Proof Bush fixed the facts

http://www.tompaine.com/20050505/articles/...d_the_facts.php

Proof Bush Fixed The Facts

Ray McGovern

May 04, 2005

 

Ray McGovern served 27 years as a CIA analyst and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He works for Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour. 

 

"Intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

 

Never in our wildest dreams did we think we would see those words in black and white—and beneath a SECRET stamp, no less.  For three years now, we in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been saying that the CIA and its British counterpart, MI-6, were ordered by their countries' leaders to "fix facts" to "justify" an unprovoked war on Iraq.  More often than not, we have been greeted with stares of incredulity.

 

It has been a hard learning—that folks tend to believe what they want to believe.  As long as our evidence, however abundant and persuasive, remained circumstantial, it could not compel belief.  It simply is much easier on the psyche to assent to the White House spin machine blaming the Iraq fiasco on bad intelligence than to entertain the notion that we were sold a bill of goods.

 

Well, you can forget circumstantial. Thanks to an unauthorized disclosure by a courageous whistleblower, the evidence now leaps from official documents—this time authentic, not forged.  Whether prompted by the open appeal of the international Truth-Telling Coalition or not, some brave soul has made the most explosive "patriotic leak" of the war by giving London's Sunday Times the official minutes of a briefing by Richard Dearlove, then head of Britain's CIA equivalent, MI-6. Fresh back in London from consultations in Washington, Dearlove briefed Prime Minister Blair and his top national security officials on July 23, 2002, on the Bush administration's plans to make war on Iraq.

 

Blair does not dispute the authenticity of the document, which immortalizes a discussion that is chillingly amoral.  Apparently no one felt free to ask the obvious questions.  Or, worse still, the obvious questions did not occur.

 

Juggernaut Before The Horse

 

In emotionless English, Dearlove tells Blair and the others that President Bush has decided to remove Saddam Hussein by launching a war that is to be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction."  Period.  What about the intelligence?  Dearlove adds matter-of-factly, "The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

 

At this point, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw confirms that Bush has decided on war, but notes that stitching together justification would be a challenge, since "the case was thin."  Straw noted that Saddam was not threatening his neighbors and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

 

In the following months, "the case" would be buttressed by a well-honed U.S.-U.K. intelligence-turned-propaganda-machine.  The argument would be made "solid" enough to win endorsement from Congress and Parliament by conjuring up:

 

*

Aluminum artillery tubes misdiagnosed as nuclear related;

 

*

Forgeries alleging Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa;

 

*

Tall tales from a drunken defector about mobile biological weapons laboratories;

 

*

Bogus warnings that Iraqi forces could fire WMD-tipped missiles within 45 minutes of an order to do so;

 

*

Dodgy dossiers fabricated in London; and

 

*

A U.S. National Intelligence Estimate thrown in for good measure.

 

 

 

All this, as Dearlove notes dryly, despite the fact that "there was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." Another nugget from Dearlove's briefing is his bloodless comment that one of the U.S. military options under discussion involved "a continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli"—the clear implication being that planners of the air campaign would also see to it that an appropriate casus belli was orchestrated.

 

The discussion at 10 Downing St. on July 23, 2002 calls to mind the first meeting of George W. Bush's National Security Council (NSC) on Jan. 30, 2001, at which the president made it clear that toppling Saddam Hussein sat atop his to-do list, according to then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, who was there. O'Neil was taken aback that there was no discussion of why it was necessary to "take out" Saddam.  Rather, after CIA Director George Tenet showed a grainy photo of a building in Iraq that he said might be involved in producing chemical or biological agents, the discussion proceeded immediately to which Iraqi targets might be best to bomb.  Again, neither O'Neil nor the other participants asked the obvious questions.  Another NSC meeting two days later included planning for dividing up Iraq's oil wealth.

 

Obedience School

 

As for the briefing of Blair, the minutes provide further grist for those who describe the U.K. prime minister as Bush's "poodle."  The tone of the conversation bespeaks a foregone conclusion that Blair will wag his tail cheerfully and obey the learned commands. At one point he ventures the thought that, "If the political context were right, people would support regime change."  This, after Attorney General Peter Goldsmith has already warned that the desire for regime change "was not a legal base for military action,"—a point Goldsmith made again just 12 days before the attack on Iraq until he was persuaded by a phalanx of Bush administration lawyers to change his mind 10 days later.

