Replies: 59 Comments
Comment #1: Kryten42 said on 5/20/05 @ 12:29am ET...
Wahooooooo! Way to go everyone! And well done Rep Conyers! :-D
It's hardly surprising there is nothing from Fox News. It is basically part of the Rupert Murdoch Monopoly after all! And Rupert *LOVES* BushCo! (Almost as much as Rupert *LOVES* money and power!) I suspect that it will be a cold day in Hell before any media outlet owned or in some way controlled by Rupert will say anything against the BushCo GOPs. And don't forget, Rupert *LOVES* crisis and conflict (and stories involving blue dresses), he sells a LOT of *News* that way. :-)
Take care all.
Comment #2: Vyan said on 5/20/05 @ 1:18am ET...
Faux News won't cover it, except to try and debunk it -- meanwhile the Washington Post (Registration Required, but it's Free) seems to working on a story, simply about the fact that the story of the memo seems to be hanging on beyond all cynicism.
Some two weeks after it was first leaked in London, a British memo about the run-up to war in Iraq is finally generating a serious amount of attention from the American media.
The memo, which is the report of a high-level meeting in July 2002, contains the assertion that the Bush White House was set on invading Iraq long before it was ready to say so publicly, and that it was in fact "fixing" the intelligence around its policy goals.
Yesterday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan was asked about the memo and weighed in with a passionate but generic denial. And this week's New York Review of Books is out with an exegesis of the memo, sure to incite the intellectual left.
The liberal blogosphere has been insisting that the memo comprises a "smoking gun" -- which, of course, it doesn't. It's basically hearsay, albeit high-level hearsay.
But while that's not enough to convict, it's certainly enough to cause the press to revisit the issue.
Here's Brian Todd telling Wolf Blitzer yesterday that CNN asked White House press secretary Scott McClellan for his reaction.
McClellan's response: "I don't know about the specific memo. I've seen the reports, and I can tell you that they're just flat out wrong. The president of the United States in a very public way reached out to people across the world, went to the United Nations, and tried to resolve this in a diplomatic manner."
In the Chicago Tribune, Stephen J. Hedges and Mark Silva have this quote from McClellan: "Anyone who wants to know how the intelligence was used only has to go back and read everything that was said in public about the lead-up to the war."
I think we should take that challenge.
Hedges and Silva write that the memo's "potentially explosive revelation has proven to be something of a dud in the United States. The White House has denied the premise of the memo, the American media have reacted slowly to it and the public generally seems indifferent to the issue or unwilling to rehash the bitter prewar debate over the reasons for the war."
But it's possible it's less a dud than a bomb with a long, slow fuse
Vyan
Comment #3: Sandra said on 5/20/05 @ 1:26am ET...
More Downing Street Memos
With Meeting Minutes and Video
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8579.htm
Comment #4: Vyan said on 5/20/05 @ 1:30am ET...
Here's the text of a great letter by a constituent of Senator Talent, reply to his response on the Downing Street Memo issue - from the Randi Rhodes Board
Thank you for responding to this very important matter. The issue here isn't so much the "article" that appeared in the Times of London to which you referred. The issue is the document that was revealed in that article. That document is a memo, a memo that was distributed through the halls of Downing Street. The memo that's in question is the minutes from a meeting that took place on July 23, 2002.
While I understand and appreciate the fact that you weren't in attendance at the meeting in question, citizens of this nation (and that includes you) are lucky enough to now have the minutes from that meeting to reflect upon. This sir, as I'm sure you're well aware, is one of the very reasons minutes are taken during meetings, so that those who are not in attendance can understand what was discussed and stay on top of the issues at hand. I have no doubt that you can appreciate the magnitude of the issues discussed at that meeting, though I'm utterly stunned by the audacity of supporters of this administration, and the denial that is continually shown in the face of evidence.
Now then, let's discuss the facts, as we know them of course.
President Bush told us (the people of America) in a radio address to the nation on March 8, 2003 that "We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force". The minutes from the July 23rd 2002 meeting on Downing Street clearly states "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". If military action was seen as inevitable on 7/23/2002 then how can the President tell us that we were doing everything we could to avoid war eight months later? Clearly the President was lying to us.
The minutes from the July 23rd 2002 meeting on Downing Street clearly states "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". Eighteen days later, on August 10th the President told us "I think that that presumes there's some kind of imminent war plan. As I said, I have no timetable" . Clearly there WAS a timetable in place at that time.
The minutes from the July 23rd 2002 meeting on Downing Street clearly states "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy". All along the people of this nation were being told there was "no doubt" that Saddam had weapons in question. On March 17th 2003 as the war was beginning the President 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. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people. The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda". In light of what we now know it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that this entire statement is a complete fabrication.
Also at the beginning of the war (3/17/2003) the President told us "America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations". The minutes from the July 23rd 2002 meeting on Downing Street clearly dispute this claim as well with the statement "The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record" . Now, how is that trying to work with the U.N.? Clearly we DON'T believe in the mission of the United Nations. So again, this is a clear example of the President LYING to us.
