WOW. Has everyone seen this corroborating evidence to go with DSM?

[Pirate Smile]

From Atrios:

"Steve Speak

Conyers listen:


First and most damaging to me, why would the White House see a need to build a strategic information campaign using White House staff to manipulate media coverage in favor of a war months in advance of going to the UN, Congress, and the American people if the issue and decision had not already been made? Retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner wrote a little-noticed but never disputed paper that outlined the steps the Bush Administration took to build what in essence was a strategic influence and disinformation campaign to manipulate the media and sway public opinion in favor of a war that Bush says he hadn’t yet decided upon. These efforts started with the creation of the Coalition Information Office by none other than Karen Hughes at about the same time the Downing Street Memo said that Bush had made up his mind. Colonel Gardiner feels that organization was in fact put together at the time of the memo, and that the “marketing” of the war began in September when Congress returned from summer recess. Since his study came out, Colonel Gardiner has received confirmation from a number of sources including sources inside the Bush Administration that almost all of his initial conclusions were correct. Even though the whole study is chilling, pay particular attention to his material from Page 50 onward to see how the Downing Street Memo can be supported with Gardiner’s work. Perhaps Congressman Conyers can call Colonel Gardiner as a witness next week to lay out the involvement of the White House and outside GOP public relations firms in selling a war to the Congress and the American people through an intimidated and spoon-fed media, a campaign that actually commenced around the same time that the Downing Street Memo indicated a decision had already been made. And yes, I've talked with Gardiner today, and Colonel Gardiner is willing to share his information with Conyers.

Second, none other than Bob Woodward himself in his wet-kiss book “Bush at War” reported that Bush authorized Rumsfeld to move approximately $700 million from Afghanistan reconstruction to the establishment of a logistical infrastructure to support an Iraq invasion, without the required congressional notice and authority. When did this happen, as Woodward notes with a great deal of risk of legal problems for the White House? It happened in July 2002, at about the same time as the Downing Street Memo was written saying the decision had already been made by Bush, within a month of the Downing Street Memo. Perhaps Conyers can call Bob Woodward as a witness to testify about what he found in researching his book on this congressionally-unauthorized transfer of funds from Afghan reconstruction to Iraq war planning during the Summer of 2002.

And lastly, it has been reported that Bush dropped in on a White House meeting in Condi Rice’s office in March 2002, and blurted to the three startled US senators Rice was meeting with “Fuck Saddam, we’re going to take him out.” Perhaps Conyers can call the three senators as well as Michael Elliott and James Carney of Time Magazine to confirm what Bush said and did, three months before the Downing Street Memo said that a decision had already been made.

Again, the key for Conyers is not to get trapped into building his case primarily upon the fixed intelligence claim in the memo, but to build also a circumstantial case as well that supports the bigger claim that the decision had already been made by the White House to go to war in the Summer of 2002, despite what was being told to Congress and the American people."

http://atrios.blogspot.com/

edit to add - Perhaps this would be good information for the media, Democratic politicians, etc. to receive also. When the RW pundits and politicians dismiss the DSM, they could counter with some of this corroborating evidence.

[EST]

1. Astute-

[bunny planet]

2. Send this to Conyers. Or have you done so already?

He wants every bit of information he can get his hands on.

[Pirate Smile]

3. I haven't yet. I just noticed it. If anyone has his e-mail handy please

post it here.

We need corroborating evidence so this info is great.

[Bozita]

6. Conyers addy

[e-mail]

[FreedomAngel82]

9. I also posted it in his blog just now

Hopefully he'll read it or his admins.

[Pirate Smile]

12. Thanks, Angel.

I'm so glad Conyers is doing this. He could really get some important information out into the public.

