Bloglines | Subscribe
FULL TEXT OF BRITISH BRIEFING PAPERS REVEALED: More Evidence Intel Was Fixed
As noted previously on ThinkProgress, the American media had failed to report on the British Briefing Papers – covered by the British media last September – that showed that the British felt the pre-war evidence for attacking Iraq was weak and that the U.S. lacked a plan to address the post-war situation. Using the Downing Street Minutes to bring light to these Briefing Papers, the Washington Post’s Walter Pincus wrote a front-page story this weekend calling attention to the charges in those documents.
In a headline entitled, “Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Postwar Iraq Plan,” Pincus uncovered a British memo warning of post-war instability that would arise because the Bush administration was unrealistic about the post-war phase. A number of the Papers in the Pincus article are attached below. As one of the Papers warns, the U.S. had no plans for “what happens on the morning after [attacking Iraq].”
The main thrust of the British Briefing Papers certainly focused on the Bush administration’s failure to plan, but there’s another key point in the Papers which Pincus chose not to highlight, a point which meshes well with the revelations in the Downing Street Minutes. As you know, the Downing Street Minutes said the Bush administration “fixed” the intelligence around its policy of attacking Iraq. The British Briefing Papers lend further credence to this point.
British Knew Iraqi WMD Were Not a Threat: “There is no greater threat now that [Saddam] will use WMD than there has been in recent years, so continuing containment is an option.” [Iraq: Options Paper]
Evidence Did Not Show Much Advance In Iraq’s Weapons Programs: “Even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on [the] nuclear, missile or CW/BW fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.” [Ricketts Paper, 3/22/02]
Evidence Was Thin on Iraq/Al Qaeda Ties: “US is scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al [Qaida] is so far frankly unconvincing.” [Ricketts Paper, 3/22/02]
“No Credible Evidence” On Iraq/Al Qaeda Link: “There has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL and Al Qaida.” [Straw Paper, 3/25/02]
Wolfowitz Knew Supposed Iraq/Al Qaeda Link Was Weak: Wolfowitz said that “there might be doubt about the alleged meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker on 9/11, and Iraqi intelligence (did we, he asked, know anything more about this meeting?).” [Meyer Paper, 3/18/02]
The full British Briefing Papers have been attached below. When reading them, keep in mind that these Papers were written approximately a full year before the invasion of Iraq. The Papers present a shockingly accurate forecast of what has transpired in the years since, and suggest the Bush administration chose to ignore the advice of our key ally when it came to dealing with Iraq.
British Iraq Options Paper
Manning Paper
Meyer Paper
Ricketts Paper
Straw Paper
British Legal Background Paper
Posted by Faiz at 7:36 am
Permalink | Comment (86)
Filed Under: Iraq, Intelligence
86 Comments »
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-trackback.php/1078
1.
Great article, Thank you. This is what the world needs to see. The hard data needed to make a valid
case.
Comment by captain beyond — June 13th, 2005 @ 9:12 am
2.
There was a letter to the editor about a year ago from a suburban housewife and mother of three that pretty much summed things up. It it she mentions that with all time that it takes to keep up with the responsibilities of being the preverbial “soccor Mom” that even she knew there were no at the very least grave doubts that there WMD in Iraq.
The evidence that is surrficing that the bush administration is basically a war-mongerinng machine was evident a long time ago to anyone that took the small amount of time to find it. My only hope is that bush&co will finally be held accountable.
Comment by Michael DiBari — June 13th, 2005 @ 9:35 am
3.
Bush lied, thousands died
Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 9:38 am
4.
Bush himself could admit he misled us into Iraq and I still wouldn’t buy it.
Comment by Head in sand right winger — June 13th, 2005 @ 9:52 am
5.
Interesting reactions so far from talking heads on media non-reaction, from “It’s not absolutely 100% definitive,”
to
“So? Everyone knew that Bush and Cheney and Powell et all were lying, so it’s not news. We’ll bury it.”
Democrats should be repeating, over and over, that they were deceived, over and over, because they gave the president the benefit of the doubt after 9-11.
Comment by tubino — June 13th, 2005 @ 10:49 am
6.
It is of utmost importance to get this information into the mainstream media, which has systematically been suppressing facts about the catastrophe in Iraq, in favor of newsless entertainment like the Jackson trial.
Evidently our Brave New Media concur with Karl Rove and his puppet that the only security of value in the United States is that of the White House and denizens of various billionaire mansions scattered around American and on tax-free islands.
The new plutocracy is choking us and our democracy to death.
Comment by Clifford Slayman — June 13th, 2005 @ 10:53 am
7.
