Steve,

Good luck on your good mission! If Bush really meant to bomb Al-Jazeera, the next question: Who advised him to do so? There should be some paper trail.

Steve,

Good luck on your good mission! If Bush really meant to bomb Al-Jazeera, the next question: Who advised him to do so? There should be some paper trail.

Posted by Mustafa

IF??? It astounds me that you and Steve have doubts. After all the slimey deeds of these bastards, why is it so hard for you to swallow that Monkey Boy would want to bomb Al Jazeera? Hell, the idea is so ignorant, and so potentially damaging, it REEKS of being a Monkey Boy bright idea. The only thing I find suprising about it is that the damned fool didn't actually do it.

Steve,
In a recent gaggle, McLellan said that any talk of a plan to bomb Al-Jazeera was "outrageous".
In Scottie-speak, that means it's absolutely true---he has used the same language to deflect questions about Rove in the past, for example.
In addition, when pressed further about the plan, he said the US would not bomb civilians; the meaning here is that Al Jazeera is considered to be made up of enemy combatants, so they could be bombed.
I am not exaggerating or joking---I believe this is the correct inference to make from White House statements.

POA,

I can't understand your surprise. Perhaps Busholini and Co did try to bomb Al-Jazeera...and failed. That would be their M.O in all things having to do with their War of Errors.

I'm not sure why they'd bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar. They had operations there and it would just offend the host country.

Besides, with the record number of deaths of reporters in Iraq it looks like journalists have pretty well been cowed.

Remember all the un-embedded reporters disappearing into custody or shot accidentally? The war would provide good cover and plausible denial.

My guess is that there is something else that happened at that meeting they want concealed, and the al Jazeera angle is just a red herring.

any chance that the memo is going to get printed?

to marky; like that idea, bet we could learn an awful lot by comparing the total denials that we now know to be true. Get any really good poker player to read his expressions now that we know what the answers he gave are. it is like watching poker on tv. (and knowing what the cards are) those that we know to be a total lie, those that he lies about but we know that something refers to a person other than the one asked about, the actual timeline vs what he claimed at the time, this is a fascinating possibility. bet you every level of this is right there for the "telling"
this is one for one of the video blogs. there is so much video, you wouldn't even need a voice stress analyzer for this one. it has to all be there. when we start finding out about the further legal action from the prosecutor, we will have a wide open video record of who was lying for who, and an indisputable timeline that the prosecutor can use as well to unravel the ones that have lied to him. I am posting this over at Crooks and Liars, you get the hat tip, hope someone has the time to put this one together, and the video library!

I remember reading a story that at one point US "intelligence" thought that Al-Qaeda was sending messages via the bug/crawler on the bottom of the Al-Jazeera broadcast.

If Bush got that same report he would probably consider it actionable "intelligence." The rest of us would consider such a report about as credible as the WMD rumors that led us to war.

If the "community" knew Chimp was looking for an excuse to bomb Al-Jazeera I would not be surprised if they took the initiative and manufactured some new "intelligence."

I know exactly what you mean. Some of the Brit bloggers have been covering this. Here's a good wrap up:

http://robberrabbit.blogspot.com/2005/11/as-seen-on-al-jazeera-last-night-to.html

"More disturbing was the implication that the whole "Bomb Qatar" thing wasn't simply Georgie Boy thinking aloud. Maguire is certain from his sources that the tone of the memo shows Bush was indeed not joking, and this wasn't simply one man's big idea. Indeed, Maguire implied that this policy idea must have been passed around high level circles in the White House before Blair was brought into the loop. If so, whose idea was it?"

Here's another detail that may have some relevance to this matter. It's an excerpt from James Bamford's article that Steve linked to earlier.

It doesn't show intent to bomb Al-Jazeera. But, what it does show is that the pentagon was/is concerned about foreign journalists and they were actively exploring means, opportunities, and methods to neutralize them; them being specifically Al-Jazeera. If they were considering neutralization options, military force is not implausible; one of several.

What does seem implausible is bombing them in Qatar. Qatar is a strategic asset. How would it be explained? An Al-Qaeda attack perhaps? Dicey play; very dicey and almost certain to have some serious payload of big time blowback.

However, this crew in D.C. never ceases to stagger the mind at their monumental capacity to disregard strategies and tactics, so literally every whacked out idea seems to be on the table. They've been on a quite roll since they (i.e. P.W.) screwed the pooch with Turkey. Hell, I'm starting wonder if they considered invading Turkey to open up the Northern front?

I too wonder if there must be something much more catastrophically damaging in this memo. Stuff about Falluja perhaps?

Here's the Bamford excerpt:

"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." One senior officer told CNN that the plan would "formalize government deception, dishonesty and misinformation."

Clearly, Al-Jazeera was on these folks minds.

"Get any really good poker player to read his expressions now that we know what the answers he gave are."

I don't know beans about poker, but I can easily tell when Mcllean's lying. He opens his mouth.

"I don't know beans about poker, but "

The last time I was taken to the cleaners by a card shark, they said something very similar to that.

The only thing I find suprising about it is that the damned fool didn't actually do it.

Posted by: Pissed Off American

And Al Qaeda regrets it. If Bush could only see the tsunami of anti-Americanism that his foolish anti-terror “war” has whipped up in the Muslim world!

To: Ace Loves Selflove

Is there any connections between The Lincoln Group and the Rendon Group? After reading the Bamford article, when the "paid" story-planting item hit the news, identifying The Lincoln Group, my first thoughts wondered if the Lincoln group was a spin off or some subsidiary the Rendon Group.
On the other hand, maybe the only connection is that their funding come from the same line item in the Defense/Intell budget. If that is the case, then who is that budget manager and how far does that program go, i.e. what other 'foreign' press?

You didn't think the memo was serious? Unprecedented steps taken to remind editors of their obligations under the OSA, legal proceedings against people who only passed the memo to their MP boss, and against the backdrop of the Katherine Gunn case involving UN bugging?

The contents of this memo are dynamite - we know it dicsusses Al Jazeera, and UK retasking for Fallujah. What else would Bush and Blair have discussed given the timeframe? I think some lateral/logical thinking here could provide a nice bounty.

But Steve, remember this: You are risking prosecution under the OSA. I think you should read up on this act if you intend to seriously pursue this further, as it is very byzantine when it comes to intent, possession, knowledge etc.

It needs to be stressed that if Bush was genuinely considering bombing the Al Jazeera offices in Doha, then he was contemplating an attack against an important ME ally, which generously permits the US important basing rights at Al Udeid, ironically the site of the coalition press centre for the invasion of Iraq, and use of its airspace. I guess Bush may not have understood that the rulers of Qatar are part-owners of Al Jazeera.

