READER COMMENTS ON
"Conyers Pressures White House Over Secret British Memo!!"
(54 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 1:30 pm PT...
Hurray for Mr. Conyers! All his letter writing will contribute to the historical record of the arrogant, incompentent, dishonest, greedy, murdering Bush administration. That will be the Bush legacy: disaster for America, and destruction for the rest of the world. May God put an early end to the Bush scourge on this earth!
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 1:40 pm PT...
And may God protect us from Book-Burning Bodice-Ripping Lynn Cheney!
Way to go Conyers - our HERO!!!
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
Charles R Dubord Jr
said on 5/3/2005 @ 2:00 pm PT...
No to act gleefull, but HURRAY!!! Finally some evidence that we were right all along!!!
Jee some how I already know that.
Bush administration- sit on it.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 2:10 pm PT...
This is serious stuff! Surely someone will take action on it. (Dream on).
Glad to hear Hush and Blair are finally being "outed"
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 2:12 pm PT...
I meant Bush and Blair. Must have been a Freudian typo. Is there such a thing?
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 2:27 pm PT...
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 4:26 pm PT...
Thanks for covering this. This story is actually huge, but the MSM and the blogosphere seem to be missing it. Your readers can learn more at Daily Kos, and at Congressman Conyers' blog --- http://www.conyersblog.us.
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 4:45 pm PT...
Kira #6 --
The forged memo story was too little too late... Just the guilty cats covering up shit. Blair had already done two interviews since the Sunday Times Online, super-secret Downing Street memo was published. The truth stands.
I received a reply from Carol Towornicky today. Her email (my name and story links redacted) is pasted below:
- - -
From: "Towarnicky, Carol"
Subject: RE: John Conyers and the secret Iraq document
Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 14:53:05 -0400
thanks for writing. i saw this article --- with the bloody week just past in
iraq, this evidence could be explosive. c
From: xxxx [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 1:08 AM
Subject: John Conyers and the secret Iraq document
Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) has something I feel is of interest to
all Americans. At Mr. Conyers Blog entry
Justifications To Go To War, is a link to his DailyKos post: Creating
Reasons to Go to War,
wherein is a letter he has sent to President Bush. Mr Conyers is referring
to The Secret
Street Memo in Sunday's Times Online in Britain. On the internet, Raw Story
has written this article as well: Rep. calls for
deeper inquiry into
secret Iraq attack plan. There may be additional info out there as well.
I would love to see these developments discussed in public, as the
people have a very important right to know about this. Thank you for your
- - -
Think Carol will run it? We'll soon know.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 5:14 pm PT...
Hi KIRA Re: #6
A little clarification required perhaps!
JC's letter to Bu$h refers to this 23 July 2002 memo
which no one is suggesting is a fake; on the contrary this memo's authenticity is confirmed by this statement: Prime Minister Blair's representative claimed the document contained "nothing new." (from JC's letter to "little shrub")
......whereas the story "Forged Iraq 'memo to Blair' exposed" refers to an "allegedly" fake memo sent
by Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith to Tony B-Liar on March 7, 2003.
KIRA, I know you knew the difference between the two memo's, but I just thought someone skimming through the posts may confuse the memo's!
I share your obvious skepticism regarding the "fake" tag on the Goldsmith memo!
P.S. My Hovercraft is full of eels!
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 5:26 pm PT...
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 5:45 pm PT...
The memo that Conyers refers to is definitely legitamate, no doubt about it. Blair has been interviewed since the memo broke over the weekend. Blair would obviously denounce it immediately if he felt it was fake or innaccurate, because, to state the obvious, the memo damages Blair very close to the election.
But not even a wisper of this in the US MSM. This proves beyond any doubt that the corporate media protects Bush.
What the fuck? I called my rep, both senators, and the white house to give them a piece of my mind. I hope all of you do the same.
What the hell happened to the "rule of law" ? It was really really damn important when Clinton lied about sex. But lying about WAR? There's no fucking comparison.
I have not yet begun to rage.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 5:48 pm PT...
Torqued Re: #8
Yes Go Carol!!!
JC is so good, the other JC must be looking over his shoulder! hehe!!
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 5:52 pm PT...
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 6:04 pm PT...
Thank you for the clarification, Bushw@cker - number 9 ... number 9 ...
Actually, I plead guilty - I confess, I didn't catch the difference. :doze: I'll go back and study the 2 docs.
It's possible my hovercraft is full of eels. Hopefully soon, I will no longer be infected.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 5/3/2005 @ 6:10 pm PT...
As I understand it, the Brits said this was "nothing new" because Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher signed a private agreement that England would go to war whenever the United States needed them to, and Tony Blair assumed it was still in force. The Cold War was extant, and trouble brewed in Lebanon and Grenada.
Of course we weren't told about it. It's "something new" to us. Especially since the Cold War is over.
