THE PROGRESS REPORT
by Judd Legum, Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney,
Mipe Okunseinde and Christy Harvey
June 13, 2005
IRAQ
British Briefing Papers Revealed
CORPORATE POWER
Community Internet Under Attack
UNDER THE RADAR
For news and updates throughout the day, check out our blog at ThinkProgress.org.
Sign up Contact us Permalinks/Archive Mobile RSS Print
IRAQ
British Briefing Papers Revealed
The Washington Post reported this weekend on more secret British memos, including an eight page paper written in July 2002, approximately around the time of the Downing Street Minutes, that warned the Bush administration had given "little thought" to "the aftermath [of war in Iraq] and how to shape it." The American Progress Action Fund obtained the series of memos written by high-level British officials and has revealed their full text this morning. Although the Post's coverage of the memos focused on the British warnings that Bush lacked a post-war plan for Iraq, the Briefing Papers also shed further light on the key allegation in the Downing Street Minutes – that the intelligence on Iraq was being "fixed." The newly released documents show that the Bush administration was indeed selling the Iraq war based on evidence it knew was weak.
PRE-WAR INTELLIGENCE WAS KNOWN TO BE WEAK: The Downing Street Minutes alleged that the intelligence on Iraq was being "fixed" around Bush's policy of attacking Iraq. Recent media spin surrounding the Minutes has sought to argue that when the British wrote "fixed," they actually meant something other than "manipulated." The new Briefing Papers reveal that the British knew the Iraq intelligence was weak, further suggesting that the definition of "fixed" is what most have read it to mean all along. The Iraq: Options Paper noted, "There is no greater threat now that [Saddam] will use WMD than there has been in recent years, so continuing containment is an option." British Foreign Office Political Director Peter Ricketts wrote, "US is scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al [Qaida] is so far frankly unconvincing." British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said, "There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL [Usama bin Laden] and Al Qaida."
BRIEFING PAPERS REPEATEDLY WARNED THAT BUSH WAS FAILING TO PLAN FOR IRAQ: The Post writes of a July 2002 memo that warned the Bush administration had given "little thought" to "the aftermath [of war in Iraq] and how to shape it." The claims in the newly uncovered Briefing Papers demonstrate that the Bush administration, to the detriment of our troops and national security, simply chose to ignore the recommendations of its key ally. Bush similarly chose to ignore the State Department, which also foresaw the problems the U.S. has encountered in Iraq. In August 2003, the Joint Chiefs of Staff prepared a secret report that confirmed what the British and the State Department had predicted. The report entitled, "Operation Iraqi Freedom Strategic Lessons Learned," blamed "setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war-planning process that 'limited the focus' for preparing for post-Saddam Hussein operations."
WHITE HOUSE SPIN CONTRADICTS BUSH: The White House has gone into full spin mode on the revelations of the British papers. "There was significant post war planning," said spokesman David Almacy. "More importantly, the memo in question was written eight months before the war began; there was significant post war planning in the time that elapsed." President Bush, however, in an interview he gave to the New York Times last August, admitted he made "a miscalculation of what the conditions would be" in post-war Iraq.
BLAIR'S ADVISER WARNED THAT BUSH WAS NOT PREPARED FOR WAR: In a paper written to Prime Minister Blair on 3/14/02, David Manning – Blair's former foreign policy adviser and current British ambassador to the U.S. – wrote about a meeting he had with Condi Rice. He reported, "Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions: how to persuade international opinion that military action against Iraq is necessary and justified; what value to put on the exiled Iraqi opposition; how to coordinate a US/allied military campaign with internal opposition (assuming there is any); what happens on the morning after?" In a dire prediction of what came about, Manning wrote: "I think there is a real risk that the Administration underestimates the difficulties."
BRITISH COULD NOT UNDERSTAND BUSH'S RUSH TO ATTACK IRAQ: Underlying the Briefing Papers is a sense that the British did not know the true motivations driving the Bush administration's Iraq policy. "Military operations need clear and compelling military objectives," wrote the British Foreign Office Political Director Peter Ricketts. "For Iraq, 'regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge match between Bush and Saddam." A British paper entitled "Iraq: Options Paper" sought to further understand Bush's motivations. "The US has lost confidence in containment. Some in government want Saddam removed. The success of Operation Enduring Freedom, distrust of UN sanctions and inspection regimes, and unfinished business from 1991 are all factors."
