liars Club that was taking  place at the same time Bush was privately telling Blair he planned to bomb the Qatar Al Jazeera office:

      U.S. says Al-Jazeera putting troops at risk 4/18/2004

      U.S. officials in Iraq expect a pro-Arab slant from Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based satellite television network that is beamed to about 40 million Arab viewers.

      U.S. officials are documenting cases of what they consider to be incindiary stories by Al-Jazeera.    

      But as fighting has intensified in Fallujah, officials at the Coalition Provisional Authority charge that Al-Jazeera's reporting has become particularly biased and inflammatory -- or flatly wrong -- and that it is endangering American lives.

      Another factor in your timeline:

      Abu Ghraib: This was right before Hersh's and CBS's Abu Ghraib torture revelations (w/pics) were about to break. And the Pentagon & WH knew Abu Ghraib was about to break big time, and that it would inflame the Arab world even more if trusted media like Al Jazeera were to be publicizing the Abu Ghraib revelations.


    •  Wow, the DOD is monitoring KOS, ... (none)
      Guess my goose is cooked!
    •  Yes, AlJazeera was airing the truth about war... (none)
      gosh, Mr. Pentagon analyst... we can't have that!
    •  Ahem! The point is the KILLING JOURNALISTS (none)
      is murder! It is also against the War Crimes
      Act of 1996 and the Geneva Conventions.
      Oops... I think I see.... is this more PSYOPs...?
      Our hard earned tax dollars trying to sway
      public opinion by commenting on popular blogs.
      Wow! Why don't you guys try to do GOOD and RIGHT... that way you won't have to spend billions of our tax dollars trying to spin/influence public opinion by infiltrating
      blogs! Kos, are you aware of any of this??
      •  I remember MY first beer, too!! (none)
        Don't know what yer sippin' on there, fella, but I'm not defending anyone.  I'm just trying to point out that it is well within the realm of possibility that Bush did want to bomb Al Jazeera when you look at what was going on in Iraq in later March/early April 2004.
  •  Of Course (none)
    He likely wants to bomb Ally Sheedy, Al Fromm, Alizarin Crimson, and Jamiroquai too.

    9/11 + 4 Years = Katrina... Conservatism Kills.

    by NewDirection on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 07:46:25 AM PST

  •  Bring this back AFTER Thankgiving weekend (none)
    I'm posting this on a few big breaking news stories this morning...

    I'm sitting here looking at all the huge news breaking today, and suddenly, why it's coming out now is clear. All this stuff was on the verge of coming out, but they need to get it out in order to get it buried by the Thanksgiving holidays.

    Very few stories stay in the news cycle from the early week before Thankgiving through to the Monday after Thankgiving. They can bury everything under Consumption Friday retail reports.

    Re-diary this story next Monday.

  •  as i recall they did bomb! right? (none)
    maybe not the main office, but didn't they bomb an office in iraq? also who were they aiming at in that hotel where journalists were staying. this ole membory needs help.
    •  They bombed (none)
      the al-Jazeera studios in Kabul as well.

      Just before the Northern Alliance marched into Kabul on Monday November 12, US armed forces dropped a 500-pound bomb on the studios of the popular Arab satellite TV station al-Jazeera (the Peninsula). No one was hurt, as the building was not occupied at the time by any of the 10 al-Jazeera journalists and technicians based there, a decision having already been taken to evacuate the building in advance of the Northern Alliance’s entry into Kabul. The same attack damaged nearby offices of the BBC and the Associated Press.

      Immediately after the raid, the station’s London bureau chief, Muftah Al Suwaidan, told the Guardian newspaper, “al-Jazeera’s office is in the heart of Kabul. The building is the only one to have been hit so it looks like it was deliberate.” The station’s managing director, Mohammed Jassim al-Ali, said that the US had been previously informed of al-Jazeera’s location.