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 6:29 pm PT...
I think John Conyers is going for broke, like a MLK of 2005, knowing that nothing in life is worth anything without human rights, decency, honesty, integrity and the rule of humane law. I hope from the bottom of my heart that he has adequate protection - but I'm betting he'd do his thing without any, just because it's the right thing to do.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 6:40 pm PT...
There's so much material to absorb, it can be bloody baffling at times!
....it's a fair cop!
But society is to blame!
For your infection, may I recommend a knee in the temple and a dagger up the cli****s?
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 6:45 pm PT...
clis? where did those asterisks go?
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 6:46 pm PT...
BW #17 --- you got me on your recommendation. I must say :huh?: Is this Python or Aussie slang?
It sounds like an awful remedy - worse than the infection. Maybe I can learn to live with the eels.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 7:11 pm PT...
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 7:23 pm PT...
Yes KIRA, I'm getting a little obscure, but it's from the Blackmail Quiz segment, where the old lady (Terry Jones) asks for "a blow on the head, just there, where it hurts" and he comes back with an offer of "a knee in the temple and a dagger up the cl----is" !
You're right! persevere with the eels, they're not so bad!
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 7:29 pm PT...
Oh KIRA, this too...."it's a fair cop!
But society is to blame!" is also early Python, but I fear I may have the same infection....tragic isn't it?
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 8:07 pm PT...
Hi again, all,
If you've missed Truthout today: Will Pitt just keeps getting better and better.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 8:11 pm PT...
SORRY, folks! Someone was talking to me and I linked to the "shocked" emoticon instead - silly me!
Here's the real deal.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 8:28 pm PT...
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 5/3/2005 @ 11:05 pm PT...
Wow - thanks Bushw@cker #20. Dancing with the devil is right. Shaw has put a lot of work into his article and it makes a lot of sense and makes me feel even more crazy over the whole rotten mess.
Now I'll read the 1st installment!
Hello It's just after 8:00 and time for the penguin on top of your television set to explode.
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 5/4/2005 @ 6:20 am PT...
Let's hope Conyers stays off airplanes and out of strange motel rooms. Shades of MLK?--yes, Peg #16, I think you're right. It's almost scary.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 5/4/2005 @ 7:48 am PT...
I spoke to some bitch at the WH comment line. This was my second call in 2 days. I am going to call each and every day, day after day, until the President acknowledges his proven War Lies. Heck, maybe I'll call twice a day.
The lady on the line today quipped "so your source is the internet?"
And I responed, "No, the information is CIRCULATING in the internet. The source is the memo leaked in the UK, and it is of undisputed authenticity, according to interviews with Tony Blair since the memo leaked. The memo is undenyable proof that Bush LIED about the War. I want the President on prime time television YESTERDAY either explaining his lies, making up new lies to cover the lies, or a resignation!!! This information broke Saturday, was reported in British papers on Sunday, and circulating on the internet like wildfire on Monday. How many days will it take for the President to directly respond to this?"
WH Lady: Thankyou for your comment, blah blah blah...goodbye.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 5/4/2005 @ 9:01 am PT...
Hey Bejammin075, twice daily sounds good,
you'll be on a firstname basis with the entire WH call centre in no time! hehe
What about burying the WH with emails......nah,
the bastards don't actually read those emails!
KIRA, Shaw's article, if factually based is certainly a can of worms as it would represent a monumental conspiracy to manage dissent!
Hello It's just after 8:00 and time for the penguin on top of your television set to explode.
'Ow did'e know that was going to happen?
man: it was an inspired guess.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 5/4/2005 @ 9:08 am PT...
#25 PEG C
Interesting and troubling don't ya think?
Thanks, I'll go and check TRUTHOUT.
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 5/4/2005 @ 9:36 am PT...
At the WH website, there is this "Ask the WH" thingy, where from time to time various WH staff can have questions submitted to them, and they possibly might respond. So at 2 pm today, one of the people is Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary of State (European Affairs).
I've submitted the following question (more like a comment, since they won't touch it..)
To Daniel Fried:
Some news broke in Europe on Sunday 5/1/05, in the UK specifically. It was reported in the Sunday Times:
That a memo:
Was leaked about Tony Blair's and Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq. The memo is damaging to Bush and Blair, but the memo is definitely authentic and not a fake. This is known because Blair has since been interviewed, Blair acknowledges the memo (although he claims people are taking the memo information out of context):
The memo is about a July 23, 2002 meeting with Blair and his top people. Among the noteable things that this memo covers, it notes that:
War with Iraq was already decided upon:
"Military action was now seen as inevitable"
Intelligence was being cherry picked to justify the war:
"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
There was no planning for the occupation:
"There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
The timing of the war would ideally maximize political gain for the President:
"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."
Again, war with Iraq was a certainty:
"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided."
