Article

2005-06-19 Fifth Column

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-06-19 11:04|| || Front Page|| [11135 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 We need an image of Dan Rather here.

Posted by Jackal">Jackal 2005-06-19 11:41|| home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2005-06-19 11:41|| Front Page Top

#2 Or Lucy Ramirez....

Posted by Desert Blondie 2005-06-19 11:54|| 2005-06-19 11:54|| Front Page Top

#3 The MSM is corrupt everywhere. BAN JOURNALISM! ;)

Posted by mmurray821 2005-06-19 12:46|| 2005-06-19 12:46|| Front Page Top

#4 Time to go back to basics.

Zenger, John Peter (zĕng'ər) , 1697â1746, American journalist, b. Germany. He emigrated to America in 1710 and was trained as a printer by William Bradford (1663â1752). Zenger began publication of the New York Weekly Journal in 1733, an opposition paper to Bradford's New York Gazette and to the policies of Gov. William Cosby. Zenger's newspaper, backed by several prominent lawyers and merchants, truculently attacked the administration. Although most of the articles were written by Zenger's backers, Zenger was legally responsible and was arrested on libel charges and imprisoned (1734). In the celebrated trial that followed (1735) Zenger was defended by Andrew Hamilton, who established truth as a defense in cases of libel. The trial, which resulted in the publisher's acquittal, helped to establish freedom of the press in America. Zenger later became public printer for the colonies of New York (1737) and New Jersey (1738).

Freedom of the Press was established upon the concept of TRUTHZ. Maybe it is time to return to the foundation of the right and remove any protections, in the form of libel, for 'jounalism' if it can not or will not validate their material. Time to enforce the 14th Admendment of equal protection before the law, and remove the different standards of proof by public personalities. MSM want to speculate? Fine, make it prominent that what is being presented is fiction or conjecture without basis in fact or pay the piper.

Posted by Jong Cravirong9792 2005-06-19 13:16|| 2005-06-19 13:16|| Front Page Top

#5 Josh Narins is all over this

Posted by tipper 2005-06-19 14:09|| 2005-06-19 14:09|| Front Page Top

#6 I followed the Raw Story links to the 6 documents.(re-typed, photocopied, whatever)and read all of them. The contents are not flattering to the WH.

If the real documents exist and and the reporter can be forced to produce them, this could present impeachable grounds - purposely deceiving Congress.

If the documents can be proven to be just more Rathergate phony material, then the 2006 election is the GOP's across the board. The American public will not tolerate another Rathergate if it's proven the contents of the docs are made up lies.

Posted by Thotch Glesing2372 2005-06-19 14:23|| 2005-06-19 14:23|| Front Page Top

#7 The guys over at PowerLine - no LLL symps they - have posted an interesting comment to the effect that they believe the repro'd memos to be legit. Their argument goes that the memos don't volunteer any CONCLUSIVE evidence as to what happened, whereas (for instance) the CBS memos provided the exact evidence the Left needed but couldn't find. This one may be a toughie...

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2005-06-19 14:35|| 2005-06-19 14:35|| Front Page Top

#8 Well, given that the memos seek to prove that the US had made up its mind one way or another about the war but another ten months or so of screwing around with the UN security council then proceeded to take place, then the case they're trying to build doesn't seem to have very much internal logic.

Just like the case the press has tried to build relies on literal news blackouts of certain stories that would prove them wrong, like the attempted mass casualty attack in Jordan last year.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-06-19 14:47|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-06-19 14:47|| Front Page Top

#9 ALSO... it's only the press that's decided that WMD were the _only_ reason to go to war with Iraq, and has ignored/whitewashed/pretended to explain away any subsequent WMD evidence.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-06-19 14:57|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-06-19 14:57|| Front Page Top

#10 Phil - you posted the article with the links in the body, so I assume you read some or all of the 6 reproduced memos. The memos don't deal merely with the WMD reason for invading Iraq, which btw, the Brits are shown to be sceptical about from the get go. The Brits also say there's no recent evidence of Saddam supporting AQ terrorists. That's why the Brits suggest that the US and UK gov't would do better to use Saddam's breaking UN sanctions as a more solid invasion reason. The Brits even suggest ways to provoke Saddam to defy the UN. The Brits also worry that the US Admin were somewhat clued out about post-war occupation planning/ nation building. Hopefully, the contents of these memos can be proven to be false.