Bush is on the defensive. His second term is crippled, stop dead in it’s tracks. he will make a mistake. We must take back seats in the House in 2006
Comment by Seneca — June 13th, 2005 @ 10:54 am
8.
The Democratic party does not want withdrawal. They want to stay there because (1) Big Israeli lobby money to Clinton and others (2) The Dems are in bed with the same defense industry as Repubs (3) Dems, like Repubs or even more than Repubs, are neoliberals and believe in American supremacy and noblesse oblige - bringing “democracy” to the lesser creatures - and all that other condescending, delusional, ego-maniacal crapola
Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 10:54 am
9.
For the British memos “Iraq: Conditions for Military Action", the Downing Street Memo, the Robb-Silberman report and a host of other Iraq-related materials, see the Iraq Document Library.
Comment by Jon — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:05 am
10.
Yes, I know about the trial, I just believe that [he] who I will not call my President needs to serve the rest of his time here on earth, on death row
Comment by larry uzarski — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:14 am
11.
I would settle for him retiring permanently to the ranch with a very hefty fine.
This is creepy.
http://billmon.org/archives/001900.html
Comment by Seneca — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:25 am
12.
Seneca, Bush will make a mistake? that’s like saying the sun will rise. I don’t think we can afford any more of his mistakes.
Comment by t0m — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:27 am
13.
Better yet, I think we should demand that the Bush twins should join the Army. Might give King George a different perspective on the war.
Comment by David B — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:31 am
14.
Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 10:54 am
I hope you are not serious Carlos. If you are, however, please think back to when Clinton was in office. I’m pretty sure that he did not invade Iraq.
Comment by MNSasquatch — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:31 am
15.
Carlos’ ignorant comments warrant one question: Where’d ya get that info, buddy? sounds as if you just made it up.
Larry
Comment by Larry R — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:36 am
16.
This post is an excellent resource. But didn’t the narrative just get more complicated with the NYT angle today?
>>
WASHINGTON, June 12 - A memorandum written by Prime Minister Tony Blair’s cabinet office in late July 2002 explicitly states that the Bush administration had made “no political decisions” to invade Iraq, but that American military planning for the possibility was advanced.
>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/politi cs/13downing.html
Comment by P O’Neill — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:39 am
17.
Sorry people
I’m not making it up - you’ve heard of AIPAC right? When Hilary and Lieberman are big recipients and both of them are unwilling to even discuss withdrawal - Hilary and LIeberman both fit into the neoliberal camp - as does Bill Clinton - although Bill didn’t invade Iraq - under his watch we conducted continuous bombing of Iraq in the no-fly zone for 10 years during sanctions AND - it was his wonderful Secretary of State - Madeline Allbright (sp?) who when asked if it was worth 1 million+ children dying due to the sanctions in Iraq - her answer was “yes” it was worth it. If that’s not a sickening, stomach turning response, I don’t know what is.
Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:40 am
18.
I just love it when neoliberals call peoplel ignorant - how dare anyone point out that the Democratic party isn’t any better than the Republican party. You’re ignorant when you think that.
The difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is - the Republicans are crooks who wrap themselves in God and the Flag while robbing you - the Democrats are crooks who cloak themselves in compassionate high-minded rhetoric about your freedom, and the children, while robbing you
Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:44 am
19.
Why point to Hilary Clinton and Lieberman as not willing to discuss withdrawal? There are at least 55 Republican senators (plus lots of Democratic senators unwilling to discuss withdrawal. And what’s that got to do with AIPAC. It’s not at all clear (at least to me) that however Iraq plays out, how that would impact Israel. That takes a crystal ball that only Carlos seems to have.
Larry
Comment by Larry R — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:52 am
20.
If Carlos supports Bush’s illegal war–he should immediately enlist in the Army or Marines. Our overworked recruiters are desperate for enlistees–like Carlos. He can take a copy of the Downing Street Memo to boot camp to read in his free time.
Comment by Judy — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:55 am
21.
And just one more comment to support my other ones - since I’ve been labeled ignorant - we must not forget that it was the Democrats who voted along with the Republicans, almost unanimously to give Bush carte blanche authority to conduct war whenever and wherever he saw fit - And that lies at the heart of why the Democratic party is keeping silent about the Iraq war and any talk of withdrawal - the duplicity of some in the Democratic party is being protected - the fact that Hilary Clinton can at this late date say she does not want to discuss withdrawal - and that she has not discussed the Downing street memos - is a loud and clear message - don’t look to the Democratic mainstream on this issue - if it’s up to people like her we’ll end up like we did under Johnson and Vietnam - year after year of hideous useless death and suffering for what? - for his massive ego that could not admit he was wrong - until he had no choice - and finally stepped aside - and when you think about it - every major war in the last hundred years has been presided over by a Democratic president - something to think about, instead of just labeling me ignorant to try and silence me - which won’t work anyway:)
Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:55 am
22.