The minutes from the July 23rd 2002 meeting on Downing Street clearly states "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". That statement is particularly alarming considering that on October 10th 2002 Ari Fleischer said, "The President has made no decisions about what the next step will be" . In addition, on November 12th 2002 Scott McClellan told us "But the President continues to seek a peaceful resolution. War is a last resort". President Bush himself told us "The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely". Can there honestly be any doubt that these statements, statements made to the American people, were simply bold face lies?
Just this week, Condoleeza Rice, while in Iraq said, "This war came to us, not the other way around". With everything we now know this is CLEARLY a lie.
Senator Talent, as more and more information has become available to the American people over the last couple of years, it's become completely obvious that the only people on the face of the earth who (and now I'm quoting you) "believed that Saddam possessed large stockpiles of these weapons…" were the American people, and the ONLY reason we believed that is because we were lied to by our own government. The intelligence didn't fail, the intelligence was dead on accurate, and despite what we knew at that time, this intelligence was fixed around the policy…and the entire world knows this for a fact.
David Kay's testimony that Saddam had "weapons programs" has been disputed since the moment he uttered the words. However, even if it were true, the people of this nation would have never committed our brave men and women to war over "weapons programs" that weren't an immediate threat to the security of this nation. You and I both know that for a fact.
You alluded to the fact that you served in the House throughout the 1990's, that being the case please allow me to remind you of something. As YOU may recall, YOU voted to impeach President Clinton for lying about a blowjob. How much damage did that silly investigation and trial do to our nation? How many taxpayer dollars were wasted digging up that dress? How many members of our intelligence personnel weren't getting us "information from the ground" because they were investigating our President's sex life? More importantly, how many people died, how dangerous was this lie? Mr. Talent, tens of thousands of human beings have lost their lives in this war, a war based on complete and total fabrications. In the build up to this war the Bush administration spent almost a year lying to the world, lying to the American people, and lying to the House to get our last resort voluntary military into a war of choice. Now, two years later…you are still lying to your constituency on this very matter. Are you honestly suggesting to me that this what we've become? How noble.
The acts of this administration are criminal; tens of thousands are dead as a result of lies and manipulated intelligence. Now that we (the citizens of this country, which as I said, includes YOU), and the rest of the world now know this to be true and I implore you to do something about it. Please do something to somehow attempt to restore this nations credibilty and respect in the world by removing this corrupt administration from power. This is not a matter of party affiliation; it's not a question of loyalty to your colleagues. This is a question of loyalty to your countrymen! This entire ordeal, from beginning to end (which is yet to be seen) is an atrocity, a black eye on this nation that may never heal.
Comment #5: Libby said on 5/20/05 @ 3:10am ET...
Representative Conyers, thank you for your integrity and persistence in documenting and publicizing the shameless high crimes and misdemeanors of this administration. I find your blog particularly valuable right now because I have to think that the extremist neocon agenda will extend to crashing the internet as a strategy to muffle independent thought and also to pin the cyber-terrorism on foreign governments or liberal scientists or gay citizens.
I hope that what I just said is a crackpot conspiracy theory, and not an accurate prediction. In the meantime, thank you again for your work and your blog.
Comment #6: Dr. Alan H. Levinson said on 5/20/05 @ 5:33am ET...
Sandra, Well done!!!
Vyan, On target again!!
I feel like a baby when I discuss fairness. That's not fair!! Yet it boggles my mind how hypocritical most politicians can be at any given moment (no disprespect intended Mr. C). When your side does it, it's egregious, when our side does it, there is morality and value to it. If this document was found during the Clinton Administration, the republicans would have hung him by his testicles from the rafters. However, since the president is from the majority party (for the moment), the document is meaningless, ignored, and shoved under the rug. On one side, this is considered good politics. On the other, its considered illegal.
I think I'll write Talent myself and explain this to him.
Mr. Conyers, this seems like the typical double standard we as a country have been living with in government forever! And with all the committees in chargeof making new committees, nothing stops this double standard from destroying the integrity of our elected officials. I'm sure a million letters went out to editorial columns. I'm sure that government officials have seen the tv. I'm sure that whenever there is "trouble afoot" everyone on both sides circles the wagons. How do we make accountability real. I for one don't want the only response to be letting someone finish their ccareer only to vote them out 2,4,maybe 6 years later. If a document came out tomorrow stating that you had funnelled 10 million barrells of oil into this country illegally, regardless of political affilliation, I would want you out now. If Bush lied to the American people and went to war because of attempts to decieve the public, then I want him out now. But somehow, in this wonderful country of ours, we cant even get him to acknowledge the document, or answer some questions.
I wonder if it is time to move to where the wombat reside and the wallabee nibble on your roses?
p.s. Have Voinovich, Chafee, and any of the other more reasonable republicans spoken yet re: the nuclear option???
Alan
Comment #7: Max said on 5/20/05 @ 6:35am ET...