 

The meeting concludes with a directive to "work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action."

 

I cannot quite fathom why I find the account of this meeting so jarring.  Surely it is what one might expect, given all else we know. Yet seeing it in bloodless black and white somehow gives it more impact.  And the implications are no less jarring.

 

One of Dearlove's primary interlocutors in Washington was his American counterpart, CIA director George Tenet.  (And there is no closer relationship between two intelligence services than the privileged one between the CIA and MI-6.)  Tenet, of course, knew at least as much as Dearlove, but nonetheless played the role of accomplice in serving up to Bush the kind of "slam-dunk intelligence" that he knew would be welcome.  If there is one unpardonable sin in intelligence work, it is that kind of politicization.  But Tenet decided to be a "team player" and set the tone.

 

Politicization:  Big Time

 

Actually, politicization is far too mild a word for what happened.  The intelligence was not simply mistaken; it was manufactured, with the president of the United States awarding foreman George Tenet the Medal of Freedom for his role in helping supervise the deceit.  The British documents make clear that this was not a mere case of "leaning forward" in analyzing the intelligence, but rather mass deception—an order of magnitude more serious.  No other conclusion is now possible.

 

Small wonder, then, to learn from CIA insiders like former case officer Lindsay Moran that Tenet's malleable managers told their minions, "Let's face it. The president wants us to go to war, and our job is to give him a reason to do it."

 

Small wonder that, when the only U.S. analyst who met with the alcoholic Iraqi defector appropriately codenamed "Curveball" raised strong doubt about Curveball's reliability before then-Secretary of State Colin Powell used the fabrication about "mobile biological weapons trailers" before the United Nations, the analyst got this e-mail reply from his CIA supervisor:

 

"Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curveball said or didn't say, and the powers that be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curveball knows what he's talking about."

 

When Tenet's successor, Porter Goss, took over as director late last year, he immediately wrote a memo to all employees explaining the "rules of the road"—first and foremost, "We support the administration and its policies."  So much for objective intelligence insulated from policy pressure.

 

Tenet and Goss, creatures of the intensely politicized environment of Congress, brought with them a radically new ethos—one much more akin to that of Blair's courtiers than to that of earlier CIA directors who had the courage to speak truth to power.

 

Seldom does one have documentary evidence that intelligence chiefs chose to cooperate in both fabricating and "sexing up" (as the British press puts it) intelligence to justify a prior decision for war.  There is no word to describe the reaction of honest intelligence professionals to the corruption of our profession on a matter of such consequence.  "Outrage" does not come close.

 

Hope In Unauthorized Disclosures

 

Those of us who care about unprovoked wars owe the patriot who gave this latest British government document to The Sunday Times a debt of gratitude.  Unauthorized disclosures are gathering steam.  They need to increase quickly on this side of the Atlantic as well—the more so, inasmuch as Congress-controlled by the president's party-cannot be counted on to discharge its constitutional prerogative for oversight.

 

In its formal appeal of Sept. 9, 2004 to current U.S. government officials, the Truth-Telling Coalition said this:

 

 

We know how misplaced loyalty to bosses, agencies, and careers can obscure the higher allegiance all government officials owe the Constitution, the sovereign public, and the young men and women put in harm's way.  We urge you to act on those higher loyalties...Truth-telling is a patriotic and effective way to serve the nation.  The time for speaking out is now.

 

 

If persons with access to wrongly concealed facts and analyses bring them to light, the chances become less that a president could launch another unprovoked war—against, say, Iran.

not a surprise by any measure, but still pretty stunning.

I hope this gets coverage. I'd be surprised if it does though.

Originally posted by SF1@May 4 2005, 07:14 PM

I hope this gets coverage. I'd be surprised if it does though.

Quoted post

if it does, it will be discounted as propaganda from the left wing liberals.

no doubt in my mind. i'd like to see more info like this come out, but i doubt much more will.

p.s. this guy is gong to end up dead soon.

