Comments on: UK'ers look away!

UK'ers look away!

telstar — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 14:09:56 -0800

UK Gags Media on Bush-Blair row over bombing al-Jazeera. In 2004 Bush and Blair got into a shouting match over bombing Al-Jazeera in Qatar, as Bush, in his pointy-headed non-wisdom, ached to do. The bombing didn't happen, and now the Blair gov't is threatening jounalists with prison if they print the story. One British journalist replies.

By: kablam

kablam — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 14:23:19 -0800

I would suspect that Bush had an intelligence summary that stated that al-Jazeera had operatives in place and was fully intent to broadcast as much useful tactical information about US troop deployments, movements and vulnerabilities as possible. By allowing al-Jazeera to broadcast this information, it could cost a large number of both US and British lives. While "an ally", the government of Qatar has shown no willingness to control, or otherwise inhibit al-Jazeera from airing such important information. So, as an alternative, should US forces have either technically interfered with al-Jazeera operations in Qatar, or should they have permitted vital information to fall into the hands of their enemy? I say this as speculation, which is what Bush and Blair were doing, and on hundreds of issues surrounding the conduct of the war, not just this one. On this one, there was apparently enough disagreement, so that a memorandum was taken, so that the British could re-examine the alternatives, and formulate arguments if they still believed it to be an unconscionable act. Whatever their eventual decision, it is a matter of state security for both nations that it not be discussed, and thus remained classified. So, by releasing such classified information, have the individuals concerned violated the law?

By: Malor

Malor — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 14:28:14 -0800

They have to know that a reaction this severe is going to raise very serious questions... something this draconian will set the media into a frenzy. Assuming they have any clue at all, and it would appear the British government has a few vestiges of intelligence left, this document must be incredibly damning. They have to believe that publication would be worse then the fallout from gagging newspapers and the ensuing speculation. They are, in other words, signaling their belief that it's worse than we can imagine. This will, of course, make us imagine things that are ten times worse.

By: muppetboy

muppetboy — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 14:29:13 -0800

Ironic, isn't it? If they'd just printed the story, everyone would have ignored it. But now with this gag order, it's going to be news that reaches everyone.

By: muppetboy

muppetboy — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 14:31:27 -0800

Since the gag order makes this the biggest news in a long time, you have to wonder if the effect isn't intentional... I bet in private that Tony Blair has long wanted to give George Bush the finger.

By: edd

edd — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 14:39:08 -0800

One British journalist replies? Boris Johnson is a Member of Parliament and not just some random journalist!

By: coyote's bark

coyote's bark — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 14:41:42 -0800

interesting enough.. without the gag order, this story had zero legs. now i'm almost sure that lil w does indeed have something to worry about. it's just fuxking sad that the the american people refuse to hold him and dick accountable. as a side note, Boris Johnson is not only a journalist, but a Member of Parliament as well. arf...

By: wilful

wilful — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 14:46:44 -0800

"technically interfered" Is that the new euphemism?

By: jellicle

jellicle — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 14:58:17 -0800

Let's be clear: Bush was considering an act of war against Qatar and the assassination of an unknown number of civilians because he disliked the press coverage broadcast by Al'Jazeera, the largest TV network in the Middle East. He had to be talked - shouted? - out of it by Tony Blair. This is not really in doubt. We know the memo exists and was highly classified; the British government has brought charges against the journalists who said they received it, which completely verifies the existence of the memo. So the only thing in doubt is whether these journalists are accurately reporting the contents of the memo. I highly doubt that they would lie about the contents - they have to expect that the memo will be public sooner or later. The memo exists and the description of it is accurate, with a probability very close to 1. Bush had to be talked out of starting an additional war against Qatar.

By: fire&wings

fire&wings — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:00:54 -0800

Member of Parliament?? Boris Johnson is a....eh...uhhh.. ..not just some Member of Parliament!

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:14:43 -0800

hearts and minds, kablam.

