|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/13/2005 01:32:32 PM · #1 |
*Edit*
Much much more has developed since I originally posted the CNN article on this story including many more British Intelligence memo's and it can all be read up on at //www.afterdowningstreet.org/.
Also, from C-Span, watch the House Judiciary hearing on this evidence:
Rep. John Conyers, House Judiciary Cmte. Ranking Member, chairs a meeting on the Downing Street Memo and pre-Iraq War intelligence. Witnesses include: former ambassador Joe Wilson, CIA analyst Ray McGovern, Cindy Sheehan, mother of fallen American soldier, and constitutional lawyer John Bonifaz.
The hearing can be streamed live from C-Span.org House Judiciary Cmte. Democrats Meeting on Downing Street Memo and Iraq War, Its the 6th one down.
old:
//www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/index.html
Bush asked to explain UK war memo
Thursday, May 12, 2005 Posted: 2:49 AM EDT (0649 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Eighty-nine Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war in mid-2002.
The timing of the memo was well before the president brought the issue to Congress for approval.
The Times of London newspaper published the memo -- actually minutes of a high-level meeting on Iraq held July 23, 2002 -- on May 1.
British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity, and Michael Boyce, then Britain's Chief of Defense Staff, told the paper that Britain had not then made a decision to follow the United States to war, but it would have been "irresponsible" not to prepare for the possibility.
The White House has not yet responded to queries about the congressional letter, which was released on May 6.
The letter, initiated by Rep. John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the memo "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration..."
"While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your administration," the letter said.
But, the letter said, when the document was leaked Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman called it "nothing new."
In addition to Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon, Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, MI6 chief Richard Dearlove and others attended the meeting.
A British official identified as "C" said that he had returned from a meeting in Washington and that "military action was now seen as inevitable" by U.S. officials.
"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
"The NSC had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
The memo further discussed the military options under consideration by the United States, along with Britain's possible role.
It quoted Hoon as saying the United States had not finalized a timeline, but that it would likely begin "30 days before the U.S. congressional elections," culminating with the actual attack in January 2003.
"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said.
"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
The British officials determined to push for an ultimatum for Saddam to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq to "help with the legal justification for the use of force ... despite U.S. resistance."
Britain's attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, advised the group that "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action" and two of three possible legal bases -- self-defense and humanitarian intervention -- could not be used.
The third was a U.N. Security Council resolution, which Goldsmith said "would be difficult."
Blair thought that "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors."
"If the political context were right, people would support regime change," the memo said.
Later, the memo said, Blair would work to convince Bush that they should pursue the ultimatum with Saddam even though "many in the U.S. did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route."
Message edited by author 2005-06-22 19:44:47. |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 01:41:10 PM · #2 |
"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said.
[[[Hmm...let's see
- post 9-11
- Iraq ties to previous WTC bombing
- possible ties to Oklahoma City Bombing
- known financial supporter of terrorism
- breach of cease-fire (which meant we had legal grounds to return and act based on numerous failures of the prior 1991 agreement)
Yup...pre 9-11 deciding such might be out-of-line....but I have no issue with it post-9-11. |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 01:46:44 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
05/13/2005 07:08:51 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
05/14/2005 05:57:10 PM · #5 |
theSaj, a few comments on your post.
First, the "facts" you cite (if they are facts; this is the first I've heard of them) have nothing to do with the case the administration made for going to war with Iraq.
Second, you don't address the main point of the article posted by MadMordegon, namely that the administration "fixed" the intelligence to build a case they could (and did) sell to the U.S. Congress and the American people. In other words, we were all deceived.
Third, assuming the reason for going to war was to make the world safer from terrorism (ignoring for a moment the fact that we now know that was not at all the reason for going to war), and given what's now happening in Iraq AND Afghanistan, I find it hard to believe that you are still willing to support this administration's entirely inept, greedy and deceitful policy. How you can make an argument that the American people should support a policy which makes Halliburton rich off the backs and lives of U.S. soldiers is beyond me.
|
|
|
|
05/14/2005 06:22:56 PM · #6 |
| During the recent political campaign in the UK, Blair's response to anyone who questioned our entry into the Iraq war, was that he wasn't sorry of what he had done because it got rid of Saddam. Basically, the end justified the means! He has given up pretending that the reason was WMD and the leaks of intelligence info seem to show that was pure spin. He has been kept in office with a much reduced majority, mainly due to the fact the British public do not trust him as far as they can throw him! However there is not a strong opposition party so now his own party aren trying to get rid of him as leader. Am I old fashioned inthinking that there ought to be an element of trust in the leader of a country - be that UK or US??? |
|
|
|
06/22/2005 07:34:02 PM · #7 |
So, here we are one month later and this story has generated very little mainstream headlines, not surprising. Much more information on this found Here. However, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Cmte, John Conyers put together a hearing in congress to address it.
