Stop the Crime of the Century-EVIDENCE OF BUSH TREASON

[Guest guest]

" APFN " <apfn

Sat, 21 May 2005 09:39:34 -0700

[Air_America_Radio] Re: EVIDENCE OF BUSH TREASON

 

 

 

 

David Michael Green

Stop the Crime of the Century-EVIDENCE OF BUSH TREASON

Sat May 21, 2005 13:24

 

 

 

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=84087;title=APFN

 

Stop the Crime of the Century-EVIDENCE OF BUSH TREASON

 

This is old news for many of us but here is more evidence for

Bush's crime and a call to action.

 

Stop the Crime of the Century

SECRET MINUTES RELEASED — EVIDENCE OF BUSH TREASON

by David Michael Green

 

05/13/05 CommonDreams.org — In Iraq, there is a crime of

breathtaking proportions taking place. Breathtaking, but not

necessarily surprising. We know from the historical record that

governments will lie and deceive, and we've rarely seen one as immoral

and venal as the Bush administration. What has turned this crime into

an astonishing demonstration of the depth of American democracy's

decay is the complicity of the media establishment in hiding the

original crime, and in thus doing so, ripping a gaping hole in the

fabric of our political system.

 

Did you know that there now exists in the public domain a 'smoking

gun' memo, which proves that everything the Bush administration said

about the Iraq invasion was a lie? If you live in Britain you probably

do, but if you live in the United States, chances are minuscule that

you would be aware of this.

 

Think about that for a second.

 

Apart from 9/11, has there been a more important story in the last

decade than that the president lied to the American people about the

reasons for invading Iraq,

 

• and then proceeded to plunge the country into an illegal war

which has alienated the rest of the world,

 

• lit a fire under the war's victims and the Islamic world

generally, turning them into enemy combatants,

 

• locked up virtually all American land forces in a war without

end in sight, cost $300 billion and counting, taken over 1600 American

lives on top of more than 15,000 gravely wounded,

 

• and killed perhaps 100,000 or more Iraqis?

 

Could there be a bigger story? " How Do Japanese Dump Trash,?

perhaps, which ran on page one of today's (May 12) Times?

 

Of course not. But then,

 

How is it that this is not being reported in the American

mainstream media?

 

How is it that the two organs most responsible for coverage of

political developments in this country — The New York Times and The

Washington Post — have failed to splash this across their front pages

in bold headlines, despite the fact that they clearly know of the story?

 

How, especially, could these two papers sit on a story like this

after both recently issued mea culpas for their respective failures to

critically cover administration claims of bogus Iraqi threats during

the period leading up to the war, thereby contributing to the war

themselves?

 

From the Bush administration and the current generation of

Republicans, I expect nothing but the most debased and vile politics.

And, of course, ditto for Fox News and the rest of the overtly

right-wing media. But I have been naive enough, until now, to believe

that at least some of the American mainstream media has not climbed

completely into bed with those destroyers of all that is decent about

American democracy. Apparently I've been a fool.

 

Here is the story we are not being told.

 

Several days before their election last week (May 5), a patriot

within the highest circle of British government leaked to the Times of

London a memo, which proves the degree of deceit to which both the

Americans and British publics have been subjected on the subject of

the Iraq war. You were never supposed to see this document

( http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html ).

 

It is headlined in bold with this warning: " This record is

extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be

shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents. "

 

The memo provides minutes from a meeting of Tony Blair's most

exclusive war cabinet, held in July of 2002. In the meeting, two of

Blair's top officials report on discussions they had just held in

Washington with officials at the top levels of the Bush administration.

 

Before describing the contents of the memo, it is important to

note that nobody in the British government has denied to even the

slightest degree the authenticity of this document. A highly placed

American source has verified, off the record, that it is completely

accurate in its recounting of the events described. And Tony Blair's

only comment has been that there is 'nothing new' contained in the

memo. This could not be more false. The memo proves beyond doubt the

following:

 

The Bush administration had decided by July 2002, at the latest,

to invade Iraq. The memo says that " Military action was now seen as

inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action... "

Later in the memo, it notes that " It seemed clear that Bush had made

up his mind to take military action. " This means the claims that the

president did not have a war plan on his desk at that time are now

proven lies. It means that the whole kabuki dance of going to

Congress, going to the UN, sending over weapons inspectors, pulling

them out before they could finish their work, requiring Iraq to report

to the Security Council on its weapons of mass destruction, then

immediately rejecting their report as incomplete and deceitful — all

of this — was a completely counterfeit exercise conducted for public

relations purposes only. It also means that when former Treasury

Secretary Paul O'Neill and former terrorism czar Richard Clarke

reported that Bush had planned to attack Iraq from the beginning, they

— rather than the administration which was personally savaging them as

loonies — were telling the truth.

 

The Bush and Blair administrations knew that the argument for war

against Iraq was weak. As Foreign Secretary Jack Straw notes in the

meeting, " But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his

neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North

Korea or Iran. " This is proof that Iraq was never anything like the

serious threat it was portrayed to be before the war, and that both

administrations knew that it was no threat, but knowingly and

completely oversold the necessity for the war with their massive

phalanx of lies and distortions.

