The Gaffe That Keeps on Giving

The last time I can remember a joke being afforded this level of secrecy was in Monty Python's "World's Deadliest Joke" sketch.

So What Have They to Hide?
Official Secrets, Lies, and the Truth about the Assault on Fallujah

By Raymond Whitaker and Marie Woolf
The Independent UK

Sunday 27 November 2005

Original story

The trial of two Whitehall workers this week could reveal Britain's role in one of the Iraq war's darkest episodes.

Nobody outside the Westminster village would recognize the names of David Keogh and Leo O'Connor. One is a former Cabinet Office official, the other a researcher for an MP who lost his seat at the last election. But the crime of which they are accused concerns two men who are firmly in the public eye: Tony Blair and George Bush.

On Tuesday, Mr Keogh, 49, the civil servant, and Mr O'Connor, 42, who worked for the former Labor MP Tony Clarke, will appear at Bow Street magistrates' court in London. Mr Keogh is charged, under the Official Secrets Act, with sending the researcher a transcript of an April 2004 meeting at the White House between the Prime Minister and the President. When the document was shown to Mr Clarke, then MP for Northampton South, he returned it to Downing Street.

All that occurred well over a year ago. Despite the eminence of those taking part in the discussion, the transcript did not carry the highest classification, and the case might have attracted relatively little attention were it not for subsequent events. On Tuesday, the Daily Mirror reported that Mr Bush had told Mr Blair in April last year that he wanted to bomb the studios of al-Jazeera, the Arabic-language satellite channel which has consistently challenged the White House line on Iraq.

With its Arab cameramen and reporters, al-Jazeera, based in the Gulf state of Qatar, has been able to go where embedded Western reporters dare not. At the time of the White House meeting, it was broadcasting bloody footage from within Fallujah, then under assault by US forces. Added to the channel's role as the outlet for statements by Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, and its coverage of on-camera executions of Western hostages by al-Qa'ida followers, it was not surprising that Mr Bush might have been angry with al-Jazeera.

According to the Mirror, Mr Blair dissuaded the President from any attack on the TV station. It reported conflicting views on whether Mr Bush might have been joking or not - even if he had been prepared to disregard the international outrage it would have caused, Qatar is a key Middle East base for the Americans - although it is possible that he was suggesting a clandestine bombing.

Even this trumpeted exclusive might not have resonated for long. But in a move unprecedented since Labor came to office in 1997, the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, warned newspapers that they would be breaching the Official Secrets Act (OSA) if they published the contents of the document at the center of the prosecution against Keogh and O'Connor. The Mirror's editor, Richard Wallace, complained: "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 OSA]."

Why did the Government choose this moment to crack down? It had not reacted to many previous leaks, some extremely embarrassing, in particular the revelation that Mr Blair and some of his most senior ministers, aides and military commanders had been discussing detailed plans for war in Iraq in the summer of 2002, while insisting in public that no decisions had been taken. The Mirror's credibility on Iraq also suffered when it published hoax pictures purporting to show British soldiers abusing prisoners, leading to the departure of Piers Morgan as editor.

Al-Jazeera has seized on the report, pointing out that its bureau in Kabul and Baghdad had been hit by US forces, despite the fact that the channel had sent their co-ordinates to the Pentagon. Another of its employees is in indefinite detention in Guantanamo Bay. But the Mirror scoop might not have been taken half as seriously in other quarters if Lord Goldsmith had not intervened.

The Attorney-General insisted yesterday that he was acting independently of Downing Street, mainly on the narrow legal grounds of avoiding prejudice to a "live" trial. He was not using the OSA to prevent political embarrassment. But when BBC Radio 4's Today program asked if the issue was one of national security, he avoided the question.

"Some people will think this is heavy-handed," said a senior Whitehall source. "What people are bound to say is that we are being inconsistent in dealing with this case. They are bound to ask why we are pursuing this case, and not others."

In other words: what do they have to hide? The answer to that appears to reflect the degree to which Tony Blair is still haunted by the Iraq war. The attack on Fallujah, which was at its height when he met George Bush, epitomizes many of the most serious concerns about that war.

In response to the lynching of four American security contractors, US forces were ordered to "clean out" Fallujah, over the protests of the Marine commander on the ground, who argued that months of painstaking efforts to win hearts and minds would be destroyed.