By: insomnia_lj

insomnia_lj — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:15:36 -0800

If the memo were not being accurately reported, you would think that the former MP whose office was handed the memo would say something to that effect... but he isn't. Rather, he said that the person who passed him the memo did exactly the right thing by doing so. Obviously, if it were just some kind of joke rather than a deadly serious document, he wouldn't feel that way. Also, the document is five pages long. If it was a joke, it would have the world's largest punchline ever, taking up a great portion of Bush and Blair's meeting.

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:27:09 -0800

*Burns flag*

By: telstar

telstar — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:39:07 -0800

Member of Parliament who is also a journalist? The US mind boggles. Here in the US, we could never elect a working journalist to a government post. Washed-up actors, however...

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:41:39 -0800

kablam writes "I would suspect that Bush had an intelligence summary that stated that al-Jazeera had operatives in place and was fully intent to broadcast as much useful tactical information about US troop deployments, movements and vulnerabilities as possible." If that were true, why hasn't anyone in the Bush (or Blair) administrations said so? That would surely take the heat off Bush. Indeed, if, as you suspect, Bush had such an intelligence summary, why didn't Bush act on it? Why didn't Bush follow through with an attack on al-Jazeera, in order to protect American troops? Or at least give a public ultimatum to al-Jazeera? There are I guess only a few alternatives:

Bush had such an intelligence summary, but disregarded it
1. rather than doing what would protect our troops, in order to placate his ally Blair,
2. or, Bush believed his intelligence was faulty (in which case, the question has to be raised, what's Bush done to fix our intelligence services since then?)
or, Bush didn't have the intelligence summary you hypothesize, but wanted to use the military to kill al-Jazeera employees within an allied country just because al-Jazeera embarrassed him politically.

So which is it? Is our intelligence worthless, does Bush not care about our soldiers, or is he wiling to use the military to kill to make his political position easier? Or is it all just a "joke", a joke so funny that the UK is threatening to jail anyone who tells it?

By: Keith Talent

Keith Talent — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:50:34 -0800

I know the Globe & Mail here in Canuckistan would push their grandmothers in front of a train in order to get ahold of the memo and publish it.

By: Skeptic

Skeptic — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:56:46 -0800

Not just a Member of Parliament, but a Conservative Member of Parliament too. But not really a journalist. The dilettante, loudmouth editor of a staunchly conservative opinion magazine, rather. Kind of "PJ O'Rourke joins the Drones Club" character.

By: Skeptic

Skeptic — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:00:13 -0800

By: mischief

mischief — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:09:43 -0800

Further proof in my book that Bush's biggest mistake in Iraq was in continuing with an overt war after capturing Hussein. After that point, Shrub boy should have pulled out every National Guardsman, and turned this into a covert war. He had had more than enough time to get the CIA ready for such a role, but he just plain fucking blew it. "Bomb Fox News!" Heheh, I like that one.

By: gompa

gompa — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:30:01 -0800

I would suspect that Bush had an intelligence summary that stated that al-Jazeera had operatives in place and was fully intent to broadcast as much useful tactical information about US troop deployments, movements and vulnerabilities as possible. Okay, show's over, kids. kablam's got a vague suspicion based on no apparent evidence whatsoever that Bush had a good reason to want to blow up the headquarters of a major TV network in a nation that has provided enormous material and logistical support to America's military adventures in the Middle East. That's all the proof I need. Oh, and in all this talk of Boris Johnson's extraordinary dual role as both journalist and MP, I'm afraid we may forget the truly remarkable thing about his comment, which is that it contains the phrase "shouty-crackers arguments." Which is simply a fabulous phrase, and deserves our best smarty-think analysis in response.

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:33:48 -0800

I like the scare quotes around "ally", myself.

By: Len

Len — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:45:30 -0800

kablam: By "operatives" – a phrase with plenty of negative connotations – do you mean "journalists"? Or are the two terms now interchangeable?

By: spinoza

spinoza — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:09:54 -0800

The ban is spreading - the last person who posted on this subject lost his account almost immediately!