CORPORATE POWER
Community Internet Under Attack
Though outgoing FCC Chairman Michael Powell may find it funny to joke about "a Mercedes divide," the ever increasing gap "between those who have access to information technology and digital content and those who do not" is no laughing matter. Now the battle to close the digital divide has spilled onto another front – the fight for free municipal broadband services. After last year's Supreme Court ruling that states can bar "cities from offering high-speed Internet services," lobbyists from the telecommunications industry swarmed on state capitals with one singular purpose: "to take cities out of the broadband business by state dictum." Telecom enjoyed some initial success until anti-municipal Internet bills failed in three straight states – Iowa, Florida, and Texas. The ever determined industry then set upon "an outrageous attempt ... to protect their duopoly over broadband from competition" with the help of one of their own. Doing their shilling on the steps of Congress is Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), a former employee of Southwestern Bell, who recently introduced legislation that "would extend the ban on municipal broadband services to every city in the country." Send a letter to your representatives telling them to oppose the Sessions bill.
THE SOCIOECONOMIC DIVIDE ON BROADBAND: Similar to the gap seen in basic Internet access, there is a vast divide between socioeconomic classes when it comes to high-speed Internet access. A recent report found that "virtually every rural state remains underserved and uncompetitive" while "in urban areas, many families are priced out of the market." Telecom giants "have failed to bridge the digital divide and opted to serve the most lucrative markets at the expense of universal, affordable access." One expert compared such high-speed Internet access inequity to "having the moderate and upper classes in IMAX theatres, while the underprivileged are still watching silent movies."
THE CASE FOR COMMUNITY INTERNET: Over the course of our nation's history, municipalities have played a key role in "building and maintaining critical infrastructure." Therefore, a chief claim made by opponents of municipal broadband – that local governments are incapable of running complex broadband systems – is a statement that "defies history and the experiences of daily life." Also, municipalities care about more than profits and do not "enjoy a wealth of state and federal subsidies" and other perks thrown at telecom giants. Local governments, which are "accountable to local citizens [and] understand their own needs," can "provide needed broadband services designed to address community needs" rather than just the bottom line. Municipal networks will "provide the competition necessary to keep rates low and quality of service high" as well as "increase investment in local communities." Other developed nations that have surpassed America in providing broadband access not only permit but oftentimes encourage "local governments to build out broadband networks."
INNOVATORS NO MORE: Though President Bush would like to celebrate the increased accessibility of the Internet, over the first three years of the Bush administration, the nation "dropped from 4th to 13th place in global rankings of broadband Internet usage and the latest mobile-phone technology." Once considered a leader of innovation, the United States is being outdone by many other industrialized nations that are "positioning themselves to be the first states to reap the benefits of the broadband era: economic growth, increased productivity, and a better quality of life." In fact, broadband service is seen as "essential to economic development." As broadband "becomes a necessary utility for commerce, education and healthcare," high-speed Internet services will be as critical to a nation's infrastructure as water pipelines and electricity grids or schools and hospitals.
THE CASE AGAINST CORPORATE-ONLY BROADBAND: Desperate to maintain their monopoly, telecom giants have "done their best to demonize" municipal broadband projects, launching "an aggressive lobbying and misinformation campaign." Earlier this year, Verizon, which successfully blocked Pennsylvania residents from obtaining low-cost Internet access without its permission, "circulated ... to lawmakers, journalists and opinion leaders" a so-called fact sheet that was chock full of erroneous statistics on the " "'failures' of public broadband." In actuality, "municipal broadband has been a success for those communities that have begun offering service ... [and] the propaganda maligning municipal systems is nothing more than industry-sponsored folklore." All their shadowy lobbying work obscures the fact that "the commercial broadband market has not only failed to bring affordable access in 2005, it is nowhere close."