I wonder what the reaction in Qatar will be if the memo comes to light - it's certainly grounds for diplomatic disengagement, the immediate expulsion of all US military personnel stationed in Qatar and the termination of mil-2-mil cooperation - and that's even before we get to the ritual of UN condemnation. I would imagine that this would also give pause for thought amongst the rulers of Kuwait and Bahrain, where the US enjoys similar permissive military arrangements. With friends like Bush, you really have no need for enemies.

Apart from the fact that Bush may have violated international law...again...in attempting to solicit a war crime, the whole incident speaks to a wreckless ignorance on his behalf.

I suspect that it would have proved impossible to accomplish such an action by conventional military means - cruise missiles and US bombers are all too easily noticed - which suggests that the plausibly deniable suicide truck-bomber would have had to be employed. So, is this going to prove that Bush needs to attack himself as part of his GWOT?

Steve,

Remember when coming back with the memo -- hide it in your tampon box and choose a male customs agent. I'll Fed Ex you my La Croix so you can come incognito.

"Is there any connections between The Lincoln Group and the Rendon Group?"

Joe,

It seems a global, Goebblean campaign. Did you read the anonymous poem that the BBC picked up from Pakistani school textbooks extolling George Bush’s virtues? I posted it on one of these threads. I learned from a Pakistani friend last night that they believe that key people in the Pakistani Ministry of Education were bribed by some U.S. government agency to get that poem published!

“It needs to be stressed that if Bush was genuinely considering bombing the Al Jazeera offices in Doha, then he was contemplating an attack against an important ME ally, which generously permits the US important basing rights….”

Dan,

Pardon me, but I don’t think the sheikh of Qatar or any other so-called “moderate” Muslim ruler in the whole region considers himself an American “ally” in the sense Britain or Germany is an American ally. Look how America’s European allies are reacting to the story about the use of their airports by the CIA while transporting terror suspects. Did you hear anything like this from any of America’s Muslim “allies”?

Instead, they routinely undertake to do America’s dirty work with terror suspects, most of whom are innocent. They know that it’s part of the service they have to render to America for its support for their repressive and corrupt regimes. They’re American clients – not allies -- whom the United States protects and supports in exchange for their services -- providing cheap oil or basing rights, fighting anti-American terrorists, accepting terror suspects under the “extraordinary rendition” arrangement, and so forth. And this is a key source of extremism and terrorism in Muslim societies. I’ ve interviewed droves of Muslim youths in the Middle East and South Asia, and one of their first complaints against the United States is that it has “re-colonized” their countries after their parents’ generation rolled back British and French colonialism.

Didn't the April, 2004 attack in Fallujah that followed the killing of the 4 mercenaries happen because Bush demanded it? That was one of (many) things that really fired up the insurgency. Good thing we have such a stratgic genius on our side.

Mustafa

I take your point. But it's the kind of situation that serves to puncture this kind of relationship.

Steve,

Please keep in mind that on April 8, 2003 the military not only bombed Al-Jazeera, but Abu Dhabi, and the Palestine Hotel in Bagdad.

I realize a memo detailing BushCo. wanting to attack an "ally" state to silence a critic has more sex appeal but don't forget that BushCo. has already bombed 3 seperate locations on the same day killing a handful of journalists and wounding dozens.

DoD response - hey it's just a coincidence that we bombed three different news sights on the same day. War is messy and doo-doo happens.

If timing is correct on the memo, DoD bombed journalists in Iraq just a few weeks after Bush threatened to bomb Al-Jazeera in Qatar. Another coincidence? That is the link I would like to see made. Not speculation about what if, but the reality of what has been done.

Dan,

Yes, but it's really unnecessary. You don't need to coddle a repressive government (while hypocritically espousing democracy) to buy oil. The Muslim youths today are mostly forward-looking and freedom-loving and hence natural allies of the United States. They admire the real American values and are dying to get an education in Western colleges. It's only the unthinking American policy that's alienating them and making many of them terrorists.

Mustafa ---

Did you read the anonymous poem that the BBC picked up from Pakistani school textbooks extolling George Bush’s virtues?

Yes, i did. found it incredible that US did such a stupid thing. but then again, appears the US has a track record of stupid actions with devastating consequences.

From what u say, seems to me this incredible "PR" program is a story waiting to be investigated and told .... similar to the current media reportings of the US sponsored world-wide prison/detension centers, torture, renditions (with NO oversight) AND their ooops mistakes.

Three words, Steve, that should have told you this was a serious story: Official. Secrets. Act.

Quote: "And Al Qaeda regrets it. If Bush could only see the tsunami of anti-Americanism that his foolish anti-terror “war” has whipped up in the Muslim world!"

Oh the NeoCons know. They approve and are delighted by the Arab response. It gives them a war to fight - an excuse if you will. Perpetual war= perpetual profit and (they hope) perpetual power.

They are certainly delighted by the Arab response and purposely work to inflame it.

Perhaps this will lead the Chinese to get involved in the quagmire that is the Middle East. So far, they seem to have stayed away. If any of our "allies" in the region think of jumping ship, you can bet the Chinese and the Russians will be stepping in pretty fast to "help them out".

Sadly, this is reminiscent to the thinking from 70 years ago, prior to the last world war...

Hey Steve, love the column. It's me homepage actually.
Anyway, whilst you're abroad do me a favor...tell whomever it is you're meeting with, there in London, that you support Aston Villa Football.
Many thanks!

Good luck to you. I hope you dig up some good dirt on these scumbags. They've well over-stepped their bounds, and it's coming back to haunt them.

Oh yeah, have one of those great pints of Bitter for me. Love the stuff.

“Perhaps this will lead the Chinese to get involved in the quagmire that is the Middle East...Sadly, this is reminiscent to the thinking from 70 years ago, prior to the last world war..."

Parrot,

Why would the Chinese jump into the quagmire? They want the Muslims to soften up the Americans in the Middle East, which is their neighborhood and whose oil they need. Ultimately, the Chinese, Russians, Iranians (and the Indians, believe it or not) want America out of the region. As we know, Washington was notified by Uzbekistan a few months ago to get out of its Karshi-Khanabad airbase. The United States completed the withdrawal three weeks ago. It was the Chinese and Russians who pushed the resolution in the Shanghai Cooperation Council demanding that the U.S. pull out of Karsi-Khanabad. America is doing the China's work by antagonizing the Muslim populations of the whole region.

Just heard that John Bolton is going to be on Lou Dobbs on CNN tonight.

I find it difficult to believe that the MSM cannot find SOMEONE willing to take one on the chin and publish this document. After all, it's a threat against their own craft..their own livelihood. Much like the "extra" Abu Ghraib photos, I'm astonished that none of this has found the light of day, considering just how many mediums exist (blogs, websites, newspapers, cable, etc.).

good luck, Steven. We NEED this published.