By: twiggy

twiggy — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:36:34 -0800

Am I the only one who finds it amusing that the guy jumping in first to defend the concept of bombing al-jazeera (even if it's in an allied country) is named "kablam"? Just sayin'.

By: flashboy

flashboy — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:53:53 -0800

Not just any Member of Parliament, but this Member of Parliament... (He has a blog too, by the by.)

By: patricio

patricio — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:02:38 -0800

But not really a journalist. The dilettante, loudmouth editor of a staunchly conservative opinion magazine, rather. Kind of "PJ O'Rourke joins the Drones Club" character. and not nearly as nice as that makes him sound

By: leftcoastbob

leftcoastbob — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:06:39 -0800

I guess that I don't have much of a military mind, but this makes absolutely no sense to me: I would suspect that Bush had an intelligence summary that stated that al-Jazeera had operatives in place and was fully intent to broadcast as much useful tactical information about US troop deployments, movements and vulnerabilities as possible. I guess that if I were one of these nefarious "operatives," I would secretly let the covert "operatives" know about the troop deployments, movements, etc--not broadcast them from the fucking television station. Unless they are really stupid "operatives." Unless you are trying to say that Bush's intelligence summary was wrong and that it's good that Blair prevailed? Maybe I'll go back to my leftover turkey. My head is starting to hurt from all this.

By: RMALCOLM

RMALCOLM — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:07:22 -0800

Two points to consider: Blair has been accused of blindly obeying anything Bush tells him to do and of blowing a huge opportunity to alter the course of this war from the beginning when British Intel differed from that of the U.S. Secondly, if I recall, Al Jazeera was started by the Emir of Qatar, who continues to sponsor it and host its headquarters. The huge US base in Qatar, an essential component of the US effort in Iraq, is located in that country at the pleasure of that same Emir.

By: John Shaft

John Shaft — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:12:45 -0800

BoJo isn't just a Conservative Member of Parliament, but the world's favourite Tory.

By: sien

sien — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:17:55 -0800

gompa: 'shouty-crackers' is a really nice bit of language. Now, to find places to use it.

By: insomnia_lj

insomnia_lj — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:18:48 -0800

Sounds to me like Blair has been playing the Jeeves to Bush's Wooster. Bush: I say, Tony. These news reports are so slanted. They just create more enemies... why don't we drop a few bombs on al Jazeera? Just bomb them! Blair: (Brushes Bush's suit, lets out discomforting cough.) I'm not sure that would be entirely prudent, Sir... Actually, it must be hard on Blair when Bush confuses him with the help.

By: Civil_Disobedient

Civil_Disobedient — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:27:59 -0800

This is completely fucked up. If anything, Blair looks like a complete idiot for blocking the release, since it (amazingly) portrays him as the voice of reason.

By: Balisong

Balisong — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:28:40 -0800

Kablam - US forces have either technically interfered with al-Jazeera operations in Qatar Does that mean rain down flaming death in a storm of shock and awe?

By: bashos_frog

bashos_frog — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:47:57 -0800

The huge US base in Qatar, an essential component of the US effort in Iraq, is located in that country at the pleasure of that same Emir Now, I'm as against this illegal war as anyone, and I detest the idiot son of a bitch in the White House, but how exactly do you think the Emir would get the U.S. army out of his country if they decided that they didn't want to leave?

By: homunculus

homunculus — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:49:33 -0800

Two down, three to go

By: furtive

furtive — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:55:19 -0800

Bah, The Right Honourable Joe Clark was a member of parliament, and conservative, and a journalist (Calgary Harald Sports writer) AND he was Canada's 16th Prime Minister.

By: cillit bang

cillit bang — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:00:56 -0800

How exactly do you think the Emir would get the U.S. army out of his country if they decided that they didn't want to leave? I believe he would ask politely. Saying no would more or less be a declaration of war between the US and Qatar, analogous to Saddam invading Kuwait. It would never happen.

By: eriko

eriko — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:10:59 -0800

It would never happen. Never say that when Bush is involved.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:41:35 -0800

Why doesn't someone there just send it here? We can print it. They've done us the favor of revealing much our own media doesn't print---we can return the favor.

