Bush as Press Assassin?
Baathist in a Mirror
The Mirror broke the story on Tuesday that a secret British memo demonstrates that George W. Bush wanted to bomb Aljazeera's offices in Doha, Qatar, in spring of 2004. The subject came up with Prime Minister Tony Blair of the UK, and Blair is said to have argued Bush out of it.
Despite attempts of British officials to muddy the waters by suggesting that Bush was joking, another official who had seen the memo insisted, "Bush was deadly serious, as was Blair. That much is absolutely clear from the language used by both men."
The US military bombed the Kabul offices of Aljazeera in mid-November, 2001.
The US military hit the Aljazeerah offices in Baghdad on the 9th of April, 2003, a year Bush's conversation with Blair.* That attack killed journalist Tarek Ayoub, who had a 3 year old daughter. He had said earlier, "We've told the Pentagon where all our offices are in Iraq and hung giant banners outside them saying `TV.''' Given what we now know about Bush's intentions, that may have been a mistake.
When the US and the UN shoe-horned old-time CIA asset Iyad Allawi into power as transitional prime minister, he promptly banned Aljazeera in Iraq. The channel still did fair reporting on Iraq, finding ways of buying video film and doing enlightening telephone interviews.
There have long been rumors that the Bush administration has pressured the government of Qatar to close the channel down.
One of the misdeeds attributed to Syria or pro-Syrian forces is the attempt to assassinate the Lebanese journalist and fixture on LBC, the Lebanese satellite channel, May Shidyaq (Chidiac). If the British report is true, Bush really is just a Baathist in the mirror.
Aljazeera is a widely misunderstood Arabic television channel that is mainly characterized by a quaint 1950s-style pan-Arab nationalism. It is not a fundamentalist religious channel, though it does host one old-time Muslim Brother, Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Its main peculiarity in local terms is that it will air all sides of a political issue and allow frank criticism of Middle Eastern politicians as well as of Western ones. It is the only place in the Arab media where one routinely hears Israeli spokesmen (speaking very good Arabic, typically) addressing their concerns and point of view to Arab audiences.
Most of Aljazeera's programming is presented by natty men in business suits or good-looking, chic Arab women in fashionable Western clothes. (I see the anchors every day and am stricken at the idea of them being blown to smithereens by an American "accidental" bombing!) A lot of the programming is Discovery Channel-style documentaries.
The news is often criticial of the United States, though the journalists like controversy and are perfectly capable of asking fundamentalists and nationalists from the region very hard questions. The channel is one of the few places where you can sometimes see frank debate among Sunni Arab, Shiite and Kurdish Iraqis (the Lord knows we don't see it on US news!) Some Aljazeera journalists may have been sympathetic to radical Muslim groups, but mainly on nationalist and anti-imperialist grounds. These people don't look like adherents of political Islam for the most part.
Ironically, after one of the early-morning Aljazeera news broadcasts EST on Wednesday that discussed the Bush plot against the channel, the next show was about recently released American movies, including "Jarhead" (about a Marine during the Gulf War), which showcased the films enthusiastically and may as well have been an infomercial. It was jarring, the effusiveness about American soft power after the admission of the dark side of US military power.
Plotting to assassinate civilian journalists in a friendly country is certainly against the law, and if Bush is ever impeached, this charge will certainly figure in the trial. Who knows, maybe the murder of Tarek Ayoub will be added to the charges. His daughter must be 5, now.
There is a detailed and very valuable timeline of Bush administration- Aljazeera relations at Booman Tribune.
---
*oops, I had misread the date as 2004 in an earlier version
posted by Juan Cole @ 11/23/2005 12:35:00 AM
|
Facebook
33 Comments:
From what I've read, Jarhead is not exactly a rah-rah "patriotic" film. In fact, on the IMDB message boards there a dozens of posts from purported former Marines denouncing it for portraying their noble Marine Corps in a less than laudatory manner, and claiming that Anthony Swofford's book, on which it is based, is full of lies.
Ther must be something in the Mirror's claims as the British Government is using the Official Secrets Act to gag newspapers in the UK.
The attorney general last night threatened newspapers with the Official Secrets Act if they revealed the contents of a document allegedly relating to a dispute between Tony Blair and George Bush over the conduct of military operations in Iraq.
It is believed to be the first time the Blair government has threatened newspapers in this way. Though it has obtained court injunctions against newspapers, the government has never prosecuted editors for publishing the contents of leaked documents, including highly sensitive ones about the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
It is a shame the document wasn't posted on the Internet rather than to an MP's agent.
Are al-Jazeera all they are made out to be. Not according to Alastair Campbell who was Downing Street's communications chief and who once claimed that Al-Jazeera airs 'fiction'.