"The decision was political, not military," said Toby Dodge of Queen Mary College, London University, who went to Downing Street with other Iraq experts before the war to warn Mr Blair of the perils of an invasion. "It was taken in the Oval Office."

But after three weeks of heavy fighting, and correspondingly high casualties, the White House lost its nerve. The Marines, who lost 600 men, believed they were on the point of seizing the town when they were ordered to hand over to an "Iraqi brigade" commanded by a general from the Saddam era, which promptly yielded control back to the insurgents.

In the midst of this disaster, the Prime Minister was at the White House. That Britain was concerned about the conduct of the fighting was revealed in a leaked Foreign Office memo the following month. This said: "Heavy-handed US military tactics in Fallujah and Najaf, some weeks ago, have fueled both Sunni and Shia opposition to the coalition, and lost us much public support inside Iraq."

Possible options for the deployment of British troops were also discussed in the memo, including the possibility that they might take over the troubled areas of Najaf and Qadisiyah, where Spanish troops had been pulled out by the new Socialist government. That did not materialize, but at this time last year, the Black Watch was sent north to back up US forces being readied for a fresh assault on Fallujah. In 30 days, the 850-strong British force lost five men.

US forces surrounded Fallujah, and the civilian population was ordered out amid warnings that anyone remaining would be treated as an insurgent. Much of the town was flattened, and many of its former inhabitants have never returned. To this day, we have little idea how many people, whether "foreign fighters" or unfortunate civilians, were killed in Fallujah. But disturbing details continue to trickle out.

Only this month, we learned that US troops used white phosphorus, intended to provide smokescreens, as an illegal chemical weapon against fighters in buildings or foxholes. On contact with skin or clothing, it can burn down to the bone. And many of the same tactics are being employed during Operation Steel Curtain, which for the past few weeks has sought to drive insurgents out of towns and villages near Iraq's borders with Syria and Jordan.

Some have argued that if the text of the memo at the heart of the present row were published, it would show that Mr Blair, contrary to the claims of Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's former ambassador to Washington, had used his influence to restrain American behavior in Iraq. But events in Fallujah and beyond do not give much sign that the US ever heeded any British expression of concern about its methods of dealing with the insurgency.

Not only is the Prime Minister's authority in Washington in question, but Iraq has also eroded his ability to push through his policies at home. It is in this context that the Government's crackdown on leaks is being viewed. With open disagreements growing inside the Government on a host of issues - just in the past week, these have included pensions, nuclear power, education policy and flu jabs - a firmer approach is needed to stop the flow of confidential documents, some believe. "Having these documents is a breach of the OSA, and this is a serious offense," said one official. "It's illegal."

But the strategy is seen as risky, even within the Government, and its execution was less than clinical. Days after the news of Lord Goldsmith's warning, some media organizations were still seeking official notification. It remains to be seen whether the Government seeks to prevent the five-page document becoming public during the OSA trial, but it could not have focused more interest on the case unless it published the whole transcript, as Peter Kilfoyle, a former defense minister, and others are demanding in a parliamentary motion.

The Independent on Sunday has not seen the document, nor discussed its contents with anyone who has, and the Prime Minister can argue that his private discussions with other leaders should remain confidential. But it is clear that the two, previously anonymous, men due in court this week are overshadowed by the legacy of the conflict jointly launched by the PM and the President.

Since when is a joke an "official secret?"

When setting up this blog, I mulled over the "political correctness" of including a link to the al-Jazeera site, but the news over Bush's "joke" Blair about bombing the Qutar offices (and the subsequent muzzling of the story in Britain) has proven it to be not only a valuable, but apparently powerful enough source of news that it's worthy of silencing.

C'mon, George, if it was so funny, why don't you share the joke with the rest of us? Maybe Tony didn't get it, but you know that weird limey sense of humor. Anyway, things have been pretty serious lately and what's the good of having a class clown for President if we can't get a laugh from him once in awhile? (OK, I admit that the door bit you pulled in Beijing was pretty good.)

Oh, and AJ, in case you know any folks who are interested in playing a similar "joke" on the Fox News offices in NY (1211 Avenue of the Americas), here's a picture you can pass along that might help.

Don't worry Bill, it's just a satiric "rift."

Text of my letter to Ohio State Representative Danny Bubp

Representative Bubp,

Pardon me if I don't address you by the customary title of "Honorable," but my cynicism just doesn't run that deep.