« Castro Benefits from America's Moral Slide on Guantanamo | Washington Note

Comments: Busy Day Tracking "The Bush Bombing Memo"
Steve,

Good luck on your good mission! If Bush really meant to bomb Al-Jazeera, the next question: Who advised him to do so? There should be some paper trail.

Posted by Mustafa at December 5, 2005 10:35 PM
Steve,

Good luck on your good mission! If Bush really meant to bomb Al-Jazeera, the next question: Who advised him to do so? There should be some paper trail.

Posted by Mustafa

IF??? It astounds me that you and Steve have doubts. After all the slimey deeds of these bastards, why is it so hard for you to swallow that Monkey Boy would want to bomb Al Jazeera? Hell, the idea is so ignorant, and so potentially damaging, it REEKS of being a Monkey Boy bright idea. The only thing I find suprising about it is that the damned fool didn't actually do it.

Posted by Pissed Off American at December 5, 2005 11:08 PM
Steve,
In a recent gaggle, McLellan said that any talk of a plan to bomb Al-Jazeera was "outrageous".
In Scottie-speak, that means it's absolutely true---he has used the same language to deflect questions about Rove in the past, for example.
In addition, when pressed further about the plan, he said the US would not bomb civilians; the meaning here is that Al Jazeera is considered to be made up of enemy combatants, so they could be bombed.
I am not exaggerating or joking---I believe this is the correct inference to make from White House statements.

Posted by marky at December 5, 2005 11:23 PM
POA,

I can't understand your surprise. Perhaps Busholini and Co did try to bomb Al-Jazeera...and failed. That would be their M.O in all things having to do with their War of Errors.

Posted by parrot at December 5, 2005 11:26 PM
I'm not sure why they'd bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar. They had operations there and it would just offend the host country.

Besides, with the record number of deaths of reporters in Iraq it looks like journalists have pretty well been cowed.

Remember all the un-embedded reporters disappearing into custody or shot accidentally? The war would provide good cover and plausible denial.

My guess is that there is something else that happened at that meeting they want concealed, and the al Jazeera angle is just a red herring.

Posted by Dons Blog at December 6, 2005 12:28 AM
any chance that the memo is going to get printed?

Posted by oldtree at December 6, 2005 12:45 AM
to marky; like that idea, bet we could learn an awful lot by comparing the total denials that we now know to be true. Get any really good poker player to read his expressions now that we know what the answers he gave are. it is like watching poker on tv. (and knowing what the cards are) those that we know to be a total lie, those that he lies about but we know that something refers to a person other than the one asked about, the actual timeline vs what he claimed at the time, this is a fascinating possibility. bet you every level of this is right there for the "telling"
this is one for one of the video blogs. there is so much video, you wouldn't even need a voice stress analyzer for this one. it has to all be there. when we start finding out about the further legal action from the prosecutor, we will have a wide open video record of who was lying for who, and an indisputable timeline that the prosecutor can use as well to unravel the ones that have lied to him. I am posting this over at Crooks and Liars, you get the hat tip, hope someone has the time to put this one together, and the video library!

Posted by oldtree at December 6, 2005 12:53 AM
I remember reading a story that at one point US "intelligence" thought that Al-Qaeda was sending messages via the bug/crawler on the bottom of the Al-Jazeera broadcast.

If Bush got that same report he would probably consider it actionable "intelligence." The rest of us would consider such a report about as credible as the WMD rumors that led us to war.

If the "community" knew Chimp was looking for an excuse to bomb Al-Jazeera I would not be surprised if they took the initiative and manufactured some new "intelligence."

Posted by hmmm... at December 6, 2005 01:54 AM
I know exactly what you mean. Some of the Brit bloggers have been covering this. Here's a good wrap up:

http://robberrabbit.blogspot.com/2005/11/as-seen-on-al-jazeera-last-night-to.html

"More disturbing was the implication that the whole "Bomb Qatar" thing wasn't simply Georgie Boy thinking aloud. Maguire is certain from his sources that the tone of the memo shows Bush was indeed not joking, and this wasn't simply one man's big idea. Indeed, Maguire implied that this policy idea must have been passed around high level circles in the White House before Blair was brought into the loop. If so, whose idea was it?"

Posted by KathyF at December 6, 2005 02:15 AM
Here's another detail that may have some relevance to this matter. It's an excerpt from James Bamford's article that Steve linked to earlier.

It doesn't show intent to bomb Al-Jazeera. But, what it does show is that the pentagon was/is concerned about foreign journalists and they were actively exploring means, opportunities, and methods to neutralize them; them being specifically Al-Jazeera. If they were considering neutralization options, military force is not implausible; one of several.

What does seem implausible is bombing them in Qatar. Qatar is a strategic asset. How would it be explained? An Al-Qaeda attack perhaps? Dicey play; very dicey and almost certain to have some serious payload of big time blowback.

However, this crew in D.C. never ceases to stagger the mind at their monumental capacity to disregard strategies and tactics, so literally every whacked out idea seems to be on the table. They've been on a quite roll since they (i.e. P.W.) screwed the pooch with Turkey. Hell, I'm starting wonder if they considered invading Turkey to open up the Northern front?

I too wonder if there must be something much more catastrophically damaging in this memo. Stuff about Falluja perhaps?

Here's the Bamford excerpt:

"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." One senior officer told CNN that the plan would "formalize government deception, dishonesty and misinformation."

Clearly, Al-Jazeera was on these folks minds.

Posted by Ace Loves Selflove at December 6, 2005 02:46 AM
"Get any really good poker player to read his expressions now that we know what the answers he gave are."

I don't know beans about poker, but I can easily tell when Mcllean's lying. He opens his mouth.

Posted by susan at December 6, 2005 02:58 AM
"I don't know beans about poker, but "

The last time I was taken to the cleaners by a card shark, they said something very similar to that.

Posted by Ace Loves TexasHoldem at December 6, 2005 03:28 AM
The only thing I find suprising about it is that the damned fool didn't actually do it.

Posted by: Pissed Off American

And Al Qaeda regrets it. If Bush could only see the tsunami of anti-Americanism that his foolish anti-terror “war” has whipped up in the Muslim world!

Posted by Mustafa at December 6, 2005 06:21 AM
To: Ace Loves Selflove

Is there any connections between The Lincoln Group and the Rendon Group? After reading the Bamford article, when the "paid" story-planting item hit the news, identifying The Lincoln Group, my first thoughts wondered if the Lincoln group was a spin off or some subsidiary the Rendon Group.
On the other hand, maybe the only connection is that their funding come from the same line item in the Defense/Intell budget. If that is the case, then who is that budget manager and how far does that program go, i.e. what other 'foreign' press?