  •  Everyone who cares should (none) (don't walk) to your local library and rent the documentary Control Room.  It clearly documents the US' attack on Al Jazeera.  Although I think of Al Jazeera as the Arab equivalent to Faux News, the killing of the Al Jazeera cameraman was very sad.
    •  I would submit... (none)
      that al-Jazeera probably has more accurate reporting than FOX.

      -8.25, -6.26 ain't "schadenfreude" if the bastards deserve it. this is infidelica...

      by snookybeh on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 09:27:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

        •  I notice... (none)
          that, in either of the replies you've made, you've not given examples of either inaccuracies or anti-American biases on the part of al-Jazeera.

          I'll say it again: just saying something "is" doesn't make it so. For whatever reason, you have a bias against al-Jazeera. I don't know, maybe you have a bias against Arabs, period. Only you can answer that. But if you're going to make such specific claims about someone or something, you need to back it up, Sport.

          I suppose I could announce to the thread that I'm a billionaire, and Angelina Jolie is my girlfriend. Wow, maybe it's true!!

          And as for FOX and their "integrity," just scoot on over to Media Matters or, better yet, News Hounds for verification of just how horrid a "news" organization FOX News is. I can't believe I'm actually seeing someone on dKos who is defending FOX, who didn't scurry over here from Freeperland or Little Green Snotballs.

          Uh... you didn't scurry over here from Freeperland or Little Green Snotballs, did you? ;-)

          -8.25, -6.26 ain't "schadenfreude" if the bastards deserve it. this is infidelica...

          by snookybeh on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:03:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  User ID 71851. (none)
            Earliest comment two days ago.

            Obviously scurried over recently from somewhere...

            On the other hand, a reading of the 22 comments to date reveal someone who is strongly pro-choice, very interested in the current Supreme Court nomination (hence the handle), but is perhaps just lacking a little bit in information about the actual history and current state of affairs in Iraq.

            Posssibly his/her opinions will be modified after hanging out here for a while and getting news that hasn't been prefiltered by GOP talking points. It's hard for even a skeptical person to scrub out all the lies that have been told in mainstream media.

            My diagnosis: NOT a troll, despite appearances in this thread.

            Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

            by Canadian Reader on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 11:06:29 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Don't Be Surprised if KOS is a DOD OSInt operation (none)
          •  Just saying something "is" (none)
            doesn't make it so? Well then, the fact that you are saying that I have a bias against Al-Jazeera doesn't make it either. I don't have a bias against Al-Jazeera, and your saying so doesn't make it so. Al-Jazeera is biased against America, the reporting is seem to be focused on rallying as much anger as possible against America. The facts that Al-Jazeera readily displays messages by terrorists, blows the civilian suffering out of proportion and always looks at the dark side of things (for example, when reporting on the Iraqi elections) is evidence for this.

            By the way, I was not defending Fox. I do think that Fox News is not so bad as many people say it is. Its sections where it actually reports news are quite good. The commentators are conservatives and it is no surprise to me that they have a conservative bias in their commentary.

            I looked at the Media Matters site, and it provided only evidence of lies by Hannity, O'Reilly and other commentators, whom I know are liars and spinners.

            What's next, Hezbollah's Al-Manar is better than Fox too? There is legitimate criticism of Fox and loony criticism.

            •  Depends what the definition of "is" is. (none)
              Comment 1 :
              the fact that you are saying that I have a bias against Al-Jazeera doesn't make it either. I don't have a bias against Al-Jazeera, and your saying so doesn't make it so.

              Probably the only statement you've made that can be substantiated.

              Comment 2:

              Al-Jazeera is biased against America, the reporting is seem to be focused on rallying as much anger as possible against America.

              I would say this qualifies as bias. Ask yourself why an ex marine who was in Iraq would work for a company that was biased against America or Americans? I'd like to see your FACTS on why they are biased and not just reporting the facts.

              Comment 3:

              I do think that Fox News is not so bad as many people say it is.