Carlos,
I think in terms of the lessor of two evils. Yes both sides are beholden to big business and corporate money, but which party is more likely to ATTEMPT to improve the lives of all Americans, which party seeks to ensure that all children have health insurance, and which party seeks provide adequate education to all children?
These are the important issues, these are the issues that directly impact the lives of those living in America and these are the issues that need to be addressed.
Comment by MNSasquatch — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:55 am
23.
Judy
I don’t support the war - I’m for total and immediate withdrawal. Where do you stand?
Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:56 am
24.
Carlos, your mistake is in assuming the majority HAS heard of AIPAC. The scales still firmly adhere to the eyes of (most of) the sheeple…
Comment by Mark — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:57 am
25.
And Judy
My son is draft-age. And he almost joined the Marines. Fortunately, he saw that that was a crazy decision, and he did not.
So when you start making light of people joining up - you need to realize - I’m fighting for my son’s life when I discuss the issue of the Iraq war.
This is not a joke to me. To me, this war is illegal, I protested it before it began - where were you? Were you out protesting before shock and awe began? Where was the Democratic party then? Totallly behind shock and awe, a policy which can only rightfullly be described as a terrorist act.
Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:59 am
26.
And what’s that got to do with AIPAC. It’s not at all clear (at least to me) that however Iraq plays out, how that would impact Israel. That takes a crystal ball that only Carlos seems to have.
Israel (Sharon) has been clear about Israel wanting to neutralize all enemies. FOURTEEN permanent military bases in Iraq is consistent with this! So is threatening Iran’s nuclear program, Syria, etc.
So it is no stretch to say that the AIPAC position favors massive US military spending and activity in the ME to make Israel the only military power in the region.
Comment by tubino — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:59 am
27.
Please stop jumping on Carlos. He’s basically right. A good number of Democrats, certainly most of the ones who call the shots in the party now, are exactly as he’s describing them. If we’re going to turn the country around from Bushism, then we need to say a big no to the corporate whore wing of the party and support only real progressive Democrats like Conyers.
Comment by Gary Kleppe — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:01 pm
28.
Larry
You ask what AIPAC has to do with withdrawal - well let’s see where should I start - how about permanent US military installations in Iraq which would be jeopardized by withdrawal - how about Israel and the US seeing mutual security in permanent US bases in Iraq -
That’s just one - we could also discuss the fact that the US needed to withdraw all its troops from Saudi Arabia, where we had permanent bases, after 911 because of the intense pressure put on the Saudi royal family by the militant Islamics including OBL - so where better to put those troops than in Iraq - and it made the Saudis happy because Iraq was thorn in their side being a secular country as it was -
There are many many reasons
Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:04 pm
29.
Carlos–Glad to hear you don’t support the war and that you are working for immediate withdrawal. I hope you are also doing everything possible to demand that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rove, Frist, and McConnell be held responsible to America’s disaster in Iraq. Join Rep. John Conyers in demanding a full investigation of the DSM. This is no time to waste energy on Bill & Hillary bashing. The credibility of our nation is at stake. We mush impeach Bush.
Comment by Judy — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:05 pm
30.
touche t0m :)
But mistakes in defense and spin are lethal.
http://tinyurl.com/btswx
Comment by Seneca — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:07 pm
31.
Gary, agreed.
Just because we’re mostly Democrats here doesn’t mean Democratic politicians are faultless.
Comment by Russ Ruszkowski — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:09 pm
32.
Carlos,
Unfortunately, during the discussions of impending Shock and Awe, the Democratic Party was headless and rather impotent. The results have been tragic to say the least.
Over the past few weeks, voices within the Democratic Party have begun to be heard - Dean, Conyers, even Hillary - for answers to the invasion. While I agree that withdrawl is the needed result, I’m not sure that a power vacuum in the region is the best idea. I guess I don’t know what the answer should be and I don’t have any brilliant ideas, but the fact that people are finally waking up and seeing the mess that has been created is a positive sign. It is just sad that it took so long and so many lives to understand the impact.
The Democratic Party made a terrible mistake in backing the President prior to the war. However, due to the swell of nationalism sweeping the country, there was little doubt that most Congressional members would support the President. Too bad the lies were not exposed and made public long before troops were sent into the no-win situation that is Iraq.
