Bush wanted Aljazeera bombed

#1
Source: english.aljazeera.net

US President George Bush planned to bomb Arab broadcaster Aljazeera, British newspaper the Daily Mirror has reported, citing a Downing Street memo marked top secret.


The five-page transcript of a conversation between Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveals that Blair talked Bush out of launching a military strike on the station, unnamed sources told the daily.

The transcript of the pair's talks during Blair's 16 April 2004 visit to Washington allegedly shows Bush wanted to attack the satellite channel's headquarters in Doha, Qatar.

Blair allegedly feared such a strike, in the capital of Qatar, a key Western ally in the Gulf, would spark revenge attacks.

A British civil servant has been charged under the Official Secrets Act for allegedly leaking the government memo.

Civil servant accused

Cabinet Office civil servant David Keogh is accused of passing the memo to Leo O'Connor, who formerly worked for former British lawmaker Tony Clarke.

Both Keogh and O'Connor are scheduled to appear at London's Bow Street Magistrates Court next week.

According to the Daily Mirror, Clarke returned the memo to Blair's office. Clarke could not immediately be contacted for comment on Tuesday.

The Mirror on Tuesday quoted an unnamed British government official as saying Bush's threat was "humorous, not serious".

Aljazeera's coverage of the war in Iraq had drawn criticism from Washington after the US-led March 2003 invasion.

A source told the Mirror: "The memo is explosive and hugely damaging to Bush.

"He made clear he wanted to bomb Aljazeera in Qatar and elsewhere. Blair replied that would cause a big problem.

"There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do - and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it."

Deadly serious

Another source said: "Bush was deadly serious, as was Blair. That much is absolutely clear from the language used by both men."

A spokesman for Blair's Downing Street office said: "We have got nothing to say about this story. We don't comment on leaked documents."

Clarke, the former lawmaker, told Britain's domestic Press Association news agency that O'Connor had done "exactly the right thing" in bringing it to his attention.

The Mirror said such a strike would have been "the most spectacular foreign-policy disaster since the Iraq war itself".

The newspaper said that the memo "casts fresh doubt on claims that other attacks on Aljazeera were accidents". It cited the 2001 direct hit on the channel's Kabul office in Afghanistan.

In April 2003, an Aljazeera journalist died when its Baghdad office was struck during a US bombing campaign. Nabil Khoury, a US State Department spokesman in Doha, said the strike was a mistake.

In November 2002, Aljazeera's office in Kabul, Afghanistan, was destroyed by a US missile. None of the crew was at the office at the time. US officials said they believed the target was a terrorist site and did not know it was Aljazeera's office.

Downing Street challenged

Blair's former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle challenged Downing Street to publish the transcript.

"I believe that Downing Street ought to publish this memo in the interests of transparency, given that much of the detail appears to be in the public domain," Kilfoyle told the Press Association.

"... it raises questions about subsequent attacks that took place on the press that wasn't embedded with coalition forces"

Peter Kilfoyle,
Blair's former defence minister


"I think they ought to clarify what exactly happened on this occasion. If it was the case that President Bush wanted to bomb Aljazeera in what is after all a friendly country, it speaks volumes and it raises questions about subsequent attacks that took place on the press that wasn't embedded with coalition forces."

Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell told the Press Association: "If true, then this underlines the desperation of the Bush administration as events in Iraq began to spiral out of control.

"On this occasion, the prime minister may have been successful in averting political disaster, but it shows how dangerous his relationship with President Bush has been."

Abd al-Bari Atwan's reaction

Speaking to Aljazeera from London on Monday, Abd al-Bari Atwan, chief editor of the London-based Al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper, said: "The issue of Bush's plan to bomb Aljazeera's headquarters in Doha will be widely discussed in Washington and London.

"Reporters in the US and Britain are enraged by reported US plans to use force against media organs.

"Arab and international media organs are now under a terrorist campaign launched by the US as it does not want the truth to be revealed.

"This [US] administration has been disgraced as it has used immoral and illegal ways to occupy and tear out a country, kill more than 100,000 and wound more than 400,000 of its people.

"The results of the war, being revealed now in Iraq, have forced reporters to ask why they have been misled.

"New York Times has apologised, saying it has misled public opinion when it did not accurately investigate the objectives of the US administration.

"I believe that considering use force against a media station is the worst kind of media terrorism practised by a country which pretends to lead the free world, democratic values and media freedom."
 

PuffnScruff

Well-Known Member
#2
"This [US] administration has been disgraced as it has used immoral and illegal ways to occupy and tear out a country, kill more than 100,000 and wound more than 400,000 of its people.

this is funny because its wrong. the numbers are wrong and its not illegal. anyone that does their homework would know that.
 