              Watch Outfoxed, stick around here, read Crooks & Liars and more Media Matters and then revisit this statement in three months.

              Comment 4:

              The commentators are conservatives and it is no surprise to me that they have a conservative bias in their commentary.

              No, they lie. They are lying sacks of crap, period. Refer to previous comment for De-NeoConification.
              Comment 5:

              I looked at the Media Matters site, and it provided only evidence of lies by Hannity, O'Reilly and other commentators, whom I know are liars and spinners.

              You must not have looked close enough. Besides, the others include Hume, Gibson, Cavuto, Smith, Dayside. Who the hell is left that matters?

              Comment 6:

              there is legitimate criticism of Fox and loony criticism.

              Really? Send me some links to that LOONY criticism you've seen if you will as I need a good laugh.

              What can I say? You've hoisted yourself with your own petard.

              "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein

              by A Patriot on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 09:36:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Are you a patriot? (none)
                Probably the only statement you've made that can be substantiated.

                I'm afraid you don't have to luck to have made such a statement.

                I would say this qualifies as bias. Ask yourself why an ex marine who was in Iraq would work for a company that was biased against America or Americans?

                Ask yourself why there are ex-marines working for Fox. Ask yourself why there are ex-marines in the Republican party. Hell, ask yourself why most of our forces in Iraq voted for Bush over Kerry. That doesn't mean Fox, the GOP or Bush are OK.

                I'd like to see your FACTS on why they are biased and not just reporting the facts.

                It's been widely reported, in the NYT during the Iraqi elections, plus the common knowledge that it is a friendly host to Osama-tapes. Look it up, I would say.

                Watch Outfoxed, stick around here, read Crooks & Liars and more Media Matters and then revisit this statement in three months.

                Yep, I have watched Outfoxed twice. I sometimes watch Fox and I can't really spot much real difference in the news reporting with the other news networks. Of course, the commentary is a different story.

                No, they lie. They are lying sacks of crap, period. Refer to previous comment for De-NeoConification.

                So now I'm a neo-con?

                You must not have looked close enough. Besides, the others include Hume, Gibson, Cavuto, Smith, Dayside. Who the hell is left that matters?

                Smith is okay, isn't he?

                Really? Send me some links to that LOONY criticism you've seen if you will as I need a good laugh.

                Some people claimed that the fact that Fox did not air an anti-Alito-ad "proved" their con. bias. But they did air previous "liberal" ads that other networks refused to air.

                What can I say? You've hoisted yourself with your own petard.

                How can someone who calls himself a patriot defend Al-Jazeera but hate his own country?

                •  By the way (none)
                  I'm not saying that you're not a patriot because you attack Fox. That's legitimate. I'm saying it because you defend Al-Jazeera.
                  •  Your faulty logic. (none)
                    I don't mind the question, but your assumption was that I was defending Al-Jazeera when in reality I was pointing out your lack of anything substantial to back up your points. You have gone to no effort to back up what you've said about anything except to tell me and others to do the work ourselves. I hope you're not a defense attorney because that logic may not fly. "My client is innocent you honor and if you do some investigating you'll see what I mean." Please. And what's this statement mean?
                    I'm afraid you don't have to luck to have made such a statement.

                    I don't know what in the hell you were trying to say. Also, ex-marines working for Fox or the GOP, or voting for Bush is a lot different than working for Al-Jazeera. I can't say if they are bias, anti-american, or fair. I merely questioned your statements. Show me the money and drop that crap about the NYT. My god, is it possible that the NYT may be bias in favor of Bush? You can find plenty of NYT articles that skew the facts in Bush's favor. Try a search for them on Media Matters. And the "common knowledge" statement about airing tapes for Osama is absurd as proof. Airing them may beg the question that they are bias, but it is not proof. If Fox does a show on the Art of serial killers are they in support of them? The "De-NeoConification" comment was in jest, lighten up, have a drink, and eat some turkey, but you do sound like you have a bit of De-something to do. Smiths an idiot too. Less than the others, but still a waterboy for the right. Making a statement does not a link make. Send me some proof, don't tell me about it. I can get that from Fox. And finally, where in the hell do you get off saying I hate my country? Four years USN my man. Have you served a day in uniform? For that comment I ought to give you the lowest rating possible. Why? because it shows supreme ignorance on your part and it's offensive. That comment alone tells me you need to pull your head out of your ass and really take a long hard look at Fox News, the NYT, and spend many hours on the Media Matters website. I'm not going to down-rate you, but I sure as hell think you deserve it.