Posted by Thotch Glesing2372 2005-06-19 16:14|| 2005-06-19 16:14|| Front Page Top

#11 Phil - you posted the article with the links in the body, so I assume you read some or all of the 6 reproduced memos.

I have them downloaded but I've only skimmed a couple... I'm having mild computer problems now.

The memos don't deal merely with the WMD reason for invading Iraq, which btw, the Brits are shown to be sceptical about from the get go. The Brits also say there's no recent evidence of Saddam supporting AQ terrorists. That's why the Brits suggest that the US and UK gov't would do better to use Saddam's breaking UN sanctions as a more solid invasion reason.

Well, for a regime that wasn't cooperating with Al Qaeda, they seemed to have a whole lot of Al Qaeda people on hand at the time of the US attack. Including Zarqawi, who was there for about a year beforehand...

That's why the Brits suggest that the US and UK gov't would do better to use Saddam's breaking UN sanctions as a more solid invasion reason. The Brits even suggest ways to provoke Saddam to defy the UN. The Brits also worry that the US Admin were somewhat clued out about post-war occupation planning/ nation building.

Well, we're doing a damn bit better than the British ever did with their "we'll just make the Sunnis the owners of the plantation" strategy that brought us two wars with the place during my lifetime, never mind the ethnic cleansing of Shi'ites and Kurds that took place...

Hopefully, the contents of these memos can be proven to be false.

Proven to not be memos, or proven to be wrong?

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-06-19 16:38|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-06-19 16:38|| Front Page Top

#12 I followed the Raw Story links to the 6 documents.(re-typed, photocopied, whatever)and read all of them. The contents are not flattering to the WH.

Are you out of your f*cking mind?? If what I have read so far means anything it BOLSTERS the case for the Iraq war.

Go back to fellating Kos.

Posted by badanov 2005-06-19 16:40|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2005-06-19 16:40|| Front Page Top

#13 Only a complete moron would deliberately obfuscate the origins of the documents and then destroy the only evidence they are genuine. The only plausible explanation is that he is a liar.

What I find interesting is this has the lesson of RatherGate learned, written all over it even to the point of using a manual typewriter. When was the last time you saw a manual typewriter in an office? The lesson of RatherGate was - make sure no one can prove documents are a fake. And how do you do this? By retyping, obscuring any evidence of their origin and then claiming to have destroyed the 'originals'. I'm really surprised any of you think these are genuine.

Posted by phil_b 2005-06-19 18:06|| 2005-06-19 18:06|| Front Page Top

#14 Proven to not be memos, or proven to be wrong?
Proven never to have existed in the first place. Proven to have been made up by the reporter or by his source(s).

Are you out of your f*cking mind?? If what I have read so far means anything it BOLSTERS the case for the Iraq war.
You can't be serious. I doubt you've read any of the memos.

If the originals are produced or if the source(s) volunteer to come forward to attest to the accuracy of the reproductions, there's no question that the contents are very damaging to the WH. Blair and his underlings don't look like Boy Scouts either, but they are not cast in a Keystone Cops or worse damning light. The Brits at least are questioning and even dismissing as inaccurate or unrealiable some of the reasons/assessments provided to them by their US counterparts, initially dragging their feet, even getting second opinions from their legal staff.

Actually, the Democrats might not want to pursue this thing. It make them look bad too for being such a compliant "loyal opposition."

Go back to fellating Kos.
A predictable knee jerk flame from someone who can't be bothered to read the memo reproductions. FYI, if the contents are true of these reproduced memos, anyone who isn't a complete mindless "Bush, Rice, and GOP are saints" idealogue would want gov't officials brought to account for deliberately deceiving the American people and Congress that the Iraq War was necessary and unaviodable.

As I said earlier, these memos could be another example of a Rathergate type of bogus information and that would pretty much guarantee the GOP winning a resounding victory in the 2006 mid term elections. But you'd need to be blind or dumb not to see that, IF THE MEMOS ARE TRUE, this may pose very serious questions about the WH and so it should.

Posted by Thotch Glesing2372 2005-06-19 18:07|| 2005-06-19 18:07|| Front Page Top

#15 As I said earlier, these memos could be another example of a Rathergate type of bogus information and that would pretty much guarantee the GOP winning a resounding victory in the 2006 mid term elections. But you'd need to be blind or dumb not to see that, IF THE MEMOS ARE TRUE, this may pose very serious questions about the WH and so it should.