[smartvoter]

4. Thanks, Pirate. Context is important... nt

[G_j]

5. some more 'context'

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2134 /

News > June 2, 2005

The Real Memogate

By Solomon Hughes

<snip>
This is the latest in a flood of leaks undermining the war's justification, including the 2003 revelations by British weapons inspector David Kelly that the Iraqi mobile bio-war labs highlighted by Colin Powell were really military weather balloon inflators, and by intelligence translator Katherine Gun, who revealed that GCHQ, Britain's surveillance center, was spying on delegations to the U.N. Security Council at the request of the U. S. National Security Agency in an attempt to win U.N. support for invasion.

In September 2004, other secret documents revealing shared war planning were passed to the Telegraph. A March 2002 memo to Blair from his top aide, Sir David Manning, reported that he dined with Condoleezza Rice, and told her that Blair "would not budge in support for regime change" at a time when Blair was about to "visit the ranch" for talks with Bush.

In a March 2002 memo, U.K. ambassador to Washington Sir Christopher Meyer recounts to David Manning another dinner date--this time with Paul Wolfowitz. The after-dinner conversation shows that the plan for war was fixed and only the "selling" of the issue remained: "We backed regime change but the plan had to be clever it would be a tough sell for us domestically and probably tougher elsewhere in Europe."

<snip>
==========

http://www.independent-media.tv/itemprint.cfm?fmedia_id=6490&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported

How Many More Have to Come Forward?
By: Andrew Limburg
Independent Media TV


<snip>
Here are some more excerpts from the 60 Minutes Interview:"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," (Richard) Clarke said to 60 Minutes reporter, Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Later Clarke speaks of pressure put on him by President Bush to connect Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. Clarke continues, "The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

<snip>

========

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1842

Media Silent on General Clark's 9/11 Comments
Gen. says White House pushed Saddam link without evidence

FAIR Press Release (6/20/03)

Sunday morning talk shows like ABC's This Week or Fox News Sunday often make news for days afterward. Since prominent government officials dominate the guest lists of the programs, it is not unusual for the Monday editions of major newspapers to report on interviews done by the Sunday chat shows.

But the June 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press was unusual for the buzz that it didn't generate. Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks-- starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence.

Here is a transcript of the exchange:

CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."
<snip>

============
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1120959,00.html

Bush decided to remove Saddam 'on day one'

Former aide says US president made up his mind to go to war with Iraq long before 9/11, then ordered his staff to find an excuse

Julian Borger in Washington
Monday January 12, 2004
The Guardian

In the Bush White House, Paul O'Neill was the bespectacled swot in a class of ideological bullies who eventually kicked him out for raising too many uncomfortable questions. Now, 13 months later at a critical moment for the president, the nerd is having his revenge.

Mr O'Neill's account of his two years as Treasury secretary, told in a book published tomorrow and in a series of interviews over the weekend, is a startling tale of an administration nominally led by a disengaged figurehead president but driven by a "praetorian guard" of hardline rightwingers led by vice president Dick Cheney, ready to bend circumstances and facts to fit their political agenda.

According to the former aluminium mogul and longstanding Republican moderate who was fired from the US Treasury in December 2002, the administration came to office determined to oust Saddam and used the September 11 attacks as a convenient justification.

As Mr O'Neill, who sat in countless national security council meetings, describes the mood: "It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this'."

..more..

[Pirate Smile]

7. Thanks. Great info. The more I see the less crazy talk about the"I" word

seems.

Of course, there is the little problem with the current House. 2006 is extremely important.

[Poiuyt]

11. Also Bush biographer, Mickey Herskowitz

BUSH Talks Of Invading Iraq in '99

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/301332.shtml

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me:... --- And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it.'"

more -

Man, there's so much evidence here it's unbelievable! DSM, Clark, O'Neil, Herskowitz. I can't believe he's not whimpering like a little girl while on the stand at The Hague right now!

[necso]

8. Absolutely,

use every available piece of information to support a broad case.