...

the whistleblower is just another notch in the

record of a profoundly criminal clique of total scum that is virtually untouchable...

my feeling is this will get fairly sufficient exposure, but may not become a news sensation..it's moot anyhow since scandals are a dime a dozen with these chumps; they have survived everything and are still steering. drunk.

Originally posted by SF1@May 4 2005, 11:25 PM

...

Quoted post

look, i told you i'm not a republican.

Originally posted by casekonly+May 5 2005, 05:53 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (casekonly - May 5 2005, 05:53 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-SF1@May 4 2005, 11:25 PM

...

Quoted post

look, i told you i'm not a republican.

[/b]

:haha: :haha: Ok, you're one of them dudes that can edit your posts without it saying that it was edited at the bottom.

Keep playing games dickhead.

what the fuck are you talking about? editing my post? nope....someone get this cat a glass of water.

Everyone who knows the march to war is a sham already know it.

The people who dont want to hear the facts, will keep their heads in the sand.

Originally posted by <KEY3>@May 5 2005, 02:34 PM

Everyone who knows the march to war is a sham already know it.

The people who dont want to hear the facts, will keep their heads in the sand.

Quoted post

it's funny that you say this: i usually like to explore an idea or a news story thoroughly, i like more proof than one man coming forward and saying ' i was this and that and i have these documents to prove that such and such'

sure, we have proof that the various intelligence agencies lied about certain things, we have proof taht the bush administration lied about some things...especially colen powell and his presentation to the u.n. council...all this has been documented, but who is this ray mcgovern guy? i know it says he worked for 23 years, but was he disgruntled at all? was he retired in a normal fashion or was he forced out for some other reasons under the guise of retirement?

don't get me wrong, i'm in no way siding with republicans or democrats,. i'd just like to know more. especially since i have no idea about this tompaine.com where the story originated from.

ok, here's a bio of the mcgovern guy:

Ray McGovern’s 27-year career as a CIA analyst spanned administrations from John F. Kennedy to George H. W. Bush. Ray is now co-director of the Servant Leadership School, which provides training and other support for those seeking ways to be in relationship with the marginalized poor. The School is one of ten Jubilee Ministries, not-for-profit organizations inspired by the ecumenical Church of the Saviour and established in an inner-city neighborhood in Washington, DC.

The department Ray heads at the School deals with the biblical injunction to “speak truth to power,” and this, together with his experience in intelligence analysis, accounts for his various writings and media appearances over the past year. His focus dovetails nicely with the passage carved into the marble entrance to CIA Headquarters: “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free”—the ethic mandating that CIA analysts were to “tell it like it is” without fear or favor.

In January 2003, when it became clear that that ethic was in serious jeopardy, a handful of intelligence community alumni/ae, including Ray, created Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. VIPS now includes over 35 former professionals from CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Army Intelligence, the FBI, and the National Security Agency. VIPS’ first effort (of ten thus far) was a same-day critique of Secretary of State Colin Powell’s address to the UN on February 5.

In addition to co-authoring some of VIPS’ issuances, Ray has published some 20 op-eds over the past year on intelligence-related issues. These have appeared in newspapers and journals around the country like The Birmingham News, The Boston Globe, The Christian Science Monitor, The Miami Herald, Die Sueddeutsche Zeitung, The International Herald Tribune, and Der Berliner Tagespiegel, for example.

Over the past several months, he and his VIPS colleagues have made numerous TV, radio and lecture appearances in the US and Europe. They also have appeared in several recent video documentaries—notably, “Uncovered: the Whole Truth About the Iraq War” (Robert Greenwald) and “Break the Silence: Truth and Lies in the War on Terror” (John Pilger).

Ray’s duties at CIA included chairing National Intelligence Estimates and preparing the President’ Daily Brief (PDB). These, the most authoritative genres of intelligence reporting, have been the focus of press reporting on “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq and on what the president was told before 9/11. During the mid-eighties, Ray was one of the senior analysts conducting early morning briefings of the PDB one-on-one with the Vice President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

Ray received his B.A., summa cum laude, from Fordham College and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. Designated a Distinguished Military Graduate, he was commissioned upon graduation and served as an infantry/intelligence officer in the US Army from 1962-64. Ray holds an M.A. in Russian Studies from Fordham University and a certificate in Theological Studies from Georgetown University. He is also a graduate of the Harvard Business School’s Advanced Management Program.