Answers on Detainee abuse and holocaust in Guatamano Bay Prisons
http://nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?ei=5094&en=8701738ac057aebe&hp=&ex=1116561600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
Comment #8: sharptail said on 5/20/05 @ 8:23am ET...
British Memo on U.S. Plans for Iraq War Fuels Critics:
PLease be sure to note the following lines:
"secondhand observations."
"does not add significantly to previous accounts of decision making before the war".
"circumstantial observations and does not purport to be an authoritative account of American decision making."
JC: STOP wasting our elected officials time with a second hand report of what somebody in Britian THOUGHT Bush was thinking.
Good GRIEF!
Comment #9: Ohiodem1 said on 5/20/05 @ 9:06am ET...
Way to go, all above except Sharptail.
The Murdoch London Times ran with the story because they now consider Tony Blair expendable, and their intent is to return the UK to the economically disasterous Conservative Party rule. The Liberals lost 30 seats and forced Blair to give up the PM seat in 18 months.
Fox News does not have the kahunas to honestly report this event here.
Why? They are the outsourced propaganda arm, along with the Sun Myoung Moon-owned Washington Times, of the Bush Admininstration and the Republican Party.
Fox News is under the thumb of the Bush Administration and lacks the independence to actually report news.
It is apparent to anyone who can read that the Bush Administration's justification for, and actions leading up to the Iraqi War are total fabrications and impeachable offenses.
It is time to call out Fox News.
Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, if you have any right to lay claim to the role of a legitimate news organization, do your duty and start reporting on the criminal conspiracy that is known as the Bush Administration.
You know what their crimes are, your reporters have unique access to the co-conspirators.
Mr. Murdoch, you became a Citizen of the United States of America in the 1980's. You had to pass a test on the Constitution of the United States in order to qualify for Citizenship. Did you forget it already? Can you truly believe that the actions of the Bush Administration are Constitutional?
Do your duty as an American Citizen.
Comment #10: Kryten42 said on 5/20/05 @ 9:19am ET...
Ahhhhh... good!! Now that the GOP Trolls have spoken, we KNOW you are on the right trail Rep Conyers! :-D
Please keep up the good work Sir! :-)
Everyone here that is actually educated and literate knows that what you are doing is very important. :) The others only know what they are instructed by their masters. I suppose that shows the difference between left-wing voters and the right voters. The righties will always vote GOP because they have no free will, and no capacity to think for themselves. Kinda sad really...
Then again, it makes it VERY easy to know what to expect from them. :-)
Vyan: Very nice post! I almost laughed myself sick when I read this quote from the Rice Cracker:
"This war came to us, not the other way around".
LMAO Well... That is one GOP nut who SERIOUSLY needs a few years rest in a padded room! It just NEVER ceases to amaze me, the ability the GOPs have for self-delusion! Truly amazing! The double-think is just awesome! Of course, it only impresses the right-wing moronic voters. Even someone who only made it through Elementary school can se the BS in that statement! The USA *invaded* Iraq! Iraq did *NOT* invade (or even harm) the USA! Hellooooo... Is there anybody in there?
LMAO
Comment #11: maxie said on 5/20/05 @ 9:22am ET...
Someone put the link or email address up to Rupertr Murdoch,let the 6 or 7 start sending emails to this man,quoting from the last of Ohiodem1's blog.Lets do it!!!!
Comment #12: Doug Kenline said on 5/20/05 @ 9:37am ET...
Thanks for blogging John Conyers. Please provide a link to your position regarding the fraudulent federal income tax.
http://www.givemeliberty.org
Comment #13: Grace Reid said on 5/20/05 @ 10:23am ET...
Dear Congressman Conyers,
The last time I checked with you the plan was to continue to "hammer the media" and don't stop until Fox reports it. We are making some headway in breaking through the US media blackout. But I don't think it's time to relax that effort. Am I correct that the best thing to do now, is to keep approaching the press with more information, to insist that newspapers print the truth, and make the information about the illegality of the war in Iraq available to the people and their representatives?
Please give specific clear guidelines for what we should do to be most effective. Some of us are hanging on your every word.
Yours sincerely,
Grace Reid
Comment #14: Susan said on 5/20/05 @ 10:39am ET...
Sharptail's quotes do provide something interesting. By calling the description of WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT INTEND AND WHEN DID HE INTEND IT old news, the media indictes itself.
If the intelligence was being "fixed around the policy" in July of 2002, either the administration has been lying (and the media should be constantly questioning this "high crime and misdemeanor") OR the media admits that its rabid and inaccurate reporting failed to discover the truth.
This memo clearly gives the lie to the persistent administration assertion that the intelligence "failed"; it didn't fail. It was "fixed". This memo nails that this was a war of choice. If the choice was a good one, why not claim accountability?
Comment #15: paul said on 5/20/05 @ 11:15am ET...
It's interesting to see that the current Republican defense is that war coordination with Britain was carried on the basis of hearsay!
The stonewall is crumbling, little by little.
Comment #16: Paul said on 5/20/05 @ 11:25am ET...