Bush writes memos. Wow. Who would have expected that?
If it's in a memo why not release the memo? The Brits threaten The Mirror with prosecution. Why?
We can't know unless they tell us; refusal to release the pertinent document is simply another way of saying "trust us."
Thank you for your comments on al-Jazeera. I have seen "Control Room" and occasionally go to aJ's website.
I have also read that the former US military contact with aJ has quit the military and associated himself with them.
As for the death of their correspondent in Baghdad, I certainly could believe it was approved by US command.
The US military claimed that they were taking fire from the Aljazeera buidling at the time they bombed it. As I recall, the documentary movie about Aljazeera, The Control Room, pointed out that they (Aljazeera)were providing a live feed at the time of the bombing and no weapons can be heard firing close in. I personally never believed the Pentagon's story - and I'm a Republican.
The Mirror is hardly a reliable source, and this allegation seems too fantastical to be true. Qatar was hosting the US command HQ for the Iraq war at the time. It's absurd to think that the President would suggest such a thing, even jokingly. But the story will have to play out.
That said, the bombing of AJ in Afghanistan and, particularly, in Iraq, are deeply troubling and, like the "accidental bombing" of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the Kosovo war, merits further investigation, preferably by Congress (I know, what a fool's errand that would be).
Congratulation for bringing this issue to attention.
In Afghanistan, the US also bombed the food deposit of the ICRC, they did it twice. The ICRC protested that they had clearly informed the US military of the place where the buildings were located, that they had the ICRC flags covering the rooves of the buildings and these flags were even larger than requested. For the ICRC employees, it was hard to believe that they could be targeted a second time by error. After that, all the food prepared to be distributed by road before the closing of the main pass during the winter, all that food was lost. I think that one local employee was wounded. But there were no other human casulaties because the other ICRC buildings were standing at a distance.
Christiane
Surely Aljazeera is less biased than Fox Fantasy News. If we are to take serious slanted news as undemocratic and, it could be argued, quite dangerous to the republic, then perhaps we should advocate the bombing of Fox Fantasy as well!
i originaly assumed al jazeera was another propoganda news organization until i read an article about how al jazeera not only asked hard questions about the west but also about the middle eastern leaders, when i heard that they were not liked among middle east leaders for shining light on tough issues i gave them another shot, and now i read there site daily for info on the middle east from a middle easter view point-they do great work
It's ironic that having dissuaded Bush from shooting the messenger in Qatar, the British Government is now trying to shoot the messenger by threatening editors with the Official Secrets Act, and prosecuting those involved in the leak.
It's difficult to see why Commons researcher Leo O'Connor should be prosecuted when he immediately passed the transcript to his boss, former MP Tony Clarke, who is a special constable and thus an officer of the law.
Even though Clarke opposed the war, he returned the document to the Government.
I met him some time later in the run up to the 2005 general election, when he was left to fight (and lose) his marginal constituency with no support from the national Labour campaign.
Some reward for his loyalty and sense of propriety.
I wonder how the Labour membership will feel about the prospect of a party worker being prosecuted under these circumstances.
Excellency,
Your write that President Bush could be charged with plotting to launch a terrorist attack against a civilian target, if he is even impeached. I disagree on two grounds.
First, I don’t believe his actions amount to conspiracy. I reserve the right to revise this conclusion, should more evidence come to light indicating that he took serious action to rally support for the attack.
Second, as the US government now operates, anything the President does to protect this country, in this time of war, is legal. Anything. That’s the backstory on the question of whether we torture detainees. Parse his words carefully, and the President is saying:
“ what we do isn’t torture, and what we do that looks like torture really isn’t, because I have the authority to determine what is or isn’t legal, and what is or isn’t torture. And in this time of war, I’ve reclassified some of the more egregious techniques as “not torture” because I can, and because we need to use these methods to protect Americans.”
Has the judicial branch challenged this assertion ? Has the legislative ? No. So, right now, USA is no longer a nation under rule of law. We are temporarily a nation under rule of man. I think we are a better nation than Iraq under Saddam, but only as a matter of degree. Fundamentally, our malfeasant Congress and Supreme Court have sold us out for pieces of silver. And the Administration has not yet cancelled any elections for reasons of national security. But just you wait and see.
At 275 lbs., your biggest fan.
Does anyone think Bush will show up in Iraq this year with a fake turkey again?
I am glad to see you take this side of the debate on America purposefully attacking foreign media. If they are willing to do that perhaps we can also see that attacking ambulances and hospitals is not that far-fetched.
