| ★阿修羅♪ > 戦争71 > 808.html ★阿修羅♪ |
|
| Tweet |
電網（インターネット）特約情報である。
イラク版「ディープ・スロート」ブッシュの嘘の隠蔽はニクソンそっくり
大量破壊兵器云々の嘘で始まったイラク戦争の前段には、1年前からの議会の承認のない非公式戦争、21,736回の自称「同盟軍」、米英の空軍によるイラク爆撃があった。
イギリスの有力紙『サンデイ・タイムズ』の記者の署名記事もある。
http://www.middleeast.org/premium/read.cgi?version=0.2.6&num=1298&month=7&year=2005&function=text&year=2005&month=7
DEEP IRAQ THROAT
"Secret - Strictly Personal" for the Prime Minister
MER - MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 5 July: He was the big star in the ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN Movie that made the Watergate scandal and 'Deep Throat' famous. Now he is saying quite loudly that President Bush is like President Nixon but that the press is not doing its crucial investigative job as it should. Redford chose American Independence Day, the 4th of July, to make his comments. And it was The Sunday Times two Sunday's ago now that published their tale of "Britain's Deep Throat":
ROBERT REDFORD has urged journalists to investigate US President George W. Bush's administration - because he sees strong similarities between Bush's government and the events leading to the Watergate scandal which forced President RICHARD NIXON to resign.
Redford starred in 1976 movie ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN alongside DUSTIN HOFFMAN, as The Washington Post journalists BOB WOODWARD and CARL BERNSTEIN, who brought about the events that led to Nixon's resignation in 1974.
And Redford wasn't surprised when the identity of the mysterious 'Deep Throat' character who sparked the Watergate scandal was recently revealed to be former deputy FBI chief MARK FELT.
But the shock revelation has reminded the actor of the power of the media and the similarities between Bush's secret cover-ups and the Watergate affair.
He says, "There are deep similarities going on but where is the press? where is the press?"
"There is stone-walling, not telling the truth, getting people under wiretaps. The US public continues to be told things that are not true and what worries me is that we have these brave young American guys risking their lives everyday.
"When Deep Throat was revealed, the press came to me and wanted to know what I thought. I said, 'Well, it's interesting that his name came out but is that the point?'
"My contribution was to come at a time when journalism was at its high point and the role I played was to save a testimony to the freedom of speech. The media have changed, we see the ethics have changed. The press is more, I am sorry to say, celebrity oriented."
How the Leaked Documents Questioning War Emerged from 'Britain's Deep Throat'
By Michael Smith
The Sunday Times UK
It started with a phone call and has now
swept across America: Michael Smith tells
the tale of his 'Downing Street memo' scoop.
Sunday Times - 26 June: It began with a phone call from a friend nearly 10 months ago - somebody well-placed who had given me a few stories before. But he wasn't really a journalistic source, though he has now been dubbed "the British Deep Throat" by some of the US press.
He was just a friend. So I had no great expectations of the meeting we arranged in a quiet West End bar. I was just expecting a convivial drink, with the usual exchange of gossip, the catching-up on how our lives were going.
Almost immediately it was clear that this time it would be something more. The place was empty, but my friend chose the most secluded spot he could find. He was clearly nervous.
He wasn't sure if I'd be interested in what he had, he said. It was about the run-up to the war. "All the Butler stuff," he said, referring to Lord Butler, who had reported on the failures of intelligence over Iraq.
He thrust two sheets of paper into my hand. It was a "Secret - Strictly Personal" letter from Jack Straw to the prime minister written in March 2002, a year before the invasion.
In the letter the foreign secretary said there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any weapons of mass destruction worth talking about and that, in part as a result of a lack of US preparation, post-war Iraq was likely to become a very nasty place.
It was, in short, remarkably prescient and would make a pretty good story, I said, with some understatement. Well, I've got five others just like it from the same period, said my source. "Most say stuff just like that, or worse."
The documents covered the period running up to a summit between George W Bush and Tony Blair at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas, in early April 2002. At that time the swift victory against the Taliban in Afghanistan had left hawks in the US administration openly briefing that Iraq was next.
Most of the leaked documents were designed to brief ministers or Blair on whether backing the US plans to get rid of Saddam would be sensible and legal. They set out the merits and dangers of taking part. Their gist was that there weren't many merits. The documents made it pretty clear that it wasn't sensible, it wasn't legal and it was very risky.
The document that seemed to encapsulate the problems was another "Secret - Strictly Personal" letter to Blair. It was written by his foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning.
"I think there is a real risk that the (US) administration underestimates the difficulties," Manning wrote. "They may agree that failure isn't an option, but this does not mean that they will avoid it."
When I reported these documents I was surprised to find that there was no real interest in them in America. The story swiftly died away.
Then eight months later, in the run-up to Britain's general election, with the focus on the attorney-general's advice to Blair on the legality of war, somebody else gave me further, even more startling documents. They concerned a meeting in Downing Street on July 23, 2002, eight months before the invasion, when Blair was insisting to the public that all options on Iraq were still open.
One leaked document was a Cabinet Office briefing paper for a crucial Downing Street meeting held on the day in question. It said the prime minister had promised Bush at the Crawford summit that he would "back military action to bring about regime change". It added that ministers had no choice but to "create the conditions" that would make military action legal.
The other document was the minutes of the actual meeting, chaired by Blair and attended by Straw; Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary; Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general; Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6; John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee; and Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, chief of defence staff.
Dearlove, who had just returned from Washington, said "military action was now seen as inevitable . . . the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action".
Straw agreed with Dearlove. He said Bush had "made up his mind to take military action. But the case was thin".
After reporting these secret memos, which revealed the dubious manoeuvrings of government, I expected the US press to react. Surely there would be a storm of anger over the way in which the American public had been deceived into going to war? But still there was no interest. Then slowly something astonishing happened. People power took over.
The Sunday Times website was inundated with ordinary US citizens wanting to read the minutes of the July meeting. Bloggers set to work passing the word.
Six ordinary, patriotic citizens with no political axe to grind were so outraged to discover the truth about the path to war that they set up their own website, naming it after the minutes, which had become known as the Downing Street memo.
The focus turned to what may ultimately be the most important part of the memo: the point where Hoon said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity to put pressure on the regime".
Ministry of Defence figures for the number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq in 2002 show that virtually none were used in March and April; but between May and August an average of 10 tons were dropped each month, with the RAF taking just as big a role in the "spikes of activity" as their US colleagues. Then in September the figure shot up again, with allied aircraft dropping 54.6 tons.
If this was a covert air war, both Bush and Blair may face searching questions. In America only Congress can declare war, and it did not give the US president permission to take military action against Iraq until October 11, 2002. Blair's legal justification is said to come from UN Resolution 1441, which was not passed until November 8, 2002.
Last week one US blogger, Larisa Alexandrovna of RawStory.com, unearthed more unsettling evidence. It was an overlooked interview with Lieutenant-General T Michael Moseley, the allied air commander in Iraq, in which he appears to admit that the "spikes of activity" were part of a covert air war.
From June 2002 until March 20, when the ground war began, the allies flew 21,736 sorties over southern Iraq, attacking 349 carefully selected targets. The attacks, Moseley said, "laid the foundations" for the invasion, allowing allied commanders to begin the ground war.
The bloggers may have found their own smoking gun.
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。