Comment by MNSasquatch — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:10 pm
33.
Judy
Yes, I signed Conyers letter. What’s interesting to me is that you assumed because I criticize the Democratic party that I’m pro-war. Before giving me advice perhaps you need to examine your own assumptions and beliefs about the Democratic party, which I think at this point is morally and politically bankrupt, just like the Republicans.
Yes I know the Democrats, some of them, fight for health care - and mostly its Democrats at the local level who are making a difference.
And if you want to talk spin - this whole bruhaha about Dean’s attack on the Republicans is another distraction - look over here people at Dean - and ignore the 500 lb gorilla in the room which is the Iraq war. Dean didn’t even mention the war at the recent Take Back America conference. Arianna Huffington was the only one to bring it up.
So Democrats - if you really believe in your rhetoric - you need to take your party to task - and tell Dean to discuss the war and stop this sideshow circus attack on Republicans.
Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:12 pm
34.
Carlos–Like you, I did everything I could in 2002 and 2003 to stop Bush from starting this war. I marched in DC & Louisville. I sent thousands of emails and made thousands of calls to Congress. I contacted UN members. I even emailed the Pope! We American’s are responsible for Bush’s illegal disastrous war. I hope your son and my daughters do not get drafted, but we both know that more than 1700 families have already lost their kids. I think the most important thing right now is to drop the partisan spin and join forces to ensure that the people responsible to this war–Bush / Cheney & Co. are tried and convicted for their crimes. The DSM says it all.
Comment by Judy — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:16 pm
35.
MNSasquatch
I understand your dilemma regarding the ugly decisions the Democratic Party became party. I think you’re quandary is one that the leadership seems to be in. I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, but my sense is, you and the Party are unable at this point to come out and say, “We were wrong, we were fooled again, and now we need to make it right by just getting the heck out of there.” To me, discussions of concerns about power vacuums is just a way to avoid the reality of the situation, which is - we did something that was illegal and uttterly stupid and destructive - and there is no way to right this by staying - the genie has been let out of the box - when you destroy a culture - a fabric of society - what else can you expect but chaos -
The Democratic Party learned nothing from Vietnam - and the lesson there was - you don’t invade other countries unless you’ve been attacked, you don’t it because (1) it’s wrong (2) it leads to disaster for everyone involveld.
The only honorable thing, in my opinion, for the US to do now, is to withdraw.
Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:18 pm
36.
Some people are Democrats by default, some pugs are that as well. the democratic party is populated with DINOs and probably even pug moles. It’s corporate wing, like Biden and others, is pug lite.
Comment by Little Debbie Winger — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:20 pm
37.
Judy -
You want to impeach Bush - but what about the war. You say nothing about what to do now that we’re in Iraq. What’s your solution.
Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:20 pm
38.
It’s easier to impeach than withdraw troops from Iraq. Neither is going to happen soon enough to please us all.
Comment by Little Debbie Winger — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:21 pm
39.
Seneca
I went to your link - I’ve seen that story today in the news and somewhere it mentioned that the US military is now considering making political liasons with the insurgency - which I guess will no longer be called the insurgency if we become aligned with one group or another - but we’ve probably been aligned all along - as there was talk that the destruction of Fallujah - which itself is a massive war crime - was really an attempt to wipe out a political opponent of Chalabi et al - so we’ve been playing card all along
What’s been going on in Iraq will be revealed someday as the hideous, evil thing that it is - and our children died for this - it is almost too much to even think about
Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:27 pm
40.
Carlos,
I agree with most of what you are saying, and I think that the DSM will give the DEM party the excuse they need to say how wrong the war was and that they were fooled by the administration. I think you can see this happening even as REPs are beginning to challenge the facts of the war and they are staring the talk of setting a timeline for withdrawl. I think this is a VERY positive step.
I also do not think the country as a whole will ever learn from the past until we look beyond ourselves and our own self-interests. Far too many Americans do not realize that there is a whole world outside of our borders and that some of those living outside of our borders actually have different beliefs than we do. Only when we realize this and ACCEPT this can real change be made. Can you imagine the postive change that could be made in Africa if people actually cared about what happens to someone on the other side of the world? Adults and children do not have to die from CURABLE diseases and malnutrition.
Sorry, getting off the soapbox now.
Comment by MNSasquatch — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:28 pm
41.
Little Debbie Winger -
It might require that the military command countermand the President’s orders, and begin withdrawals on their own.
Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:29 pm
42.
Carlos,
I admit that this is weak, but the vote by many Democrats in Congress for the “Iraq War Resolution” was to “put teeth into the inspection program".