At his retirement ceremony, Ray received the Intelligence Commendation Medal and a letter from then-president George H. W. Bush wishing him well in his transition to non-profit work in inner-city Washington. Ray served on the board of Bread for the City from 1989-94, the latter two years as president, before becoming co-director of the Servant Leadership School.

A native New Yorker, he has been married to Rita Kennedy for 42 years; they have five children and six grandchildren.

http://faculty.schreiner.edu/tomwells/ray_mcgovern_bio.htm

_________________________________________________

http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern06232003.html

ok, from what i found on google, the biggest hits about mcgivern are from what some would call 'liberal media'. i guess it's our mission to pick out the b/s from the facts....as any intelligent person would know, democrats (what people are calling liberals these days) are just as bad as republicans about trying to sway stories their way. it's just natural in the political world to do such things. people always want their side to be the 'right' side. just a bunch of material to go over and a ton to think about.

mcgovern's the man and a good writer to boot.

i've seen him in those docs and he seems to me a real deal dude,

plus i've read a ton of his op-eds, which are all on point.

tompaine is a smart site as well.

check for yourself and make up your own mind.

yeah, just got done checking it out a couple of hours ago, seems to be of good intent and not slanted one way or the other.

good stuff.

I don't know if shit will happen in this country, as corrupted as it is already. Maybe if they took it to the Hague or something. They may not be able to do anything either but it would look awfully strange for a wanted international criminal to be president.

I'm still waiting on this election fraud case. Waiting.... waiting...

meanwhile the democrats with less testicular fortitude are talking about how they can "look more moderate" and "appeal to red states", causing the entire country, the whole political discourse, to move further to the right... Redacting years and years worth of social progress and protections, equal rights and all of those grand ideals that moved us to the left where we belong, in a sane, tolerant, egalitarian society... Giving in to this demagogery, however, that is the end of this country. Once the democrats are disembowled there will be no difference between the parties. We are already in a de facto one party country now.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=426&row=0

IMPEACHMENT TIME: "FACTS WERE FIXED."

Special to BuzzFlash

Thursday, May 5, 2005

E-Mail Article

Printer Friendly Version

By Greg Palast

Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has "IMPEACH HIM" written all over it.

The top-level government memo marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL," dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed meeting with the President, reads, "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."

Read that again: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed...."

For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, viewers inevitably ask me, "Isn't this grounds for impeachment?" -- vote rigging, a blind eye to terror and the bin Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil, stupidity and self-dealing are shameful but not impeachable. What's needed is a "high crime or misdemeanor."

And if this ain't it, nothing is.

The memo uncovered this week by the Times, goes on to describe an elaborate plan by George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to hoodwink the planet into supporting an attack on Iraq knowing full well the evidence for war was a phony.

A conspiracy to commit serial fraud is, under federal law, racketeering. However, the Mob's schemes never cost so many lives.

Here's more. "Bush had made up his mind to take military action. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Really? But Mr. Bush told us, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

A month ago, the Silberman-Robb Commission issued its report on WMD intelligence before the war, dismissing claims that Bush fixed the facts with this snooty, condescending conclusion written directly to the President, "After a thorough review, the Commission found no indication that the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons."

We now know the report was a bogus 618 pages of thick whitewash aimed to let Bush off the hook for his murderous mendacity.

Read on: The invasion build-up was then set, says the memo, "beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections." Mission accomplished.

You should parse the entire memo -- reprinted below -- and see if you can make it through its three pages without losing your lunch.

Now sharp readers may note they didn't see this memo, in fact, printed in the New York Times. It wasn't. Rather, it was splashed across the front pages of the Times of LONDON on Monday.