Even though Iraq was NOT a high priority threat to our national security:
"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."
Would you be willing to discuss the ramifications that this verifiably true and accurate information has with our European allies? Specifically, how is Europe reacting to the proof that Bush and Blair lied, repeatedly, to the American people and to the world about nearly everything they said in public with regards to the planning and rationale for invading Iraq? Does President Bush fit the definition of the International Criminal Court's definition of a War Criminal? And if so, is that the reason that Bush dislikes the ICC? Do you know if the President has any plans to address citizens of the United States about his lies that mislead us into war in Iraq?
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 5/4/2005 @ 10:00 am PT...
Bejammin075 #31 - good for you!! Sad to say I think you're right - they won't touch it probably.
And Bushw@cker#22 - Ya know what -
"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition."
nudge, nudge, wink, wink
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
said on 5/4/2005 @ 10:40 am PT...
Bejammin - Excellent. Were they surprised? How could they be, John Conyers has already sent THE LETTER!! Maybe they're just surprised that anybody else has noticed!! YeeHaw!
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise....
P.S. ShadowTwinChaos --- in one of your earlier posts I noticed you are really a "Twins" and so am I. We are waiting for Summer's warm breath of renewal and vigor. Haha! I like the Spanish Inquisition theme!
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
said on 5/4/2005 @ 12:12 pm PT...
Excellent Benjamin! Are you the renowned journalist Greg Palast TONY BLAIR CAN'T WIN, you certainly have his tact and disdain for the blair-bush bruthuhs.
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
said on 5/4/2005 @ 8:04 pm PT...
Fetch the comfy chair!
P.S. I hope the good folk there at Langley VA enjoy Python too!
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
said on 5/4/2005 @ 11:33 pm PT...
Confess Bejammin - are you Greg Palast? If not - wow - what a compliment!!
Poke her with the Soft Cushions! She thinks she is strong because she can survive the Soft Cushions!! Confess Woman!! Confess! Confess! Confess!
?? which good folk at Langley VA ??
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
said on 5/5/2005 @ 3:10 am PT...
Thanks! I'm not Gred Palast, I just imitate him on the internets.
Check out DKos this morning. A good chunck of the recommended diaries are no-holds-barred impeachment diaries. How long before Bush has approval in the sub-40's or disapproval at 60+ ??
This is not going to be a good summer for Bush. At the Antisocial Insecurity press conference last thursday, didn't the President look like shit? And he totally fucked up his softball questions. During the Q & A, I thought, no wonder they never picked up on Gannon/Guckert. No one asked the painfully obvious question that would have been asked in a free press "Mr. President, if we're winning the war on terror, how come the anual terror report that Condi has tried to supress has triple the significant terror events of last year's high numbers?"
The President is finished. His career will not survive the Blair memo leak. All of us are going to make sure of that.
COMMENT #38 [Permalink]
said on 5/5/2005 @ 3:33 am PT...
There is other corroborating evidence. There was a contract issued to Haliburton by the Cheney forces in the admin months before Afganistan and six months before the Iraq war started.
The contract dealt with Haliburton managing the Iraqi oil fields. It was a no-bid contract.
Again well before the war started.
COMMENT #39 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 5/5/2005 @ 7:26 am PT...
I hope you're right, Bejammino. But Blair's opposition is fragmented, which gives him a good chance of winning a third term. If he does, the Bush administration will take it as approval for the Iraq invasion, given the fact that the private agreement was made public before the election.
That's the danger here. The good news, I think, is that there might be a real impeachment case here. If Clinton could be impeached for lying about Monica, Bush might be vulnerable on a matter of much greater importance. He wasn't under oath, of course, which raises the bar for his accusers.
COMMENT #40 [Permalink]
said on 5/5/2005 @ 1:30 pm PT...
If I understand things correctly, in the UK you vote for the party, not the individual. So people like Labour, but don't like Blair. They'll vote for Labour, and hope that the Labour party picks a new PM. I could be wrong.
COMMENT #41 [Permalink]
said on 5/5/2005 @ 1:33 pm PT...
I think you could make a reasonable arguement, that if the President is talking to the public to get support for an optional war, that people should be able to take the President's word, even though he is technically not under oath. When the President talks on matters of such importance, it is expected that the President treat the matter as if he is under oath.
COMMENT #42 [Permalink]
said on 5/5/2005 @ 5:32 pm PT...
Thank you, I just read your 'real deal' link.
And though I might argue with the excellent Mr. Rivers Pitt on one point---that here at the bradblog, at least, when disagreements erupt, I don't see us "beating the crap out of each other", thankfully!---I do want to post the last bit of his essay for you, my awesome brothers and sisters:
"That which unites the Left is far, far greater than that which divides them. Yes, there are seemingly insurmountable obstacles standing in the way. Yes, frustration and despair are rampant. Yet when the righteousness, passion and strength of the Left are combined, they can stand up next to a mountain and chop it down with the edge of their hand.