Having looked at them more closely, I remain unconvinced this is the case.

Especially in light about what the blind and stupid press has lied and obfucated to us about WMD.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-06-19 18:29|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-06-19 18:29|| Front Page Top

#16 WMD ...sanctions....none of it matters as I see it. Saddam's actions in llight of his agreements ending GW1, and his failure to abide by any of the provisions contained therein gvie the US all the justification necessary. Hell, even if we had or do find massive stockpiles of WMD in the desert, there's many a democrat congressperson on recored as saying even that would not provide justification. It's all political window dressing. We had the right, we exercised it. Stop the circle jerk!!!

Posted by Rex Mundi 2005-06-19 19:11|| 2005-06-19 19:11|| Front Page Top

#17 A predictable knee jerk flame from someone who can't be bothered to read the memo reproductions. FYI, if the contents are true of these reproduced memos, anyone who isn't a complete mindless "Bush, Rice, and GOP are saints" idealogue would want gov't officials brought to account for deliberately deceiving the American people and Congress that the Iraq War was necessary and unaviodable.

The only cause for trouble for the White House is if they deliberately deceived Congess about the cause for war. I recall that the call for regime change came in July 2002. I knew at the point we were going to war and if the White House made a decision to gather the information necessary to bolster that case then that means they did what was neccessary to win political support for the war.

The only way those "memos" could damage Bush is if they state that they knew there were no WMDs and that case had to be ginned up for political support. Well, I have seen nor heard anyting that states that flatly, and commentary from our fifth column press doesn't count anymore.

What we do have here is a situational wedge, for lack of a better term. The left wants to attack a conservative lame duck administration in 2005 to develop wedge issues for a 2006 election, one which the left must win in order to have any chance at 2008.

It worked in 1973, in Nixon's second term for an actual scandal, it worked in 1987 with Iran-Contra, but the left falls well short this time, and it does so because whatever scandal these "memos" reveal are the commentary written by a press which would rather see dead Americans than to give Dubya credit for anything.

BTW: You finished fellating Kos?

Posted by badanov 2005-06-19 19:44|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2005-06-19 19:44|| Front Page Top

#18 I don't see how anyone could have been "deceived" by Bush regarding the necessity of ousting Saddam. President Clinton had already laid out the case for doing so, very convincingly, in his February 17, 1998 address to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And Congress did, as well, in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

Bush's only innovation was to add the courage to act.

Posted by Dave D. 2005-06-19 20:26|| 2005-06-19 20:26|| Front Page Top

#19 The left wants to attack a conservative lame duck administration in 2005 to develop wedge issues for a 2006 election, one which the left must win in order to have any chance at 2008.
Actually you're wrong. At this point, the usual suspects representing the official left - ie Democrat politicians and MSM - have been fairly quiet about the memos this weekend, or at least I haven't seen much printed in newspapers or heard any Democrats interviewed. So far there's only chatter on blogs ( actually the first I read of these memos surfacing was phil's posted article) and yahoo has it as a lead political story today.

BTW: You finished fellating Kos?
BTW: have you ever thought about catching some internet posting manners?

Posted by Thotch Glesing2372 2005-06-19 20:42|| 2005-06-19 20:42|| Front Page Top

#20 Then, I apologize for my lack of manners, but this is a non-story. That the left isn't jumping through their ass about it yet doesn't mean they won't.

Posted by badanov 2005-06-19 21:07|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2005-06-19 21:07|| Front Page Top