By: ZenMasterThis

ZenMasterThis — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:47:34 -0800

For that matter why doesn't someone just post it on one of them newfangled blog thingies?

By: CynicalKnight

CynicalKnight — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:57:40 -0800

The Right Honourable Joe Clark Joe who?

By: Balisong

Balisong — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:58:38 -0800

It would never happen. Never say that when Bush is involved. posted by eriko at 7:10 PM PST on November 24 [!] Why does Bush proclamations always seem to go this way? Whenever I see any quote in print, I look to the news organizations of operations (conservative and liberal) and they seem to immediately point to something that flies-in-the-face or completely contradicts what he just said. This can't be on purpose, can it?

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:09:07 -0800

What's interesting is that anyone, anywhere is willing to believe this. It says a great deal about this President, all of it bad. I believe it because I believe he's both that stupid and that vindictive.

By: rodney stewart

rodney stewart — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:12:17 -0800

the key thing to remember here however is that Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is a 100% bona fide twat.

By: Aknaton

Aknaton — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:51:18 -0800

Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is a 100% bona fide twat. According to your link, which has a dandy random quote generator by the way,

Boris Johnson is, frankly, the mutt's nads. And anyone of that calibre needs to be watched.

I get that he's genitalia, but what type??

By: insomnia_lj

insomnia_lj — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:03:48 -0800

It certainly shows a great degree of vindictiveness and hubris on the part of the president for even threatening such an attack. All he needs is two fingers of single-malt scotch and GWB would be going into hateful, paranoid rants like Nixon circa '74. Hell, he might not even need that...

By: pompomtom

pompomtom — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:30:39 -0800

I get that he's genitalia, but what type?? Mutt's nads = dog's bollocks = good.

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:44:12 -0800

I would suspect that Bush had an intelligence summary that stated that al-Jazeera had operatives in place and was fully intent to broadcast as much useful tactical information about US troop deployments, movements and vulnerabilities as possible. posted by kablam at 2:23 PM PST on November 24 Okay, in all seriousness, this is the stupidest thing I have read in like a month; you should hope that bevets posts something soon or you're going to be stuck with this record for a long while. No one broadcasts tactical information. It's much more useful if your enemy doesn't know you know their movements. You could learn that from playing fucking Warcraft, dude.

By: c13

c13 — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:27:06 -0800

I would suspect that Bush had an intelligence summary that stated that al-Jazeera had operatives in place and was fully intent to broadcast as much useful tactical information about US troop deployments, movements and vulnerabilities as possible. Why the fuck would you suspect that? After we bombed the shit out of a country, according to the same guy and his intelligence summary, had WMDs. Do you not learn?

By: 235w103

235w103 — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 23:38:33 -0800

You could learn that from playing fucking Warcraft, dude. Game. Set. Match.

By: Boris Johnson

Boris Johnson — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:06:56 -0800

What Ho chaps. Thanks for the comments, but I'd rather you discussed my more important features. My shock of blonde hair, my love of nonsensical posh meanderings, my hatred of the liverpudlian. This really is a bit of a storm in a teacup. As I was saying to Old Davy Camers the other day, that's a line I'd never sniff. I mean cross. Oh Golly... I've done it again.

By: warbaby

warbaby — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:33:07 -0800

Could one of the cousins across the lake please explain "shouty-crackers?" I mean, we Yanks have a little bit of difficulty figuring out why "dog's breakfast" is bad and "dog's bollocks" is good. In exchange and in the spirit of trans-Atlantic cooperation, I will gladly explain "shit from shinola."

By: Boris Johnson

Boris Johnson — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:38:59 -0800

Ahah Shouty Crackers means Shouting in a Crackers (as in crazy) way. I think. Maybe. Not feeling myself at the moment old bean.

By: warbaby

warbaby — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:45:23 -0800

You know, I would trust that answer if it came from anyone but Boris Johnson.