Thank you, sir, for reminding us of that.
*I send good wishes out to Andy Stephenson for his recovery*
COMMENT #43 [Permalink]
said on 5/5/2005 @ 7:45 pm PT...
Update on ConyersBlog. Knight-Ridder newspapers are picking up the story.
COMMENT #44 [Permalink]
said on 5/5/2005 @ 7:52 pm PT...
"A former senior U.S. official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity."
Memo: Bush made intel fit Iraq policy
COMMENT #45 [Permalink]
said on 5/6/2005 @ 9:34 am PT...
RLM #39 and Bejammin075 #41
Good points. In a court case it is perjury only if a person intentionally lies under oath. That is why Clinton was criticized.
However, in the court of public opinion officials have a duty to perform as if they are under oath. The whole "deniability" aspect of covert and PR machinations is an acknowledgement of that reality.
For a president to lie about the reasoning for a war, both to congress and to the public, is certain to be considered a political crime in a democracy.
It turns democracy into demockracy because it steals by deception the will of the congress and the will of the people.
So even tho President Bush could not be prosecuted for perjury in a court, he could be impeached by the congress if there were enough votes, and has now been scorned by public opinion in the popularity polls.
COMMENT #46 [Permalink]
said on 5/6/2005 @ 9:45 am PT...
Raw Story is reporting that 88 members of congress (so far) have asked President Bush to explain his behaviour viz a viz the memo featured in this thread (link here).
COMMENT #47 [Permalink]
said on 5/6/2005 @ 11:45 am PT...
That's great news!
This thread is starting to get burried, I hope we get a new main post along these lines to keep the discussion going. I really think Bush is going to be toast because of this, one way or another. It's not going to be easy, but I think the proof is there. If all of us push this we can make it happen.
COMMENT #48 [Permalink]
said on 5/6/2005 @ 11:46 am PT...
Imagine pushing the wingnuts into a corner where they have to admit:
"OK, he lied, but it wasn't under oath!"
COMMENT #49 [Permalink]
said on 5/6/2005 @ 1:46 pm PT...
What is the "Oath of Office?"
COMMENT #50 [Permalink]
said on 5/6/2005 @ 7:30 pm PT...
"Most disturbing, one militia in particular—the “Special Police Commandos”—is being used extensively and has been singled out by a U.S. general for conducting death squad strikes known as the “Salvador option.” The Police Commandos also appear to be a reconstituted Hussein security force operating under the same revived government body, the General Security Directorate, that was formerly tasked with suppressing internal dissent."
What are we doing!?!?!
COMMENT #51 [Permalink]
said on 5/8/2005 @ 4:31 pm PT...
COMMENT #52 [Permalink]
Robert Lockwood Mills
said on 5/10/2005 @ 6:14 am PT...
The Constitutional requirement for impeachment remains "high crimes and misdemeanors..." As much as I detest Bush, I don't see anything in the public record to warrant conviction on that charge.
He deceived Blair, no question. That's nasty and cruel, but the Reagan-Thatcher secret agreement covers his ass there (plus deception alone isn't a high crime or misdemeanor). He invaded Iraq on false pretenses, but Congress bought into it and is still buying into it...witness Howard Dean's recent support for our ongoing efforts there. His administration has bought favorable journalism, which is sleazy as hell but not indictable. Jeff Gannon is even sleazier, but not impeachable.
Really, two stolen elections are the best case for impeachment. Conyers' 102-page report should be the starting point. What must be shown is 1) that deliberate fraud occurred and 2) THAT BUSH KNEW ABOUT IT BEFOREHAND (otherwise only the people who committed the fraud are impeachable and/or indictable). If deliberate fraud can be proven, it wouldn't be necessary to show that the election outcome would have been different (although it surely would have been), because fraud itself is a high crime, regardless of the consequences.
But 1) is hard to prove and 2) is well nigh impossible to prove. The best chance, I think, is a Deep Throat with insider connections who will spill the beans to a Woodward or Bernstein. That could force revelations that, while not necessarily proving high crimes and misdemeanors, would yet be so embarrassing that Bush couldn't govern...that's why Nixon resigned, after all.
COMMENT #53 [Permalink]
said on 5/10/2005 @ 10:39 am PT...
I am not a lawyer, but I believe lying to congress is a hight crime and impeachable offense. At least I hope so.
COMMENT #54 [Permalink]
said on 5/10/2005 @ 6:16 pm PT...
Re: COMMENT #52 [link]
...Robert Lockwood Mills said on 5/10/2005 @ 6:14am PT...
"The Constitutional requirement for impeachment remains "high crimes and misdemeanors..." As much as I detest Bush, I don't see anything in the public record to warrant conviction on that charge."
How 'bout this?