I'm missing something. Why is the Al Jazeera bombing memo such a threat?

[Jackpine Radical]

Why is that worse than, say, the devastation we caused in Fallujah?

In fact, given the level of understanding of, and commitment to, freedom of speech prevalent among Bush's base, I think Bushco could sell the idea of silencing any critics/truthtellers as a good idea.

Also, why was it worth the price for Blair to threaten the British press with jail over printing news of an embarrassment? Especially since the cat's most of the way out of the bag anyway...

And Blair, his credibility already in tatters, has clearly further damaged what little remains of his own image here.

So what am I not getting?

[henslee]

1. The fact that bombing a news agency was contemplated is a grave

new twist. If we thought about "going there". doesn't that make CNN, and any other news outfit a justifiable target? Though come to think of it, it should not be such a shocker after we had previously "accidently" bombed a hotel full of journalists.
More I think about it... I think this last Jazeera memo just demonstrates the that the Administration's ongoing contempt for reporters knows no boundaries.. They are an equal opportunity hater of media organizations... except of course ones they like.

[ClassWarrior]

3. Not to mention the fact that Qatar is supposed to be an ally. Also...

...the gag order in England seems to suggest that there's more to that conversation that we're not hearing.

:hi: Jack!

NGU.

[Jackpine Radical]

10. Yo, CW. Yeah, maybe there is something more.

One can pick up a few hints of that between the lines here. But how much worse can it be than the stuff they've already pulled with impunity?

[rox63]

5. We also destroyed Al-Jazeera offices in Afghanistan and Baghdad

And they've been banned from Iraq. So we have a history of hostility to Al-Jazeera. The idea that we wanted to destroy their headquarters is not all that far-fetched, given that history.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. Yes, exactly. What would be an outrage, a matter for the Hague

in other times & other places has become such a commonplace event in thse times that I just don't see why this particular proposed crime such a big deal. Ranked with widespread torture, with white phosphorus & napalm attacks on civilian populations, with lying our way into war in the first place, what's the big deal?

[electron_blue]

2. Maybe it's creating such a furor bcs they were *just* about to do it

and thus it ruined their timing. No way to claim it was an accident, or to deny they had anything to do with it.

Just my guess, but isn't that typical human behavior? Protesting too much and all that?

[jwirr]

4. Free Press

[Jackpine Radical]

8. Free press? What's that?

Oh, you mean like Al Jazeera, where they seem to try to publish the truth regardless of politics. What a weird idea. I don't think it will ever catch on.

[jwirr]

23. Free Press is something that we used to have!

[ewagner]

7. Scratching my head over this too

It seems to me that Blair is doing more damage to himself and Bush* by invoking the Official Secrets Act than there would have been if the memo had simply been put through the Neocon spin/rinse/repeat cycle. Hell, these guys are so good at spinning the news that they might have even elicited some sympathy for Bush.

Putting the clamps on the memo is politically ham-fisted for these pros....

[Jackpine Radical]

13. G'morning, Ed. Well-put. I can just imagine trying to convince a wingnut

that there's something wrong with the idea of blowing up a news outlet whose uncomfortable truths were "giving aid & comfort to the enemy."

[ewagner]

16. G'morning to you Sir!

Hope you had a great Thanksgiving....

I'm suspecting the memo or at least some transcript of it will find its way to the United States where there is no Official Secrets Act. I think there are probably enough copies or transcriptions of the document where the British Solicitor General can't keep track of them all.

[Jackpine Radical]

18. ...all of which makes Blair look like an even bigger idiot. He may

have plugged one hole, but he can't plug them all. I guess in that case we'll find out if CW's conjecture--that there is more in the memo & therefore more to the story--is right.

[rainy]

9. because it is PROOF, in writing.

War criminals one and all.

[Jackpine Radical]

11. Don't we already have enough proff to convict in any fair court?

And in an unfair court, proof doesn't matter.

[TahitiNut]

12. It confirms the attacks on al-Jazeera in Kabul and Baghdad were war crimes

We're an outlaw nation, committing war crimes ... and that's not hyperbole.

