NYT- Antiwar Group Says Leaked British Memo Shows Bush Misled Public on Hi

[maddezmom]

By SCOTT SHANE
Published: June 17, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 16 - Opponents of the war in Iraq held an unofficial hearing on Capitol Hill on Thursday to draw attention to a leaked British government document that they say proves their case that President Bush misled the public about his war plans in 2002 and distorted intelligence to support his policy.

In a jammed room in the basement of the Capitol, Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, presided as witnesses asserted that the "Downing Street memo" - minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top security officials - vindicated their view that Mr. Bush made the decision to topple Saddam Hussein long before he has admitted.

"Thanks to the Downing Street minutes, we now know the truth," said Ray McGovern, a C.I.A. analyst for 27 years who helped organize a group of other retired intelligence officers to oppose the war.

The memo said Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of British intelligence, had said in the meeting that Mr. Bush had already decided on war, "but the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

~snip~
more: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/politics/17downing.html

[Elidor]

1. "Antiwar Group?" How about "U.S. Democratic Reps?"

They're trying to frame the dems as automatically "anti-war."

[Media_Lies_Daily]

4. What's wrong with being looked at that way? Yes, I'm PROUDLY....

...antiwar, and I hope that the Democrats and Republicans in today's meeting are just as proud of that as I am.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. nothing wrong with BEING antiwar

But the phrase is used in the article to mislead the reader, to obscure the fact that this was a congressional forum: an unofficial hearing held by members of congress.

Also, in like manner, the charge against Bush mentioned in the article is that the admin had decided to go to war well before they went to congress or the un. While true, this is less important than the fact that they lied - they fixed the intelligence - in order to decieve congress, the american people, and the un, in order to create a false justification for the war.

The article is all spin and framing. The MSM is now forced to report the DSM instead of ignoring it but they are doing their best to belittle it.

[lumpy]

5. Hey, it's the NY Times.

Besides, what is wrong with being anti-war? Especially if it is an illegal war, hardhead.

[geckosfeet]

20. NOTHING WRONG WITH ANTIWAR!!!

They just reported the event wrong !!

You would think that, in the interest of accuracy and good journalism, they could open something besides "Opponents of the war in Iraq held an unofficial hearing" --- that seems to me so much like an attempt to de-legitimize Conyers forum.

[tavalon]

35. Because it's frame or be framed

If they get to choose the terms of this debate, we lose. We may be able to hold our heads high because we don't agree with this war but we lose the PR war. And this administration will survive or be destroyed by the PR we can generate for our side.

[Whoa_Nelly]

6. Am in complete agreement with you, Hardhead!

I'd like to write the author, Scott Shane, but don't know his email address. The headline, whether decided by Shane or his editor, greatly diminshes our elected officials working on behalf of many US citizens. To call the US Representatives an "Anti-war Group" immediately creates dismissal of any goal these people are working on.

Am :mad:

[leesa]

37. Like the article that said a "few" congresspeople, when there were 105

who signed the letter. Why are they protecting these vile thugs in BushCo? Are these "reporters" completely immoral?

[Whoa_Nelly]

42. Actually it was 122 conrgresspeople

At the meeting, Conyers first stated 104, and was immediately informed it was 122! :bounce:

[Cha]

10. I agree..Nothing wrong with being "anti-war"..it's

just not the proper way to describe Rep John Conyers..

Get your head out of bush's ass, nwt!

[Brundle_Fly]

12. IF by Anti War

You mean Preemptive Invasions invasions of countries that cannot defend themselves in order to plunder their natural resources, and kill civilians at random, then yes GodDamn it I am anti war!

[MichiganVote]

2. Bush lied, he didn't mislead anybody

[llmart]

32. My reaction exactly!

Clinton has a dalliance with an intern and the word "lie" is everywhere 24/7. Bush deliberately puts our troops in harms way for his own selfish purposes and he is just "misleading" us.

What a crock of shit! The bastard lied and our soldiers are dying and being maimed every single minute. I want him impeached!