 

Because the case was thin, the war would have to be " ...justified

by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. " This proves that former

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz wasn't kidding when he let

slip that the weapons of mass destruction argument was decided on by

the administration for " bureaucratic reasons, " meaning a rationale

that all the leading actors within the administration could agree on

as the most effective public relations device for marketing the war.

 

Both the Bush and Blair administrations manipulated intelligence

to get what they wanted in order to justify the war, and knew that

they were doing precisely that. As the memo states, " ...the

intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. " This is

the most remarkable statement of all, as it makes clear that the

decision to invade had nothing to do with facts or any sort of real

threat. Rather, it was simply a preference of the Bush administration

(and probably just a personal one for Bush), which then became its

policy, for which they then twisted and fabricated information and

disinformation in order to sell the war to a rightly skeptical public.

 

The war was illegal. Kofi Annan and the international community

clearly believed that the war was a violation of international law.

But we now also know that the British Attorney-General, who has to

rule on this point (the question of the legality of launching a war is

far less significant, unfortunately, in the American political

tradition), " said that the desire for regime change was not a legal

base for military action. There were three possible legal bases:

self-defense, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorization [which

was never ultimately obtained from the Security Council]. The first

and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205

of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might change of

course. " Yes, of course. Then, again, if it didn't, one could always

just lie about it.

 

Knowing that the war was neither legal nor morally justifiable,

the American and British governments therefore sought to find a way to

make the war politically acceptable by baiting Saddam. As the memo

notes, " We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow

back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal

justification for the use of force. " And, " The Prime Minister said

that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam

refused to allow in the UN inspectors. " And, " If the political context

were right, people would support regime change. "

 

Well before the war was 'justified,' even in the bogus sense of

Washington's and London's inspections and UN resolutions game, it had

already begun. The memo states that the " U.S. had already begun

'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime. "

 

Finally, it is worth noting that, even putting legal and moral

questions aside, the memo also substantiates the sheer strategic

incompetence of the administration, a failure which has, of course,

produced excessive loss of life. It states that " There was little

discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. "

 

Let's review the bidding here.

We now have definitive, verified and undenied evidence documenting

a panoply of lies told to the American and world publics about the

invasion of Iraq, a bloody war which was neither legally nor morally

justified, despite overt attempts to make it so by those who wished to

launch it.

 

On top of that crime, we can now also add that of America's fourth

estate, which has completely abdicated its role and responsibility to

present this crucial bombshell of information to the public.

 

It gets worse, however. Eighty-nine members of Congress have taken

note of the items described above, as well as a separate secret

briefing for Blair's meeting, in which it was agreed that " Britain and

America had to 'create' conditions to justify a war " , and have sent a

letter to the president

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/letters/bushsecretmemoltr5505.pdf

demanding a response.

 

And, yet, still there is no coverage from our press! It appears

that demanding that the government respect the will of the people is

no longer enough in American democracy. We must now also carry the

burden of demanding that the media do its job and cover developments,

which are unfavorable to the national kleptocracy of which these giant

media corporations have become a part.

 

That noise you hear? It's the sound of America's Founders spinning

in their graves. And well they should, for this scenario is precisely

the massive concentration of power they most feared. All branches of

the government are now in the hands of the same party (meaning,

effectively, there virtually are no branches any longer).

 

The so-called opposition party facilitates Republican rule through

the flattery of imitation, when it hasn't gone into hiding instead.

The public is frightened and ill-informed. And now this. To this hall

of shame list must be added a mainstream press which a week ago seemed

only biased and intimidated, but now appears entirely complicit. We

are now living precisely the nightmare of Washington, Jefferson,

Madison and the rest. It must stop. We cannot have a prayer of an

informed public curbing the worst excesses of American government if,

in fact, that public is not informed. Sad as it is, if we ever hope to

reclaim American democracy, it appears we must now fight for

outrageous news to be aired, if we ever expect that news to outrage.

 

Notwithstanding our worst horrors and fears these last four years,

American democracy is in deeper trouble than we knew. Now is the time

for patriots to act.

 

We must begin by demanding coverage of this explosive evidence by

the leading organs of American journalism. If the American people

remain too jaded or frightened to demand the heads of those who

deceived them so thoroughly, they're entitled to inherit the

consequences of their own failures. However, they cannot make that

choice until they know the facts.

 

Please therefore, for the sake of innocent Iraqis, for the sake of

American soldiers, and for the sake of American democracy, do two

things 'write now:'

 

First, send a message to The New York Times and The Washington

Post, demanding that they cover this most significant of stories. Top

brass at The New York Times can be e-mailed at the following addresses:

 

Executive Editor Bill Keller: executive-editor

Managing Editor Jill Abramson: managing-editor

 

The Washington Post, try National Editor Michael Abramowitz:

abramowitz

Associate Editor Robert Kaiser: robertgkaiser

 

Next, forward this article on to everybody you know, and ask them

to write the Times and the Post as well, and then to forward this

article in turn to everyone they know. With some luck, perhaps we can

achieve a critical mass which can no longer be ignored by these

papers, with the electronic media then to follow.

 

In any case, we are evidently going have to take this country back

ourselves, without even the benefit of a competent media to report the

news.

 

Fortunately, we possess the greatest weapon of all, the truth.

 

David Michael Green ( pscdmg ) is a professor of

political science at Hofstra University in New York.

=======================