[Jackpine Radical]

15. "We're an outlaw nation, committing war crimes"

I don't dispute that in the slightest. But the examples are now so numerous & so egregious that I'm having trouble getting my mind around the notion that this particular one is any worse than the secret prisons, Guantanamo, torture, spiriting people away in the night, etc.

[TahitiNut]

29. Agreed. Any 'worse' or 'better' discussion is sorta pointless.

It really stuns me that the American public has so abandoned any pretense of high principles and standards that we now pat ourselves on the back for "not as bad as." The "bar" is no longer just low - it's subterranean. People of principle are maligned and derided, people sneer at benevolence, and 'fair and balanced' is the epitome of applauded hypocrisy and cynicism. Power corrupts - at a national level.

[salin]

14. Folks who supported the war "in good faith"

that is, believing that our govt would never risk lives for no real reason/threat - and that to begin to believe that the govt would do so would create such cognitive dissonance as to shake their foundational beliefs (ala all that they have learned in school, church, etc.) - could rationalize Falluja - in the wake of the Beheadings, and in the wake of the nonstop propoganda that was being spoon fed to the public (and out of pulpits) daily.

The Aljazeera story, however, is one of those types of stories that does exactly what these folks are trying to keep off - psychologically - hard not to have cognitive dissonance on this story - and then once that cog. dissonance is engaged - rethinking stories like Falluja take on a completely different sheen.

This is about protecting Bush's beloved base - the only ones who still back him - and keeping up the attempted veneer that while the intel might have been incorrect, that the bushco was acting in "good faith". Total bull, but the 35% cling to that belief desperately.

[Jackpine Radical]

17. But don't the remaining few have to be in such deep denial--or such

deep ignorance--that they would buy the notion that AJ is an enemy propaganda vehicle & therefore a legitimate target?

I just don't see AJ as the one that would break through the defenses. The victims are Arab Muslims who sometimes say bad things about Bush. As such, they aren't all that appealing as people to get worked up about.

BTW--Ever read Leon Festinger's (now ancient; 1959?) When Prophecy Fails? It was a classic case study of a UFO cult & what happened when the flying saucer didn't show up as predicted. Many members of the group just hardened their belief system, concluded that they had made a mistake about the date, and settled more deeply into the pit of denial.

BTW--Nice to hear from you. I haven't noticed you on the board a lot lately.

[salin]

27. While what you write rings true,

there have been other charges of the press being targetted by the military - this story gives credence to those charges (remember the bombing of the hotel where the press was residing?)

Also that it would be contemplated, bombing an allied country, paints more a picture of bush unhinged and revenge hungry ... against PRESS... add to it that Blair had to talk him out of it... makes Blair look like good guy and Bush like bad guy. Again - it is the overall picture when taking together with items that have penetrated the public psyche - even for some of the 'believers' - that the prewar intel was incorrect (the public belief has shifted recently from bad intel - to intentionally misleading... but the believers still cling to bad intel)... the more acknowledged data points that reconfirm the MOTIVE (eg to distort news and manipulate the public) the more that the outer fringes of the circle of support (think of the fringed edges on a tapestry) start to pull and break away from that ever increasingly smaller circle/tapestry of support.

Just my two cents.

Good to see you as well. My work schedule keeps my posting severly limited (timewise) these days. Always great to cross paths with you and others who try to think deeply about the whys of some of these stories. :hi:

[Lolivia]

19. The arguments * used for Fallujah et. al. don't apply here

The memo shows that * has unlinked his actions from the war on terror, and is now on a rampage. He is no longer constrained to actions that he can justify as being about the "war on terror."

For Fallujah, the white phosphorous, the torture, heck the entire war, the administration was apply to play the "terror" card to varying degrees of success. It made the claim that all those actions were either necessary to, or an unfortunate byproduct of, the "noble cause" of fighting the terrorists. Fallujah was the hotbed of the insurgency, the administration claimed. We don't torture, but if we did, it is only to save millions of lives from further terror. Etc. Etc. All of those actions happened on "enemy" soil, and were actions that he claimed necessary to fight the terrorists. Obviously, we don't buy these claims, but many people here did, and some people still desparately cling to them in the hope of making what we're doing justified. As long as * had to at least make some connection to the war on terror, it confined his actions somewhat. He had to confine himself to Iraq, and to actions that he could in some way link to terror.

