|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Apple Scruff
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
|
 Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 2:30 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
BUMP.
There should be a lot more people talking about this story, even if Bush and the mainstream media refuse to do so.
http://www.rawstory.com/aexternal/conyers_iraq_letter_502
| Quote: |
Eighty-eight members of Congress call on Bush for answers on secret Iraq plan
Eighty-eight members of Congress have signed a letter authored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) calling on President Bush to answer questions about a secret U.S.-UK agreement to attack Iraq, RAW STORY has learned.
In a letter, Conyers and other members say they are disappointed the mainstream media has not touched the revelations.
"Unfortunately, the mainstream media in the United States was too busy with wall-to-wall coverage of a "runaway bride" to cover a bombshell report out of the British newspapers," Conyers writes. "The London Times reports that the British government and the United States government had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in 2002, before authorization was sought for such an attack in Congress, and had discussed creating pretextual justifications for doing so."
"The Times reports, based on a newly discovered document, that in 2002 British Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a meeting in which he expressed his support for "regime change" through the use of force in Iraq and was warned by the nation's top lawyer that such an action would be illegal," he adds. "Blair also discussed the need for America to "create" conditions to justify the war."
The members say they are seeking an inquiry.
"This should not be allowed to fall down the memory hole during wall-to-wall coverage of the Michael Jackson trial and a runaway bride," he remarks. "To prevent that from occuring, I am circulating the following letter among my House colleagues and asking them to sign on to it."
The letter follows.
###
May 5, 2005
The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We write because of troubling revelations in the Sunday London Times apparently confirming that the United States and Great Britain had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action. While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your Administration. However, when this story was divulged last weekend, Prime Minister Blair's representative claimed the document contained "nothing new." If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own Administration.
The Sunday Times obtained a leaked document with the minutes of a secret meeting from highly placed sources inside the British Government. Among other things, the document revealed:
* Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a July 2002 meeting, at which he discussed military options, having already committed himself to supporting President Bush's plans for invading Iraq.
* British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the case for war was "thin" as "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran."
* A separate secret briefing for the meeting said that Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war.
* A British official "reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
As a result of this recent disclosure, we would like to know the following:
1) Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?
2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?
3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?
4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?
5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?
We have of course known for some time that subsequent to the invasion there have been a variety of varying reasons proffered to justify the invasion, particularly since the time it became evident that weapons of mass destruction would not be found. This leaked document - essentially acknowledged by the Blair government - is the first confirmation that the rationales were shifting well before the invasion as well.
Given the importance of this matter, we would ask that you respond to this inquiry as promptly as possible. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Members who have already signed letter:
Neil Abercrombie
Brian Baird
Tammy Baldwin
Xavier Becerra
Shelley Berkley
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Sanford Bishop
Earl Blumenauer
Corrine Brown
Sherrod Brown
G.K. Butterfield
Emanuel Cleaver
James Clyburn
John Conyers
Jim Cooper
Elijah Cummings
Danny Davis
Peter DeFazio
Diana DeGette
Bill Delahunt
Rosa DeLauro
Lloyd Doggett
Sam Farr
Bob Filner
Harold Ford, Jr.
Barney Frank
Al Green
Raul Grijalva
Louis Gutierrez
Alcee Hastings
Maurice Hinchey
Rush Holt
Jay Inslee
Sheila Jackson Lee
Jessie Jackson Jr.
Marcy Kaptur
Patrick Kennedy
Dale Kildee
Carolyn Kilpatrick
Dennis Kucinich
William Lacy Clay
Barbara Lee
John Lewis
Zoe Lofgren
Donna M. Christensen
Carolyn Maloney
Ed Markey
Carolyn McCarthy
Jim McDermott
James McGovern
Cynthia McKinney
Martin Meehan
Kendrick Meek
Gregory Meeks
Michael Michaud
George Miller
Gwen S. Moore
James Moran
Jerrold Nadler
Grace Napolitano
James Oberstar
John Olver
Major Owens
Frank Pallone
Donald Payne
Charles Rangel
Bobby Rush
Bernie Sanders
Linda Sanchez
Jan Schakowsky
Jose Serrano
Ike Skelton
Louise Slaughter
Hilda Solis
Pete Stark
Ellen Tauscher
Bennie Thompson
Edolphus Towns
Stephanie Tubbs Jones
Chris Van Hollen
Nydia Velazquez
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Maxine Waters
Diane Watson
Melvin Watt
Robert Wexler
Lynn Woolsey
David Wu
Albert R. Wynn |
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7318016?pageid=rs.Home&pageregion=single7
| Quote: |
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL ? U.K. EYES ONLY
... Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
... It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
These notes, taken for Prime Minister Tony Blair in July 2002, seven months before the launch of the Iraq war, and confirmed by a former Bush official as an " absolutely accurate description of what transpired" are about as close as you can get to a smoking gun on Iraq.
To review: Bush was pre-determined to go to war. The case that Saddam posed any danger was "thin." The administration had taken it upon itself to "fix" the intelligence to justify an invasion. The lack of post-war planning had already begun.
We also see in this memo that the administration had originally intended to use the war for the political benefit of the Republican Party, hoping to topple Saddam at the same time the GOP toppled Democrats in the 2002 midterm elections. The Rove-ian logic couldn't be more revolting: choosing the timing of war based on political, rather than military, calculations.
I haven't blogged on this outrage for two weeks, assuming naively that this would become front-page, CNN Headline news any day now. You would think, after all, that 90 Congressional Democrats signing a letter to the President demanding that he explain how he could have "secretly agreed to attack Iraq in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority" would make a few waves.
But the U.S. media world has just so far simply shrugged. Where did the major dailies play the story? Washington Post: A-18. New York Times: A-9 (buried in a political analysis handicapping of Blair's electoral chances.) The LA Times: A-3.
Indeed, search on GoogleNews for mention of the Democrat's letter and you'll get two hits: The Washington Post's ombudsman -- taking his paper to task for not covering it -- and Aljazeera.com.
You know you're in trouble when the American newspaper taking charge on this story is the The New York Review of Books.
Tim Dickinson thanks God for faulty hand grenades. The nation needs a war in Chechnya like we need a hole in the head. |
By the way, the guy who wrote the Rolling Stone piece is names Tim D1ckinson. Good lord, there needs to be some adjustments made to the swear filter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
R. S. Refugee
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Apple Scruff wrote: |
BUMP.
There should be a lot more people talking about this story, even if Bush and the mainstream media refuse to do so. |
Scruffie,
You're behind the times using that 'mainstream' media term. We now call it the 'smokescreen' media.    |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with you A.S, but getting them to talk about a real story is like trying to get one of my space-related threads to as big a post count as one about western vs. Korean girls over here.
P.S. American embassy in Baghdad will cost $592 million. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
I agree with you A.S, but getting them to talk about a real story is like trying to get one of my space-related threads to as big a post count as one about western vs. Korean girls over here.
P.S. American embassy in Baghdad will cost $592 million. |
Is that where some of the "unaccounted" 8 billion USD is going?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Apple Scruff
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| P.S. American embassy in Baghdad will cost $592 million. |
Yeah, I bet that's really legit. Kinda like those thousand dollar hammers and toilet seats that have been known to pop up in the budget. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