Glockmatic

Well-Known Member
#4
PuffnScruff said:
"This [US] administration has been disgraced as it has used immoral and illegal ways to occupy and tear out a country, kill more than 100,000 and wound more than 400,000 of its people.

this is funny because its wrong. the numbers are wrong and its not illegal. anyone that does their homework would know that.
the invasion was illegal according to international law, but we're past that since no one can do shit about it.
 

PuffnScruff

Well-Known Member
#5
DrugBa11ad said:
Why is it wrong? What are the correct numbers?
its more around 25-30,000
those numbers also include people that were killed by extremist

the debate on if the war was legal or illegal could go on back and forth forever. the facts are that sadaam was in violation of 19 U.N. sanctions. for years he was shooting down planes potrolling the no fly zones. and there is evidence that he was trying to restart bio-chemical weapons programs after the gulf war. if there wasnt then president clinton would be a load of shit for bombing targets in iraq in dec of 98

there have also been articles, from many news sources, written saying, for years, since the late 90's, that sadaam and terrorist organization like al-qaeda have been working together.

in my personal opinion this war a was a long time coming and would have happend if the attacks of 9/11 didnt. (i dont believe the attacks on 9/11 were reasons to go to war but more like the icing on the cake to sell it to the people. shame on the adminstration for that)
 

Freedom Froggy

Well-Known Member
#8
PuffnScruff said:
there have also been articles, from many news sources, written saying, for years, since the late 90's, that sadaam and terrorist organization like al-qaeda have been working together.
this was proven wrong... thus the big fuss over why we really went to war
 

PuffnScruff

Well-Known Member
#9
FrOgStRaDaMuS said:
this was proven wrong... thus the big fuss over why we really went to war
it was never proven to be wrong just disputed. i mean how can you deny sr. iraqi officals and many other articles written in the late 90's, that talked about the connection? this was all pre-war
 

Jurhum

Well-Known Member
#11
PuffnScruff said:
there have also been articles, from many news sources, written saying, for years, since the late 90's, that sadaam and terrorist organization like al-qaeda have been working together.
I can provide hard evidence that the CIA and Al-Qaeda also worked together prior to that. Hard evidence without doubt that the CIA trained Osama and his operatives, should that constitute a reason to bomb the shit out of the USA?

Please, think with your mind. Seriously.
 

PuffnScruff

Well-Known Member
#12
Jurhum said:
I can provide hard evidence that the CIA and Al-Qaeda also worked together prior to that. Hard evidence without doubt that the CIA trained Osama and his operatives, should that constitute a reason to bomb the shit out of the USA?

Please, think with your mind. Seriously.
seriously, dont ever tell me what to do


if your talking about the Soviet Armys miliary opearations against the Afghan rebels and the u.s. working with the rebels because of an anti-communist stance, then i already knew that. whats your point?

they were trained for a reason that at the time they thought was going to be for the good, the u.s. govt cant look into the future and know that osama was going to turn around and put harm on this country and its people.

just because a person does not like a cultures views, ways of life, or religious beliefs does that constitute a reason to bomb embassys, bomb barracks while people are asleep ( thats a pussy ass way of attacking someone), attack a warship, oppress women, and hijack airplanes?
 

Jurhum

Well-Known Member
#13
^ I see no difference between Osama's ways and the ways of the USA. Both cowardly attack those who aren't armed. Opress those who are weak. They both use cowardly tactics to harm the innocent whithout concern for anyone.

And yes, try using your brain more constantly. If they USA trained Osama to terrorise the Soviet Union, how is it any different for Saddam to train Osama to terrorise the US?
 

PuffnScruff

Well-Known Member
#14
Jurhum said:
^ I see no difference between Osama's ways and the ways of the USA. Both cowardly attack those who aren't armed. Opress those who are weak. They both use cowardly tactics to harm the innocent whithout concern for anyone.

And yes, try using your brain more constantly. If they USA trained Osama to terrorise the Soviet Union, how is it any different for Saddam to train Osama to terrorise the US?
sadaam didnt train, it more like finance. not everyone looks at as the u.s. training the afgan rebels to terrorise the soviets you are the first person i have ever heard put it that. its more like helping the underdogs fight against what was an enemy of the u.s. at the time. it was in the u.s. interest to help the afgan rebels.

you should stop telling people what to do. it doesn't do much for you character.
 
#16
also... just for the record.. i put nothing past the u.s. and this administration only re-enforces that thought... everytime some type of bad news comes out about the govt..... it never fails that something worse happens weeks later
 

Latest posts

Donate

Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.

Members online

No members online now.
Top