I remember specifically, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton making floor speeches that put caveats on their votes and warned Bush that he had better be right about WMD and telling him that any of their support will end if they found out that Bush was lying.
I agree with you that the DLC Democrats are failing to heed the concerns of most of their constituents in the party. I think that the issue of troops currently in Iraq is tainted by the realpolitik of the invasion and occupation. I, like you, favor immediate withdrawal – with a shuddering concern about what might happen in Iraq when we leave, but I am not going to write off Democrats who take a slower, more cautious approach. The pottery barn rule does apply here. We broke it and leaving now would be like shoplifting.
Comment by blaze — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:30 pm
43.
Blaze -
If, as you say, Clinton and Kerry put the caveat that they would withdraw support if Bush was lying, why isn’t Clinton champing at the bit to bring the DSM to the floor of the Senate. And why didn’t Kerry do it. Why is it Conyers? Admittedly he has the power of the Judiciary committee, but the Senate is silent on this issue, except for Kennedy.
I don’t trust Hilary Clinton. And the reason is - she smells too much like Lyndon Johnson. I’m old enough to have protested the Vietnam war, and Johnson was a real nightmare - most of the protests during the Vietnam war were done in front of his White House, and he did nothing. He refused to listen. I think Hilary would be the same way if she were in the Presidency. She would keep the troops there - the nightmare would go on and on.
Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:37 pm
44.
Comment by blaze — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:30 pm
Very well said Blaze. I’m glad somebody could sum up what was stuck in my head regarding the chilling impact of leaving a broken country.
Comment by MNSasquatch — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:39 pm
45.
Ban abortion, more children to grow up and join the military to fight for the War Pary (Democrats and Republicans) that occupies Warshington. The ‘Good Americans’ won’t see the light until after 60,000 dead soldiers come back in flag-draped coffins. Until then, expect the slaughter to continue ad infinitum. People are a ‘renewable resource’ that can be exploited so the billionaires can live lives of hedonistic leisure in Tahiti.
Dr. Strangelove would be jealous of our current crop of ‘leaders.’
The US has been runnin’ and gunnin’ across the globe ever since Eisenhower sent 900 advisors into Vietnam and sold the French surplus military hardware.
Comment by Ron — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:45 pm
46.
Carlos,
I really am not sure about Hillary. When Johnson was in power there was a major Democrat majority. Now, in the minority and facing the spinning blades of the current media, Democrats have been ducking and dodging for so long that it is hard to pin down a position.
I can understand the strategy by the Senate, of being quiet and letting this administration stew in their own offal. Daschle was destroyed (basically without a whimper) with the assistance of spin. Hillary is currently set up for a burning.
But you know what? I still believe that principle trumps spin and I am looking for the leader. Dick Durbin, John Conyers, Bulldog Waxman, Barbara Boxer (to a lesser extent). There is also realpolitik involved in our election process. How do Dems avoid the media lies campaign and how do we take back the vote count? Kerry is a thing of the past, but I think that Hillary might just be warming up.
Comment by blaze — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:47 pm
47.
Impeachment procedures followed by trial by international court of war crimes should begin immediately!
Comment by Wayne — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:51 pm
48.
Carlos,
There is a poll on MSNBC.com asking the question: should a date be set for withdrawl from Iraq? currently 77% said yes. If this continues, withdrawl WILL happen.
Comment by MNSasquatch — June 13th, 2005 @ 12:57 pm
49.
Good job Carlos-deflect deflect deflect- now what about these memos. lol
Comment by MNoops — June 13th, 2005 @ 1:10 pm
50.
Testing… I had another comment, but the server isn’t letting me post it.
Comment by Gary Kleppe — June 13th, 2005 @ 1:23 pm
51.
The pottery barn rule does apply here. We broke it and leaving now would be like shoplifting.
Iraq is more like if we ran into a store with a gun and started shooting up the place, taking out all the store managers in the process. Then when the police tell us to come out with our hands up, we say that we’d like to, but we can’t because that would leave nobody to run the store.
Comment by Gary Kleppe — June 13th, 2005 @ 1:26 pm
52.
SHEEPLE, get a clue! We will NOT be leaving Iraq, ever! The ‘crats and the Republican Guard are all fully cognizant of this. Have you given any thought to the REAL reaon we declared war on Iraq?
[As pointed out in Crossing the Rubicon, Britain needs Iraqi oil just as the U.S. does. Plans for invasion were nothing new. If the intelligence being gathered before the war did not fit these plans, the “facts” would be changed. This British “Downing Street” memo is merely icing on the cake. From day one the Iraq conquest had nothing to do with the “war on terror.” It always was, and still is, a resource war.