Vyan, I appreciated your reference to the Clinton investigation and impeachment. I've often wondered how much more energy the US government could have put into investigating and pursuing Al Queda at that time,if the attention of the whole government hadn't been so caught up in relentlessly investigating Clinton, despite little evidence, and (on Clinton's part) on legal defense.
Even now, with the Republicans firmly in nearly unopposed control of the entirety of our government (something that I'm sure has the Founders spinning), the Republicans seem to be more conderned with political grandstanding than with the business of the country.
I guess they think they can get away with this as long as they can play the blame game. But I wonder how long that will hold up, when the opposition obviously has little to no actual political power.
Comment #17: Jack said on 5/20/05 @ 12:13pm ET...
Vyan and Paul: And the Judiciary Committee, which spent all that time on impeaching Clinton, is also the Committee that is supposed to handle anti terrorism policy and oversight of law enfct agencies
Comment #18: Ohiodem1 said on 5/20/05 @ 12:32pm ET...
As a courtesy to my fellow bloggers, I am asking permission to do an off-topic post here.
The topic is Social Security, and if 4 or 5 people say it is ok, I will post it. If not, I will wait until the SS topic comes up again by JC. It is fairly long, and something I already posted at Smirking Chimp.
I will check back in a few hours. Thank you.
Comment #19: trashtalkinhere said on 5/20/05 @ 1:09pm ET...
Doesn't John Conyers have anthing better to do than hang around you you America haters?
Oh, thats right, Conyers IS a socialists anyway so he is at home here.
Mr. Conyers: GO GET SOMETHING DONE.
Comment #20: LeslieM said on 5/20/05 @ 2:08pm ET...
Oh.. the troll posts are increasing! Makes me smile to know that we are hitting a nerve.
Ohiodem - I don't mind a relevant off-topic post. And social security is an important topic. How about a link to where you have it posted so those interested can see it?
Comment #21: Susan said on 5/20/05 @ 2:17pm ET...
Dear "Trash": Your name says it all.
To bring you up to speed, Rep. Conyers has:
. issued a voluminous report regarding the voting irregularities in Ohio
. requested that the General Accounting Office investigate the voting issues revealed
. Received information regarding the strange appearance of a male hooker/journalist at two humdred White House attendances
. Requested an explanation of the above
. Made several requests of Scott McClellan to clear up issues unaddressed by our allegedly "free" press.
In other words, he's doing significant investigation FOR YOU and for us all. I believe he thinks this is his job. Maybe you do not think so, but you will need to explain why if you disagree.
To other bloggers, I'm sure I missed some accomplishments. Please supplement!
Comment #22: Ohiodem1 said on 5/20/05 @ 2:38pm ET...
LeslieM #20 - Good idea. I do not know how to actually make a link that works here, if anyone knows how to do, it it would be a nice if you can share.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=21189&mode=nested&order=0
Comment #23: Mike said on 5/20/05 @ 3:01pm ET...
It was only a matter of time until the trolls started surfacing. Seems to me your striking a chord with those who would rather not open their eyes to what is going on in this country. Trust in a democracy is paramount to its stability. To that end, i would like to commend you for your tireless efforts in demanding truth and accountability from the leadership of this country.
Its painfully clear that that the right wing media wants to ignore this important issue and for good reason. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. We simply can't expect the right wing media to be "fair and balanced". Rather, we are just going to have to scream louder then they.
As always, I extend my gratitude to both Mr. Conyers and the Blogsphere for helping to make this possible.
Comment #24: Leslie said on 5/20/05 @ 3:44pm ET...
Dear Rep. Conyers,
Have you seen the letter by Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Treasury Secretary under Reagan and a conservative journalist? He's calling for Bush's impeachment and conviction. Here's the link: http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/roberts.cgi
Daily Kos posted Roberts' letter as well, along with his bio, here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/20/13322/0234
Best wishes,
Leslie
Comment #25: Leslie said on 5/20/05 @ 3:49pm ET...
OhioDem1, I think you use html to post working links, and the string goes like this:
URL name here
I forgot to use it in my post above.
*
Regarding the Downing Street memo and the Newsweek debacle: So when is Bush going to retract the Iraq war, since it was based on information from an unreliable source and the original premises for the war were wrong? Just asking.
Comment #26: Cathi said on 5/20/05 @ 3:54pm ET...
Here's a great piece on the runup to the war. Includes many quotes from the administration. A must-read.
article
Comment #27: Leslie said on 5/20/05 @ 3:55pm ET...
Whoops, OhioDem1, I wrote out the html string for you. But instead of showing the string, the string connected to a fictional url. So you can't read the string. LOL.
I'll try again, you open with a single open guillemet: < and close with a single closed guillemet >
then you write: a href="
After the quote you input the full url address: http://www.whatever etc.
end quote, end guillemet
then you write: link here or some such then another open guillemet with a /a and a closed guillemet
Comment #28: Ohiodem1 said on 5/20/05 @ 4:24pm ET...