Posted by joe at December 6, 2005 07:34 AM
You didn't think the memo was serious? Unprecedented steps taken to remind editors of their obligations under the OSA, legal proceedings against people who only passed the memo to their MP boss, and against the backdrop of the Katherine Gunn case involving UN bugging?

The contents of this memo are dynamite - we know it dicsusses Al Jazeera, and UK retasking for Fallujah. What else would Bush and Blair have discussed given the timeframe? I think some lateral/logical thinking here could provide a nice bounty.

But Steve, remember this: You are risking prosecution under the OSA. I think you should read up on this act if you intend to seriously pursue this further, as it is very byzantine when it comes to intent, possession, knowledge etc.

Posted by Ben at December 6, 2005 07:48 AM
It needs to be stressed that if Bush was genuinely considering bombing the Al Jazeera offices in Doha, then he was contemplating an attack against an important ME ally, which generously permits the US important basing rights at Al Udeid, ironically the site of the coalition press centre for the invasion of Iraq, and use of its airspace. I guess Bush may not have understood that the rulers of Qatar are part-owners of Al Jazeera.

I wonder what the reaction in Qatar will be if the memo comes to light - it's certainly grounds for diplomatic disengagement, the immediate expulsion of all US military personnel stationed in Qatar and the termination of mil-2-mil cooperation - and that's even before we get to the ritual of UN condemnation. I would imagine that this would also give pause for thought amongst the rulers of Kuwait and Bahrain, where the US enjoys similar permissive military arrangements. With friends like Bush, you really have no need for enemies.

Apart from the fact that Bush may have violated international law...again...in attempting to solicit a war crime, the whole incident speaks to a wreckless ignorance on his behalf.

I suspect that it would have proved impossible to accomplish such an action by conventional military means - cruise missiles and US bombers are all too easily noticed - which suggests that the plausibly deniable suicide truck-bomber would have had to be employed. So, is this going to prove that Bush needs to attack himself as part of his GWOT?

Posted by dan at December 6, 2005 07:49 AM
Steve,

Remember when coming back with the memo -- hide it in your tampon box and choose a male customs agent. I'll Fed Ex you my La Croix so you can come incognito.

Posted by trip at December 6, 2005 08:26 AM
"Is there any connections between The Lincoln Group and the Rendon Group?"

Joe,

It seems a global, Goebblean campaign. Did you read the anonymous poem that the BBC picked up from Pakistani school textbooks extolling George Bush’s virtues? I posted it on one of these threads. I learned from a Pakistani friend last night that they believe that key people in the Pakistani Ministry of Education were bribed by some U.S. government agency to get that poem published!

Posted by Mustafa at December 6, 2005 08:46 AM
“It needs to be stressed that if Bush was genuinely considering bombing the Al Jazeera offices in Doha, then he was contemplating an attack against an important ME ally, which generously permits the US important basing rights….”

Dan,

Pardon me, but I don’t think the sheikh of Qatar or any other so-called “moderate” Muslim ruler in the whole region considers himself an American “ally” in the sense Britain or Germany is an American ally. Look how America’s European allies are reacting to the story about the use of their airports by the CIA while transporting terror suspects. Did you hear anything like this from any of America’s Muslim “allies”?

Instead, they routinely undertake to do America’s dirty work with terror suspects, most of whom are innocent. They know that it’s part of the service they have to render to America for its support for their repressive and corrupt regimes. They’re American clients – not allies -- whom the United States protects and supports in exchange for their services -- providing cheap oil or basing rights, fighting anti-American terrorists, accepting terror suspects under the “extraordinary rendition” arrangement, and so forth. And this is a key source of extremism and terrorism in Muslim societies. I’ ve interviewed droves of Muslim youths in the Middle East and South Asia, and one of their first complaints against the United States is that it has “re-colonized” their countries after their parents’ generation rolled back British and French colonialism.

Posted by Mustafa at December 6, 2005 09:39 AM
Didn't the April, 2004 attack in Fallujah that followed the killing of the 4 mercenaries happen because Bush demanded it? That was one of (many) things that really fired up the insurgency. Good thing we have such a stratgic genius on our side.

Posted by Mimikatz at December 6, 2005 10:22 AM
Mustafa

I take your point. But it's the kind of situation that serves to puncture this kind of relationship.

Posted by dan at December 6, 2005 10:23 AM
Steve,

Please keep in mind that on April 8, 2003 the military not only bombed Al-Jazeera, but Abu Dhabi, and the Palestine Hotel in Bagdad.

I realize a memo detailing BushCo. wanting to attack an "ally" state to silence a critic has more sex appeal but don't forget that BushCo. has already bombed 3 seperate locations on the same day killing a handful of journalists and wounding dozens.

DoD response - hey it's just a coincidence that we bombed three different news sights on the same day. War is messy and doo-doo happens.

If timing is correct on the memo, DoD bombed journalists in Iraq just a few weeks after Bush threatened to bomb Al-Jazeera in Qatar. Another coincidence? That is the link I would like to see made. Not speculation about what if, but the reality of what has been done.

Posted by rudgrl at December 6, 2005 10:27 AM
Dan,

Yes, but it's really unnecessary. You don't need to coddle a repressive government (while hypocritically espousing democracy) to buy oil. The Muslim youths today are mostly forward-looking and freedom-loving and hence natural allies of the United States. They admire the real American values and are dying to get an education in Western colleges. It's only the unthinking American policy that's alienating them and making many of them terrorists.

Posted by Mustafa at December 6, 2005 10:35 AM
Mustafa ---

Did you read the anonymous poem that the BBC picked up from Pakistani school textbooks extolling George Bush’s virtues?

Yes, i did. found it incredible that US did such a stupid thing. but then again, appears the US has a track record of stupid actions with devastating consequences.

From what u say, seems to me this incredible "PR" program is a story waiting to be investigated and told .... similar to the current media reportings of the US sponsored world-wide prison/detension centers, torture, renditions (with NO oversight) AND their ooops mistakes.

Posted by joe at December 6, 2005 11:05 AM
Three words, Steve, that should have told you this was a serious story: Official. Secrets. Act.

Posted by ahem at December 6, 2005 11:37 AM
Quote: "And Al Qaeda regrets it. If Bush could only see the tsunami of anti-Americanism that his foolish anti-terror “war” has whipped up in the Muslim world!"

Oh the NeoCons know. They approve and are delighted by the Arab response. It gives them a war to fight - an excuse if you will. Perpetual war= perpetual profit and (they hope) perpetual power.

They are certainly delighted by the Arab response and purposely work to inflame it.

