Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush had al-Jazeera attack in mind, says paper
Sydney Morning Herald ^ | November 22, 2005 | Agence France-Presse

Posted on 11/22/2005 1:25:09 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last
To: theDentist

My take is that, when the time comes for Al Jazeera to shut up or sing a different tune, the Emir of Qatar will help their management "see the light" with an "offer they cannot refuse." Until then, Al Jazeera is possibly flying a false flag for us and filled with our double agents. Their obnoxious reporting would be their "cover."


41 posted on 11/22/2005 1:58:47 PM PST by GermanBusiness
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

What a piece of crap. Who's their source, George Bush?


42 posted on 11/22/2005 2:06:16 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Bomb al-Jazeera and eliminate the best outlet for Demonrat talking points east of the New York Times. Oh, almost forgot, al-Jazeera now is in the US isn't it?


43 posted on 11/22/2005 2:07:06 PM PST by luvbach1 (Near the belly of the beast in San Diego)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

No, explosive and damaging for our enemies. It would make Bush an instand hero.

44 posted on 11/22/2005 2:27:01 PM PST by gotribe (Hillary: Accessory to Rape)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

There are many people that think that some of the middle east should be turned into glass. We have the technology.


45 posted on 11/22/2005 2:30:55 PM PST by mountainlyons (Still angry after all these years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

IIRC an Al Jazeera field office in Baghdad was bombed during the invasion.


46 posted on 11/22/2005 2:31:26 PM PST by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1114775/posts
US Forces Want Al Jazeera out of Fallujah
April 9, 2004

IMO, they were not just the propaganda arm of the terrorists but their command and control arm too.


47 posted on 11/22/2005 2:37:23 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Sources for this story: al-Jazeera via CNN.

CNN will air coverage of Bush's comments on the story with a large black "X" superimposed over his face.

48 posted on 11/22/2005 2:39:48 PM PST by HardStarboard (Read Stephen Hayes "Spooked White House" - Weekly Standard. It explains a an awful lot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HardStarboard

One of Bush's big mistakes was to allow them to stay on the air. He could have taken them off the air by denying them the use of any satellite to broadcast from. I assume the military can neutralize any satellite they can not control. Their certainly should not have been anyone working for or with them in the war zone.
Given their role in this war they were remain a legitimate military target.


49 posted on 11/22/2005 2:48:54 PM PST by Jonah Johansen ("Comming soon to a neighborhood near you")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: gotribe

Yeah, is this supposed to be a bad thing? Hey, don't forget one of the Al Jazeera reporters was convicted of aiding and abetting terrorists in a Spanish court just a little more than a month ago.

I think if Bush bombed Al Jazeera he would justified because he would be bombing the command and control center of Al Qaeda. JMHO.

Unfortunately, I think when Bush said he would bomb Al Jazeera it was exactly like the time Ronald Reagan said "...bombing to begin in 5 minutes."


50 posted on 11/22/2005 3:01:15 PM PST by daviscupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Canard
They call them "Leakers" .
In my day they would be rat finks.
I want someone to have the cajones to say this in front of Bush instead of the secrecy.No cajones ,no glory.
51 posted on 11/22/2005 3:39:06 PM PST by ricoshea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
"...unnamed sources told the newspaper.

First the Downing Street Memo and now this. Bush is going down! Bush is going down! YEAHHH!

/sarc

52 posted on 11/22/2005 4:05:32 PM PST by manwiththehands (Happy Thanksgiving to our heroes in Iraq. God bless you and Godspeed. Come home safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

I believe it only fair that if Al-Jazeera is attacked by us, that the favor is returned in kind. CNN is a good place to start.


53 posted on 11/22/2005 7:26:27 PM PST by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
The US President, George Bush, planned to bomb the pan-Arab television broadcaster al-Jazeera

If this is true, then I am terribly upset.

I mean, why let a perfectly good idea like that not be acted upon?! If we'd have been given the opportunity to nuke Tokyo Rose, we'd have taken it in World War II!

54 posted on 11/22/2005 8:33:29 PM PST by Prime Choice (Mechanical Engineers build weapons. Civil Engineers build targets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
This SAME Mirror?