I'll try here. Thanks Leslie.
Let's see if it turns red.
Comment #29: Ohiodem1 said on 5/20/05 @ 4:33pm ET...
I had to go look up guillemet.
"a href="http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=21189&mode=nested&order=0"
Comment #30: cat said on 5/20/05 @ 4:38pm ET...
Scott McClellan says there is "no need" to respond to the letter from the 89 Representatives about the Downing St. Memo:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/politics/20weapons.html?pagewanted=print
What's next? This is OUTRAGEOUS, but then that's in character. The iinteresting thing is, THEY DIDN'T ATTEMPT TO REBUT THE MEMO WITH COUNTEREVIDENCE. They are guilty, the memo is accurate, and they are now simply stonewalling. We also have to worry about what they will do for a distraction if this story refuses to go away. We'll be lucky if it's something as innocuous as another "runaway birde" equivalent.
Here is a Democratic Underground discussion thread on McClellan's statement that the Representatives' letter didn't have to be responded to:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3693196
Lots of anger, but no surprise. Stonewalling has worked well for the neocons before, and they know they would lose on evidence. They're assuming that media suppression and reliance on short attention span will do the rest.
Let's prove them wrong.
Comment #31: Ohiodem1 said on 5/20/05 @ 4:38pm ET...
I am a little technically challenged, but will look up an http reference or ask a kid.
Comment #32: maxie said on 5/20/05 @ 4:51pm ET...
I just send c-span a email asking them to cover Rep.Conyers Forum next tues.in D.C.We need all of us to email them and ask them to cover this event,lets gooo!!!
Comment #33: Cliff said on 5/20/05 @ 5:23pm ET...
I saw a report on CNN today about the memo, but Wolf Blitzer swept it under the rug so quick you missed it if you weren't listening closely. This story will never get anywhere because the media in general is trying to see who can repeat the Republican talking points faster. It doesn't matter if it's FOX, CNN, MSBNC or whoever?
They are all afraid to do there job by checking out the facts and reporting them. CNN's reporters are so afraid of FOX News they don't dare question this adminstration. Most of the inside reporters kiss up so much it makes me sick. I'd give anything to see a real reporter report the facts in D.C.
If you watch the media they basically repeat what the administration says. So I guess I'm saying, don't get your hopes up, the truth doesn't exist in the Washington media anymore. If they were like this in the 70's Mr Nixon would have never gotten caught up in Watergate.
Comment #34: Kira said on 5/20/05 @ 5:24pm ET...
Learning the html can be a bit daunting at first and so can trying to explain it in the blogosphere. I posted this on the May 17th thread for Dan who requested -- it got lost in time, though.
I hope this helps -- I learned from some of the great folks over at Bradblog. Also - it's really helpful to keep a clean copy of ready-to-go code in a word document so you don't corrupt your original!!
Here goes:
In order for the html code to show up on the screen, I've used square brackets -- [ and ] to replace "less than" & "greater than" signs. (For some reason they're not showing up on my preview! Use the Less-than sign for the Left Bracket and the Greater-than sign for the Right Bracket.)
Put the URL (web address) between the quotation marks (delete the word URL) and then type your subject where it says Your Subject (delete the words Your Subject.)
Change the square brackets to Less-than / Greater-than signs and you're done! This link will open in a new window, which is nice.
Here's the code:
[a href="URL" target="_blank">Your Subject[/a]
Comment #35: Dan said on 5/20/05 @ 5:30pm ET...
practice link
Comment #36: Dan said on 5/20/05 @ 5:31pm ET...
:)
thats ohio dem's link to smirking chimp
thank you kira
Comment #37: Dan said on 5/20/05 @ 5:36pm ET...
scroll down to comment 25 for ohiodems comment re: SS and the grand OLD party.
I'm totally thrilled to have linked to something. You better watch out now!
Comment #38: Kira said on 5/20/05 @ 5:38pm ET...
I'm glad it worked! You're welcome, Dan.
Comment #39: Ralou News said on 5/20/05 @ 6:06pm ET...
I think one of the reasons this story isn't getting much press and discussion is: The anti-Bush crowd (of which I am a proud member) is too accustomed to reacting to the pro-Bush crowd's lies and distortions. Since the Faux Network and Talk Fascism are silent on this issue, many anti-Bush Americans are in limbo, waiting to debate it. But our opponents do not want to debate. It is in their interests to leak this slowly, a bit at a time, reducing its inciteful nature with a slow, undebated accumulation of details. Finally, when all that is to be aired is out (and that will by no means be the whole story), the neocon pundits will pick through every memo for information that can be distorted and taken out of context to support their claims: Bush was doing the right thing, Bush and Blair feared Saddam had weapons, Bush and Blair have been maligned by a press that exaggerates and distorts their misdeeds and constantly attacks them. And the fact that the press has underplayed or ignored almost every allegation won't register with many Americans because it's all...happening..so...slowly!
