Eating the Apple

Eve did it. Adam did it. Now it's my turn to take a bite. Why not? Hey! It's delicious.

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

Confirmed: Bush wanted to bomb Qatar

Yesterday, the Daily Mirror of London reported:

PRESIDENT Bush planned to bomb Arab TV station al-Jazeera in friendly Qatar, a "Top Secret" No 10 memo reveals. But he was talked out of it at a White House summit by Tony Blair, who said it would provoke a worldwide backlash.

It is hard to believe that President Bush would be so stupid as to propose the bombing of a friendly country, even in jest. It is bad enough when a prominent person like Pat Robertson advocates the assassination of the president of Venezula. But Pat Robertson is a private citizen with no official standing. He has no means of carrying out an assassination. But President Bush does have the means to start a war in any part of the world. So any mention of bombing a friendly country has to be taken seriously.

Still, the idea of bombing the offices of Aljazeera in Qatar has to rank as one of the most outlandish ideas of the last century. It would give Al Qaida a massive propaganda victory. It would convince many Muslims that the United States is the enemy of Islam. The idea is so outlandish that one has to believe that the whole thing is a monstrous hoax concocted by the Daily Mirror.

Or is it?

There are several incidents reported in European news sources that give credence to the Mirror's account:

1. Downing street reaction. The Scotsman reported;

Downing Street yesterday failed to deny the reported plot, citing subjudice laws.

The Mirror was more specific:

Downing Street said: "We don't comment on leaked documents."

This can be interpreted as confirming that an important document was leaked.

2. Reaction of other politicians as reported in the Mirror:

Yesterday former Labour Defence Minister Peter Kilfoyle challenged Downing Street to publish the five-page transcript of the two leaders' conversation. He said: "It's frightening to think that such a powerful man as Bush can propose such cavalier actions.

3. Criminal charges under the Official Secrets as reported by The Guardian:

Last week, Leo O'Connor, a former researcher for (former MP) Mr Clarke, was charged with receiving a document under section 5 of the (Official Secrets) act. David Keogh, a former Foreign Office official seconded to the Cabinet Office, was charged last week with making a "damaging disclosure of a document relating to international relations". Mr Keogh, 49, is accused of sending the document to Mr O'Connor, 42, between April 16 and May 28 2004.

4. The most convincing report also comes from the Guardian:

The attorney general last night threatened newspapers with the Official Secrets Act if they revealed the contents of a document allegedly relating to a dispute between Tony Blair and George Bush over the conduct of military operations in Iraq.

It would be a ridiculous thing to threaten newspapers under the Official Secrets Act if the alleged memo was only a hoax. It seems obvious that the memo is genuine.

Then why did the White House dismiss the Mirror's story as outlandish? The White House is trying to imply that the memo is a hoax. But, as I have shown, the credibility of the memo is supported indirectly by independent news sources. However the White House is notorious for its lack of integrity and credibility. Why should we believe a president who used bogus intelligence to sell a war?

This matter raises questions about the mental stability of our president and his fitness to govern. It would be better to impeach him and remove him from office than let him start another disastrous war.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home