Did Bush suggest bombing the press?

[theloniusfleabag]

It seems that Prs. Bush had suggested bombing the al-Jazzera network at it's base in Qatar. I remember hearing about this suggestion at the time, but now it is being 'officially denied'. Further, Bush's 'lap dog' Tony Blair, is threatening the media should the memo about it get published. from...

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/sto...1649442,00.html

Al-Jazeera

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gagging for the truth

Leader

Thursday November 24, 2005

The Guardian

It is impossible to know if George Bush was being serious if he did indeed suggest to Tony Blair that the US attack the Arabic satellite television broadcaster al-Jazeera. The White House does not even want to dignify this "outlandish" report with an answer. The British government is saying nothing either, but it has charged two men under the Official Secrets Act with leaking and receiving a document, and threatened to gag newspapers if they dare reveal its contents.

I tend to agree with the Guardian's statement that al-Jazeera is actually quite impartial, and presents news in 'a fair and balanced manner'.

Such horrors apart, al-Jazeera has been a pioneer of free expression in a part of the world where there is precious little of it. Its correspondents have broken taboos both by criticising Arab regimes and interviewing Israelis. It is independent, though its agenda is set by the milieu in which it operates, just like CNN and the BBC.

the official denial can be found here...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...51123-voa06.htm

Reporters Without Borders said Wednesday it finds it hard to believe that Mr. Bush really discussed bombing the Arabic broadcaster, which is based in Qatar. But it said releasing the memo would end the controversy.

Al-Jazeera also called on the two nations to confirm if the memo is authentic.

The Mirror and two other newspapers say Britain's government has threatened legal action against those who publish details of the leaked memo.

Britain's government has declined comment on the issue. And a White House spokesman said officials will not respond to what he termed "something so outlandish and inconceivable."

"outlandish and inconceivable." don't actually mean that it isn't true.

[Riverwind]

It seems that Prs. Bush had suggested bombing the al-Jazzera network

Thelonoius,

George 'Bring em on' Bush has long been accused of being an idiot who needs to be carefully handled by Rove and Cheney. It would not surprise me at all if he 'suggested' anything from bombing al-Jazzera to the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

That said, the British may be taking a little to much credit for persuading Bush to change his mind. I suspect his handlers in the whitehouse had similar feelings and were the ones who really ensured the idea never saw the light of day.

[Argus]

It seems that Prs. Bush had suggested bombing the al-Jazzera network at it's base in Qatar. I remember hearing about this suggestion at the time, but now it is being 'officially denied'.

Far be it for me to defend Bush. But I find it highly doubtful he would make such a suggestion, other than in jest, much like Reagan's rather heavily publized joke about bombing Moscow.

Further, Bush's 'lap dog' Tony Blair, is threatening the media should the memo about it get published. from...

Publishing secret documents you know to be secret is against the law - in Canada, too. Or have you forgotten when Trudeau sent the mounties into newspaper offices to see if they had secret documents and where they might have come from?

I tend to agree with the Guardian's statement that al-Jazeera is actually quite impartial, and presents news in 'a fair and balanced manner'.

Yup. About as fair and balanced as FOX. Well, maybe not quite that impartial.

Such horrors apart, al-Jazeera has been a pioneer of free expression in a part of the world where there is precious little of it.

Part of the reason for that is it has served Arab governments well in its relentless publicizing of Israeli mistreatement of Palestinians (some real, some taken out of context, some exagerated, some made up). It has helped to incite the Arab world against Israel, and allowed Arab governments to blame almost everything that goes wrong on Israel - the old "blame the outside force to unit the people with you against the enemy game".

[August1991]

Far be it for me to defend Bush. But I find it highly doubtful he would make such a suggestion, other than in jest, much like Reagan's rather heavily publized joke about bombing Moscow.

Reagan was asked to do a sound test and so he said into the microphone, "My fellow Americans, I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." You can hear it here.

As to Bush Jnr, he may have said it in a conversation with Blair (I wouldn't be too surprised). I think that's his style of humour. OTOH, I think the whole story is bogus.

Boris Johnson, editor of The London Spectator, has offered to publish any transcript of such a conversation at the risk of going to jail for doing so. So far, no one has come forward.

