americanfreepress.org�  in association with the Liberty Project� presents

HOME PAGE   |   The ap archives   |   Contact the ap   |   ap Retractions   |   tha malcontent

 

ap / associalisticpress.com�    Vs.    �

 

Gotta give a heads-up to my Brother on this one, otherwise I might have missed it!...


Memos Show British Concern Over Iraq Plans


By THOMAS WAGNER (Direct descendent of Karl Marx! - tha malcontent)
 Associated Press Writer June 18, 2:25 PM EST


LONDON (AP) � When Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn't want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about "regime change" in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.

 

(ap) - "Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals." The Originals are Destroyed, the Source is unknown, yet the Dishonest on the Left are calling for Impeachment on a Vague Claim in a Copied Memo... A Memo, by the way, that Assumes that Saddam did in Fact have WMD in at least two places in the Memo, yet the Left Conveniently Ignores that Information in favor of the "fixed" reference, which cites no Specific Person, or Persons, nor anything of Substance... Classic!  Here is an example of the Memo Assuming that Saddam had WMD: "The military were continuing to ask lots of questions. For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."  It's funny how nobody who is talking about this Memo mentions that part!  This is "the Smoking Gun" according to the Left: "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."  First and foremost, it does not say that the Intelligence was being Fixed, it says that the Intelligence and FACTS were being "Fixed around the Policy"... Nobody is Specifically named, and even if they were, I don't see a problem with it.... ASSUMING this is not another Burkett Fax, as was the case with Dan Rather (D) and  Forgerygate.  Far too many Assumptions have to be made about this Copy of a Destroyed Memo without Source, and even if we make those Assumptions, it's not really news to me.  They made the Case to take Saddam out, and you don't do that by Focusing on why we should not go to War.  If we did that, the War in Afghanistan would never have happened.  There were plenty of Questions in that War, and still are to this day, but that's not how the Victor in War Wins in War.  Saddam had WMD as Documented by the UN, and Foreign Intelligence, including France and Germany's said he had WMD, so unless EVERYONE was in on this with Bush (43), there is no story here, just a bunch of Frustrated, Angry and Confused out-of-Power DemocRATS who think Petulant Tantrums are the way to regain Power...  It's endlessly Entertaining to me! - tha malcontent)

 

To see Supposed Memo as Written by a London Times Reporter, click here: Forgerygate II?


President Bush wanted Blair's support, but British officials worried the White House was rushing to war, according to a series of leaked secret Downing Street memos that have renewed questions and debate about Washington's motives for ousting Saddam Hussein.

In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war.

"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts says in the memo. "For Iraq, `regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."

The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.

"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

"But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."

Details from Rice's dinner conversation also are included in one of the secret memos from 2002, which reveal British concerns about both the invasion and poor postwar planning by the Bush administration, which critics say has allowed the Iraqi insurgency to rage.

The eight memos � all labeled "secret" or "confidential" � were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.

Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.

The eight documents total 36 pages and range from 10-page and eight-page studies on military and legal options in Iraq, to brief memorandums from British officials and the minutes of a private meeting held by Blair and his top advisers.

Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert who teaches at Queen Mary College, University of London, said the documents confirmed what post-invasion investigations have found.

"The documents show what official inquiries in Britain already have, that the case of weapons of mass destruction was based on thin intelligence and was used to inflate the evidence to the level of mendacity," Dodge said. "In going to war with Bush, Blair defended the special relationship between the two countries, like other British leaders have. But he knew he was taking a huge political risk at home. He knew the war's legality was questionable and its unpopularity was never in doubt."

Dodge said the memos also show Blair was aware of the postwar instability that was likely among Iraq's complex mix of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds once Saddam was defeated.

The British documents confirm, as well, that "soon after 9/11 happened, the starting gun was fired for the invasion of Iraq," Dodge said.

Speculation about if and when that would happen ran throughout 2002.

On Jan. 29, Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea "an axis of evil." U.S. newspapers began reporting soon afterward that a U.S.-led war with Iraq was possible.

On Oct. 16, the U.S. Congress voted to authorize Bush to go to war against Iraq. On Feb. 5, 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented the Bush administration's case about Iraq's weapons to the U.N. Security Council. On March 19-20, the U.S.-led invasion began.

Bush and Blair both have been criticized at home since their WMD claims about Iraq proved false. But both have been re-elected, defending the conflict for removing a brutal dictator and promoting democracy in Iraq. Both administrations have dismissed the memos as old news.

Details of the memos appeared in papers early last month but the news in Britain quickly turned to the election that returned Blair to power. In the United States, however, details of the memos' contents reignited a firestorm, especially among Democratic critics of Bush.

It was in a March 14, 2002, memo that Blair's chief foreign policy adviser, David Manning, told the prime minister about the dinner he had just had with Rice in Washington.

"We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq," wrote Manning, who's now British ambassador to the United States. Rice is now Bush's secretary of state.

"It is clear that Bush is grateful for your (Blair's) support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option."

Manning said, "Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed." But he also said there were signs of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks.

Blair was to meet with Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, on April 8, and Manning told his boss: "No doubt we need to keep a sense of perspective. But my talks with Condi convinced me that Bush wants to hear your views on Iraq before taking decisions. He also wants your support. He is still smarting from the comments by other European leaders on his Iraq policy."

A July 21 briefing paper given to officials preparing for a July 23 meeting with Blair says officials must "ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks."

"In particular we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective... A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point."

The British worried that, "Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired end state would be created, in particular what form of government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the time scale within which it would be possible to identify a successor."

In the March 22 memo from Foreign Office political director Ricketts to Foreign Secretary Straw, Ricketts outlined how to win public and parliamentary support for a war in Britain: "We have to be convincing that: the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for; it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran)."

Blair's government has been criticized for releasing an intelligence dossier on Iraq before the war that warned Saddam could launch chemical or biological weapons on 45 minutes' notice.

On March 25 Straw wrote a memo to Blair, saying he would have a tough time convincing the governing Labour Party that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq was legal under international law.

"If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the U.S. would now be considering military action against Iraq," Straw wrote. "In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with OBL (Osama bin Laden) and al-Qaida."

He also questioned stability in a post-Saddam Iraq: "We have also to answer the big question � what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything."

 
 � Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(That depends on what the meaning of "may" is... All commentary included on this website is the opinion of tha malcontent and is based in the Truth.  No Liberals, Marxists, Stalinists, Socialists, Communists or DemocRATS were harmed in the making of this website, I promise! -  tha malcontent)

 

Don't do what you're polled to do!� 

 

This web site is designed, maintained and edited by tha malcontent...

 

 "what have you done for Liberty today?"

 

associalisticpress.com� is protected speech pursuant to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and is faithfully enforced by tha malcontent via the Second Amendment to that same Constitution. Any reproduction or redistribution of this article will be seen as an awakening of a Patriot in this Great Republic by tha malcontent, and subsequently applauded! 

Copyright � 1994-2005 associalisticpress.com� /americanfreepress.org� - All rights reserved.

 

associalisticpress.com/tha malcontent�

an americanfreepress� organization 1994-2005

tha malcontent... The Original Gangster of the Pajamahidin

 

The ap�  & The afp�

 

- the Liberty Project� -

 

'Si vis pacem Para Bellum'

 

HOME PAGE  |   The ap archives   |   Contact the ap  |   ap Retractions  |   tha malcontent