And then there is this: The story is a dud in America because most Americans are far too frightened and apathetic to do anything about it. Impeaching Bush is the proper action, but how do we go about forcing the Twoparty Traitors in Congress to carry out his impeachment?
Massive protests, nationwide strikes, and sustained anger, that is how. Try working those activities into your 48+ hour workweek, especially if you have kids!
Comment #40: Crackpot Press said on 5/20/05 @ 7:26pm ET...
Fox can't lose the Bush Admin.
It will put their entire network out of work.
Anything terrible that happens in the Bush White house will be a direct reflection on them.
Comment #41: Teresa said on 5/20/05 @ 7:56pm ET...
The Downing St. story was in the Rocky Mountain News today with a fairly big headline, half page article.
Comment #42: Dr. Alan H. Levinson said on 5/20/05 @ 8:39pm ET...
Hey Gang. Without being too mushy, I LOVE YOU ALL!! What superb postings and links. I will continue to send editorials and letters all over creation (newspapers and tv commentators)with the fantasy that it will make sense to someone. Here's the most recent:
The “Not-So-Free” Press Costs Us Our Integrity!
When will the media finally get it right? The collusion between and amongst journalists to ignore the most conspicuous information in favor of the most insignificant nonsense is mind-boggling. Hello…is there anybody in there? Have the American people been seeing an illusion, or have the media been coerced into oblivion? I’m talking about the not-so-secret document that purports to contain the minutes of a meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush. The ‘primary’ focus of attention given to this document always reverts to ‘when’ Bush decided to go to war. Who cares! He may have been considering the ouster of Saddam from the moment Bush Senior ended hostilities in 1991. The next irrelevant issue to grab the headlines focuses on the poor quality of the intelligence-gathering community. Oops! Their failure is noteworthy and embarrassing, but still not the most important issue. The real issue, conveniently sidestepped and avoided at the cost of American integrity, is the appearance by the President of dishonesty and duplicity. Did the president lie to the American people? Did the President create the impression of complicity between Saddam and Al-Qaida when there was none? Did the President “fix” the intelligence in order to achieve the appearance of legality for his endeavor? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then have American soldiers died because of a lie? Have innocent Iraqis died because of this administration’s ambition? Have over 17,000 American men and women suffered injury, some quite severe and life altering, under false pretenses? Have the American people been paying hundreds of billions of dollars for an illegal aggressive action? Have thousands of families suffered the ultimate loss without justification? Why aren’t the media asking these questions? Why won’t they ask these questions? Who holds the media accountable? If the media won’t do their job, then who holds the President accountable to the people? I have to stop writing this letter now…I think I’m going to be sick!
Dr. Alan H. Levinson
Holbrook, NY
Comment #43: Kryten42 said on 5/20/05 @ 11:06pm ET...
Hey there Doc (I hope you don't mind me using that familiar contraction of your full--and I am certain, well deserved--title?)
An excellent letter and I agree with your sentiments also Sir! :D It's a great feeling, isn't it? :-)
Wow! So MANY good posts (and the usual nutter ones) here! :-D
Ralou News #39: You make a lot of sense, sadly. I believe your comments are accurate.
And my thanks to all the regular sane people here! :-) You all make me proud!
Comment #44: Dr. Alan H. Levinson said on 5/20/05 @ 11:49pm ET...
There's something sad that happens on the east coast near midnight. The number of blogs added to this site diminishes, and I have to wait til morning when they pick-up hot and heavy again. For that brief instant at night, I find myself feeling lonely...but I convince myself that all my compadres are tucked in nice and warm and ready to sleep...all with the same hope,,,that we will wake up from this nightmare and realize Kerry actually won, or that the next morning headline informs us that Bush is currently in Jail awaiting trial for treason. Well, we can dream,,,can't we?
Has anyone been listening to c-span2 regarding the debate on the nuclear option. It kind of pisses me off. I have a number of issues, but I don't want to go on forever.
the LEFT versus the RIGHT
1. Apples and Oranges:
The left say she's (Owens) is out of the mainstream, bizarre and off the wall, persistently allows political agenda to interfere with her ability to fairly process news on the bench. The right talk about where she went to school, how qualified she is, her affiliations. The left are aying that her decisions are over the edge...the right are saying she's nice, has a husband and 2 kids.
2. The dems say the republicans used the fillibuster in 1968 with abe fortas...the repubs deny ever using one. About 5 years ago Frist voted to use a fillibuster. Republicans say they hold themselves to higher standards. democrats don't say it, they prove it with action.
3. The republicans talk of the need to maintain the constitution, yet again and again are willing to break the current rules of the constitution to make new ones. The dems say leave it alone.
4 The republicans want this change to occur because they are in the majority now. They say they have no concern about how it is used in the future. (I guess I wouldn't be scared If I owned all the voting machines!).. The dems say: watch what you ask for, it could come back and bite you in the butt someday. Can somebody explain to me how these dichotomis differences in perception occur. If Fortas was fillibusted, how could the republicans look directly into the camera and say no,,,it didn't happen. I'm sorry...I'm swaying from the ambien I took. I wonder if i'm making any sense. Its just that the listening took lots out of me. I had to try to discern beteen the rhetoric and what was real. I loved Kenneddy. I thought he might have apoplexy right there in the chamber. Some of the dems did a fab job. I almost lost my cookies listening to all the bull!
