Rupert Murdoch Pushed Poodle to Join GOP-BFEE Rush to Iraq War

[Octafish]

Geepers. The things one misses when busy moving on.

Shocking: Did Rupert Murdoch Push Tony Blair on Iraq War?

Rupert Murdoch took part in an "over-crude" attempt by US Republicans to push Tony Blair into action before the invasion of Iraq, the former British prime minister's ex-media chief claimed Saturday.

Alastair Campbell said the News Corporation media baron warned Blair in a phone call of the dangers in delaying signing up to the March 19, 2003 invasion, as part of an attempt to speed up Britain joining the military campaign.

SNIP...

"Both TB and I felt it was prompted by Washington, and another example of their over-crude diplomacy. Murdoch was pushing all the Republican buttons, how the longer we waited the harder it got."

The following day he added: "TB felt the Murdoch call was odd, not very clever."

CONTINUED...

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/970894/shocking%3A_did_rupert_murdoch_push_tony_blair_on_iraq_war/

I have always wondered why Corporate McPravda failed to follow-up on all this. It turns out they were part of the, uh, coincidence.

[malaise]

1. I'm shocked I tell you

Roger Ailes should pay

[Octafish]

2. That Satanic Puke?

Here's the head of Fox News with the crook Richard Nixon.



Corporate McPravda Represents One of Our Biggest Problems...Especially Fox News.

[EFerrari]

3. Of course he did.

Oh, Octafish, Greenwald pointed out in a tweet this morning that Feinstein is all over the leak issue right now. Which makes sense considering how much she has to hide about enabling the Iraq deception and just about any expansion of the national security state you can think of.

Dianne Feinstein, Saxby Chambliss Promise To Crack Down On National Security Leaks
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/07/dianne-feinstein-saxby-chambliss-leaks-new-york-times_n_1578383.html

[Octafish]

5. It is sickening.

DF's hubby is ear-deep in Money Trumps Peace Doo-Doo.

OT: By any chance...are you the North Bay Bohemian?

[EFerrari]

6. No.

But it's a good handle.

[twitter1]

4. Tony Blair was brainwashed.

Doesn't otherwise make any sense.

[Octafish]

7. Three Generations of Brainwashers -- All keeping eyes on their oil under Iraq's sand.

Know your BFEE: War and Oil are just two longtime Main Lines of Business

...and We the Brainwashed enabled them. A most hearty welcome to DU, twitter1!

[Initech]

8. Why isn't Rupert behind bars yet?

[Octafish]

9. Excellent question. Sooner the better.

Otherwise, he'll end up like so many modern war criminals -- too old to stand trial.

To speed the day, some evidence for the prosecution:

Dial M for Murdoch.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/may/06/dial-murdoch-tom-watson-hickman-review?cat=books&type=article

[Judi Lynn]

10. Ugly beyond imagination. Swift kick. n/t

[Octafish]

11. Clarence Thomas and Rupert Murdoch

It gets worse.

Clarence Thomas and Rupert Murdoch

Jon Wiener
The Nation
BLOG | Posted 10/02/2007 @ 11:05am

The long-awaited publication of Clarence Thomas's memoir, "My Grandfather's Son," out Monday, makes you wonder: how come none of the presidential candidates have said a word about the Supreme Court in any of their debates? Three sitting justices are expected to resign in the next four years--and they're all on the liberal side: John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The publication facts behind Thomas's book ought to be discussed by all the candidates: he received an advance of $1.5 million in 2003 from HarperCollins, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch. If you thought the Court dealt with any issues of relevance to Murdoch, you might call it a conflict of interest for Thomas to accept that payment--far more than any sitting justice ever received from any single source. At least you might mention the fabled "appearance of impropriety." You might call the $1.5 million a thank-you gift from Murdoch for services rendered. You might even wonder if it might be a subtle suggestion to other justices who will be ruling on Murdoch-related issues in the future.

Of course Thomas could avoid that "appearance of impropriety" by recusing himself for the rest of his career from any case raising issues concerning Murdoch, Fox, the First Amendment, copyright law, libel, or any other issues in media or communications law. That would give him a lot of time off.

Yes, it was the first President Bush who nominated Clarence Thomas to succeed civil rights legend Thurgood Marshall - but it was Democrats in the Senate who put him on the court. The teeth-gnashing facts about Clarence Thomas's confirmation can be found in the new book by Washington Post reporters Kevin Merida and Michael Fletcher, "Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas." The vote in the Senate on Thomas was 52-48 - the smallest margin for any justice in more than a century. A shift of three votes would have kept Thomas off the court.

Here's the horrible part: at least four senators who voted for Thomas came to regret their vote within a year or two. Merida and Fletcher report that the senators who changed their mind about Thomas after voting for him include David Boren, Democrat of Oklahoma; John Breaux, Democrat of Louisiana; Fritz Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina, and Warren Rudman, Republican of New Hampshire.

CONTINUED...

http://www.thenation.com/blog/clarence-thomas-and-rupert-murdoch

5-4 Ugly.

[Overseas]

12. K&R.

[Octafish]

13. Cindy Sheehan explains why liars are so well compensated...

"Money trumps peace." -- George W Bush, Feb. 14, 2007

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0215-29.htm

Yet another story Rupert missed because covering it could show his role in starting it.