By: vbfg

vbfg — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 01:14:03 -0800

This is completely fucked up. If anything, Blair looks like a complete idiot for blocking the release, since it (amazingly) portrays him as the voice of reason. It makes it a bigger story and he gets to look misguidedly loyal in the process.

By: Good Sir Johnny

Good Sir Johnny — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 02:13:14 -0800

Boris Johnson is a nation treasure, the last of a dying breed, an utterly likeable toff, and spoilt daddy's boy, he even has his own magazine to play with when he's not an MP. Thing is he's also one of the few recognisable and likeable tories, in fact on of two, him and Ken Clarke. Good for Johnson for being defiant. Al Jazera is not a funsamentalist mouth piece, anyone thiinking so, as i used to, should watch the documentary 'Control Room'. Why are they disliked, because they showed what the US would very much prefer no-one saw, dead people, not soldiers, people... Kablam, i hereby declare you to be a threat to my freedom and dispatch cruise missiles in your general direction. Everyone else run to the hills, the loonies are in control...

By: biffa

biffa — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 02:40:52 -0800

The original link is from Wednesday's guardian, here is another front page article from Thursday.

By: drill_here_fore_seismics

drill_here_fore_seismics — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 03:02:19 -0800

I would suspect that Bush had an intelligence summary that stated that al-Jazeera had ~~operatives~~ reporters in place and was fully intent to broadcast as much ~~useful tactical~~ news information about US troop deployments, movements and vulnerabilities as possible. Have you seen the documentary on al-jazeera, Control Room? They might not report what the western world predominantly does, in the way the western world predominantly does, but they are a news organisation, trying to provide for the needs of their audience. George Bush (and Blair) should try watching it instead of bombing it, especially if they want to get the arab perspective on the Iraq war, and other western activities iin the gulf. On Preview: what Good Sir Johnny said (except that Boris Johnson is an over privileged twit, who has far too much in common with Rod Liddle to be considered a national treasure).

By: funambulist

funambulist — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 03:46:49 -0800

except that Boris Johnson is an over privileged twit Well at least he doesn't control an army. I don't care who the messenger is, when the message is dead on. Also props to him for recalling the Serb TV bombing. I seem to recall it killed more than just two people though?

By: funambulist

funambulist — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 03:52:19 -0800

Indeed, sixteen people were killed, so, not just "two make up girls"...

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 03:57:12 -0800

i'm really disappointed the bbc has nothing on this.

By: Blip

Blip — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 04:09:12 -0800

Boris de Pfeffel Johnson is a 100% bona fide twat I can't stand toffs myself, but I think Boris is bloody marvellous. Even better than Borat.

By: bouncebounce

bouncebounce — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 04:26:59 -0800

andrew cooke: i'm really disappointed the bbc has nothing on this. The BBC have been spinelessly dancing around this for the past day or so, only mentioning that there's some memo that we aren't allowed to talk about and some people have been arrested and charged un the Official Secrets Act. The BBC has blown its intestinal fortitude since Hutton. I'd hope that there's little chance that a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act would succeed because it's nothing to do with national security, merely political embarrassment. I'm just about as politically opposed to conservatism as one could be but you gotta love old BoJo. Why hasn't the memo been posted on the net by persons unknown, that's question I want answered. There have to be a few copies around by now.

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 04:50:19 -0800

according to the channel 4 newsletter (jon snow): [...] secret memos involving Bush and Blair, the content, or some of it, already appears to have surfaced in the Sunday Times. when i search at their site, the third hit for "al jazeera" is a comment on the 20th (sunday, i think). however, that comment (which you have to sign up to read) has no mention of anything related to this (it's something about labelling the latest generation of irish children...).

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 04:54:02 -0800

oh, ok. now i've found the bbc article (thanks!) it was in may last year.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 05:07:53 -0800

drill_here_fore_seismics: "George Bush (and Blair) should try watching it instead of bombing it, especially if they want to get the arab perspective on the Iraq war, and other western activities iin the gulf." What's needed is less 'arab perspective,' and less arabs in general, in 'the gulf.' They've caused enough trouble since they invaded it and forced their islam on everybody. It's not their gulf, anyhow. Perhaps we should remember what it's called.

