A British MP helped pass the al-Jazeera memo to a Democrat in the States, hoping to influence the 2004 election against Bush. The memo details how Dubya told Tony Blair he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera hq in Qatar, a nation friendly to the US. One would think Democratic leadership would speedily and happily use information like this. But no, in a mind-numbingly stupid decision, they decided it might help Bush…
Liverpool MP Peter Kilfoyle could be jailed for two years after admitting passing on secret details of George Bush’s threat to bomb al-Jaazeera TV station.
Now Mr Kilfoyle has revealed Mr Clarke told him of the memo’s contents. The Walton MP in turn passed them on to John Latham, a Democrat supporter living in California.
He hoped to influence the looming 2004 US election, but the memo was not revealed in the US because Democrats feared the revelation would be a vote-winner for President Bush.
What will it take for Democratic leadership to grow a spine? Videos of Dubya smoking crack with bin Laden while cavorting with 16 yr. old hookers? What WERE they thinking? Let me guess.They ‘thought’ (and I use the word ‘thought’ charitably), if we go public with this, then the neocons will scream that we love the terrorists and hate freedom and that would be very scary and we might actually have to fight, so let’s just slink back into our little mouse holes and pretend to be an opposition instead. Squeak, squeak, squeak.
The Democratic leadership is not the mainstream. The Democratic populace is way more engaged, outraged, and ready for action than their leaders. That’s the cruz of the Democratic dilemma, the disconnect between those running things in DC and the rest of the party. A conspiracy theorist might say this shows Dem leadership are Republican operatives, but I say it just proves the old adage, ‘never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.’
My question, as always, is why was he passing this information on to “John Latham,” whoever the heck he is? What’s the matter with Amy Goodman? Aside from the fact that she would have actually made the story public, she’s a journalist who has the “right” to protect her sources, something I assume that this John Latham isn’t and doesn’t.
There’s something very strange about this story.