Posted by ronny at December 6, 2005 12:22 PM
Perhaps this will lead the Chinese to get involved in the quagmire that is the Middle East. So far, they seem to have stayed away. If any of our "allies" in the region think of jumping ship, you can bet the Chinese and the Russians will be stepping in pretty fast to "help them out".

Sadly, this is reminiscent to the thinking from 70 years ago, prior to the last world war...

Posted by parrot at December 6, 2005 01:37 PM
Hey Steve, love the column. It's me homepage actually.
Anyway, whilst you're abroad do me a favor...tell whomever it is you're meeting with, there in London, that you support Aston Villa Football.
Many thanks!

Posted by Hannah at December 6, 2005 01:38 PM
Good luck to you. I hope you dig up some good dirt on these scumbags. They've well over-stepped their bounds, and it's coming back to haunt them.

Oh yeah, have one of those great pints of Bitter for me. Love the stuff.

Posted by jamie w., nyc at December 6, 2005 01:39 PM
“Perhaps this will lead the Chinese to get involved in the quagmire that is the Middle East...Sadly, this is reminiscent to the thinking from 70 years ago, prior to the last world war..."

Parrot,

Why would the Chinese jump into the quagmire? They want the Muslims to soften up the Americans in the Middle East, which is their neighborhood and whose oil they need. Ultimately, the Chinese, Russians, Iranians (and the Indians, believe it or not) want America out of the region. As we know, Washington was notified by Uzbekistan a few months ago to get out of its Karshi-Khanabad airbase. The United States completed the withdrawal three weeks ago. It was the Chinese and Russians who pushed the resolution in the Shanghai Cooperation Council demanding that the U.S. pull out of Karsi-Khanabad. America is doing the China's work by antagonizing the Muslim populations of the whole region.

Posted by Mustafa at December 6, 2005 02:23 PM
Just heard that John Bolton is going to be on Lou Dobbs on CNN tonight.

Posted by Dons Blog at December 6, 2005 02:34 PM
I find it difficult to believe that the MSM cannot find SOMEONE willing to take one on the chin and publish this document. After all, it's a threat against their own craft..their own livelihood. Much like the "extra" Abu Ghraib photos, I'm astonished that none of this has found the light of day, considering just how many mediums exist (blogs, websites, newspapers, cable, etc.).

good luck, Steven. We NEED this published.

Posted by Punchy

Yeah??? Well, where is the "missing" two thousand pages of the Taguba report??? Also, where the hell is "Phase II" of the intelligence report we were promised we would have on Nov.15th by that piece of shit Robertson, after the dems did their little grandstand play of shutting down the Senate? For that matter, why aren't these God damned cowards that are supposed to be the "leadership" of the democratic party DEMANDING LOUDLY AND PUBLICALLY that these documents and photos get turned over NOW? The whole batch makes me sick. Kerry and Hillary ought to go to hell, and take their synchophantic mewling compatriots with them. It is obvious if we want these bastards in the White House to be held accountable we cannot count on our SUPPOSED representatives to do it.

I thought this country stood AGAINST "taxation without representation". Tell me, do you feel like these rich lying fat cat opportunistic bastards are representing YOU?

"I find it difficult to believe that the MSM cannot find SOMEONE willing to take one on the chin and publish this document."

It's the Prisoner's Dilemma. I think we are well into the N + 1 iteration here. The incentive to cheat (with respect to the other prisoners or MSM players) is overcome by the threat of punishment. Hence, cooperation and silence.

Or put another way, the MSM is risk adverse.

Of course, the problem would be access to the original document.

Anyone might publish it, if they had it.

I have a very high confidence that Dons Blog is on the money. However, that doesn't comport to my paranoia with respect to the MSM, so I dismiss it immediately.

The Prisoner's Dilemma game is probably being played out by those who have access to this document.

Dons Blog, once again, your logic is suffocating!

My apologies for the long post. I just meant to copy and paste the one I was responding to, and did not realize I had highlighted the whole thread. Ooops, again, sorry.

International legal experts Philip Allott and Vaughan Lowe would undoubtedly have some excellent recommendations for you both on contacts and on the international rules applicable to these developments. Allott was shockingly prescient in his analysis of the Bush war effort when he spoke in Washington in 2003 just after the war had started. He received an icy reception from influential members of the Bush cabinet present in the room at the time his remarks were delivered.

Philip Allott
http://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/index.php?pageid=176&conid=44

Tel: +44 (0) 1223 338 400

Vaughan Lowe
http://denning.law.ox.ac.uk/PIL/pilwho.php?lecturer_code=lowea

Tel: +44 1 865 79342

May you enjoy your stay in the UK.

There is no doubt that our government is targeting journalists and news outlets that do not agree with it's policies. Click here for the article
In this Rolling Stone article James Bamford refers to a congressional report that says: "...information itself is now both a tool and a TARGET of warfare [my emphasis]".

and

"[targeting Al-Jezzera with propaganda was] critical to US objectives in the War on Terrorism."

The military is targeting journalists. It is implicit in their policy. News is seen as part of warfare. There is no doubt in my mind that this is an actual policy decision and I think that these latest downing street minutes show that there is no distinction being made between propaganda and actual physical attack.

I suggest reading it if you have not already.

They are not neo-conservatives, they are crypto-fascists. This is simply part of their plan to impose their will by any means necessary.

I recently returned from a vacation in Mexico, and this "bomb Al-Jazeera" story was receiving steady and serious attention in the Mexican left press. Hence when I returned, in the U.S. press, its absence was conspicuous.

http://dontbomb.blogspot.com/ suggests that other classified stuff is probably in the memo which is causing the delay in it's, erm, leaking. To me, this is a very good point and highlights the difficulty of it's release in the UK and the reason for the jeopardy of a UK based publisher.

I get the impression from dontbomb that while thir trip to London was all very civilized, the government wasn't too helpful. The good news is that there are a lot of internet types more than happy to print the memo if they can get their hands on it.

I'm a bit torn on the idea of the entire memo being released if there is additional classified stuff on it and wonder how ( and who) would decide which portions to release. I realize the al Jazeera issue is front and center, but I'm not at all comfortable with joeblog deciding that I can't see the rest. I'm not sure why that is, either.

Ah well. Good luck and have some greasy fish and chips for me.

Slightly off-topic, but it's too urgent to ignore -- the traitors over at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the ones whose top officials are under indictment for espionage against the US, are at it again -- trying to get the US to blast Iran, with all our boys and girls over in Iraq as the inevitable cannon fodder.

Chutzpah??? More like shoot these *American* but really Israeli traitors, at dawn....AIPAC is so powerful that it's simply called The Lobby in DC.

And for this our kids are dying and will keep dying...