Johnny Comando, Great White North
I'd also like to add that CNN correspondent Easton Jordan was fired about a year ago for suggesting that journalists in Iraq had been targeted by the U.S. military. I wonder if he'll get his job back…
Your readers are probably aware of this, but the documentary, "Control Room" was an interesting portrait of Al Jazeera's coverage of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It's worth a look-see and it's now out on video and DVD.
A little background on the leaked memo. Any of you who are following UK politics will know that, having lost a major vote in Parliament a couple of weeks back, and having been practically chaperoned through the recent election by the rather more popular Gordon Brown, Blair is now very much the lame duck Prime Minister. This has a fair bit to do with Iraq, not least the perception that Blair has surrendered our foreign policy to George Bush, who is unloved here, to put it mildly.
To rebut the popular image of Blair as Bush’s “poodle”, he and his allies in the UK government have constantly claimed to have had some influence on the White House. These claims were spectacularly crushed by the recent revelations of ex UK Ambassador to the US Christopher Meyer in his autobiography. Meyer said that UK officials could have used their influence but never did, describing Blair, Straw et al nervous and tongue-tied before the Bush administration, genuflecting at every turn. Its hard to overstate how badly this picture of our government’s relationship with the White House plays out in the UK. And more generally, its poison to the image Blair’s handlers are trying to cultivate for him as a tough, tenacious and battle-hardened statesman. Blair couldn’t afford those revelations at the best of times; and these are not the best of times. For New Labour, the image of The Great Leader is everything.
Into this political scene comes the al-Jazeera revelation, which portrays the Prime Minister in a way that directly contradicts Meyer’s description. Its worth noting what the editor of the Daily Mirror, which broke this story, said last night: "We made No 10 fully aware of the intention to publish and were given 'no comment' officially or unofficially. Suddenly 24 hours later we are threatened under section 5 [of the Official Secrets Act]". That requires no further comment from me.
Incidentally, its hard not to recall that when NATO bombed the HQ of Radio-Television Serbia in Belgrade back in 1999, Blair was unapologetic. If this current episode is yet another attempt to portray him as a moral man trying to “doing the right thing” then, as with most other such attempts, hypocrisy is revealed at the first examination. If Blair did talk Bush out of bombing al-Jazeera we can be sure that it was not on moral grounds, as his past behaviour makes clear, but on the grounds of political expediency.
David Wearing
London, UK
If Bush were joking, or if the memo were a fraud, there would be no reason to prosecute the civil servants who leaked it under the Official Secrets Act. As you observe, this is consistent with the suppression of war reporting which this administration has taken to heights not previously reached even during the first Gulf War.
I'm a bit confused by the dates; wasn't Aljazeera bombed the year before in 2003? In any event, I think that if Bush made the comment it was probably just a sterling example of Bush's wonderfully droll sense of "humor". I don't see how the US could fire missiles into Qatar "accidentally" and hope to get away with it, and if he was talking about some sort of clandestine operation I doubt he would have told Blair about it.
The US military hit the Aljazeerah offices in Baghdad on the 9th of April, 2004, not so long before Bush's conversation with Blair.
Minor correction, but still an important one: This attack happened in 9 April 2003, not 2004. It was the day the Americans bombed Hotel Palestina too, killing 2 other journalists, a Spanish and an Ukranian. The offices of Abu Dabi TV Channel were also bombed and destroyed, but fortunately caused no victims.
It's also the day the US Vice-Roys of Iraq have chosen to commemorate the liberation of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein.
One of the reasons given for Bush wanting to "take out" al jazerra was because of their reporting on Falluja. Remember Guiliana Sgrena? She was the Italian journalist held for a certain period in Iraq, then released after negotiation with Italian authorities. After release on the way to the airport for her trip home the car was mysteriously attacked by a rolling checkpoint patrol, killing a colleague and seriously wounding Ms. Sgrena. She had extensive reports on the attack in Falluja.Is there a connection?
Hi,
There is other evidence besides the U.S. attacks on Al Jazeera journalists which make this memo plausible. Journalist Dahr Jamial has reported that currently one of the first steps during a U.S. assault on an Iraqi city is to occupy the hospitals. This denies the resistance medical care but also prevents doctors from reporting civilian casualties.
This tactic worked very well during the second assault on Falluja. During the first assault the U.S. Military was embarrassed by reports of atrocities and the attack was called off. In the second seige this was not possible.
I think when the neocons talk about spreading democracy it is like the slogans in "1984" that "war is peace", "ignorance is strength" etc.
edq
I think it should be pointed out that, at the moment, the only source on this is the Daily Mirror, which is a tabloid newspaper. Wikipedia informs us that the Mirror was against the invasion of Iraq and, in May 2004, published photos of British soldiers torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib which turned out to be a hoax.