It has effectively finished the last, sorry remnants of Tony Blair's political career. (While his Labor Party will most assuredly win the elections Thursday, Prime Minister Blair is expected, possibly within months, to be shoved overboard in favor of his Chancellor of the Exchequer, a political execution which requires only a vote of the Labour party's members in Parliament.)

But in the US, barely a word. The New York Times covers this hard evidence of Bush's fabrication of a casus belli as some "British" elections story. Apparently, our President's fraud isn't "news fit to print."

My colleagues in the UK press have skewered Blair, digging out more incriminating memos, challenging the official government factoids and fibs. But in the US press … nada, bubkes, zilch. Bush fixed the facts and somehow that's a story for "over there."

The Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over his cigar and Monica's affections. And the US media could print nothing else.

Now, we have the stone, cold evidence of bending intelligence to sell us on death by the thousands, and neither a Republican Congress nor what is laughably called US journalism thought it worth a second look.

My friend Daniel Ellsberg once said that what's good about the American people is that you have to lie to them. What's bad about Americans is that it's so easy to do.

Greg Palast, former columnist for Britain's Guardian papers, is the author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

Subscribe to his columns at http://www.GregPalast.com Media requests to contact(at)gregpalast.com Permission to reprint with attribution granted.

[Here it is - the secret smoking gun memo - discovered by the Times of London. - GP]

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING

From: Matthew Rycroft

Date: 23 July 2002

S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C 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. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

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.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. 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. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

© CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

whoa!

IMPEACH THE BASTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :hatred: :hatred: :hatred: :hatred:

THEN BRING HIM UP ON WAR CRIME CHARGES!!!!

Televise his execution! :mexican:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...ack=1&cset=true

Investigation demanded on the 'fixing of the facts'

By Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott

WASHINGTON—A Michigan congressman is seeking more information from President Bush about a classified British memo, leaked during Britain’s recent election campaign, that claims the president decided by summer 2002 to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.

The memo, in which British foreign policy aide Matthew Rycroft summarized a July 23, 2002, meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair with top security advisers, reports on a U.S. visit by Richard Dearlove, then head of Britain’s MI-6 intelligence service.

The memo does not specify which Bush administration officials met with Dearlove.

The visit took place while the Bush administration was saying publicly that no decision had been made to go to war.

Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is circulating a letter asking Bush for an explanation, an aide said.

The MI-6 chief’s account of his U.S. visit was paraphrased by the memo: “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 [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. ... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion.

The White House repeatedly has denied accusations that intelligence estimates were manipulated.

The memo, first disclosed in full by the Sunday Times of London, hasn’t been disavowed by the British government.

A White House official said the administration wouldn’t comment on the document.

THEE only proof you need to know that The W fixes shit..

Presidential Elections 2000=Florida..2004=Ohio..

everything else is academic and to be expected...

holla at ya frog...

:burn: :burn:

maybe if the u.s. hadn't been taken over by right wing religious fundamentalists, i would have some hope that people would realize that a fuckwad is running this country into the ground.

i mean, this guy is just the u.s. shitkicker version of osama bin laden in my eyes.

he stole an election, then won another.

no one cares as long as they have their tv, their mcdonalds [and their own personal jesus.]

Wonderful, and of no use at all.

Bible belt, Gas Guzzlers, Oil, Fast Food, Hillbillies, the rich, and people that hate everygbody thats different....

The list of retarded supporters is endless..

Originally posted by symbols@May 11 2005, 07:18 PM

he stole an election, then won another.

Quoted post

The second election was a fraud. Consider it another "fixed fact".

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html

^

|

|

|

Still the most accurate history of this war / bush's actions available anywhere.

Smoking Gun Memo?

Iraq bombshell goes mostly unreported in U..S media

Wed, 11 May 2005 01:46:22 -0500

By Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

Journalists typically condemn attempts to force their colleagues to disclose anonymous sources, saying that subpoenaing reporters will discourage efforts to expose government wrongdoing. But such warnings seem like mere self-congratulation when clear evidence of wrongdoing emerges, with no anonymous sources required—and major news outlets virtually ignore it.

A leaked document that appeared in a British newspaper offered clear new evidence that U.S. intelligence was shaped to support the drive for war. Though the information rocked British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s re-election campaign when it was revealed, it has received little attention in the U.S. press.

