- Considering that it was the fifteenth day of the month,
precisely the middle of June, 2005, we derive the additional benefit of
a date which can easily be memorized. Recall the soothsayer in Shakespeare's
Julius Caesar: "Beware of the ides of March." The ides on the
Roman calendar do not apply to June; but this particular day could well
be defined as "the ides of Bush."
- Several things have happened in the MSM: first, on the
night of June 14th, Tuesday to be exact, and on NBC's Nightly News with
Brian Williams, the Internet-notorious "Downing Street Memo,"
as well as the more recently discovered additional documents concerning
the Bush/Blair-manufactured phony intelligence used to set up the invasion
of Iraq, were not only reported upon, but followed right after the headlined
Iraqi story at the top of the program; secondly, posted on Drudge on June
15th and originated by UPI, the bombshell news release by Morgan Reynolds,
yet another Bush insider, detail his astonishing accusation stating that
the Bush explanation of 9-11 was "bogus."
- What a day! References to those "back alley"
undisciplined, unauthorized, unlicensed, non-gatekeeper "unprofessional"
news and opinion websites of the Internet are now proven as the only true
sources of real news in America today. And because of it, a real American
patriot, Congressman John Conyers, Jr., of Michigan, won't have to go it
alone. Sure he had 88 co-signers to his letter to Bush, but Bush didn't
even bother to respond. Mighty Mouth McClellan dismissed Conyers' memo
as absurd, and not worthy of a response.
- Although many Internet websites took up the cause of
the Downing Street Memo, Conyers was right all along - without the mainstream
media, there would be no public outcry. But what the criminal Bush regime
didn't count on was the most dangerous malady for criminals who lie and
deceive: the truth. Combined with the technology of the Internet, Bush
victim survivors and families emerging from his two major criminal acts,
9-11 and Iraq, were able to communicate, lent support and credibility to
those Internet websites that had both the decency and the courage to tell
the truth, and finally gave Congressman Conyers the support he so badly
- I saw it coming! I knew the Times was tinkering with
disaster, and now it's here. And we should never let these complicit bastards
off the hook. And this is precisely what I mean by the term: "the
day of record." As of June 15, 2005, it is established that 1,700
American service personnel have died in the war in Iraq. Approximately
12,000 of our troops have been maimed and injured, and 100,000 innocent
civilians in Fallujah were needlessly murdered by Bush in retaliation for
the murders of four highly-paid contractors who chose money over life,
just like Bush.
- This is the day of record because any additional military
personnel still needlessly in harm's way that are killed, wounded, maimed
and dismembered, will have suffered such fate because of the corrupt, irresponsible
and unprofessional "journalism" of the Times and their subservient
stooges in network television news in protecting the Bush regime from its
rendezvous with the truth. The Times has been identified as the "gatekeeper"
and "newspaper of record" by one of the MSM's own in the two
books he wrote about the subject: Bernard Goldberg.
- The Times has finally conceded and tossed in the towel,
albeit shrouded in the same unapologetic "who cares" demeanor
similarly offered by Tony Blair: "This is old news." And of
course, it was only some loose mud from a British political campaign that
caused this exposé thereby negating totally its horrific message
- The Times' backdoor after-the-fact article was handled
Purdum in his June 14th article published six full weeks after the
Sunday London Times broke the story, "A Peephole to the War Room:
British Documents Shed Light on Bush Team's State of Mind." Purdum
backs into the story reactively and then diminishes his facts to get the
Times caught up in what Internet journalists have been dealing with over
the last month and a half. The second paragraph is intended to both explain
the Times' late arrival tied to the non-importance of the shocking facts
- Purdum begins: "The disclosure of British government
memorandums portraying the Bush administration as bent on war with Iraq
by the summer of 2002, and insufficiently prepared for post-invasion problems,
has caused a political stir on both sides of the Atlantic, in part because
opponents of President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair see the documents
as proof that both men misled their countries into war." Got that?
In large part, it is only "opponents" of Bush that arrive at
such horrific conclusions. This explains why the Times didn't jump on
the story the way the unprofessional Internet did.
- So now after capsuling the facts so brilliantly, albeit
justifying its late entry, the Times then uses the most powerful three-letter
word in "journalism": "But." Here's the disclaimer
in the second paragraph: "But the documents are not quite so shocking."
See fools - why all the fuss? "Three years ago, the near-unanimous
conventional wisdom in Washington held that Mr. Bush was determined to
topple Saddam Hussein by any means necessary. Plenty of people - chief
among them Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state - were also warning
in public and private that the Pentagon was ill prepared for prolonged
- Why these observations? What is being offered as proof
of irrelevance by the Times is mere insider opinion ["everybody already
knew all this"] and that the Pentagon was "ill prepared."
What do the warnings of Colin Powell and the Pentagon's ill preparedness
have to do with the Downing Street Memo? The issue here is not only that
of planning a war for no other reason than Bush's private desire to topple
Saddam, but that there was never any intention to find evidence on his
part to tie this to 9-11! And remember the revelations of Paul O'Neill
and Richard Clark, which couldn't be substantiated because of a lack of
evidence and corroboration.
- Considering the Memo in the context of O'Neill, Clark,
and now Reynolds, wouldn't it serve to effectively reinforce growing suspicions
resultant of the mounting evidence that the Bush regime was extremely complicit
in 9-11 in order to capitalize on America's anger? Isn't it obvious that
evidence of Saddam's link to 9-11 was manufactured? Can the Times and
Purdum make these connections? Obviously not!
- And now, The New York Times' complete vindication of
both themselves and the Bush regime in pleading their case to America:
"The so-called Downing Street memo, a summary of a prime minister's
meeting on July 23, 2002, does not put forward specific proof that Mr.
Bush had taken any particular action, only a general sense that 'it seemed
clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the
timing was not yet decided.' It describes the impression of Britain's
chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, that 'the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the policy,' but does not elaborate."
- So there you have it! The Times accepts the fiction
of Walter Duranty and Josef Stalin, and the Pulitzer Prize that was presented
for that deadly fiction, accepts and then tries to protect the fiction
writing of Jayson Blair costing it their two top executives, but won't
simply pass along to the American people information possibly incriminating
the worst, most despotic, secret criminal regime to ever occupy the White
House, and all because there was no proof. What a hoot!
- Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.
- c. 2005 Ted Lang - All Rights Reserved