Guardian UK - Responses to Meacher's Article fingering Bush

[Must_B_Free]

http://search.guardian.co.uk/search97cgi/s97networkr_cgi?QueryText=meacher&Action=Search&Collection=archive_artifact&ResultTemplate=Archive_Artifact.hts&SortSpec=VdkPublicationDate+Desc


So far it seems that the criticism is "How dare he say that", "lunatic" and "liberal". Many thoughtful answers though.

read

Meacher's war on terror
Saying the unsayable
and
An insult to the victims of September 11

[KoKo]

1. Many thanks for the link! Could you move this to "Editorials Forum"

though. By the time I read the link and then look for your thread to reply it will be down in archives in GD.

If you could move it more people would have time to read the link and get back to the post....

:-)'s Just a suggestion.

[papau]

2. Except for a name calling New Yorker, the Guardian letters are positive

(Another thread that I can not directly post to - but I can reply to someone else's reply. Most threads are not like this - but we suffer as the bugs get worked out in the new softeware! :-( )

The 9/8 Guardian mail has a fellow from CA saying "I would like to express my gratitude to you for publishing Michael Meacher's article. Here in the US a small and dedicated cohort has been delving into the policy foundations of the Bush administration for some time, and many have concluded there is a subtext to this "war on terror" that continues to go unremarked. In the US, one risks being accused of treason for making such assertions.<snip>"

and a fellow from New York that only hurls invective "...a man of the irrelevant radical left would rave like a lunatic ...diseased mind ...offend the memories of thousands and insult the intelligence of millions."

and a Minn lady says "...forthright analysis...many of us who have long made the same deductions.<snip>"

and from Caernarfon, Gwynedd: "I hope Michael Moore's new film, Farenheit 9/11, will be equally revealing. Many will doubt this version, but why is Bush spending 15 times more on the Columbia space shuttle inquiry, than on the 9/11 investigation?"

and a fellow in London that says Michael Meacher is not original and stole the 911 conclusions from Gore Vidal's Dreaming War

and another Brit wants to know why other "Senior Labour members" have not shown the courage to support him?

And a Swede that says about time mainstream media started speaking out.

with it all topped out by an EU "Green party executive" saying that Meacher has propounded expertly what the Green party has been saying for the last two years.

[scarletwoman]

3. The "Minnesota lady"....

...that would be moi. ;-)

I fired off a quick note as soon as I read Meacher's article -- first time one of my numerous dispatches to the British media has actually been published!

sw

[Must_B_Free]

4. Keep your eyes peeled for *anyone*

who can debate the referenced points of Meachers article.

The only thing we're hearing is light dismissal. I have heard noone take on any of the facts in the article.

I doubt we ever will.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

5. Sadly the story's disappeared from UK news

Only hope now is if Meacher brings up similar points at Prime Minister's Questions Wednesday, or somebody senior offers support for Meacher's claims, otherwise with Parliament back, conference season starting & the Hutton inquiry resuming next week (not to mention Iraq) it's sadly just gonna be another blip on the radar.

But on the other hand, it's good to know that today's briefing against Meacher didn't actually address any of his factual points:

"Asked for a reaction to Michael Meacher's comments at the weekend alleging that the US and UK had deliberately ignored warning of a possible attack so that they would be able to gain control of valuable oil fields, the PMOS said that Mr Meacher was a backbench MP and he had no intention of commenting any further on his comments - of which he believed Mr Meacher now disputed the interpretation - other than to say that, as we had outlined at the weekend, it was a view which we completely rejected. In the light of September 11, Afghanistan and other attacks which had taken place around the world, such as those in Bali and Kenya, the reality of international terrorism was there for everyone to see all too graphically in the horrific aftermath of such outrages. The view expressed was therefore clearly not one which would be shared by many people who rationally thought about the reality of the security threat."

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page4424.asp

(just to backtrack slightly though, Gerald Posner's been getting a little bit of press here over assertions in his latest book "Why America Slept", that senior Pakistani & Saudi Arabians had specific foreknowledge of 9-11. These claims are based on revelations from a terrorist interrogated by the CIA (Zubaydah) who as well as repeating allegations of dealings between Prince Turki al-Faisal (ex Saudi intelligence chief & now Saudi Ambassador to Britain) & al-Qaeda, also fingered those three Saudi Prince's who died last year in somewhat mysterious circumstances (heart attack, car crash & "thirst") & all within a few days of each other.

Regardless of what one thinks of Posner (or indeed Zubaydah's claims), this has the potential to be an explosive issue with the anniversary of 9-11 coming up & maybe, just maybe, it could be enough to bring more media attention to the official narrative of what happened that day - if not in the US, then maybe here ....)