MIRROR BOSS QUITS POST(Admits photos are fake - "victim of a calculated malicious hoax") (Sky News - 14 May, 2004)

"The editor of the Daily Mirror has resigned after admitting its alleged Iraqi abuse pictures had been 'a hoax'."

I only regret that they don't meet the same fate as Lord Haw Haw, hanged after conviction of treason for propaganda.

55 posted on 11/22/2005 11:33:55 PM PST by weegee (Christmas - the holiday that dare not speak its name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Any recollection on how the Mirror responded to President Reagan's joke that "the bombing starts in 5 minutes"?


56 posted on 11/22/2005 11:35:48 PM PST by weegee (Christmas - the holiday that dare not speak its name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weegee

Indeed!


57 posted on 11/23/2005 1:39:51 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Loony lefties throw around this kind of fiction all the time, but what worries me about this case is that the British government is threatening the fakers if they publish the faked "memos". What's that about? Don't they realize that they are giving the claims credibility? Is Blair now plotting against our President?


58 posted on 11/23/2005 12:51:32 PM PST by realist4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: realist4ever

Of course, it goes without saying that the British Government realizes that it is lending credence to the leaked memo. They have the leaked memo and they can compare it to their original. They tacitly confirmed that the leaked Cabinet memo was genuine when they called it a leak and refused to comment on it for that reason, and again, when they undertook to punish the leaker and the leakee, and when they threatened to prosecute under the Official Secrets Act any editors who published further details.

They are giving it credance because it is real.

Here are some things that I have learned about Cabinet documents over the years:

Cabinet documents are usually classified Top Secret.

Documents which have to be copied are numbered and have the name of the destined official on them to prevent leaks and unauthorized copying.

The numbered copies are recorded and tracked.

They must be returned for destruction when the recipient is done with them.

They may be printed on special papers which can not be photocopied.

Modern photocopiers keep records of what they print, when, and often the name and key of the person who operated them.

The leaker of THIS document, dated 16 April, 2004, and is stamped Top Secret, was David Keogh, a former Cabinet Office official. The recepient was a typical one for leaked documents--an aide in an MP's office. Both leaker and leakee are thus credible. The MP has seen the documents. He might have seen other Cabinet Memoranda and would be expected to know one when he sees it.

A former UK Defence Minister, Peter Kilfoyle, has confirmed that, although he has not seen the leaked document itself, he was aware of its existence at the time of the leak.

You may take comfort, if you wish, in the denials from the White House, but they don't count for a stuffed road-apple since this is a UK Cabinet Memorandum which the public has not seen. This is White House "spin". They could be expected to say that whether Bush was joking or not joking.

Of course, Bush MAY have been joking, but it is unlikely that a politically compromising joke would find its way into a Cabinet Document unless it was taken seriously, and since all reports say that Blair talked Bush out of bombing, HE clearly did not treat this suggestion in a jocular manner. The implication is that Bush WAS serious and that Blair responded appropriately by dissuading him from bombing an ally and a prominent, if notorious, organ of the World Press--as close as the Middle East has to a free press since the Qatar regime (besides being friendly to the United States whatever everybody else in the Middle East may feel)is one of the most open regimes in the Muslim world.

The only way to prove that Bush was joking is to publish the transcript of the revevant portion(s) of the conversation. This is unlikely to happen, so there is no available evidence upon which to conclude that Bush shares a graveyard sense of humour with Ronald Reagan.

US troops bombed Al-Jazeera's offices in Afghanistan, and an "accidental" hit on the Hotel where Al-Jazeera was stationed in Baghdad killed an Al-Jazeera reporter. It will be difficult to sustain the theory that Bush was joking with evidence-based reasoning.

Judging from their responses, American Conservatives will continue to judge their fearless leader according to the standards of faith-based reasoning.

This is a delicate line that we mortals tread.

Answer not a fool according to his folly, least thou be like unto him.

Answer a fool according to his folly, least he be wise in his own conceit.

Cast not your pearls before swine, least they turn and rend thee.


59 posted on 11/24/2005 12:29:26 PM PST by Republican Blaguer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson