Steve Soto over at The Left Coaster suggests that Conyers focus on three issues at the DSM hearing and call these
individuals as possible witnesses next week in his efforts to build a
case that the decision had already been made in the summer of 2002.
First and most damaging to me, as we first reported back in October 2003,
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 the 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.Also
remember that the one physical piece of evidence we had was the
aluminum tubes. They were also attempts to get documents that said Iraq
was seeking uranium, but the only physical evidence we had was the
tubes. This
is why the uranium documents became so critical. Tubes + uranium would
be a vastly stronger argument. This is why even after being told not to
use the Niger story they did. This is why even though the Niger
documents were transparent forgeries, they still used them.
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.
There is no pathetic out for the betrayal of trust: He said he
didn't make up his mind about invading, and this memo, along with the
testimony of Col. Gardiner, along with other pieces of evidence that
can be pilled on: The Richard Clarke account, the Paul O'Neil account,
the Bush ghost writers account, the Woodward thing, the implementation
of the strategic information campaign to influence the media, and other
things all can show how this likely was a lie and betrayal of our trust
and that in fact they wanted to go to war from the getgo. If Saddam had
cooperated, if inspectors had continued and found nothing...he would of
still gone to war. This is counter to his words that 'war was a last
resort.'
Maybe the best approach is to get the repugs to counter the DSM by
getting them to try to prove that what they are claiming is true - i.e.
that war was the last option.
Perhaps we can take a leaf out of the democracts.com playbook and
offer $1000 to the person who 'leaks' an internal repug memo which best
proves that they really were fighting for peace. That should be pretty
easy right? If war really was the last option, then there should be a
mile-long paper trail of all their noble efforts.
Let's challenge any bush insiders to leak the smoking gun memo
which proves that their Dear Leader is actually a peacemonger who had
exhausted all other options.
As Bendover commented: I don't mind being lied to. The president is my moral and intellectual
superior so if he says he must kill tens of thousands of men, women and
children to erase his oedipal obsession, that's good enough for me. Well it's NOT good enough for me.