“The basic plan was to capture 11 percent of the world’s oil and put it in a bank while Halliburton, DynCorp, and a dozen other corporations get billions of US taxpayer dollars to rebuild the infrastructure for a time when the US will be able to use it, parcel it out to starving allies [such as Britain], or simply withhold it from foes.”
Crossing the Rubicon, p.535
Comment by Mark — June 13th, 2005 @ 1:28 pm
53.
MNoops
If you think this is deflection, then I counter that the DSM hoopla is also deflection. Do we focus JUST on the DSM and impeaching Bush while IGNORING the Iraq war. It seems to me alot of Dems would like to do just that. Are you one of them? What’s your position on Iraq war?
Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 2:15 pm
54.
Judy, I bristled a bit when I read your comment that “We American’s are responsible for Bush’s illegal disastrous war.” Like you, I was out there beforehand fighting like hell to keep us out, and then I was fighting like hell to prevent Bush from being reelected. So were a whole heck of a lot of other people, with the world behind us.
Know what? The war happened anyway. The second coronation happened anyway. Now, despite strenuous opposition and some Democrats showing some spine for a change, the courts are getting packed with right-wing activist judges and John Bolton will probably get to blow up the U.N. anyway.
Say it’s really true (and I have strong doubts) that the majority of Americans were/are behind Bush: I am not one of those Americans, and therefore I am not at all responsible for this illegal disastrous war. No one who fought with all they had to prevent it are responsible.
The Bush administration (with Tony Blair’s help) is responsible for this illegal, disastrous war. Those citizens who naively and romantically believed (and still believe!) his lies and allow themselves to be manipulated are complicit, but even they are not responsible. Those who determine what will be “spun” to us in the media must share in the responsibility (it’s debatable if they and Bush aren’t joined at the hip), but many reporters are complicit only because they fear repercussions if they report factually and show courage in covering what’s really going on.
I’ll wager that, even if Congress had not voted to give Bush the power to wage war on Iraq, he would have done it anyway. Would that be any different from what he does every single day that he’s in office? Yes, the Democrats, in trying to look like they’re fair and bipartisan, have proven themselves in the past to be utter wimps; but I maintain that Bush didn’t need their wimpiness to get what he wanted. He didn’t need the sheepdom to get what he wanted. He doesn’t even need his opponents to get tired of fighting against him to get what he wants. By God, he’s going to get what he wants no matter what! Wake up, people!
The only way we’re going to stop him and his ilk is to demand verifiable paper trails to make sure the mid-term elections are a big wakeup call and the voices of Americans are all heard loud and clear. Failing that, we ALL need to be prepared to pour into the streets to fight (even die) for the land that we love.
Comment by dkistner — June 13th, 2005 @ 2:17 pm
55.
Mark
I agree with you - there are lies behind the lies behind the lies - and at the bottom the answer can be found - as Deep Throat liked to say - by following the money.
Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 2:17 pm
56.
The clincher should be documents on OIL.
Greg Palast has found these on the plans to privatize and steal Iraq’s oil, and elections were initially put off so they had time to do it “legally” because no elected government, even a puppet one, could get away with rubber stamping that.
First Palast story with interviews with author of plan, Grover Norquist and General Jay Garner, first American ruler of Iraq:
http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=3 83&row=1
Follow up story with oil execs on differences with Bush admin:
http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=4 17&row=2
The Bushies seem to be taking this seriously–they’re suing Palast.
Comment by Professor Smartass — June 13th, 2005 @ 2:34 pm
57.
Are these docs part of a “Bush Guard Memo Redux” scheme set in motion by a British Karl Rove? Because how do we know they are real and not fakes?
Comment by Romdinstler Jones — June 13th, 2005 @ 2:47 pm
58.
Brits have not disputed authenticity, so it’s a little late to play that card.
I think about that now with anything that sounds too good to be true–could be a poison pill.
Comment by Professor Smartass — June 13th, 2005 @ 2:53 pm
59.
Right on Carlos,
Out of Iraq now, right now! Don’t buy the same old B.S. we were told during Vietnam—-stay the course blah blah blah.
I gave up on the Democrats after voting for them for over 50 years. They are hopeless. I am going to give the Green Party a chance to show what they will do for the working and middle class. Peace
Comment by CheDebbs — June 13th, 2005 @ 3:19 pm
60.
So then Tony Blair went ahead and participated in a war that he knew was a fake. Right.
I wonder if these secret documents came from Bill Buckett or Dan Rather?