From the Jewish Times

http://www.jewishtimes.com/News/5229.stm

AIPAC Blasts White House On Iran

Ron Kampeas
Special to the Jewish Times

DECEMBER 06, 2005
Washington
As time dwindles for diplomatic efforts to curtail Iran's drive for nuclear weapons, the pro-Israel lobby in Washington is criticizing the Bush administration's handling of the issue.

The United States has endorsed a European Union plan that would allow Iran to continue its nuclear development as long as it leaves uranium enrichment, the final stage of converting uranium to fuel, to Russia. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the hope is that such a deal would keep Iran from bringing its uranium to weapon-grade level.

(rest of article at link)

I was tempted to participate in this discussion, but I thought that it might interrupt the group therapy session in which all of you seem to be engaged. Is this memo really that important to you? Are you so insecure in your hatred of Bush that you need to concoct one more theory of Bush's evil heart? The hundreds of other conspiracies and plots you've entertained in the various threads of this and other lefty blogs aren't enough? Or, could it be that deep in your heart of hearts you all know you are full of s*it, but you have to keep this game up through 2008 when the great rapture will forever release your souls from the conservative purgatory that you have created in your mind.

Neocondan,
Ridicule as a defense of the ridiculous is not effective.
Watch out for mirrors, baby.

marky wrote:
"Ridicule as a defense of the ridiculous is not effective. Watch out for mirrors, baby."

True, but ridicule as a reponse to the ridiculous is. Mirrors? Baby, don't you know that the image of an evil soul such as me is not reflected in a mirror.

neo,
Obviously, semi-literacy is beyond your abilities, large as they are for a political troglodyte Bush supporter.
One cannot watch Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney or Rice without thinking that they are among the most ridiculous figures ever to hold the highest positions in this country's government. Rumsfeld in particular seems literally insane---not in the rhetorical sense.

On a more substantive level, ridicule on the part of modern conservatives (liars, to use a more accurate term) is merely a dodge to avoid answering questions.
If you're serious about discussion (ha!)
tell us whether you approve of plans to bomb Al Jazeera. Or take a time machine back about 18 months and explain why the idea that US troops are engaged in torture, rape and murder are completely preposterous notions which the facts will never support. The result will be the same.

marky wrote:
"If you're serious about discussion (ha!)
tell us whether you approve of plans to bomb Al Jazeera"

The idea that a plan to bomb Al Jazeera exists is a premature mental ejaculation on your part. Your source for the contents of the memo is the Daily Mirror - an anti-bush and anti-war pile of journalistic crap responsible for releasing fake photos purporting to show Brittish soldiers committing torture. So until you get a copy of the memo there really is nothing to discuss. Is there?

HateBothParties,

What you say is correct, but I seem to see things cooling off. Whether it matters much is another question.

Of course, in U.S.-Israeli relations, the tail has been wagging the dog. After the neocons plunged the United States into the Iraq catastrophe, they’ve gone into the background, passing the torch on to their puppets. On Middle Eastern issues, Condi Rice is practically serving as Silvan Shalom’s deputy. On May 5 a small group of us (from the Nat’l Confce of Editorial Writers) met Rice at the State Dept. All her opening remarks were about the Middle East. She went on a tangent about Syria, Hezbollah, Iran, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and so on. I said I recognized that all those groups and states were hostile to Israel, and that America, as a close ally of Israel, is rightly concerned about it. Was any of them, I asked, hurting Americans or American interests in anyway? She didn’t answer my question but went on rambling about the viciousness of the terrorists, the administration's determination to fight and destroy that evil, and so on. I thought -- as you do -- that even the Iraq disaster would not keep the administration from the going after other enemies of Israel, especially Syria and Iran.

But I think now that saner counsel may be prevailing on the White House, apparently because of a near rebellion at State and in intelligence agencies. My information is that the administration isn’t after all going to have a regime change in Syria (Frankly, I wish it did!) or attack Iran. But the problem is that Bush and Rice are still resisting a major review of the necnon policy. And without a thorough review of its Middle Eastern policy, I don’t know how America is going to protect its interests in the Middle East after a humiliating withdrawal from Iraq.

"I thought that it might interrupt the group therapy session"

Cheaper than $100/hour and probably more effective.

Common on everyone, let's give Neocondad and Robert Morrow a big ol' rousing group hug. We'll give 'em our koodies and anything.

Ace, Do I have to hug back?

"Ace, Do I have to hug back?" :^)

We all friends here Neocondad. No one has to do anything they're not comfortable with.

After reviewing my last couple of posts, I think its time I took a couple of hits on the grammar hookah.

I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.

Neocondan:
There is a post tonight on www.shrinkwrapped.com
dealing exactly with this group's situation.
Enjoy!
Alina

And Neocon likes us, he really, really like us.

Come on Neocon, aren't you the least bit curious about why some people are so afraid of the memo getting out that they're prosecuting Leo O'Connor for just receiving the memo, even though he turned it over to Tony Clarke who returned it?

Why do you think Attorney General Lord Goldsmith is acting so oddly? History would say that leaks happen every day without invoking the OSA.

It's sort of like guessing what's in the box under the tree. (holiday tree of course, this is a progressive blog)

Don,
Is it possible that the memo may contain other information that has nothing to do with Al Jazeera and that may be highly sensitive, either politically or militarily speaking?

Sure, see my comment above. I don't think the prosecution has anything to do with al Jazeera.

But you're missing my point. The fun is in the guessing. Watch? Scarf? Autographed photo of Steve? Plans to take over the middle east and move onward to China?

To the people opposed to releasing the Al Jazeera memo -- you'all ever heard of a black Sharpie? The markers that can wipe out any *mistake* our government makes?

I'm surprised I can even buy one at the local Office Max given how much the US government has used Sharpies and other black markers to obscure crucial passages from just about every document actually released to the public in the last 50+ years.

Sharpies should be in the Smithsonian right next to our extinct Bill of Rights and Constitution because given their constant use by the US government they are on the verge of running out of ink.

Was it Lenin who said that sunshine was the best disinfectant? Or was it Cheney? Same difference.

Our world is spinning out of control in any case, but as an American and a human being (well, sometimes) I demand a ban on Sharpies, especially black ones, or any kind of marker, being used on any kind of document in Washington DC and/or in any office whose door's name plate starts with "Congressman"

Freedom of Information Act, my a*s. Time to ban black Sharpies and while we're at it, let's get some rope, and whatever else we are using today to *persuade* tur-rists who don't like Israel and us invading their countries to cease and dissist? Drills?

Remember, Congress works for US and not vice versa.

Common on everyone, let's give Neocondad and Robert Morrow a big ol' rousing group hug. We'll give 'em our koodies and anything.

Posted by Ace Loves Carl Jung

Group hug?? I don't think so, I say tattoo a target on the troll's forehead and ship his ass to Fallujah. And bill AIPAC for the ticket, AND the ink.