It might be wise before making too much of such a sensational piece of news from a tabloid. If they actually have the memo, I think they should publish it despite the threats from Downing Street.
"If the British report is true, Bush really is just a Baathist in the mirror."
The fact that the Blair government has threatened the Mirror and other British newspapers with prosecution if they publish further details from the leaked memo would suggest the report is true.
Let's also not forget this incident:
Al-Jazeera's Basra hotel bombed
Jason Deans
Wednesday April 2, 2003
A hotel in Basra being used as a base by al-Jazeera's team of correspondents in the city was shelled this morning, the Arabic TV news channel has claimed.
The Basra Sheraton, whose only guests are al-Jazeera journalists, received four direct hits this morning during a heavy artillery bombardment, according to the Qatar-based broadcaster...
Another accident, I'm sure.
Considering the way this administration reacts to domestic "enemies" I am not surprised that they take much stronger measures against Arabic-speaking ones. Why Sift Boat someone when you can simply kill them and do it without being "seen".
There is no good TV coverage of Iraq. If people could see what a country looks like after 25-35,000 civilian casualties inflicted by the US -- every day, in their living room at dinner time -- we would not have needed Katrina to get influential people to ask questions about this administration.
I have yet to see a mainstream outlet suggest that the burden of proof about this memo lies with Bush. Clearly it does.
Assume for a second that Blair has no influence at all on Bush, and that he is simply a poodle. Assume also that the two earlier strikes were not accidental. (It is easy to use the "fog of war" excuse to hide your attacks on journalists in Iraq and Afganistan, ask Ms Sgrena.)
With that as a premise, it is reasonable to ask if there something about the layout of the TV stations offices in Qatar that would have prevented Bush and his minions from striking them there? (Other than the obvious fact that Qatar is a friendly country and it would have raised a diplomatic sh*tstorm, since I also assume that the neo-cons are too barking mad to care about something like that)
Perhaps you or your readers may have traveled there and and can point out an obvious logistical reason that caused this attack to NOT occur?
Why doesn't the Mirror just fax the memo to an American newspaper? We don't have an "Open Secrets Law" or some such nonsense. I'm a bit skeptical of the Mirror, but if they have the memo, and it seems the British government is not denying it, then let us see more if it.
Bush could order CIA to send some agents with explosive. After blown Bush could describe this as terrorist attack. CIA has experience in such job as for example in Lebanon.
Let's not forget that the National Defense Strategy says:
"Our strength as a nation state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using international fora, judicial processes, and terrorism."
If judicial processes and intern'l fora are a threat to national security, why not media companies? That seems to be where Republican logic is taking us.
Bush Administration officials have also appeared on Al-Jazeera, including, I believe, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, maybe even Donald Rumsfeld.
"Wikipedia informs us that the Mirror was against the invasion of Iraq and, in May 2004, published photos of British soldiers torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib which turned out to be a hoax."
Piers Morgan (the editor of the time) was badly burned by the hoax and resigned. The paper apologised and, since then, has been much more careful about its reporting re:Iraq.
Also, while tabloids do tend to be slimy and unscrupulous, they are usually better at finding out the secrets that people are hiding, while the broadsheets are usually better as contextualising and analysing well reported news.
So, while all media sources should be doubted, you shouldn't write the mirror off just because it uses short words and has brightly coloured front pages.
CNN's Eason Jordan must feel vindicated by this memo, but I bet he never doubted what he knew to be true.
Too bad he can't get his job back, tho. He's an object lesson in what happens to truth-tellers.
Chris
Its unfortunate that such fantasies of deliberate targeting of journalists so easily take root. Besides the obvious point that American forces would have to bomb the island, where their own headquarters was located, the "goal" of such an act would be hard to determine. Television footage of Iraq is not hard to come by, A-J or not. And soldiers have more immediate and dangerous worries than finding the local representative of Agence France Press.
The fact of the matter is, journalists want to, and succeed in getting themselves in the midst of very dangerous situations. Those without "embedding" might get the "real story" but also remove the protection that comes with soldiers knowing who and where they are. Cameramen, in a country where shoulder-launched weapons are a great threat to soldiers and civilians, are foolish to stand in the midst of a fight with a large item on their shoulder. Not to mention journalists that have been targeted by insurgents for their western connections. Combat is a very emotional and excruciating environment for both sides, and expecting a "free pass" in such a dangerous environment is the height of vanity.
Sadly, this is their choice. Journalists of the past who wanted the front line perspective--like Ernie Pyle in 1945, often were killed. Great stories often come at great risk, but this risk is well known to real reporters.
Post a Comment
<< Home