                    P.S. I just noticed that during my writing of this someone gave you a much deserved Zero rating.

                    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein

                    by A Patriot on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 08:02:57 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

  •  If (none)
    NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN had not agreed to carry water for Bushco and become "embedded" with the troops, the motherfucker would have planned to bomb their offices in NYC and Atlanta. What a fascist jerk.
  •  Remarkable (none)
    So, let me just be clear on this...

    Are these are the "freedoms" that our occupation of Iraqi is trying to bring to the region?  Gosh, that and Abu Ghraib?  How could ANY Iraqi not understand our good intentions, our sterling character?  As the article says, the attacks on two Al Jazeerah offices since 2001 lends credence to this as US policy.  Talk nice or we'll bomb your offices and shoot your reporters.  If that is not the "fruits of democracy", why I don't know what it is!

    When this war is over there is going to need to be a long period of national assessment of what was done in the name of our people, that in fact does not reflect who we are, what we believe in.

  •  So (none)
    So when do we start bombing Cambodia?
  •  Isn't the mirror (none)
    a "batboy"-like rag?

    Wars always bring bigger problems then they settle... It's up to us to have such a good democracy that other people want it too. -Woody Hayes 1986

    by Irrelevant Prolixity on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:07:20 AM PST

  •  I've had enough! (none)
    I can't believe what I just saw on CNN! Exactly what I just read here on KOS, but didn't click on this diary until I remebered it was here that I saw it first.

    I taught my 9 years old a new word yesterday after watch to vedio of Bush try to get out of the door (paniced & avoiding questions)....BAFOON...that was the word of the day. "Honey... can you say this word...BAFOON".

    WTF is with this nut?  Didn't we just build the most advanced air base bunker in the middle east in Qatar?  Why the hell would we bomb a nation that supports our forward deployments and stragtic interest in the middle east?  And (I know shoudn't lead with a conjunction) if we were to fall back from IRAQ into defensive position.....where the hell would we then go...into Qatar who now have terrorist breeding from the bombing of Al Jazeera?  Please get rid of the president, before he get us all killed!

    "Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance (liberally)" Jude 2 Brother of Jesus

    by pinkpanther on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:44:28 AM PST

  •  Pattern of behaviour (none)
    it seems....

    The Pentagon has held up its practice of "embedding" journalists with military units as proof of a new media-friendly policy. On April 8, however, U.S. military forces launched what appeared to be deliberate attacks on independent journalists covering the war, killing three and injuring four others.

    In one incident, a U.S. tank fired an explosive shell at the Palestine Hotel, where most non-embedded international reporters in Baghdad are based. Two journalists, Taras Protsyuk of the British news agency Reuters and Jose Couso of the Spanish network Telecino, were killed; three other journalists were injured. The tank, which was parked nearby, appeared to carefully select its target, according to journalists in the hotel, raising and aiming its gun turret some two minutes before firing a single shell.

    Journalists who witnessed the attack unequivocally rejected Pentagon claims that the tank had been fired on from the hotel. "I never heard a single shot coming from any of the area around here, certainly not from the hotel," David Chater of British Sky TV told Reuters (4/8/03). Footage shot by French TV recorded quiet in the area immediately before the attack (London Independent, 4/9/03).