#21 The DemoLeft > the GOP-Right has to verify and find out the truth for the DemoLeft whilst not questioning the DemoLeft's motives or credibility. For Me the cause for war pre-9-11 came when Clinton made regime change in Iraq de facto US policy, not to mention that Clinty himself reportedly believed that Al-Qaeda was behind 9-11 and being supp by Saddam. Kerry and the Dems are achieving nothing, moreso iff they're trying to hide behind a Bill Clinton whose own comments against his own achievements and movement are as destructive to the US Demoleft in general as anything Dubya and the GOP does.Pretty much the only thing(s) that can save Hillary's ambition now is either Bill-style elex fraud, new 9-11/WMD attack which takes out Dubya and Washington, and or de facto US milfor battlefield defeat overseas. The last one is unlikely without extens foreign intervention, while with the first Bill was lucky to have people cut him off at the pass - the second scenario explains why the LeftMedia, Inc. is acting like a Democratic Party while the Dems per se are "delinked" and quietly surreally working both for and against GOP policies. "Downing Street Memo" aside, and with the North Korea and Iran sitreps coming to a head, the Dems are becoming more PC "quiet" than ever. Hope no war or new 9-11 per se occurs, but iff Hillary expects to serve two full terms as POTUS of PC geopol quiet, prim-and-proper tenures like Bill did, then something's gotta give!? The Clinton Name and Legacy means nothing now thanx to Bill himself, so Hillary has to depend on something, anything, else for her power - I can imgaine the brouhaha in the Clinton household once Hillary realizes she might have to settle for being a one-termer!

Posted by JosephMendiola">JosephMendiola 2005-06-19 21:25|| n/a]">[n/a] 2005-06-19 21:25|| Front Page Top

#22 I don't see how anyone could have been "deceived" by Bush regarding the necessity of ousting Saddam. President Clinton had already laid out the case for doing so, very convincingly, in his February 17, 1998 address to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And Congress did, as well, in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
Then the President should have made his case about enforcing the 1998 Act to Congress and to the American public. The Act was never brought up by the President in any speeches to my knowledge. The WH probably realized that acting on some obscure act passed five years ago is a bit of a reach.

There's no question that Saddam was a tyrant to his people, but heck, 2/3 of the world's nations are led by tyrants. That's life in Third World countries. Our President and his advisors can't go off half cocked and invade other countries because they want to get rid of tyrants. If Smith's memos are based on for real documents, then what occurred prior to the Iraq invasion was a small oligarchy playing fast and loose with facts on the ground and re-packaging them to be something they weren't. That's unconstitutional, an abuse of public trust. These memos reflect very poorly on US high profile personalities particularly like Rice and others, that's what makes the memos seem bogus to me - Rice is portrayed as an empty skirt, an airhead, and she's has not revealed herself to that way outside these memos. Actually everyone in the US admin. comes across like irresponsible buffoons according to the Brits, seeming quite glib about wading into war, not thinking too deeply about putting our soldiers in danger for reasons other than defending our country's security, not being too terribly concerned about how or by whom Iraq would be governed post invasion, or even recognizing it would take gobs of taxpayer money to take on this nation building venture over a period of many years to come. Various Brits in seem worried about their American counterparts' understanding the gravity of war and post war issues. One Brit mocks Wolfowitz's naive belief that the Republican Guard "would fall in a heap," that he's stuck on Chalabi for unfathomable reasons, because the Brits knew Chalabi was a lying huckster even before the invasion. In another memo a Brit official worries that the US officials are so out to lunch about consequences of regime change that the Brits may end up carrying the brunt of the follow through after the invasion.

The veracity of the memos need to be addressed formally, otherwise the GOP will suffer in 2006. This will not fade away on its own. The memos are false or they are true. There's no way to rationalize the contents.

Posted by Thotch Glesing2372 2005-06-19 21:55|| 2005-06-19 21:55|| Front Page Top

#23 Then the President should have made his case about enforcing the 1998 Act to Congress and to the American public. The Act was never brought up by the President in any speeches to my knowledge. The WH probably realized that acting on some obscure act passed five years ago is a bit of a reach.

Well, a quick google search showed a speech from shortly before the campaign (I refuse to say it was the "start" of the war, anymore than invading Italy was the "start" of WW2) where he talked about the need to end a dictatorship, and bring freedom to the Iraqis. You can read it here.

There's no question that Saddam was a tyrant to his people, but heck, 2/3 of the world's nations are led by tyrants. That's life in Third World countries.

He was a particularly bad one.

Our President and his advisors can't go off half cocked and invade other countries because they want to get rid of tyrants.

Actually, I think it was important that they do so, especially when the tyrants in question have histories of funding terror networks and _have_ used chemical weapons in the past.

If Smith's memos are based on for real documents, then what occurred prior to the Iraq invasion was a small oligarchy playing fast and loose with facts on the ground and re-packaging them to be something they weren't. That's unconstitutional, an abuse of public trust.

Bullshit. As I said before, Bush was stating a variety of rationales for the invasion.