Steve,

Put zee memo on zee microdot and vehr it ahs a beauty mark on yohr sheek.

Neocondan,

I guess that it must be difficult in the US to get a better handle on the memo issue as you don't get to see news programmes such as Newsnight, which interviewed Peter Kilfoyle, who was one of at least 4 individuals who have seen the memo. So for this Brit, writing comments on this blog, my source for the info is not the Mirror, but Peter Kilfoyle who gave an on camera interview regarding the contents.

Please bear in mind the following: Kilfoyle is a fully paid-up member of the Labour anti-war backbench awkward squad, but was at one time a minister at the MoD. When he and Clark saw the memo in May of 2004, they decided to return it as it contained sensitive information that would actively endanger UK military personnel on the ground - the presumption is that this is in connection with Bush and Blair's discussions regarding the failed April assault on Falluja; it's not a surprise that 12 months after the second, "successful", assault on Falluja, with UK troops withdrawn from the Babil/Anbar area where they were deployed in November in support of Falluja II, that the 'actively endanger' issue is now passed, and the conjunction of this with the OSA prosecutions has opened up the space for Kilfoyle to talk about the memo. There are now 2 early day motions that have been tabled by Kilfoyle that seek to force the government to publish the damned thing. There is also the possibility that the OSA prosecution will involve the publication of the memo - although my guts tell me that the prosecution will collapse.

Now the memo is obviously sensitive - as indeed was the publication of the full AG advice, the Downing Street Minutes and a number of other documents that have been leaked to the press. The government spent the best part of 2 years trying to prevent the publication, until the leak forced its hand. None of these prior leaks led to OSA prosecutions and AG threats to the press regarding publication.

The only other attempt at OSA prosecution in connection with the Iraq war to date was that of Kathy Gunn, who worked for the security services at GCHQ and leaked the details of UK/US illegal bugging at the UN; standard policy dictates that security service leakers get prosecuted - in this case, the prosecution collapsed.

I think that we can infer from this a fair few things - that the memo exists, it has been accurately characterised, and if released would be extremely damaging to Bush, and possibly, Blair and Powell. I don't think that this is about concocting fantasies to legitimate our prejudices about Bush; I appreciate that it is convenient for you to try to pass it off as just more anti-Bushism - but all the evidence surrounding the issue suggests that there is a substantive and damaging content to this document, and that Bush proposing to bomb AJ in Qatar is a very big deal indeed.

In the end I don't quite know what you're trying to argue - that Bush should be able to do whatever he likes, and should he decide to bomb the BBC that it would be ok by you? I want to know what your red lines are, and whether it is ever possible for them to be crossed by this administration.

In the end I don't quite know what you're trying to argue - that Bush should be able to do whatever he likes, and should he decide to bomb the BBC that it would be ok by you? I want to know what your red lines are, and whether it is ever possible for them to be crossed by this administration.

Posted by dan

It escapes me how you can possibly expect a honest answer from a troll who is tasked to advance the Bush talking points and policy justifications. Neocondan/RobertMorrow will simply drool out whatever is the directed script of the day, no matter the clarity or the wisdom of your queries.

“In the end I don't quite know what you're trying to argue - that Bush should be able to do whatever he likes, and should he decide to bomb the BBC that it would be ok by you? I want to know what your red lines are, and whether it is ever possible for them to be crossed by this administration.”

Posted by: dan

Dan,

You’ve alluded to the worst thing the Bush administration has done to America. It’s stripped this great nation of its moral leadership in the world and turned it into a paraiah nation. I see a silver lining, however. Pluralities in many countries (as the last Pew global attitudes survey has shown) attribute their anti-Americanism to Bush rather than to America or Americans. I’m hoping that the next administration will devote to restoring America’s moral leadership. But to do so, the first thing it would need to is treat its foriegn policy apparatus with anti-neocon disinfectant.

1) Iraq War News - http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/

2) Has Steve been renditioned to Eastern Europe?

Dan wrote:
"Please bear in mind the following: Kilfoyle is a fully paid-up member of the Labour anti-war backbench awkward squad, but was at one time a minister at the MoD. When he and Clark saw the memo in May of 2004"

Here is how the BBC described Mr. Kilfoyle:

"But Mr Kilfoyle - a former defence minister and leading Labour opponent of the Iraq war - has called for the full text to be published."

Not exactly a disinterested party.

Here is how the BBC describes how Mr. Kilfoyle came to know of the memo:

"Mr Kilfoyle said he had not seen the memo, but had learnt of its alleged contents at the time of the original leak and believed it tallied with the Mirror's report."

So, maybe he didn't see the memo as dan suggests and has characterized the contents based on hearsay.

The BBC further reports:

"According to The Mirror, the transcript is the document which allegedly turned up in the constituency office of former Labour MP Tony Clarke in May 2004."

"Mr Clarke - who voted against the Iraq War and lost his Northampton South seat in this May's election - said he returned the document to the government because of fears British troops' lives could be put at risk if it became public."

It seems this startling revelation has been kept under wraps by Mr. Clarke from May 2004 to November 2005. Why come out with it now?

Dan wrote:

"In the end I don't quite know what you're trying to argue - that Bush should be able to do whatever he likes, and should he decide to bomb the BBC that it would be ok by you? I want to know what your red lines are, and whether it is ever possible for them to be crossed by this administration."

The depravity and vacousness of your argument is no better exemplified than in your closing statement.

I believe all of this. The man BELIEVED his own press as the "war President." As such, he would probably be pushing for whatever it took to make sure he is successful.

I hope Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain throw us out. If I were them, I would remind the Administration that you can only come back when Bush is out of office.

The depravity and vacousness of your argument is no better exemplified than in your closing statement.

huh??
Or is there nothing that the ends won't justify the means for?

Diss - Justice Brandeis "sunlight is the best dissinfectant".

Pissing in the wind but it's a slow day

Neo - Since no one has pointed it out - On April 8, 2003 DoD bombed not only Al-Jazeera but Abu Dhabi t.v., and the Palestine Hotel where almost all non-imbedded journalists, in Bagdad, were told to take shelter by the DoD.

While I realize you will probably applaud the fact that 3 journalists were killed and dozens wounded by this "accidental coincidince" I don't think even you would swallow the DoD response to this incident. With all those "smart" bombs, that they laude, DoD simply claimed incompetence.

So while you're quite right that it's sheer speculation as to what is or isn't in the "memo" there is a lot of material to back up our dissenting speculation.

My question, to you - is there any material, other then some Heritage Foundation thought experiment, to back up the neo-con sheer speculation that you can ever create a democracy in the Middle East under boot and bomb?