    Earlier in the day, the U.S. launched separate but near-simultaneous attacks on the Baghdad offices of Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV, two Arabic-language news networks that have been broadcasting graphic footage of the human cost of the war. Both outlets had informed the Pentagon of their exact locations, according to a statement from the Committee to Protect Journalists. As with the hotel attack, Pentagon officials claimed that U.S. forces had come under fire from the press offices, charges that were rejected by the targeted reporters.

    The airstrike against Al Jazeera killed one of the channel's main correspondents in Iraq, Tareq Ayoub, and injured another journalist, prompting Al Jazeera to try to pull its remaining reporters out of Baghdad for fear of their safety (BBC, 4/9/03). Personnel at Abu Dhabi TV escaped injury from an attack with small-arms fire.

    Al Jazeera, which the Bush administration has criticized for airing footage of American POWs, has been attacked several times by U.S. and British forces during the war in Iraq. Its offices in Basra were shelled on April 2, and its camera crew in that city fired on by British tanks on March 29. A car clearly marked as belonging to Al Jazeera was shot at by U.S. soldiers on April 7 (Reporters Without Borders, 4/8/03).

    ...Al Jazeera has also been targeted prior to the Iraq War. During the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, Al Jazeera's Kabul offices were destroyed by a U.S. missile. In a report by the BBC's Nik Gowing (4/8/02), Rear Admiral Craig Quigley, the U.S. deputy assistant defense secretary for public affairs, claimed that the compound was being used by Al Qaeda-- a charge the news outlet strongly denied-- and that this made it a "legitimate target." The U.S.'s evidence? Al Jazeera's use of a satellite uplink and its regular contacts with Taliban officials-- perfectly normal activities for a news outlet.

    Quigley also made the improbable claim that the U.S. had not known the compound was Al Jazeera's office, and asserted that in any case, such information was "not relevant" to the decision to destroy it. "The U.S. military," concluded Gowing, "makes no effort to distinguish between legitimate satellite uplinks for broadcast news communications and the identifiable radio or satellite communications belonging to 'the enemy.'"

    Whether the U.S. is deliberately targeting independent media, or is simply not taking care to avoid attacking obvious media targets, the failure to respect the protection afforded journalists under the Geneva Conventions is deeply troubling. Unfettered reporting from the battlefield is essential to bear witness to the realities of war.


    I'm not going anywhere. I'm standing up, which is how one speaks in opposition in a civilized world. - Ainsley Hayes

    by jillian on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 10:49:00 AM PST

  •  leaking documents - UK style (none)
    This story is not about the Mirror credibility, they just got wind of the charges against David Keogh, a government civil service officer, first. The documents were leaked to a researcher for a British MP who was opposed to the war.

    The credibility of the document, 26 pages from a conversation held in Washington in 2004 between Blair and Bush, could be easily done by releasing the relevant bits. If Blair and Bush are telling the truth, no problem.

  •  You had me going for a minute there --- (none)
    then my tinfoil hat fell off. :-)
  •  The BBC Version (none)
    Is here.
    Bush al-Jazeera 'plot' dismissed  

    Al Jazeera has broadcast messages from Osama Bin Laden
    The White House has dismissed claims George Bush was talked out of bombing Arab television station al-Jazeera by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.
    The allegations were made by an unnamed source in the Daily Mirror newspaper.

    A White House official said: "We are not going to dignify something so outlandish with a response."

    Ex-UK minister Peter Kilfoyle, who opposed the Iraq war, had called for a transcript of the alleged conversation to be published.

    I love how they dignify these "outlandish" things with their non-responses. We've got a ways to go before the veracity of this story in particular is confirmed, but as I said before, even if it isn't true it'll be another distraction for the addled Bushco message machine to contend with.
  •  No surprise to me. (none)
    We know Bush & co. have a fascist mentality, and they hate and fear independent media.

    This was the logical step for them.