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 05:32:17 -0800

Is Mr. Chuckletrousers going all shouty crackers any time soon? I'd pay to see that.

By: drill_here_fore_seismics

drill_here_fore_seismics — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 05:43:39 -0800

Perhaps we should remember what it's called. George Bush isn't that fond of Persia either though, is he?

By: Good Sir Johnny

Good Sir Johnny — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 05:44:10 -0800

koselitz- What's needed is less 'arab perspective,' and less arabs in general, in 'the gulf.' They've caused enough trouble since they invaded it and forced their islam on everybody. It's not their gulf, anyhow. Perhaps we should remember what it's called Err, sorry to be dumb, sarcasm, irony or genuine? Sorry its just you could be for real? Or taking the piss, satire is dead, how are we to know these days? Join me all and play Sarcasm, Irony or Genuine. I say Irony... Besides, Arabs like being invaded, especially by christians, why else would they do it so much?

By: twistedonion

twistedonion — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 05:47:31 -0800

What's needed is less 'arab perspective,' and less arabs in general, in 'the gulf.' They've caused enough trouble since they invaded it and forced their islam on everybody. It's not their gulf, anyhow. Perhaps we should remember what it's called. This is sarcasm right? Erase 1300 years of History because you don't like a religious group... Don't be such a bigoted rascist for fucks sake (if indeed you are being serious). Are you going to demand the removal of Americans from America, English from Britain (and let the Welsh have it back), Australians from Australia, Jews from Israel, Christianity from Africa... How long does a culture have to exist in an area for it to be bona-fide? Yes, it is the Persian Gulf, so what? What is your implication here - that we must free the poor Persians from the shackles of Islam? I'm sure the Iranians would welcome you with open arms. Why don't you head over and suggest that.

By: Good Sir Johnny

Good Sir Johnny — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 05:51:40 -0800

How long does a culture have to exist in an area for it to be bona-fide? Longer than that, right everyone, back into the trees, go on, and you, i don't care if you don't have a tail anymore, its your own fault, shouldn't have been so keen to evolve and "invade" the ground should you. Yeah not so clever now. AND GET THOSE FUCKING CLOTHES OFF YOU PANSY!!! if we're gonna be extremist lets at least be inventive with it.

By: twistedonion

twistedonion — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:08:34 -0800

if we're gonna be extremist lets at least be inventive with it. ha ha ha, love it. The Devolution Party - Beacuse Evolution is just so damn invasive!

By: Good Sir Johnny

Good Sir Johnny — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:20:44 -0800

From now on no-one is to use their thumbs, it is hoped with time they will cease to be imposable... And cousins should marry whenever possible...

By: drill_here_fore_seismics

drill_here_fore_seismics — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:22:23 -0800

right everyone, back into the trees...shouldn't have been so keen to evolve and "invade" the ground should you The Trees!!?? What kind of lily livered compromise is that? Get back into the sea the lot of you!

By: grahamwell

grahamwell — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:44:37 -0800

Al Jazeera's Blog and Flickr site. Not surprisingly they don't find this very funny. Al-Jazeera personnel in Doha, Qatar, and in all of the channel's foreign bureaus stopped work for 15 minutes in a symbolic protest at reports that President Bush made the suggestion during talks with Tony Blair at the White House in April 2004 More from the Times.

By: fungible

fungible — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:45:21 -0800

So now can we impeach these bastards? No? Shit.

By: Good Sir Johnny

Good Sir Johnny — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 06:59:36 -0800

Not till they get their cocks sucked and get caught, you know something really bad. Fortunately for us these guys are too busy plotting to assasinate the free press for any kind of sexual shinanigans. phew...

By: invisible_al

invisible_al — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:18:16 -0800

Al-Jazeera demands 'US bomb' memo, finally this story gains a bit of traction on the BBC. Not on the front page but it's a start.