Keep digging folks…so far the only thing we find is that John Kerry is no smarter than George W. Bush and you don’t know how to win elections.
Comment by Joe Smith — June 13th, 2005 @ 3:40 pm
61.
Of course we know how to win elections. All you need to do is install crooked, unauditable voting machines in enough precincts.
Comment by Gary Kleppe — June 13th, 2005 @ 4:03 pm
62.
HELLO BUCKY… or is it polished sausage?
Comment by Skid — June 13th, 2005 @ 4:08 pm
63.
Skid,
The original Carlos said “bush lied, thousands died".
The Carlos after that is Buckshot.
In addition to his other personalities.
When is thinkprogress going to ban him?
Comment by Susan — June 13th, 2005 @ 4:49 pm
64.
Skid
What are you talking about. I did say Bush lied, thousands died. I have not said anything under the name Buckshot
Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 4:51 pm
65.
Skid
Why would you want me banned. Because you don’t agree with me. Now that’s being a good Republican, or are you a pro-war Democrat. Or a stay the course Democrat? Or a Isn’t Dean terrific when he ignores the war supporter?
Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 4:53 pm
66.
Sorry Skid - I meant my responses to be addressed to Susan who suggested I be banned cause she believes I’m other people - maybe she’s paranoid - but I have only posted as Carlos - not polished sausage or buckshot or anyone else. So before Susan goes suggesting that people be banned maybe she communicate a bit more. Unless she jsut wants to silence dissent.
Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 4:59 pm
67.
More DSM Fallout
Think Progress has the full text of, now four memos from England. These four memos, from a year before the invasion, outline (in advance) what transpired in Iraq
Trackback by The Supreme Irony of Life… — June 13th, 2005 @ 5:21 pm
68.
It doesn’t matter what I think of the war, the topic at hand is the DSM.
Comment by MNoops — June 13th, 2005 @ 5:36 pm
69.
MNoops
Except that you think the war is a distraction from DSM - but they are tied together - how can you separate the war from DSM - what nonsense - it’s like trying separate a letter that discusses murdering someone and the actual murder - how would that play in a court of law - like the defendant’s lawyer says - we can only discuss the letter we can’t discuss the murder - or vice versa -
in fact try discussing the DSM without discussing the war. Now that would be a challenge. You have said nothing about the memo yourself.
Comment by Carlos — June 13th, 2005 @ 5:42 pm
70.
If you are, however, please think back to when Clinton was in office. I’m pretty sure that he did not invade Iraq.
Comment by MNSasquatch — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:31 am
From GlobalSecurity.org:
Operation Desert Fox
On December 16, 1998, United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) military forces launched cruise missile attacks against military targets in Iraq. These strikes were ordered by the President of the United States and were undertaken in response to Iraq’s continued failure to comply with United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as their interference with United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors. The strikes were designed to deliver a serous blow to Saddam Hussein’s capability to manufacture, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction and his ability to threaten or otherwise intimidate his neighbors.
In November 1998, US President William J. Clinton warned Iraqi leadership that force would be used if they continued to hamper United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors efforts. This operation, dubbed Desert Fox, was a rapid and intense use of air power that lasted four days (17-20 December 1998), ending on the first day of Ramadan, the ninth month of the Muslim year during which Muslim believers must fast between dawn and dusk. It was also the first operation that used B-1B Lancer bomber aircraft in a combat role. As in earlier confrontations between coalition forces and Iraqi military forces in the Persian Gulf, the intent was to show the coalition’s resolve to continue to support the UN’s monitoring effort. This was basically the “straw that broke the camel’s back” in the year-long tug of war between Hussein and the coalition. In fact, the US deployed forces to the Persian Gulf in February 1998 as part of operation Desert Thunder. Like confrontations in the past, Hussein selected a time when the US and her European allies were busy with preparing for another situation, again in the former republic of Yugoslavia.
I was against this when it happened thinking Clinton was trying to destract. Richard Clarke says differently in his book.
Comment by John Gillnitz — June 13th, 2005 @ 5:55 pm
71.
It doesn’t matter what I think of the war, the topic at hand is the DSM.
Comment by MNoops — June 13th, 2005 @ 5:36 pm
The DSM is hearsay. It is someone else’s interpretation of what someone said.
The authorization Bush signed to allow torture in violation of the Geneva Convention (and federal law) should be what triggers chIMPEACHMENT. If Ohio and Tom DeLay don’t take him down first.
Comment by John Gillnitz — June 13th, 2005 @ 6:00 pm
72.