The problem with the Al Jazeera memo is that none of the administrations arguments will work here. There is no way the * administration can justify bombing an independant news organization headquartered in a country that is purportedly our ally. Al Jazeera is not connected with the insurgency or Al Qaeda, they don't operate out of a terrorist hotbed. * was flat-out saying that he wants to destroy an independant press because they don't tow his line. It's the starkest example yet that he wants to destroy dissent, and there is no justification for it - even by *'s whacky standards of justification. Notice how the administration isn't even TRYING to justify it - they're trying to pass it off as a joke. Altough if this story becomes big enough, I'm sure we can all look forward to reports on how Osama bin Laden owns Al Jazeera.

It's just so scary that * has moved beyond actions that he could even attempt to justify as part of the war on terror, to actions that just reek of despotism. If he no longer has to link his actions to the war on terror, there is no stopping him. And if he thought bombing a news organization that doesn't play into his propaganda was acceptable, what's next? War protesters at home and abroad?

[Jackpine Radical]

24. Your reasoning is compelling & coherent.

Welcome to DU. This looks like a 4th post unless you've added a few since posting here. In any case, it's gonna be fun having you around here.

[newyawker99]

32. Hi Lolivia!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Lolivia]

41. Thanks!

I've been lurking here for quite awhile - finally got up the nerve to start posting.

You guys are all great! I can't tell you how wonderful it is to see such a big group of sane, rational people!

[Eugene]

20. Because the minutes/memo IS about Fallujah

and British concern about America's heavy-handed approach.
Bombing al Jazeera is only the most outrageous item discussed.
The minutes for the Bush-Blair talks are very damaging to Bush.

[Jackpine Radical]

25. Points well-taken.

I can always count on my fellow DUers to educate me.

[Crunchy Frog]

21. I think it's such a big deal

because they were talking about bombing a country that is considered an ally, and they were talking about bombing a news organization that could not in any way be considered a military target.

Bush's base may think that sort of thing is a good idea, but the rest of the world doesn't really approve of that sort of thing, plus it's against international law.

I haven't been keeping up with what's going on with Blair, so I don't know exactly what the deal is there. Can he really throw members of the press in jail for reporting a legitimate news story? When did Britain become the Soviet Republics of Britain?

[Jackpine Radical]

22. I believe the Official Secrets Act gives Blair the power to jail

unruly elements of the press. We don't have an equivalent law here.

[converted_democrat]

26. Well, I think it is a big deal to bomb an ally.....

Their headquarters is in Qatar, and Qatar is one of our allies. So to bomb Al Jazeera, would mean bombing an ally that has done nothing to us. (Not that it has ever stopped us in the past.)

[Generic Other]

28. The press gets really excited about threats to kill them

And they write the news.

[man4allcats]

30. I was curious, too. I found this helpful:

I came across this article at SmirkingChimp published originally in Opinion.Telegraph. The author suggests that Bush's "neo-con Tourette-style babble about blowing things up" brings into question the ultimate raisons detre for this bizarre, treacherous, misguided war. Why are we really there? First we were told it was because of the WMDs that would envelop us all in a fiery mushroom cloud. Then it was getting rid of Saddam the dictator and restoring peace (tens of thousands have already died with no real end in sight). Was it to insure that chemical weapons could never again be used on Iraqi soil? Guess not. White phosphorous is the Pentagon's favorite recipe for Shake and Bake missions. Maybe it was to guarantee a free press. Not likely. Dubya wants to blow that up. Click Chimpster wants to bomb al-Jazeera for the full text. A snip follows:

It must be said that subsequent events have not made life easy for those of us who were so optimistic as to support the war in Iraq. There were those who believed the Government's rubbish about Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then the WMD made their historic no-show.

Some of us thought <the war> was all about the dissemination of the institutions of a civil society - above all a free press, in which journalists could work without fear of being murdered(emphasis added). Then we heard about the Bush plan to blow up al-Jazeera.

...however wrong you may think al-Jazeera is in its slant and its views, you must accept that what it is providing is recognisably journalism. It is not always helpful to the American cause in Iraq, but then nor is the BBC; and would anybody in London or Washington suggest sending a Tomahawk into White City? Well, they might...