Look up Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh at wikipedia.org to better understand what will most likely happen in Iraq by forcing a pro-American/western stlye democracy on a 5,000 year old culture that doesn't get it or want it.

Anyone that equates Iraq and Vietnam, like Sen. Hagel (r-Neb.) is a fool to history. We have a clear 20th century example of what is most likely to happen to Iraq, it's called Iran.

Our speculation here is simply harmless, while the neo-con speculation, and hubris, is gonna screw the world up for a long time.

"It seems this startling revelation has been kept under wraps by Mr. Clarke from May 2004 to November 2005. Why come out with it now?"

If he's a politician, his motives could be political.

Looking for a moral high ground here in the political/media zone is certainly a mistake; the road to ruin for ones internal compass. Which doesn't mean morals/ethics have evaporated, they just seem take a lower priority in the calculations for politicians and media goons.

Bush has posioned the well with the conduct of his administration's diplomatic esprit de corps; Oscar-the-Grouch, Joey Soprano, and the absent minded professor types can/could be seen at a variety of cabinet and diplomatic liason posts. Some of the folks at the top appear to enjoy taking a dump in the international arena. It's great chum for the right-wing base.

However, Bush going to take whackings because of the way he has conducted his diplomacy. It's called payback in some quarters, the blanket party with socks-and-soap treatment in others.

Whether conservatives over here like it or not, people are pissed at the Bush team and they're going to whip it on as the opportunities and means arise. Credibility-wise this administration is in the dumper, and the cuts from 1000 long knives are in play.

Scandals sell media-wise...just like war buildups and war coverage. I don't hear shareholders and money managers invested in the MSM complaining about their ROI because of this stuff.

Why not ask some shareholders and advertisers why they don't clamp down on all this media circus nonsense? Ask them why this memo is important. After all, the executive teams at these corporations serve the shareholders and advertising clients; note the effort poured into quarterlies and ratings.

The longer this memo stays out the glare of the redacted sunlight, the more the flames get fanned. They should have disposed of this whole issue if they wanted to avoid a shellacking in the kangaroo court of public opinion.

I have a question if the allegation turns out to be true: what are the repercussion if Bush did in fact blurt out he'd like to bomb AJ? Loss of our access to Qatar? Just red meat for the mob? Just lots of hurt feelings? Useful for '06 & '08 elections? Evidence for some sort of legal action? What sort of legal action? Any teeth to it?

Even though charges have been laid against the alleged leaker, I am starting to wonder if the memo may have been deliberatedly done because President Stumblebum still fancied bombing al-Jazeera. Blair realised just how stupid that action would be and wanted someway to get it off the agenda, permanently. Getting the info out there would surely put the kibosh on it, then threatening the paper with national security charges if they printed anymore of the memo would keep any other matters discussed under wraps.

(Sheesh............. If I keep thinking like this I am going to end up as twisted as all these two-faced pricks.)

"I say tattoo a target on the troll's forehead and ship his ass to Fallujah."

Au contraire au frare. Let's wax...

Without a friendly opposition we run the risk of becoming a sterile, bored, selflovin', chatter society. Although blogs do seem to have a high degree of mental selflove. Keyboard diddling, if you will; or even if you won't.

Reality, as my puny limited construction of it has turned out thus far, relies upon multiple asymmetries. A symmetric universe is formless and vastly boring. Asymmetry makes for entertaining horse racing and political ice escapades theatre.

In the many-worlds proposition, I occupy Neocondad's positions and vice versa. Ken Kesey and John M. Olin switch ontological places on the grand gears.

All this arguing and posturing will be edited out at the singularity.

My last post reminds me of a joke, approximately:

To you I'm an atheist, but to God I'm the loyal opposition.

BTW, I just noticed the date on my last post.

Pearl Habor anniversary. Uncles and cousins fought in WW2 and didn't all return.

Maybe I'm missing something here. I just don't see how the confirmation that Bush was planning on bombing al Jazeera would be so terrible that it requires this kind of response from the British Attorney General.

After the bombing of al Jazeera offices, the deaths of al Jazeera correspondents, probable US involvement in the detention of Taysir Alluni, efforts to keep al Jazeera out of Iraq, Canada, and the US, and constant accusations by Rumsfeld et al., no muslim would be surprised if Bush was planning on going after their headquarters.

It would make a great cover story if you're trying to prosecute to keep the real story of the memo from getting out. People are going to hunt until they find something of news interest. Now they have this story to howl about.

Ace, you're brilliant and funny. My hats off to you. If you're ever in the Carolinas let me know, we'll find some coffee and the hookah of your choice and contemplate the meaning of life.

I never doubted it for a minute. He's already bombed Al-Jazeera before, so why think he didn't want to another time? He may not even know the difference between Qatar and Fallujah.

Right back at you Dons Blog. Honored by the invite. I lived in N.C. in 2002 & 2003. Wonderful experience. Great cadence to life and dietary choices in the Carolinas.

"'In the end I don't quite know what you're trying to argue - that Bush should be able to do whatever he likes, and should he decide to bomb the BBC that it would be ok by you? I want to know what your red lines are, and whether it is ever possible for them to be crossed by this administration.'

'The depravity and vacousness of your argument is no better exemplified than in your closing statement.'"

How disappointing, Neocondan. Dan has provided a serious, substantive, and respectful contribution, as objective as can be managed in a short space here, and you answer with a non sequitur that manages to be both evasive and arrogant.

For shame.

hello steve? steve? where are you steve? i need some goodies.

This thread is sucking mud captain and she's giving it all she's got Captain...

Johne wrote:
"How disappointing, Neocondan. Dan has provided a serious, substantive, and respectful contribution, as objective as can be managed in a short space here, and you answer with a non sequitur that manages to be both evasive and arrogant.

For shame."

You are right johne, and I apologize to Dan for my off-hand remark. It detracted from the serious points he and I were trying to make. Lack of sleep tends to make one irritable and snarcastic.

Posted

Frankly, I thought he must be kidding too, like Reagan's bombing joke. Now it seems he may have been serious?
I have thought many things about Bush. I believed he was a country club Republican whose sole agenda was enriching the rich; who used religion to control the unwashed. True as far as it goes.
I thought he was a simple man exploited by Cheney and the neo-cons in their plot to rule the world for Halliburton. True as far as it goes.
But there was always a hint that this dry alcoholic may be going elsewhere, that he believed his true redemption lay in saving the world. That would show his one-term faggot father.
And so I am beginning to realize that we have a madman in the White House, one with a Messianic complex. Think about the recent news that he won't budge even if it costs the Republicans control of Congress. That may have been released to show a strong, focused leader, but that's not really what comes across.
He is not out of touch with reality; he has jettisoned it. If this is so, the danger to the world is great.