There are at least several good targets here:
1) The decision to go to war was made far previous to the time when it was seen to be made in public. (Which means that all that (publicly hyped) commotion about inspections, reports, going to the UN, etc, was just a farce put on to fool people.)
2) The decision to go to war had nothing to do with Saddam being a threat to us and was pre-existing policy (PNAC, etc).
3) The American public was fed a line of crap to generate support for the war.
4) Intel was created out of whole clothe or (deliberately) misinterpreted, spurious sources were used, straws were desperately grabbed for -- and anything that didn't agree with this rising (and mutually amplifying) chorus of cries-for-war was suppressed.

And so on.

[Pirate Smile]

14. I was so glad to hear Charlie Rangel mention PNAC yesterday

and it was on Faux.

[necso]

17. Well,

it's all part of an illuminating perspective on reality: The neocons wanted to "take out Saddam" at least since the first Gulf War; they starting talking about it shortly after 9/11 (if not sooner -- and which gave them an opportunity to exploit in order to invade Iraq); they, after the distraction of Afghanistan (which was and is being short-changed because of a neocon fixation on Iraq) moved onto planning for Iraq (before making any sort of case); they falsified the case for war, while making (only) the motions of trying to stop short of it (these "diplomatic" activities were created for and used as plausible "cover" for the real plans); they sold a "pack of lies" to the American people (and Congress) in order to generate support for the war (and have been shamelessly using "support the troops" -- which they demonstrably do not do themselves -- to muffle criticism of the war); and, basically, the whole process was just a pre-ordained instantiation of their pre-existing (and advertised) extremist dogma.

Of course, without 9/11, who knows if they would have been able to generate enough support for invading Iraq.

...And so on.

That is, put together the dots (the high-confidence dots)... There are lots of them.

[baron j]

19. You know, just today on tv,

I saw a USO public propanganda announcement crying "support the troops!" over and over.

[necso]

20. The USO does do some good stuff

for our troops. For example, they have a site for sending inexpensive packages to those serving. (There are other sites where troops ask for specific stuff, which process I personally like better.)

http://www.usocares.org/src/uso_home.htm

But legitimate calls for supporting the troops add to the chorus of those hypocrites, who having sent in inadequate troops (and having inadequate plans in general), having supplied them inadequately and having taken inadequate care of the wounded and veterans -- now scream "support the troops" to cover up their failures -- and to suppress valid, patriotic criticism, even that aimed at really supporting the troops by correcting neocon failures -- and bringing our serving men and women home in one piece.

[baron j]

25. Oh! I agree! I voted for Bob Hope as my third choice for that

Greatest American program. I suppose I should've explained further that it just reminded me of the hypocrisy you mentioned, and I suspected other forces behind the message. Really, the American people, and my relatives, are the troops. How dare they imply that we don't support them?

[LunaC]

26. What?

He actually spelled it out..."P....N....A....C"?

If that's the case, I'm truly heartened! I've been jumping up and down with my hair on fire about the PNAC for years.

[Pirate Smile]

31. He said "Project for a New American Century". Hannity was pissed

at him (of course) and said (paraphrasing)Congressman, do you have any proof that this war was based on lies (or something to that effect) and Rangel responded by saying that Cheney, Wolfiwitz, etc. were all signatories to the Project for a New American Century ....

[LunaC]

38. This is delicious!

I've been writing to Congress and the media for years about this - most recently connecting the PNAC 1998 letter to Clinton with the DSM - and somebody, somewhere was paying attention. Wooohooooo! You made my morning!

[Warpy]

10. Other corroborating evidence can be found in Fuckwits

campaign speeches in 2000. He campaigned on "finishing the job" in Iraq, on removing Saddam Hussein, on doing what his daddy didn't do.

There was never a doubt that he was going to invade that country if you'd listened to that man campaign. Everything else was just bullshit and smokescreen while he put the troops and gear into place.

Anybody who bought that whole "war as a last resort" is a fool, including every Congressman who voted for it.

[Amaryllis]

13. It's been a long time since I watched Greenwald's film

"Uncovered-the Truth about the IRaq War' but my memory says there may be some stuff in there; there was a lot about the intelligence being manipulated, if I remember correctly.

