The Furious Spinner

This editorial review in the London Sunday Times gives a good summary of what the Downing Street Memo shows. For one, the Emperor was dropping bombs on Iraq long before Congress said he could go to war. "No bombs were dropped on southern Iraq in March 2002 but by July, with the 'spikes of activity' in full flow, about 10 tons of bombs were being dropped a month. The problem was that the Iraqis didn’t retaliate. They didn’t provide the excuse Bush and Blair needed.

"So at the end of August the allies started the air war anyway. The number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq shot up to 54.6 tons in September alone...

"...They show that Bush and Blair began their war, not in March 2003 as most believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Bush received his congressional backing, and more than two months before the UN vote."

It'll be interesting to see if any of the corporate media covers the John Conyers hearing on the Downing Street Memo or his march to the White House to give the Emperor the petition demanding answers to his questions about the memo. (You can still sign his petition if you haven't already.)

P.S. To my British friends out there: I've noticed lately that The Guardian doesn't seem to be covering the Iraq war or the Downing Street Memo. Am I wrong? Has it changed or am I just clueing into something I missed before? What is the best source for true international news from London? The Times? 2 comments

2 Comments:

Hi Kim.

Although The Times (London) broke the DSM story, I wouldn't recommend it as a good source of news. Remember, as a Murdoch organ (urgh), it's a 'sister' to Fox News. Makes you wonder why Murdoch let them publish the DSM in the first place...

In terms of other British news sources I would say that the Guardian(http://www.guardian.co.uk/) is the best progressive paper.

On Sunday, the Guardian becomes The Observer (http://observer.guardian.co.uk).

The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/) is just as good, if not better (i.e. less beholden to Labour), but you have to pay to read the articles by Robert Fisk (The Indie is always on the verge of bancruptcy and their circulation is tiny, so you have to forgive them). Fisk is the best Iraq reporter I know of and just about every prediction he has ever made has been right on the nail.

The BBC website (http://www.news.bbc.co.uk) is OK - but their journalism is usually based on 'accepted truths' (e.g. they went along with 'Saddam's hidden WMD' for ages) and, in any case, they are so tied to their political masters that they often couch their language in the most bland terms.

Finally, The Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk), although a right wing paper, often has some good journalism. Just don't read the editorials!

By  Jason, at 1:08 AM  

Thanks, Jason. I forgot about Murdoch. Bleck. I guess I'll keep my eye on the Guardian, as usual, but they seem to be dropping the ball--unless the Brits aren't really all that upset about this? It's nice to hear from you again. I think something is strange with my computer because I kept checking your 'blog for months and there hadn't been anything new for a long time, but when I just went to the link you have on your name (here) it went to new stuff. I can't wait to read them all. Hope you and your sweeties are all doing great.

By  kim, at 4:36 PM  

Post a Comment

All photographs and written material copyright © 2003-2008 by Kim Antieau unless otherwise indicated. May not be used without permission.