Info about subscribing or unsubscribing from this list is at the bottom of this 
message.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Sanders0505-2.htm

Smoking Gun Memo Appears, but Where's the Outrage?
by Ken Sanders

I'm sure many of us are familiar with the adage, "If you're not outraged,
you're not paying attention." Well, judging by the near-total silence
emanating from the United States following a recently leaked British
internal memo, it would appear that most of us aren't paying attention.

This past Sunday, the Times of London released a leaked memorandum from
Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide to Tony Blair. Dated July 23, 2002,
the memo records the minutes from a crucial meeting between Blair and
British military and intelligence chiefs nearly a year before the U.S.-led
invasion of Iraq.

At the meeting, Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of MI6 (the British
equivalent of the CIA), reported on his recent talks in Washington with
George Tenet, who was then chief of the CIA. According to Dearlove, there
was a "perceptible shift" in U.S. attitude toward Iraq and "[m]ilitary
action was now seen as inevitable." "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through
military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD."

In support of Dearlove's conclusions, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw also
reported, "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military
action." Straw cautioned, however, that "the case was thin. Saddam was not
threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of
Libya, North Korea or Iran."

Now comes the kicker. According to Dearlove, in light of the "thin" case
against Iraq, in Washington "the intelligence and facts were being fixed
around the policy."

You read it correctly. The Bush administration was tailoring the
intelligence and facts to support its Iraq policy. Put differently, the
U.S. cooked the books.

This is not some politically-motivated allegation leveled by a nation or
party opposed to Bush's determination to invade Iraq. This is a "secret
and strictly personal" and "extremely sensitive" internal memorandum from
America's closest ally (and now proven co-conspirator) in the so-called
Operation Iraqi Freedom.

This is the smoking gun.

The leaked memo has received significant coverage in Britain, particularly
since it was released on the eve of Britain's parliamentary elections. It
has received some passing coverage in the U.S., as well. The context of
that coverage, however, has been largely limited to Blair's chances of
winning reelection. In the U.S., the leaked memo has not been treated for
what it is: compelling proof that Bush & Co. manufactured and manipulated
intelligence to justify invading Iraq -- an invasion which has, so far,
resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 Iraqi civilians and nearly 1,800
coalition military personnel.

For instance, in the days since the Times broke the story, the leaked memo
has never been raised, not once, by the press in any White House press
briefings. One would think that the U.S. news media would at least be
interested in hearing the White House's spin on the issues raised in the
leaked memo. Nevertheless, not a single question. Not one.

Typical of the "coverage" in the U.S. regarding the leaked memo was in a
May 3, 2005 Washington Post opinion column entitled, "Could Leaks Sink
Tony Blair?" Likewise, on May 2, 2005, the New York Times ran a story
headlined, "For Blair, Iraq Issue Just Won't Go Away." In neither case was
there any mention of Bush & Co. "fixing" intelligence to fit the policy.
The mainstream press hasn't even seen fit to report on Congressman John
Conyers' demand on May 2, 2005 for an explanation from the White House.

The American public hasn't done any better. More concerned with the
motives of Georgia's "runaway bride" and whether Paula Abdul slept with an
American Idol, most in the U.S. have shown little interest in or capacity
for seeking the truth. If the news isn't defined for them and then
delivered in monosyllabic or illustrated form, most Americans simply
aren't interested. I would like to believe that if they were even the
slightest bit interested and paid a modicum of attention, most Americans
would be outraged at the revelation that Bush & Co. fixed the intelligence
on Iraq.

I'd like to believe that, anyway.

Clearly, however, as far as the U.S. press and the general public are
concerned, the "Iraq issue" has gone away for Bush. Just as it served as
Bush's propaganda division leading up to the invasion of Iraq, the
obsequious U.S. press now ignores the proof of Bush's lies. Just as it did
before the war, the deaf and dumb American public sits idly by, unmoved by
the tens of thousands who have died and suffered for Bush's deception.

If only the memo had a semen stain ....


Ken Sanders is a writer based in Tucson, Arizona. Visit his weblog at:
http://www.politicsofdissent.blogspot.com/

_____________________________

Note: This message comes from the peace-justice-news e-mail mailing list of 
articles and commentaries about peace and social justice issues, activism, etc. 
 If you do not regularly receive mailings from this list or have received this 
message as a forward from someone else and would like to be added to the list, 
send a blank e-mail with the subject "subscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
or you can visit:
http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news  Go to that same 
web address to view the list's archives or to unsubscribe.

E-mail accounts that become full, inactive or out of order for more than a few 
days will be deleted from this list.

FAIR USE NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the 
information in this e-mail is distributed without profit to those who have 
expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational 
purposes.  I am making such material available in an effort to advance 
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, 
scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair 
use' of copyrighted material as provided for in the US Copyright Law.

Reply via email to