But if there is an ounce of truth in the notion that George Bush seriously proposed the destruction of al-Jazeera, and was only dissuaded by the Prime Minister, then we need to know, and we need to know urgently. We need to know what we have been fighting for...(emphasis added)

[RagingInMiami]

31. I hope someone sends the document to Boris Johnson

I hope he publishes it and I hope he doesn't wind up dead.

[PaulaFarrell]

33. You're underestimating how much these people want to be believe in Bush

They bought the lies about Iraq hook line and sinker. But if this is true, which I've no reason to doubt, any Bush follower who had any decency (and there are some - they're just deluded) would have to once and for all admit that Bush was evil. After Katrina, he lost a lot af followers becuase they saw proof of what he was like. If this story is proved true, he will lose a similar chunk of believers.

[daleo]

34. If there is a transcript, it might well be evidence of a crime

Leaving aside the issue of war crimes, planning to bomb a newspaper office in a neutral country would be a plain vanilla crime. It might be the sort of evidence of "felonies and misdemeanors" that could get Bush impeached.

The fact that Blair supposedly talked Bush out of it might negate that, but I am not sure.

[Orangepeel]

35. There must be something that embarrasses bush personally in the memo

as we've seen, the administration doesn't care about caught in criminal actions, but they do care about bush's image.

Maybe he said something he thought was funny, like, say, "serves those fuckers right for not kissing my ass" and is quoted in the memo.

The only other reason I can think of, is just sheer stubbornness. They said they didn't want it released, so they are going to fight to keep it from being released, even if everyone already knows what's in it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. It is a war crime, and they cuold be indicted in absentia for it

that is why it is such a threat... and the Brits actually sinned the darn cute protocols

[shance]

37. Because they are trying to cut off and destroy the truth from being told

n/t

[Solly Mack]

38. It's a possible paper trail that would be easier to obtain

I think the chances of America charging the Bush Regime as war crimnals is nil. Even with all the proof we already have that Bush is a war criminal.

America's not prone to punishing Presidents for their crimes. America's prone to blathering the inane "let's move on" and making other corrupt statements, meant to allow crimes to go unpunished, such as "for the good of the country."

Forget Clinton's impeachment - the "real" crimes are never punished. Not even Watergate and not even Iran-Contra. Nixon got away because he resigned and the matter was pretty much dropped. The Iran-Contra people were either pardoned or never charged - and most of them are back in the Whitehouse now - or working closely with this Whitehouse. And Reagan and Bush 1 faced no charges for their roles. Google Lee Hamilton, Iran-Contra for the thinking behind that. Hint: "for the good of the country"

But maybe the British can get farther with snagging Blair. So this paper is needed - 'cause if the Brits can hold Blair accountable with a paper trail, it might increase the odds of getting Bush as well.

Maybe the public outcry will increase with more and more proof. Maybe it will force Congress to act - not just to impeach - but demand the Bush Regime go to trial.

And anything that increases the odds of bringing Bush to trial as a war criminal is a good thing.

So while it's not more important per se, it is important because it's a piece of paper that might just make the light of day...and might just make it to a world court.

[Lannes]

39. It makes us look even worse in the Arab world

and encourages more to join the cause against the "infidels".It sure doesnt help us.

[Garbo 2004]

40. Al Jazeera is Qatar's state funded news agency. Qatar major ally in the

Iraq war. CENTCOM was based there, Iraq invasion run from there, US troops and major bases stationed there. It's a big deal re: international diplomacy to attack one's own major ally providing substantive assistance and support in the war against Iraq.

Plus it shows Bush for the despotic bully he is. Freedom of speech and press is a target abroad and at home whether by arms or other means. This report lends further credibility that the press, especially Al Jazeera, have been targeted by the US military.

Additionally, the US has held an Al Jazeera cameraman in captivity for four years. He's been in Gitmo and apparently the main thing they've wanted him to do was "confess" that Al Jazeera was an Al Qaeda front. And also "inform" on his colleagues. An interview with his lawyer here: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/021AA43D-0DC8-4EC1-835E-41EEBF47C27A.htm