L:ove to all....just about midnight!!
Comment #45: Dr. Alan H. Levinson said on 5/20/05 @ 11:51pm ET...
P,S, Doc, Al, Alan, I'll even respond to schmuck! Learned that one from my wife! No problem with any of them, Thanks for asking,
Alan
Comment #46: Kryten42 said on 5/21/05 @ 12:21am ET...
I hear you Doc! ;) I don't care what people call me either! LOL
My Grandfather once said "I don't care what I'm called, just don't call me late for dinner!" LOL I have heard that several times since.
HEY!! I just realized... This is Congressman Conyers 100th Blog here!
Way to go Sir! And it's been an amazing ride! Thank you so much for caring and making a difference. You have earned the respect of many by your guts and your leadership. :-)
Also, I just read this post at BradBlog:
Galloway's Senate Testimony Scrubbed from Official Subcommittee Website!
Chairman Coleman's Office Passes Buck for Explanation!
The stunning testimony given by British MP George Galloway before the U.S. Senate subcommittee on Investigations is apparently so hot that it seems to have "gone AWOL" from the subcommittee's...
The stunning testimony given by British MP George Galloway before the U.S. Senate subcommittee on Investigations is apparently so hot that it seems to have "gone AWOL" from the subcommittee's website according to the British newsite VNU Network.
Galloway's Senate Testimony Scrubbed from Official Subcommittee Website!
Words fail!
Comment #47: Hannah said on 5/21/05 @ 3:13am ET...
Teresa #41:
What page was the article on?
Thanks.
Comment #48: Joan said on 5/21/05 @ 3:18am ET...
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010773.html
78% of Americans do NOT want Congress to rubber stamp judges.
Comment #49: Teresa said on 5/21/05 @ 4:37am ET...
Hannah #47
Page 38A
Dr. Alan, in my family 'schmuck' was a term of endearment. She must love you. You do have a sense of humor. We need it.
Have you all noticed the positive tone of this blog? It's hard to find these days and is so refreshing.
Maybe it's because we know we are talking to someone who is really doing something about our unfortunate situation. It's amazing how Rep. John stays so active and upbeat.
I think we should help one another keep our spirits up knowing there will be better days ahead.
Comment #50: Kryten42 said on 5/21/05 @ 7:25am ET...
Well said Teresa. :-)
I just came across this... Not sure what to make of it yet. But it seems designed to really put the pressure on media outlets to only report "feel good news".
Morgan Stanley to pull ads from 'negative' newspapers
I know that many major corporations have (usually secret) deals with media outlets regarding how and when they will advertise, but this is the most blatent form of corporate censorship I've seen.
Comment #51: Sandra (nurse) said on 5/21/05 @ 8:25am ET...
We love you too Doc!
Here's another compelling video...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6423.htm
Uncovered:
The Whole Truth About The Iraq War
Robert Greenwald - 87 minutes: Windows Media
An impressive roster of experts is assembled to provide a generally withering commentary on the quality of evidence and possible motivations of the Neo-conservatives who provided the momentum and muscle behind America's venture into preemptive war. Among them are veteran CIA analysts and operatives, military officers, diplomats, politicians, arms inspectors, and U.S. and British government officials. The fig leaf of the possibility of an honest mistake on the matter of WMDs is stripped away; what is left is the stark and disturbing anatomy of deliberate deceit.
Comment #52: Sandra said on 5/21/05 @ 9:57am ET...
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion."
- Thomas Jefferson, 1820
www.archives.gov May 21, 2005
'WE THE PEOPLE' DEMAND SEPARATION FROM THIS TYRANNY
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
Page URL: http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html
U.S. National Archives & Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD, 20740-6001, • 1-86-NARA-NARA • 1-866-272-6272
Comment #53: Susan said on 5/21/05 @ 10:34am ET...
This just in!
I hope it is o.k. to provide some off-topic info.
In today's Houston Chronicle:
(buried on B3) The Houston Bar Association evaluation of judges was published.
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE PRISCILLA OWEN had the highest "poor" rating at 45.3%. Only 15.2% rated her "acceptable".
In contrast, if Bushco. had wanted to nominate a female judge, they could have nominated Harriot O'Neill (55% "outstanding; 14.5% "poor"; the highest rate, by the way of the seven judges). But I guess O'Neill is not an avid Federalist Society judge and not the Heritage Foundation darling that the clearly unacceptable Ms. Owen is (as judged by her peers, at least).
And for this we overturn our rules and accelerate our rush to become a banana republic? As you watch the "debate" on C-Span (especially an uncharacteristically impassioned John Kerry; Chuck Schumer gets serious debate points, too), please keep in mind that this is all about obstinancy, petulancy, and ideology, not quality.
Spread the facts.