The document, first revealed by the London Times (5/1/05), was the minutes of a July 23, 2002 meeting in Blair’s office with the prime minister’s close advisors. The meeting was held to discuss Bush administration policy on Iraq, and the likelihood that Britain would support a U.S. invasion of Iraq. “It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided,” the minutes state.

The minutes also recount a visit to Washington by Richard Dearlove, the head of the British intelligence service MI6: “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.”

That last sentence is striking, to say the least, suggesting that the policy of invading Iraq was determining what the Bush administration was presenting as “facts” derived from intelligence. But it has provoked little media follow-up in the United States. The most widely circulated story in the mainstream press came from the Knight Ridder wire service (5/6/05), which quoted an anonymous U.S. official saying the memo was ‘’an absolutely accurate description of what transpired” during Dearlove’s meetings in Washington.

Few other outlets have pursued the leaked memo’s key charge that the “facts were being fixed around the policy.” The New York Times (5/2/05) offered a passing mention, and the Charleston (W.V.) Gazette (5/5/05) wrote an editorial about the memo and the Iraq War. A columnist for the Cox News Service (5/8/05) also mentioned the memo, as did Molly Ivins (WorkingForChange.com, 5/10/05). Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler (5/8/05) noted that Post readers had complained about the lack of reporting on the memo, but offered no explanation for why the paper virtually ignored the story.

In a brief segment on hot topics in the blogosphere (5/6/05), CNN correspondent Jackie Schechner reported that the memo was receiving attention on various websites, where bloggers were “wondering why it’s not getting more coverage in the U.S. media.” But acknowledging the lack of coverage hasn’t prompted much CNN coverage; the network mentioned the memo in two earlier stories regarding its impact on Blair’s political campaign (5/1/05, 5/2/05), and on May 7, a short CNN item reported that 90 Congressional Democrats sent a letter to the White House about the memo – but neglected to mention the possible manipulation of intelligence that was mentioned in the memo and the Democrats’ letter.

Salon columnist Joe Conason posed this question about the story:

“Are Americans so jaded about the deceptions perpetrated by our own government to lead us into war in Iraq that we are no longer interested in fresh and damning evidence of those lies? Or are the editors and producers who oversee the American news industry simply too timid to report that proof on the evening broadcasts and front pages?”

As far as the media are concerned, the answer to Conason’s second question would seem to be yes. A May 8 New York Times news article asserted that “critics who accused the Bush administration of improperly using political influence to shape intelligence assessments have, for the most part, failed to make the charge stick.” It’s hard for charges to stick when major media are determined to ignore the evidence behind them.

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) is a national media watch group, based in New York. FAIR publishes Extra!, the award-winning magazine of media criticism, and produces the weekly radio program CounterSpin, the show that brings you the news behind the headlines.

Originally posted by SF1+May 11 2005, 07:41 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SF1 - May 11 2005, 07:41 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-symbols@May 11 2005, 07:18 PM

he stole an election, then won another.

Quoted post

The second election was a fraud. Consider it another "fixed fact".

[/b]

i hear ya, but i think the sad truth is, bush and all his religious zealots DID win.

that's why i know this country is in shambles, i am so far on the left people might start callin me commie.

even if it WAS a fraud, who cares?

very few fucking people, obviously.

^bingo. that's why the argument that only the

american gov't is to blame for america's internal

AND external behaviour is moot.

There are nowhere near as many Bush supporters in this country as the rightwing media would have you believe. Not to mention the extrordinary amount of indifferent, nonpolitical, (never voted before) people that came out of the woodwork on election day to get rid of his ass. Use your head. It was a fix. You can't honestly beleive that shit about "largest popular vote in US history" do you??? :huh2:

Nobody expected him to win not even most of his supporters.

Originally posted by SF1@May 12 2005, 03:55 PM

There are nowhere near as many Bush supporters in this country as the rightwing media would have you believe. Not to mention the extrordinary amount of indifferent, nonpolitical, (never voted before) people that came out of the woodwork on election day to get rid of his ass. Use your head.

Quoted post

And your basis for this speculation is?