[Hapameli]

15. I have it on my Tivo from Sundance... There is chilling info on it

I watched half of it last week but I didn't take notes. I would hope that since Ray McGovern and a few others who were on there are involved with Bonifaz, he would have the info. Never hurts to watch it again and take notes (watching my Phantom of the Opera DVD right now though...)

[Disturbed]

16. There is plenty of evidence.

Get the records of the Office of Special Plans.

[LunaC]

27. For those unfamiliar with OSP

(from link in sig line....)

The Office of Special Plans (OSP) was a secret group of analysts and policy advisors with no status in the intelligence community. Nevertheless they reported directly to the White House and National Security office with cherry-picked intelligence from questionable sources to support the case for invading Iraq. The OSP circumvented formal, well-established oversight procedures, ignored intelligence that didn't further their agenda, expanded the intelligence on weapons beyond what was justified and over-emphasized the national security risk. They became more influential than the C.I.A. or the Defense Intelligence Agency who didn't even know the ultra-secret OSP existed for at least a year.

Because they were based in the Pentagon, it was assumed that the OSP was an intelligence-gathering agency that was second-guessing the C.I.A. but in actuality it was the White House Military Marketing Machine charged with the task of writing the PNAC's "Get Saddam" sales pitch for the public. Shading and bending reality to suit their own purpose, it wasn't important for the OSP's stories about Saddam to be factual, only that the average American believed them to be - in true Hollywood fashion.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

"It is important to shape circumstances..........."- PNAC Statement of Principles

[stubtoe]

37. O. M. G.

Learn something new and horrifying every day here.

[LunaC]

39. If you haven't already done so

Read the link in my sig line and you'll REALLY be blown away!

[stubtoe]

44. Thanks LunaC

[G_j]

23. yes there is

a lot of good stuff there.

[Nothing Without Hope]

18. Also MUST MUST MUST see these related BBC documentaries, only

recently aviailable in good video copies. Info and links here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3813130
Thread title: "VIDEO: Downing Street Minutes - BBC-TV NEWS COVERAGE (3 Clips)"

Do not miss this!

[Vyan]

21. This is from Steve Soto at The Left Coaster

I know someone said they did it already, but before I saw that I had already posted the full original commentary, plus included links - on Conyersblog.

There's no chance he's going to miss this.

Vyan

[leesa]

22. Wasn't it Andy Card that said you don't intorduce a new product in August?

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. Let's keep at the media--we're getting somewhere...

:bounce:


Just a reminder of some very, very important links:

To sign Congressman Conyers’ letter

http://www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com


To put and keep pressure on the Mainstream Media:

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/takeaction.html#awaken


http://www.afterdowningstreet.org


LISTEN TO THE RANDI RHODES SHOW-to keep up daily with what’s going on with--THE DOWNING STREET MEMO:

http://www.therandirhodesshow.com


Peace
O8)

Here is my standard letter to the Media:


Dear Sir/Madam:

As you know, on May 1 of this year a document now commonly referred to as “|The Downing Street Memo” was released into the British Press. This document raises serious question about how the administration was handling intelligence related to Iraq and appears to suggest that the Bush Administration had already decided on war when publicly it was claiming that no such decision had been made.

This document and perhaps other documents suggest that the Bush administration was determined to “fix intelligence” around a predetermined policy.

It is most disturbing that there has been a virtual media blackout regarding “The Downing Street Memo”. Even more disturbing is the absence in the America media of any credible discussion or coverage regarding strong, credible and independent evidence that the Bush Administration intentionally mislead the U.S. Congress, the media and the American people.

I do hope you will accept the responsibility to address this issue and provide serious investigative journalism into this matter.

Furthermore, on Thursday June 16, 2005, Rep. John Conyers, Jr., ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, and other House members will hold a hearing to consider testimony concerning the Downing Street minutes and questions of possible fixing of prewar intelligence. I do hope you will be giving full coverage to these events.