Mipe Okunseinde and Christy Harvey
June 13, 2005
IRAQ
British Briefing Papers Revealed
CORPORATE POWER
Community Internet Under Attack
UNDER THE RADAR
For news and updates throughout the day, check out our blog at ThinkProgress.org.
Sign up Contact us Permalinks/Archive Mobile RSS Print
IRAQ
British Briefing Papers Revealed
The Washington Post reported this weekend on more secret British memos, including an eight page paper written in July 2002, approximately around the time of the Downing Street Minutes, that warned the Bush administration had given "little thought" to "the aftermath [of war in Iraq] and how to shape it." The American Progress Action Fund obtained the series of memos written by high-level British officials and has revealed their full text this morning. Although the Post's coverage of the memos focused on the British warnings that Bush lacked a post-war plan for Iraq, the Briefing Papers also shed further light on the key allegation in the Downing Street Minutes – that the intelligence on Iraq was being "fixed." The newly released documents show that the Bush administration was indeed selling the Iraq war based on evidence it knew was weak.
PRE-WAR INTELLIGENCE WAS KNOWN TO BE WEAK: The Downing Street Minutes alleged that the intelligence on Iraq was being "fixed" around Bush's policy of attacking Iraq. Recent media spin surrounding the Minutes has sought to argue that when the British wrote "fixed," they actually meant something other than "manipulated." The new Briefing Papers reveal that the British knew the Iraq intelligence was weak, further suggesting that the definition of "fixed" is what most have read it to mean all along. The Iraq: Options Paper noted, "There is no greater threat now that [Saddam] will use WMD than there has been in recent years, so continuing containment is an option." British Foreign Office Political Director Peter Ricketts wrote, "US is scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al [Qaida] is so far frankly unconvincing." British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said, "There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL [Usama bin Laden] and Al Qaida."
BRIEFING PAPERS REPEATEDLY WARNED THAT BUSH WAS FAILING TO PLAN FOR IRAQ: The Post writes of a July 2002 memo that warned the Bush administration had given "little thought" to "the aftermath [of war in Iraq] and how to shape it." The claims in the newly uncovered Briefing Papers demonstrate that the Bush administration, to the detriment of our troops and national security, simply chose to ignore the recommendations of its key ally. Bush similarly chose to ignore the State Department, which also foresaw the problems the U.S. has encountered in Iraq. In August 2003, the Joint Chiefs of Staff prepared a secret report that confirmed what the British and the State Department had predicted. The report entitled, "Operation Iraqi Freedom Strategic Lessons Learned," blamed "setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war-planning process that 'limited the focus' for preparing for post-Saddam Hussein operations."
WHITE HOUSE SPIN CONTRADICTS BUSH: The White House has gone into full spin mode on the revelations of the British papers. "There was significant post war planning," said spokesman David Almacy. "More importantly, the memo in question was written eight months before the war began; there was significant post war planning in the time that elapsed." President Bush, however, in an interview he gave to the New York Times last August, admitted he made "a miscalculation of what the conditions would be" in post-war Iraq.
BLAIR'S ADVISER WARNED THAT BUSH WAS NOT PREPARED FOR WAR: In a paper written to Prime Minister Blair on 3/14/02, David Manning – Blair's former foreign policy adviser and current British ambassador to the U.S. – wrote about a meeting he had with Condi Rice. He reported, "Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions: how to persuade international opinion that military action against Iraq is necessary and justified; what value to put on the exiled Iraqi opposition; how to coordinate a US/allied military campaign with internal opposition (assuming there is any); what happens on the morning after?" In a dire prediction of what came about, Manning wrote: "I think there is a real risk that the Administration underestimates the difficulties."
BRITISH COULD NOT UNDERSTAND BUSH'S RUSH TO ATTACK IRAQ: Underlying the Briefing Papers is a sense that the British did not know the true motivations driving the Bush administration's Iraq policy. "Military operations need clear and compelling military objectives," wrote the British Foreign Office Political Director Peter Ricketts. "For Iraq, 'regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge match between Bush and Saddam." A British paper entitled "Iraq: Options Paper" sought to further understand Bush's motivations. "The US has lost confidence in containment. Some in government want Saddam removed. The success of Operation Enduring Freedom, distrust of UN sanctions and inspection regimes, and unfinished business from 1991 are all factors."