I'm pleased to say that until I heard of Rep. Jean Schmidt's statement in Congress on Friday, I was unaware of your name. If only I could have remained so blissfully ignorant.

As you know, in her statement she claimed that you had called and asked her "to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message, that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

On hearing this I immediately thought this must be some kind of bad-ass MF'er to call Murtha out like that. I was just surprised I'd never heard of you before. With all this swagger, you certainly must've won a war single-handed or something, right? Why aren't there any ships or bases named after you?

Picturing a cross between John Wayne and Marlon Brando as Col. Kurtz, I set off in search of your military record and found the following (as it was on your state website I assume it can be considered accurate and free of manipulation by the "Liberal Media" you and your ilk love to deride):

1978 - Commissioned as Second Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps
1978-Present - Continues to serve in United States Marine Corps Reserve as a Colonel of Marines
1997-Present - Serves on the staff at the National Defense University, Washington, D.C. as Team Leader for the Reserve Component National Security Course
2003 - Graduate of Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island
2003 - Served on the J-3 Staff at United States Central Command, Tampa, Florida for General Tommy Franks in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom

I was puzzled. This wasn't at all what I expected to find. Where were the overseas postings in which you must have so admirably displayed your bravery and valor? Where's Beirut, Panama, Gulf War I, Somalia, the Balkans? Hell, you weren't even in Grenada! Not a single mention of an occasion when you responded to the call and put your life on the line. Have your ever even been in a position where you had to decide to stay and fight or "cut and run," or is that just a handy catch phrase thrown around by you and other pathetic excuses for public servants? About the only service related injury it appears you were ever in danger of was getting a blister on your ass from sitting behind a desk all those years.

Let me say that while I have never been a member of the armed services, I have several relatives and friends and associates who have or who are currently serving in various branches of the military. Members of my family served in both World Wars, in Korea, and in Vietnam. Perhaps if I didn't hold their contributions in such deep respect, your actions might not bother me the way they do. As it is, I don't think you could've shown a greater disrespect for Congressman Murtha if you'd been one of those urban-mythical war protesters who spit on GI's as they were returning from Vietnam.

Many are now suggesting that you make a public apology to the Congressman. However, now that I’ve seen your record, I'm not sure it would hold much weight to a man of his character and experience. In any case it wouldn't be enough. Instead, I think it's time to search among whatever tattered shreds you refer to as your "character" and while you're doing it, think about those words that thousands of Marines have lived and died for: honor, courage, commitment. While thinking about that, consider how for nothing more than 15 minutes of fame as part of a cheap political smear, you've insulted not only a fellow Marine, but the Corps and the uniform. Semper Fi is obviously a concept you cannot even grasp, let alone live by.

In past cultures, when a officer brought disgrace upon himself (and, by extension, his fellow officers), he was given a sword or a gun and was left alone to do “the honorable thing.” Because we now live in more enlightened times (perhaps unfortunately), the only honorable thing I can imagine for you to add one item to that military record you seem to take such pride in:   "2005 - Resigned commission for conduct unbecoming a Marine."

If this is too much to ask, there is one other alternative: you're still an active member of the Marine Reserve, so maybe it's time you learn to walk like you talk and get your cowardly ass on the next transport to Iraq. They need you there a lot more than we need another cheap hack politician here.

While I seriously doubt that you're still reading this, I do sincerely wish you courage in whatever decision you make. One way or another, you'll need it.


P.S. Next time you're inclined to take a cheap shot at a national hero like Congressman Murtha, be a man and do it to his face, OK? Don't send a woman to do it for you.

What They Could Never Kill

I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night, alive as you or me
Said I "but Joe, you're ten years dead,"
"I never died," said he....

In many respects, these words are true: Joe Hill, laborer, union organizer and songwriter, never died. Nevertheless, it was not ten, but rather 90 years ago today that a Utah firing squad ended Hill's mortal journey and set his spirit free. He had been convicted of the murder of a grocer who'd been killed the same night that Hill was shot by a man who thought Hill had insulted his wife. Without a motive, weapon, positive eyewitnesses, or evidence tying Hill to the scene of the murder, he was convicted of the crime and sentenced to death. Despite appeals from President Woodrow Wilson, AFL President Samuel Gompers, and the Swedish minister to the United States, the Utah Supreme Court refused to overturn the sentence.