Thank you. I will climb down from the soapbox now.
Comment #54: LeslieM said on 5/21/05 @ 11:12am ET...
This is a little off-topic for this thread, but something we have been discussing. I thought some of you might be interested in reading this.
On Thursday, May 26, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will consider in closed session a draft bill that would both renew and expand various USA PATRIOT Act powers. EFF has obtained a copy of the draft bill, along with the committee's summary of it, and has made them available to journalists and interested citizens on its website.
Comment #55: Kryten42 said on 5/22/05 @ 1:45am ET...
Ummmm.... Sandra #44...
You know how scary that is??
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
...
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
How did they all know about GW Bush?? They are describing him to a T! Or did the GOPs just decide to copy that and use them as their Master Plan?
Amazing! :(
LeslieM: Good find! That is scary! :-O
Comment #56: rainbow sally said on 5/22/05 @ 8:03am ET...
What do we see in this NY Times article, John (and All)?
http://www.occupationwatch.org/headlines/archives/2005/05/british_memo_on.html
No need to respond to the 1.) undisputed evidence, which Blair says was 2.) already known... meaning that they already knew they 3.) passed forged documents they tried to 4.) fool the UN with, they 5.) knew the aluminum tubes were not for nuclear weapons, they knew that they were treating us like mushrooms, that 6.) there was no danger of mushroom clouds and they 7.) didn't care if we ever got out of the mess they were making.
How odd that they didn't care if we could get back out. So....
What else? We just want to know what else??! Since this obviously isn't news to them we just want to know what else did they lie about to the public who underwrites, writes the checks and is ultimately "accountable" for the actions of those who hold offices of "public trust" in these two republics?
See also http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conspiracy
It's short.
And if you don't yet know about the memo and its importance, see if http://gregpalast.com still has the article up. He has a great introduction. He's an investigative journalist for the BBC but has also published in Harpers and elsewhere.
No daily "news" media that failed to at least acknolwledge the existence of the memo by the 17th is worth its salt. If they had it covered before the 17th, their other articles dated later than this tend to be good. CNN is a shocker in this regard. They were on board by the 12th.
The memo first appeared on May 1. And this delay of 3 weeks in a "news" paper that is supposed to be on top of things is inexcusable.
But there's a side effect of this.
We can now see clearly who is against the people.
Let me explain:
Who cares if they are pro-business, compromised by the political leanings of stock holders, afraid of Bush, or simply longing for days of abominable Glory (the Confederacy?). What we know is they are NOT for democracy, they are not for the US Constutition, they are NOT for the Union, and they are not for us.
Period.
Comment #57: Kryten42 said on 5/22/05 @ 10:09am ET...
A heads up
There is a VERY good thread about the memo on the Citizen's Rent blog, called: Attending to the Downing Street Memo
I would definitely say that it's a must read!
Comment #58: Cynthia said on 5/23/05 @ 8:13am ET...
We need more true patriots like John Conyers! Where are the rest of the Democrats ( Kerry, Dean, Clinton et al.) and the moderate Republicans hiding? They should be standing shoulder to shoulder with Conyers et al. and making this evidence of impeachable crimes by our top officials THE AGENDA. We also need a steady drumbeat by those media organizations that still subscribe to TRUTH publishing this memo and its real implications for our country and the world. Millions have been directly impacted by the actions outlined in the Downey Street Memo: The death of our soldiers and countless innocent civilians; the thousands more maimed and traumatized by this war; the pillaging and raping of cultures; the torture of innocents; the erosion of democracy in our country and on and on. How ironic is it that Newsweek's printing of something true (ie. abuse of the Quran) is broadcast ad nauseum and blamed by the very same administration whose lies, deceit and manipulation of facts put us in this horrific situation. This truly is the FINAL STRAW. We simply cannot afford, for our own sake and that of our children and all future generations, to let this moment of truth pass by. This is the time to take our country back!
Comment #59: an american said on 6/12/05 @ 3:38pm ET...
The psychosis of feeble leftist and the desire of control.
Leftist, living only in the mind’s ego must confirm one's own meaning through the judgments and reasoning of others. Without conformation from others, their feeble minds feel a need of 'want' and 'emptiness,' because the ego only can be validated by others. To control this sad state of existence, the leftist must attempt to control others. So they try as hard as they can to convince you to use less gas, recycle cans, oppose confrontation, they say things like, ‘we can give humanity all it needs if you would only listen and let us control,’ you know the mantra. When people don't listen, two things happen, 1) depression, self loathing, 2.) hate toward those who one can't control. This is the state of existence of all socialists, this is the psychosis behind the fascist socialist, Hitler. This is the psychosis of all tyrants who want to centralize the powers of man upon a single linage of control.
The leftist is a simple loathsome creature indeed. From an Anthropological perspective, I would deduce the leftist not be accepted into genome of the Great ape , but known as the putrid remains of evolution gone amuck. All tyrant loving leftist elitists, should be recognized and spoken down, for their puny philosophy is the religion of heathens.