    Hopefully the proof, in the form of the memos, will be more widely spread soon.

  •  Who Cares? (1.33)
    Bomb the fuck out them!

    Kill their reporters! Who gives a shit?

    They are more responsible for deaths right after the Iraq Invasion then the U.S. Troops. They wanted to create the hate that is now behind the insurgents. If they were real media and not part the terrorist network then leaving them alone is the right thing to do. But being on the side of the terrorist, OBL, then screw it and pay them in full measure.

    •  Very well, then: (none)
      Since you think Al-Jazeera is so inaccurate, can you please give me specific examples of how their reporting was inaccurate?

      Besides, two wrongs do not make a right. Even if Al-Jazeera was sensationalist, that would not justify Bush bombing their headquarters.

    •  I'll be waiting for the links, (none)
      to the pages, that will supply all the facts, to support, the momentous amount of hyperbole you have just spewed forth. Right now though, I have to go clean off my shoes while I look up a good recipe.

      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein

      by A Patriot on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 09:41:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Who cares ????? (none)
    Why don't you ask David Frost (I assume you know who he is) and former US Marine captain Josh Rushing - BOTH of whom are working for AlJazeera?

    Pre-empt Vergangenheitsbewältigung!

    by Petrasays on Tue Nov 22, 2005 at 01:39:42 PM PST

  •  I just don't care (none)
    Fuck them.
Roastbeef, No One No Where, Lupin, Jett, Alumbrados, paradox, RobertInWisconsin, buddhistMonkey, AustinSF, akr nyc, MediaFreeze, IdiotSavant, pb, CrazyDem, Alexa, Ben P, Rayne, MarkC, joeltpatterson, sarac, RunawayRose, gorlim, JTML, Shockwave, SoLeft, Astral, shumard, genethefiend, democat, lysias, KateG, Dan Hrkman, ortsed, frisco, ilona, Carnacki, BenGoshi, object16, freespeech, Poika, madwayne, Jerome a Paris, Christopher Day, mbguenth, jackspace, km4, JohnDrake, mlafleur, bronte17, MadCasey, indybend, ProfessorX, Shadan7, Big Time Patriot, jem6x, NCYellowDog, miholo, Shirley, stevetat, Glic, scamp, mkfarkus, biggb23, Transmission, taonow, Ignacio Magaloni, LondonYank, Spindizzy, chrisfreel, Nate Roberts, state29, Gonzophile, Alna Dem, OldYellerDog, malcolm, wader, modchick65, edrie, Barbara Morrill, Dallasdoc, bogdanmi, milton333, MariaSquared, KMO, kdrivel, kenjib, besieged by bush, hoolia, baxxor, thepoint, Black Maned Pensator, GN1927, rlharry, sommervr, architech, londanium, JayBat, nasarius, VerbalMedia, eleanora, mattes, DrReason, Gary J, sfluke, Marianne Benz, Black Max, HK, Thestral, American in Kathmandu, kd texan, uk benzo, rmx2630, Timroff, Dave Brown, My Philosophy, LITBMueller, weelzup, vcmvo2, davidincleveland, maybeeso in michigan, Chris Kulczycki, BluejayRN, fartofliving, subtropolis, Gabby1984, stlawrence, InExile, pursewarden, offred, kamarvt, ZappoDave, truong son traveler, capioxxii, Bad Cog, olddembroad, Shuvo Dutta, curtadams, majcmb1, tutone, Mr X, jorndorff, jimreyn, GreyHawk, m1flynn, Overseas, Irrelevant Prolixity, The Bulldog Manifesto, RickE, nhwriter, bayside, neroden, zinger99, chrisc, churchlady, LodinLepp, mpls joe, Lode Runner, proudprogressiveCA, ohcanada, tvb, Druidica, pmc1970, Bad Santa, Keone Michaels, Kingsmeg, Petrasays, BlueInARedState, revliver, Leeserannie, js noble

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site