Sincerely,

[LunaC]

28. We can pinpoint the original plan to attack Iraq back to 1998

On January 26, 1998, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, Richard Armitage, and John Bolton (among others) signed a letter to President Clinton issued by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) urging an attack on Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power. All of the aforementioned signators were elevated into the Bush Administration hierarchy immediately after the 2000 Election.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm


It is obvious that the PNAC-populated White House intended to attack Iraq years before the actual event or the Downing Street Minutes.


If Rangel actually mentioned PNAC on Faux, then the Downing Street Minutes are being connected to the PNAC policy and this spells HUGE trouble for the WH thugs.

[Karenina]

29. Connect the dots...

then stand back and look at the BIG PICTURE! :woohoo:

[LunaC]

40. The BIG PICTURE

is what the link in my sig line chronicles. It's far, far more frightening and goes well beyong the DSM.

[Karenina]

42. Does it look like THIS???

[Pirate Smile]

32. News release from Rangel on anniversary of start of Iraq War.

"IRAQ WAR ANNIVERSARY: SILENCE IS THE WORST FAILURE
by Congressman Charles Rangel

-snip-
There were no nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. There was no imminent threat. Saddam Hussein had no responsibility for the terrorist attack on Nine-Eleven. The guilty leaders of the plot against the U.S. were in Afghanistan, where they are still at large. And the perpetrators were from Saudi Arabia, where President Bush's relationship with the royal family should have made him aware of what was coming.

Now, with all the earlier rationales for the invasion proven baseless, the President tells us that bringing American-style democracy to Iraq and the region was the real motive. Whatever the reason, the President clearly wanted to conduct what the neoconservatives considered a preemptive strike against Iraq. That country was viewed as the first test in a campaign of regime changes around the region. Iran and Syria are also on the list in a neoconservative scheme called the Project for the New American Century, which views military action as an appropriate option for projecting American preeminence around the world.

more ....
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ny15_rangel/CBRStatement2ndAnniversaryofIraqWar03222005.html

[LunaC]

41. At www.house.gov no less!

Thanks! You just keep making my day better and better!

Happy, happy! Joy, joy!

[muchacho]

30. good stuff

Let's hope this tips the scales for accountability.

[leftchick]

33. This is the EASIEST Dot Connection in US History!

Please John! Read This!!!

:loveya:

[lonestarnot]

34. So ... there's more circumstantial evidence! No wonder Karen kiss ass

Hughes beat feet back to Texas to "raise her family," while bushitler killed families!

[trof]

35. Many thanks. You inspired me to google Col. Gardiner.

See results in GD.

[Pirate Smile]

36. Thanks, trof. I hope Conyers does have him testify.

[chomskysright]

43. and retired AF Dr. Karen Kwiatkowski has created the NEW PENTAGON PAPERS

http://archive.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp/index.html

The new Pentagon papers
A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Karen Kwiatkowski



March 10, 2004
From May 2002 until February 2003, I observed firsthand the formation of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and watched the latter stages of the neoconservative capture of the policy-intelligence nexus in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. This seizure of the reins of U.S. Middle East policy was directly visible to many of us working in the Near East South Asia policy office, and yet there seemed to be little any of us could do about it.




I saw a narrow and deeply flawed policy favored by some executive appointees in the Pentagon used to manipulate and pressurize the traditional relationship between policymakers in the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies.

I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president.

[sharman]

45. And don't forget these two pieces of evidence

1) "It's a slam dunk!" The very phrase tells us that Tenet was not producing evidence that had been collected and weighed with an unbiased eye. Rather, Tenet was patting himself on the back for coming up with the goods his boss has directed him to concoct.

2) "Feel good!" That was Bush, pumping his fist in the air, just before the famous SOTU where he laid out his case for war to the American people. That is not a statesman who regards war a last resort, a step to be taken with a reluctant and heavy heart.

[stickdog]

46. kick