|
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 |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:02 am Post subject: Blair Talked Bush Out of Bombing Al-Jazeera |
 |
|
Blair talked Bush out of bombing al-Jazeera: report
Tue Nov 22, 2:39 AM ET
LONDON (AFP) - 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.
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."
A spokesman for Blair's Downing Street office said: "We have got nothing to say about this story. We don't comment on leaked documents." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hypnotist
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is actually getting really interesting...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1648590,00.html
| Quote: |
Legal gag on Bush-Blair war row
Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday November 23, 2005
The Guardian
The attorney general last night threatened newspapers with the Official Secrets Act if they revealed the contents of a document allegedly relating to a dispute between Tony Blair and George Bush over the conduct of military operations in Iraq.
It is believed to be the first time the Blair government has threatened newspapers in this way. Though it has obtained court injunctions against newspapers, the government has never prosecuted editors for publishing the contents of leaked documents, including highly sensitive ones about the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
[...]
The Mirror said the memo turned up in May last year at the constituency office of the former Labour MP for Northampton South, Tony Clarke. Last week, Leo O'Connor, a former researcher for Mr Clarke, was charged with receiving a document under section 5 of the act. David Keogh, a former Foreign Office official seconded to the Cabinet Office, was charged last week with making a "damaging disclosure of a document relating to international relations". Mr Keogh, 49, is accused of sending the document to Mr O'Connor, 42, between April 16 and May 28 2004.
Mr Clarke said yesterday that Mr O'Connor "did the right thing" by drawing the document to his attention. Mr Clarke, an anti-war MP who lost his seat at the last election, returned the document to the government. "As well as an MP, I am a special constable," he said.
[...]
|
The tone of the Guardian report is especially interesting - they're treading VERY carefully. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alias
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What a bombshell this would be (no pun intended) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is rather hard to swallow...
...if it's true we'll find out eventually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| "Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." Ironic, isn't it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leave it to Bush to actually propose doing the kind of stuff that igotthisguitar gets laughed at for claiming Bush does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hypnotist
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
This is rather hard to swallow...
...if it's true we'll find out eventually. |
The OSA is not used lightly in the UK (excepting Thatcher and Spycatcher of course). Something is going on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, of course it was a joke for Bush to say something like that to Blair. To read it any other way would be ridiculous and the stuff of conspiracy theorists (gee, that would explain the OP's involvement, wouldn't it?). CENTCOM command Centre is (was) in Qatar, anyone who believes that anybody in the US administration was seriously contemplating bombing anything there has more than a few screws loose.
Yes, it's fun to portray Bush as a complete and utter moron but to report this as if it were serious is absolutely ridiculous. It's "hugely damaging to Bush" because it shows his use of inappropriate humour, NOT because he was intent on bombing everything and everyone in the region.
Let's get a grip here, ok? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
No, of course it was a joke for Bush to say something like that to Blair. To read it any other way would be ridiculous and the stuff of conspiracy theorists (gee, that would explain the OP's involvement, wouldn't it?). CENTCOM command Centre is (was) in Qatar, anyone who believes that anybody in the US administration was seriously contemplating bombing anything there has more than a few screws loose.
Yes, it's fun to portray Bush as a complete and utter moron but to report this as if it were serious is absolutely ridiculous. It's "hugely damaging to Bush" because it shows his use of inappropriate humour, NOT because he was intent on bombing everything and everyone in the region.
Let's get a grip here, ok? |
How about a FACT theorist?
Seems BIG government is seriously trying to pressure the media not to report this one, or for that matter go any further in investigating. I believe most people call that CENSORSHIP.
Hmmmmmmmmm ...
'Bomb Jazeera' memo: Media warned
Wednesday, November 23, 2005; Posted: 8:06 p.m. EST (01:06 GMT)
LONDON, England (CNN) -- The British government has warned news organizations against publishing details of a secret memo which one London tabloid newspaper said recounted discussions between Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush about bombing the headquarters of the Arabic news network Al-Jazeera.
The Daily Mirror reported Tuesday that Blair talked Bush out of launching an air strike against Al-Jazeera's headquarters in Qatar -- a U.S. ally -- during an April 16, 2004 meeting at the White House.
The White House called the report "outlandish," but Al-Jazeera urged the British government to either confirm or deny the report.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/11/23/britain.jazeera/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I believe most people call that CENSORSHIP.
|
It has to be said, the British government's response doesn't really give one the impression that the conversation was as benign as some would want us to believe.
A sort of halfway-house between "Bush the cold-blooded killer of journalists" and "Bush the master of the witty monologue" might be that Bush WAS joking, but in such a prolonged and tasteless fashion that were the transcripts released, all public confidence in his fitness to govern would evaporate overnight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doutdes
Joined: 14 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
You cut your quote two paragraphs too early. It seems that the question isn't what Blair talked Bush out of, but what Bush talked Blair into.
| Quote: |
The White House called the report "outlandish," but Al-Jazeera urged the British government to either confirm or deny the report.
The Arabic-language network has been a frequent target of U.S. criticism, and its facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq have been hit by U.S. bombs.
If true, the Mirror report "would cast serious doubts" on U.S. statements that those strikes were accidental, the network said. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Doutdes wrote: |
You cut your quote two paragraphs too early. It seems that the question isn't what Blair talked Bush out of, but what Bush talked Blair into.
| Quote: |
The White House called the report "outlandish," but Al-Jazeera urged the British government to either confirm or deny the report.
The Arabic-language network has been a frequent target of U.S. criticism, and its facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq have been hit by U.S. bombs.
If true, the Mirror report "would cast serious doubts" on U.S. statements that those strikes were accidental, the network said. |
|
Okay, well that's a more subtantial story as far as I'm concerned.
It's the double-edged sword of claiming your inventory of laser-guided weapons is practically infallible- people will never completely believe you when you say you can go to war and avoid collateral damage to civilians and their property, and then they'll never completely believe you if you claim something was accidental or went off target. If you're the Bush administration you can't expect to have it both ways.
Remember the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade?
A lot of people still wonder about that one I'm sure... and probably rightly so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| How about a FACT theorist? |
You of all people could not possibly have typed that with a straight face. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rok_the-boat
Joined: 24 Jan 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Err, are people saying they didn't suspect 'something' when those offices got hit? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doutdes
Joined: 14 Oct 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
It's the double-edged sword of claiming your inventory of laser-guided weapons is practically infallible- people will never completely believe you when you say you can go to war and avoid collateral damage to civilians and their property, and then they'll never completely believe you if you claim something was accidental or went off target. If you're the Bush administration you can't expect to have it both ways.
Remember the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade? |
It really doesn't have much to do with the laser-guided weapon systems. We were very clear that we were aiming at the Chinese Embassy, but that we just didn't realize it was the Chinese Embassy. There was a similar explanation for the Palestine Hotel incident where, I think, three reporters were killed. It isn't always accuracy of our bombs that's in question, but our information. It still begs the question of why our troops are given outdated, misleading or incomplete information. For some more information about this I'll refer you to this article. I think the latter parts (III & IV) deal specifically with the Al-Jazeera bombings. |
|
| 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