By: atrazine

atrazine — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:30:20 -0800

twisted onion: The arabs call it the Arabian Gulf, and don't like it one bit when you call it the Persian Gulf. Similarly, Iranians go batshit insane if you accidently say "Arabian Gulf", I've heard of contract negotiations being broken off because the wrong word was used deep inside a 500 page document.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:40:04 -0800

Shorter kablam: How dare you question Dear Leader!!

By: twistedonion

twistedonion — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:42:26 -0800

Atrazine: i know that. My comment was in response to koeselitz who commented "It's not their gulf, anyhow. Perhaps we should remember what it's called." According to the UN it's official term is Persian Gulf. I was trying to get Koeselitz to explain what he had meant by that comment, that's all.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 08:42:49 -0800

Hey, there's nothing small, whimpering and petty about the whole gulf name dispute (or Korea's complaint about the Sea of Japan for that matter). Just look at the screaming hissy fits we have when someone calls the body of water on the southern U.S. coast the "Gulf of Mexico".

By: LeisureGuy

LeisureGuy — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 08:47:31 -0800

At one time the British gag order on publication of information about such things would work, but now any Brit with an Internet collection can browse for info that is published in other countries. The cat is out of the bag in a big way.

By: muppetboy

muppetboy — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:07:11 -0800

It's not called the Gulf of Mexico?

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:47:14 -0800

Is there anything more satisfying than getting in something really, really, really stupid as the first post and then fleeing the thread like a coward? I would imagine not, because there are a lot of people who love it.

By: stumcg

stumcg — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:54:24 -0800

any Brit with an Internet collection can browse for info that is published in other countries Very true... sadly not so much this time as it doesn't seem to have surfaced anywhere online... yet.

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:20:44 -0800

bbc now has better coverage.

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:23:26 -0800

(presumably if this does get onto the net it will be available on al jazeera's home page as soon as it is available anywhere).

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:25:59 -0800

why doesn't aljazeera have a space or hyphen after "al"? (or rather, why do western sources seem to add it?).

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:16:14 -0800

From the first link: "The prosecution has to prove the disclosure was damaging." To whom? I don't see how this makes the U.K. government look bad. Certainly potentially damaging to U.S. relations, but that would be subject to change the next election cycle I'd think. Does the U.K. have anything analogous to the protection of free speech we have in the US? (Or rather - I know it does, but wouldn't it cover this?)

By: quarsan

quarsan — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 11:18:08 -0800

Well we're backing Boris Johnson's desire to publish the memo by saying we will support him and are asking other bloggers to publish it if Boris or anyone gets a copy of it. self link about our call to bloggers. See you in Gitmo.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:19:38 -0800

If Bush was Joking, Why is Blair Panicking?--...If that good-natured, wacky cut-up George Bush was just joshing, then a) why was his proposition – and Blair's attempts to talk him out of it – included in an official memo; and b) why is the British government going to such great lengths – invoking a gag order and threats of criminalization against anyone who might leak the memo's contents – to squash it? The answers to those questions include the possibility that there are other things in other memos, both about Bush's idiocy and Blair's restraining hand. ...

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 16:39:27 -0800

Boris Johnson just admitted whilst hosting Have I Got News For You that he tried cocaine in his younger days. He said he managed to sneeze and lose the line altogether. True to form as a bit of a duffer who is only accidentally funny he missed the punchline altogether: he should have said "I didn't inhale"...

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 18:44:36 -0800

...-- the apparent plot to bomb Al-Jazeera has apparently seriously annoyed the ruling family in Qatar. Not only is Qatar an ally of the U.S., but it has one of the less objectionable regimes in that part of the world: not at all democratic, but not kleptocratic, either, and with a strong liberalizing tendency. (Women were allowed to vote in elections for local councils last year.) Apparently the Qataris read the situation as any reasonable person would: if the leak of the document is prosecutable under the Official Secrets Act, then the document itself must be genuine. ...

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:43:30 -0800

This Channel 4 video has several interesting interviews (so that's what a real news show is like), including one with Al Jazeera's managing director. I think this is the original Mirror article.