Observing his last wish that he not be left in Utah, his body was taken to Chicago where, after a large funeral it was cremated. His ashes were then placed in envelopes and sent to every state in the Union (except for Utah) as well as countries around the world where they were scattered.

Just as his ashes encompassed the world, the song about him (thanks in large part to Joan Baez) has spread and inspired millions over the years, in concert halls, at festivals, marches, rallies, and most recently at demonstrations in Crawford and Washington DC.

Given his instructions against mourning, I don't know that he'd want any kind of commemoration at this time, so here is a poem that he wrote on the night before his execution. Rather than in dedication to his life, it is offered more in testament to the many -- a list that now includes Casey Sheehan -- whose deaths, while senseless and unnecessary, serve to remind us that the the forces of repression can only extinguish life, but not the spirit's ability to motivate and inspire.

Joe Hill's Last Will

My will is easy to decide,
For there is nothing to divide.
My kind don't need to fuss and moan --
"Moss does not cling to a rolling stone."
My body? Ah, If I could choose,
I would to ashes it reduce,
And let the merry breezes blow
My dust to where some flowers grow.

Perhaps some fading flower then
Would come to life and bloom again.
This is my last and final will.
Good luck to all of you.

Joe Hill's funeral, Chicago, IL

Three little words....

I've been waiting for someone to say this since the early days of the '04 campaign. It's so simple, so obvious. Malcolm would have told them "you've been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray." But none of those who cast a vote in favor of the war resolution seemed to get this and instead spent the campaign equivocating their way around the issue.

While Edwards' recognizes a small window for success and charts a solid course toward it, his expression that we can get out "honorably" is close enough to "peace with honor" and "stay the course" to warrant at least some degree of trepidation for now.

Still, he has shown the ability to put himself at the front of the '08 pack with this frank admission of culpability. At the very least, it'll be interesting to see who follows his lead.

The Right Way in Iraq
By John Edwards
Sunday, November 13, 2005
The Washington Post

I was wrong.

Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.

The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.

While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility, because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong -- and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.

The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.

George Bush won't accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace.

Because of these failures, Iraq is a mess and has become a far greater threat than it ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists, and our presence there is draining the goodwill our country once enjoyed, diminishing our global standing. It has made fighting the global war against terrorist organizations more difficult, not less.

The urgent question isn't how we got here but what we do now. We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. That means leaving behind a success, not a failure.

What is success? I don't think it is Iraq as a Jeffersonian democracy. I think it is an Iraq that is relatively stable, largely self-sufficient, comparatively open and free, and in control of its own destiny.

A plan for success needs to focus on three interlocking objectives: reducing the American presence, building Iraq's capacity and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help.

First, we need to remove the image of an imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq. American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq need to leave Iraq. If that means Halliburton subsidiary KBR, then KBR should go. Such departures, and the return of the work to Iraqi businesses, would be a real statement about our hopes for the new nation.

We also need to show Iraq and the world that we will not stay there forever. We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals. Therefore, early next year, after the Iraqi elections, when a new government has been created, we should begin redeployment of a significant number of troops out of Iraq. This should be the beginning of a gradual process to reduce our presence and change the shape of our military's deployment in Iraq. Most of these troops should come from National Guard or Reserve forces.

That will still leave us with enough military capability, combined with better-trained Iraqis, to fight terrorists and continue to help the Iraqis develop a stable country.

Second, this redeployment should work in concert with a more effective training program for Iraqi forces. We should implement a clear plan for training and hard deadlines for certain benchmarks to be met. To increase incentives, we should implement a schedule showing that, as we certify Iraqi troops as trained and equipped, a proportional number of U.S. troops will be withdrawn.

Third, we must launch a serious diplomatic process that brings the world into this effort. We should bring Iraq's neighbors and our key European allies into a diplomatic process to get Iraq on its feet. The president needs to create a unified international front.

Too many mistakes have already been made for this to be easy. Yet we must take these steps to succeed. The American people, the Iraqi people and -- most important -- our troops who have died or been injured there, and those who are fighting there today, deserve nothing less.

America's leaders -- all of us -- need to accept the responsibility we each carry for how we got to this place. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in this war, and more than 150,000 are fighting there today. They and their families deserve honesty from our country's leaders. And they also deserve a clear plan for a way out.

The writer, a former senator from North Carolina, was the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2004.