If someone passes me the document within the next few days I will be very happy to publish it in The Spectator, and risk a jail sentence. The public need to judge for themselves. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Telegraph

I am not surprised that the British government would threaten severe penalties for publishing any transcript of any such conversation. It is very difficult to conduct politics when there is the fear the conversation may become public. Blair is trying to make his own life easier.

IME, many security measures surrounding political information have less to do with protecting national interest and more to do with protecting politicians from journalists.

[sharkman]

This reminds me of the time a few months ago when a couple of Palestinian officials said Bush told them that God told him to attack Iraq. Like he's gonna say that to a couple of Palestinians, never mind that it never happened. If they're gonna try to damage Bush in some way they could at least make up believable stories.

None the less, Al-Jazeera has shown themselves to be very hateful towards Jews and Americans, and supportive of terrorism. Even in Canada I was told that the Al-Jazeera network isn't carried because of the concern that the hate speech contained therin would contravene our laws.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear sharkman, (and Argus)

Yup. About as fair and balanced as FOX. Well, maybe not quite that impartial.

None the less, Al-Jazeera has shown themselves to be very hateful towards Jews and Americans, and supportive of terrorism

I suggest you both try reading al-Jazeera once in a while, it isn't quite like that. In fact, when reading reports about the Palestinian conflict, it is often quite dry and 'no-sided'. They don't use the word 'murdered', they say 'killed'. There are plenty of biased news eports out there that will blatantly take one side or the other, but I find al-Jazeera to report the stories 'rhetoric-free', which is often a refreshng change. Further, a lot of the opinion columns are quite critical of Islamic Fundamentalism, as well as US foriegn policy, in equal amounts. I find more 'anti-americanism' on israelinationalnews.com than on al-Jazeera.

Here are the links,

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

Compare the two, read some editorials and note the wording. I think you might be surprised.

[sharkman]

Hey, listen, you can watch or read whatever floats your boat. All news networks carry video of terrorist bombings, but the terrorists hand Al-Jazeera the originals!

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear sharkman,

Hey, listen, you can watch or read whatever floats your boat.

As can you, though my point was having the option to dispel myths

Even in Canada I was told that the Al-Jazeera network isn't carried because of the concern that the hate speech contained therin would contravene our laws.

by looking for yourself is the preferable option. Of course, some find it easier to simply hang on to the myth.

[sharkman]

All news networks carry video of terrorist bombings, but the terrorists hand Al-Jazeera the originals!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Montgomery Burns]

TLFB:

I tend to agree with the Guardian's statement that al-Jazeera is actually quite impartial, and presents news in 'a fair and balanced manner'.

This is a classic example of the radical left.

A news organization that just happens to (miraculously) always get their hands on Al Qaeda videos. A news organization that has had 2 of their staff sent to jail for their ties to Al Qaeda.

TLFB has made his intentions clear; blind ideology trumps democracy. Anything, ANYONE that is against the USA is OK in TLFB's book.

I have always known that much of the left is a fifth column; TLFB proves my point.

Sharkman:

Even in Canada I was told that the Al-Jazeera network isn't carried because of the concern that the hate speech contained therin would contravene our laws.

Actually Al Jazeera was okayed for broadcast in Canada 5 months earlier than the Liberal Party's lifting of the Fox News Channel's 5 year ban in Canada. Much to the liberal's chagrin, there was an uproar by decent Canadians who were outraged that Jihad TV was approved to broadcast in Canada before the FNC. Thus, the Liberal Party (CRTC's) claim that they would "monitor" Al Jazeera's broadcasts.

It was all a sham. Anyone who has visited the Al Jazeera website knows what an insane news organization this is. Opeds from Scott "pedophile" Ritter, opeds from an anarchist from a jihad website (Richard Steven Hack); opeds from Yuman (sp?), who is one of the most hateful people I have ever come across in this vast world.

As extreme-leftists George Galloway, Michael Moore, and TLFB have admitted...they are on the side of the Islamonazis. Nothing would will fill their dark evil hearts more than to see millions of innocents slaughtered at the hands of totalitarianism.

That is why good decent people must continue to fight these Communists/Nazis.

Note: The bleepin' bloody gall of TLFB starting a thread called "suppression of free speech".

This guy likely spends more time sending emails to the moderator demanding that rightwingers be banned from the forum--than contributing to the forum's topics.