From C-Span:
Rep. John Conyers, House Judiciary Cmte. Ranking Member, chairs a meeting on the Downing Street Memo and pre-Iraq War intelligence. Witnesses include: former ambassador Joe Wilson, CIA analyst Ray McGovern, Cindy Sheehan, mother of fallen American soldier, and constitutional lawyer John Bonifaz.
The hearing can be streamed live from C-Span.org House Judiciary Cmte. Democrats Meeting on Downing Street Memo and Iraq War, Its the 6th one down.
Impeachment anyone?
|
|
|
|
06/22/2005 08:12:07 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Hmm...let's see
- post 9-11
- Iraq ties to previous WTC bombing
- possible ties to Oklahoma City Bombing
- known financial supporter of terrorism
- breach of cease-fire (which meant we had legal grounds to return and act based on numerous failures of the prior 1991 agreement)
Yup...pre 9-11 deciding such might be out-of-line....but I have no issue with it post-9-11. |
If we change a few choice words:
Hmm...let's see
- post 1960s for three decades
- US ties to Irish bombing of mainland UK
- possible US ties to terrorists who are known to fund and support international terrorist campaigns
- US known to have allowed the organised financial support of terrorist organisations
- breach of international sanctions
Yup... the UK should have invaded the US years ago.
Iraq was one of the few countries that had few or no ties to international terrorism (as defined by the US) at the time of the US expansionist and populist-inspired invasion. But Afghanistan was over too quickly and was perceived to be a failure, Saudi (the source of most of the 911 terrorists) was and is too important for the continued supply of oil to the US, Syria has not actively militated against the US and is a strong force in the middle east, Jordan and Egypt are friendly to the West, Oman and parts of UAE are friendly to the UK or have valuable oil reserves being sold to the US, Iran is on the verge of (and may have) and North Korea has the bomb.
So there was pretty much only one country that did not export oil to the US, did not have good relations with the US, had a weak army and no nuclear deterrent. Plus it damaged the reputation of the father of the US president and there was an age old sanction could be twisted to fit the circumstances. No wonder that Iraq was the whipping boy.
Plus George had been shaken out of a coma by 9-11, needed to be seen to carry on reacting to terrorism, had another term to think about, and needed an easy war to win.
Okay - last bit is speculation (we might find out in 30 years), but Iraq was the only easy target, regardless of the obvious Saudi and Afghanistani involvement in 9-11. Regime change is currently being used as the justification for the war, though it is an illegal act to start a war on this basis. It was never suggested pre-war that regime change was either the means or the end of the purpose of attacking Iraq.
Even more appalling than the US decision to invade another soverign state on a pretext was the UK's decision to ignore the largest ever national protest against that action (of which I was proud to be a part) and follow the US' lead.
Message edited by author 2005-06-22 20:13:11. |
|
|
|
06/23/2005 06:16:53 PM · #9 |
The Downing Street memoes - there are a series of them - were deliberately leaked so that the world could see what scoundrels are the Bush administration.
The memoes show clearly that when Bush got up in front of the country at his State of the Union address, he lied - and lied deliberately - about the justification for attacking Iraq.
Lying to Congress during the State of the Union address is an High Crime - it is considered to be "on oath", and therefore it is perjury. Bush should be, and hopefully will be, impeached for this!
That he deliberately lied to justify a war of aggression against a sovereign country, with the resultant deaths of well more that 100,000 - mostly women and children - is just one reason why he hopefully will be tried for war crimes.
In my opinion, of course. :D
Message edited by author 2005-06-23 18:18:19. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 10/15/2025 07:42:58 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 10/15/2025 07:42:58 AM EDT.
|