And with what we know today, we can add some more:

* France and Russia were working to undermine the sanctions regime and to rearm Iraq.

* Since the invasion of Iraq, evidence has come to light of a vast black market in isotope enrichment gear. It is unlikely that this would have come to light if we hadn't invaded Iraq, which not only produced a large intelligence haul, but made others (like Libya) feel threatened enough to start sharing intelligence with us. There's a strong chance that if we'd left Saddam in power like some sort of sacred King, we wouldn't know what we know now about the AQ Khan network.

These memos reflect very poorly on US high profile personalities particularly like Rice and others, that's what makes the memos seem bogus to me - Rice is portrayed as an empty skirt, an airhead, and she's has not revealed herself to that way outside these memos. Actually everyone in the US admin. comes across like irresponsible buffoons according to the Brits, seeming quite glib about wading into war, not thinking too deeply about putting our soldiers in danger for reasons other than defending our country's security, not being too terribly concerned about how or by whom Iraq would be governed post invasion, or even recognizing it would take gobs of taxpayer money to take on this nation building venture over a period of many years to come. Various Brits in seem worried about their American counterparts' understanding the gravity of war and post war issues. One Brit mocks Wolfowitz's naive belief that the Republican Guard "would fall in a heap," that he's stuck on Chalabi for unfathomable reasons, because the Brits knew Chalabi was a lying huckster even before the invasion. In another memo a Brit official worries that the US officials are so out to lunch about consequences of regime change that the Brits may end up carrying the brunt of the follow through after the invasion.

Well, as I said, the Brits have done very badly in reconstructing Iraq before. We are going against their conventional wisdom by not leaving the Sunnis in charge of their Shi'ite and Kurd "property" and treating the Shi'ites and Kurds as if they're humans instead of serfs.

The veracity of the memos need to be addressed formally, otherwise the GOP will suffer in 2006. This will not fade away on its own. The memos are false or they are true. There's no way to rationalize the contents.

Well, Bush has been speaking of trying to democratize or stabilize the Arab world since even before the invasion, and people did re-elect him anyway.

These reasons (and others) may not make sense to you but they do make sense to many other people.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-06-19 22:25|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-06-19 22:25|| Front Page Top

#24 Question of the day: Did FDR deserve to be impeached for lying to Congress and the American people when he said the bombers that attacked Tokyo came from a secret American base in "Shangri-La?"

(For that matter, what about when he authorized military action against Germany and Japan before Pearl Harbor? Or when the details of this military incident were kept secret at the time?)

Some further reading on the subject I'd like to suggest Steven Den Beste's Telling The Truth. Also Not Why We're Doing It.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-06-19 22:45|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-06-19 22:45|| Front Page Top

#25 phil - you and I have differing views on what constitutes transparancy in gov't or what legitimate reasons should cause our country to go to war. Arbitary regime change of tyrants who do not pose credible threats to our national security does not pass muster with me or many other Americans, I'd wager. In fact, I doubt the President could get Congress or the American public to give him the go ahead to start a war in Iraq based on the concept of "regime change." These memos better be bogus.

Posted by Thotch Glesing2372 2005-06-19 23:15|| 2005-06-19 23:15|| Front Page Top

#26 A bit of perspective, TG. We didn't sell helium to Germany, hence the Hindenberg.

We cut off American oil to Japan in 1941, to try to influence thier actions, hence Pearl Harbor. If OPEC cut off our oil today, wouldn't WE consider it an act of war?

We were escorting convoys to Britian in 1940, but the Rueben James wasn't actually sunk until the fall of 1941 - well before Pearl harbor.

Should Roosevelt have been impeached, TG?

Posted by Bobby 2005-06-19 23:28|| 2005-06-19 23:28|| Front Page Top

00:48 OldSpook
23:55 OldSpook
23:52 OldSpook
23:30 BH
23:28 Bobby
23:15 Thotch Glesing2372
22:54 Shaper Closh5653
22:45 Phil Fraering
22:28 Captain America
22:25 Phil Fraering
22:19 Bomb-a-rama
22:00 Jackal
21:55 Thotch Glesing2372
21:46 Jackal
21:45 Zhang Fei
21:25 JosephMendiola
21:24 Phil Fraering
21:12 trailing wife
21:12 john
21:07 badanov
20:59 phil_b
20:55 trailing wife
20:47 RWV
20:45 trailing wife