[Aviation Pro]

3. Malloy....

...just savaged the Times for the headline on this article.

Oh well, here's a brain-dead woman to distract you, here's a runaway bride to distract, here's a faded pop star to distract you, here's a missing teenager to distract you.

Jackasses.

[RoyGBiv]

7. Funny story ...

I'll keep it brief.

I was with a client today, and the television was on behind me. Several other clients were standing around with other people, all of us going about our business. On the television was some "breaking news" out of Aruba, and the guy in front of me just lost it totally.

It began with a shouted, "Does anyone in this freakin' country realize we're at WAR!?!?!?!?" Others looked at him strangely except for a co-worker near me who is of a like mind on such things.

We ranted together for about ten minutes. I could excuse it as "customer relations," i.e. indentifying with the customer. It was so cool.

[Cha]

11. I know that felt

GOOD!

Someday, Someway..the mswm is going down!

[RoyGBiv]

17. You got that right!

Considering where I live (Oklahoma), in a particular part of the state that is simply oozing ignorant sheep, it was incredibly shocking and amazingly gratifying.

Had a spring in my step all day after that.

[geckosfeet]

21. yeah,, but the story was about Aruba. Much sexier than a war.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. Scott "Have you no" Shane?

Catalogued.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

9. Anti-Illegal-War Group would be accurate. n/t

[Cha]

14. ZING!

:toast:

[KoKo]

23. How about "Anti-Iraq Invasion/Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Strike groups?

I'm not anti-war but I was Anti-Iraq Invasion like many others. They keep trying to lump us into "Anti-War" and there is a difference. War is last resort to me. But to others all war is wrong if one is a pacifist.

[dooner]

13. "opponents of the war..."

is the lead sentence in the story... I guess we could agree with that.

Some news editor probably stuck the headline on.

[rodeodance]

16. this is the WH calls conyers hearings--it delegitimatizes the hearings-

what s jerky headline!!!!!!--the WH will suck up this headline (no matte r what it actually says)---boy am i pied off!!

[rodeodance]

18. allright--time for all to email the nytimes on this story!!

[cal04]

19. you're right. I just did

this is where I sent my email
[e-mail].

[rodeodance]

29. thanks for this email--i will send to him/ her also!!

[KAZ]

22. Done. This is disgusting.

What happened to my country?

[ElectroPrincess]

25. This is worse than Watergate in so many sick and disgusting ways ...

We can't trust our USA corporate media to do the right thing. In order to believe we have to use the UK officials and pound it home via the Internet. Even then, they cloud the issues but changing the headlines. The terms to discredit us are numerous: anti-war; liberals; peace activists.

It's also like all the reputable retired General Officers and Intelligence Analysts that disagree with * are merely "disgruntled employees" and 120 Representatives with 560,000 signatures are just another "focus group."

Our USA Corporate media is corrupt ... more so - MUCH more so than during the Watergate Scandal that brought down Nixon and Agnew.

We must not quit fighting from our keyboards because we no longer have a free press. It's bought and paid for by the large multinational corporations.

[depakid]

24. Why are the Times editors so afraid to just say the word LIED?

Krugman noted that as far back as 1999, the senior news editors forbade him from saying Bush was lying when he OBVIOUSLY was- and Krugman had ironclad proof.

And the Times wonders why its credibility has been all shot to hell? True- they're not the Post, but then- it takes great effort to sink that low.

[NVMojo]

26. Yeah, really? Well, the jerk didn't deserve to be re-elected either ...

or make that re-appointed or self-re-appointed.

:banghead:

[rodeodance]

27. Wpost just referred to group as the anti-war group-on Countdown--

he downplayed the hearing and memo. Jim Vandehci of Washington Post was just on Hardball. what a jerk.

[rodeodance]

28. I think this term is the new talking point from the Right.

[rodeodance]

30. I emailed the thread.

[Catfight]

31. Exactly, "anti war group" that's what the NYT is being told to call them.

Bush is going to get away with it folks, people don't want to believe reality.