CORPORATE POWER
Community Internet Under Attack
Though outgoing FCC Chairman Michael Powell may find it funny to joke about "a Mercedes divide," the ever increasing gap "between those who have access to information technology and digital content and those who do not" is no laughing matter. Now the battle to close the digital divide has spilled onto another front – the fight for free municipal broadband services. After last year's Supreme Court ruling that states can bar "cities from offering high-speed Internet services," lobbyists from the telecommunications industry swarmed on state capitals with one singular purpose: "to take cities out of the broadband business by state dictum." Telecom enjoyed some initial success until anti-municipal Internet bills failed in three straight states – Iowa, Florida, and Texas. The ever determined industry then set upon "an outrageous attempt ... to protect their duopoly over broadband from competition" with the help of one of their own. Doing their shilling on the steps of Congress is Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), a former employee of Southwestern Bell, who recently introduced legislation that "would extend the ban on municipal broadband services to every city in the country." Send a letter to your representatives telling them to oppose the Sessions bill.
THE SOCIOECONOMIC DIVIDE ON BROADBAND: Similar to the gap seen in basic Internet access, there is a vast divide between socioeconomic classes when it comes to high-speed Internet access. A recent report found that "virtually every rural state remains underserved and uncompetitive" while "in urban areas, many families are priced out of the market." Telecom giants "have failed to bridge the digital divide and opted to serve the most lucrative markets at the expense of universal, affordable access." One expert compared such high-speed Internet access inequity to "having the moderate and upper classes in IMAX theatres, while the underprivileged are still watching silent movies."
THE CASE FOR COMMUNITY INTERNET: Over the course of our nation's history, municipalities have played a key role in "building and maintaining critical infrastructure." Therefore, a chief claim made by opponents of municipal broadband – that local governments are incapable of running complex broadband systems – is a statement that "defies history and the experiences of daily life." Also, municipalities care about more than profits and do not "enjoy a wealth of state and federal subsidies" and other perks thrown at telecom giants. Local governments, which are "accountable to local citizens [and] understand their own needs," can "provide needed broadband services designed to address community needs" rather than just the bottom line. Municipal networks will "provide the competition necessary to keep rates low and quality of service high" as well as "increase investment in local communities." Other developed nations that have surpassed America in providing broadband access not only permit but oftentimes encourage "local governments to build out broadband networks."
INNOVATORS NO MORE: Though President Bush would like to celebrate the increased accessibility of the Internet, over the first three years of the Bush administration, the nation "dropped from 4th to 13th place in global rankings of broadband Internet usage and the latest mobile-phone technology." Once considered a leader of innovation, the United States is being outdone by many other industrialized nations that are "positioning themselves to be the first states to reap the benefits of the broadband era: economic growth, increased productivity, and a better quality of life." In fact, broadband service is seen as "essential to economic development." As broadband "becomes a necessary utility for commerce, education and healthcare," high-speed Internet services will be as critical to a nation's infrastructure as water pipelines and electricity grids or schools and hospitals.
THE CASE AGAINST CORPORATE-ONLY BROADBAND: Desperate to maintain their monopoly, telecom giants have "done their best to demonize" municipal broadband projects, launching "an aggressive lobbying and misinformation campaign." Earlier this year, Verizon, which successfully blocked Pennsylvania residents from obtaining low-cost Internet access without its permission, "circulated ... to lawmakers, journalists and opinion leaders" a so-called fact sheet that was chock full of erroneous statistics on the " "'failures' of public broadband." In actuality, "municipal broadband has been a success for those communities that have begun offering service ... [and] the propaganda maligning municipal systems is nothing more than industry-sponsored folklore." All their shadowy lobbying work obscures the fact that "the commercial broadband market has not only failed to bring affordable access in 2005, it is nowhere close."
posted by T. Scott Brineman at 7:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home