[bklyncowgirl]

33. Dismissive headline, OK article

The NYT has done very little on this story from the beginning so why should we expect anything better.

[sattahipdeep]

34. Gold Star Families for Peace

Cindy Sheehan, mother of a soldier killed in Iraq and founder of the Gold Star
Families for Peace, accused Mr. Bush of waging a "needless, senseless" war and
"betraying" servicemen like her son, Casey, killed in action in Baghdad in April of
2004.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050617/MEMO17/TPInternational/Americas

By PAUL KORING

Friday, June 17, 2005 Page A13
WASHINGTON -- The emotive and charged word "impeachment" was voiced
yesterday on Capitol Hill as a clutch of Democratic congressmen, backed
by distraught mothers of soldiers slain in Iraq, put together a piece of
theatre that could become the summer's political drama.

John Bonifaz, a self-styled constitutional lawyer and anti-war activist, suggested
there are sufficient grounds to launch an inquiry into whether the President should
be impeached for lying to Congress about the justification for the war.

"The United States House of Representatives has a constitutional duty to
investigate fully and comprehensively the evidence revealed by the Downing
Street minutes and other related evidence, and to determine whether there are
sufficient grounds to impeach George W. Bush, the President of the United States,"
Mr. Bonifaz said.

:applause:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

36. The word "misled" should have been "deliberately lied".

[deutsey]

38. Congressmen probe Iraq war memo

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4101420.stm

A group of US congressmen has held an informal hearing into a memo that suggests President George Bush decided on the Iraq war months in advance.
More than 100 Democrats took part in the public forum, calling on the White House to explain the leaked UK memo.

Although the hearing in Washington was unofficial, a BBC correspondent says it coincides with waning public support for the war in Iraq.

SNIP

The affair has received scant coverage in the mainstream US media, although left-wing bloggers have had some success in bringing it to public attention.

MORE...

[chelsea0011]

39. I'm defending MSM. Tom Cruise is getting married!

And without MSM I would never know that. Makes me sick that the hearings aren't getting the play today it deserves.

[deutsey]

40. We have to make sure WE circulate these reports to everyone we know

[rocktivity]

41. How to Contact the News Staff

Want to voice your opinion? Write to [e-mail] to send a Letter to the Editor of The New York Times to have your comments considered for publication in the printed newspaper...

...Need to contact NYTimes.com's editors? Please write to [e-mail] and we'll get back to you if a followup is necessary.

...Want to contact someone specific at The New York Times or NYTimes.com? Send a blank message to [e-mail] for an automated response containing the e-mail addresses of New York Times staff members who have made them available to the public...

Public Editor: To reach Daniel Okrent, who represents the readers, e-mail [e-mail].

link

Last night, Mike Malloy suggested that NYT find hundreds of thousands of e-mails protesting the headline this morning, and I agree that we should call them on it. While there's nothing wrong with being anti-war in general, the reference was a deliberate attempt to portray Conyers et al as a ragtag bunch of knee-jerk pacificist overgrown hippies. This was supposed to be a report on what happened, not an editorial analysis of what the reporter thought of it!

:mad:
rocknation

[Ernesto]

43. Sacramento Bee: 'Downing Street memo' spotlighted in Congress

At an event in the Capitol, House Democrats pointed out that the memo, first reported in the London Sunday Times on May 1, a few weeks before the British election, got scant attention in U.S. newspapers or broadcasts until liberal bloggers castigated the U.S. press for not exposing inconsistent Bush statements on the war.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/nation/story/13079706p-13924833c.html

[David__77]

44. There was a protest against the Bee for not covering this...

...I wonder if protesting the media's complicity with the rightists is effective. It may seem so.

[AlCzervik]

45. i just read it this morning and i was happy to see

they finally covered it, now i anticipate and onslaught of ugly LTTE's from the gop stronghold of Placer county.