Carlos conveniently ignores several FACTS (instead of tired AIPAC allegations, and Bill Clinton, who is not, some say, equivalent to the Democratic party):
1) John Kerry outed the USPNAC airbases scheme during the FIRST debate, and repudiated it: “The US has no legitimate longterm interest in staying in Iraq.”
2) Howard Dean, who famously opposed the war, is now head of the national party machine. How did that happen, even when H. Clinton (?) and a lot of others opposed? Must be more to this party than you say.
3) Nancy Pelosi opposed, even opposed the Iraq Resolution, and that’s how she got her current job – by OPPOSING assistance the Bush agenda in Iraq.
4) What was the actual vote on that Iraq Resolution? A lot of leftists like carlos have faulty memory on that PARTY DISCIPLINE vote. In the Senate, party discipline split the vote 50-50. Twenty-five Dem US Senators voted NAY. In the House, 60% voted NAY. Gee, that doesn’t sound like a party that wanted to invade Iraq – or they have a strange way of saying it.
5) Why did that vote go so strongly NAY? Because of action by the party, aka the membership. That vote may have gone mostly Yea, if not for the responsiveness of both the membership and the representatives. Changing the leader in the House is not a small change. Democracy produced that change.
6) John Conyers, Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, and several other Democrats have strongly protested and fought against the Bush regime’s actions in Iraq. Have they been condemned by the party? Absolutely not. Indeed, 94 House members have signed the letter to Bush demanding he come clean on his Bush-Blair war conspiracy. That’s 94 out of about 200 – again not a sign that the party supports Bush on Iraq.
7) The myth that Dems are Rs is conclusively disproven by Bush’s actions, and the near-total toleration of those actions by Rs, and NOT by Dems. Not only was USPNAC not Clinton’s plan, or the Dems’ plan in secret – it is treason.
8) John Kerry won the election – Bush Lost Ohio. If Kerry had been allowed to take office, the airbases scheme would already be TOAST. Confusing Kerry’s statements supporting a measured stand-down in Iraq (to prevent civil war) is not the same as Bush’s permanent airbases and actions intended to CAUSE civil war.
Leftists are busy trying to beat the third party or no party drum, but that is the path of NO poltiical power in our system. I’ve heard leftists support the idea that only a revolution, or only a social collapse, or only a massive terrorist strike, say a nuke, would change the American system. My own view, as an ardent, active protester since I was 12 years old during Vietnam, is that these statements are inherently BIGOTED.
Wishing for disasters in order to change politics is the whole definition of powerlessness.
Comment by Paul in LA — June 13th, 2005 @ 6:01 pm
73.
John Smith=Bucky/Sausage… not Carlos, he’s generally good people.
Comment by Skid — June 13th, 2005 @ 6:04 pm
74.
One Carlos? Two?
Comment by Skid — June 13th, 2005 @ 6:07 pm
75.
“The DSM is hearsay. It is someone else’s interpretation of what someone said.”
UNTRUE. The DSM, and supporting documents, is bona fide intel on the Bush-Blair conspiracy, with the majority of the information coming from Britain’s MI6 (equivalent to the CIA). It is solid evidence of the actual stance of the two governments.
Actually, that’s obvious, if you observe the difference in response between the two pieces of evidence. The torture evidence? Gonzales is the new AG.
The DSM? Blair has to come to the US to issue an outright lie for Bush. Blair is likely to fall from power within the next few months, which would weaken Bush considerably – not least of which because the new PM might hold an investigation – more real evidence from the main attacking ally.
Bush is in serious trouble, but this is a coup. I believe all the evidence is important, but the continued efforts by some on the left to downplay the DSM is counterproductive, and flows mainly from the desire to ignore the existence of GOVERNMENTS.
Comment by Paul in LA — June 13th, 2005 @ 6:09 pm
76.
Wishing for disasters in order to change politics is the whole definition of powerlessness.
I’m with ya’ Paul. Looks like they got their power by a lot more than wishing (9/11)…
Comment by Skid — June 13th, 2005 @ 6:13 pm
77.
Carlos: “Dean didn’t even mention the war at the recent Take Back America conference. Arianna Huffington was the only one to bring it up.”
AH is not even IN the Dem party. She ran third party against an elected governor in an unconstitutional (and stolen) recall election in my state, to her considerable shame.
Dean is head of the DNC. His job is specifically contingent on DOMESTIC policy – not as a lightning rod for opposing Iraq. Taking the job specifically meant he had to retarget the rhetoric. That’s mainly because a political solution is not the same thing as an up-down suicide vote, which is all the leftists want to see happen. They oppose politics – they refuse to acknowledge political reality.
Dean is forced to acknowledge political reality – that’s what the DNC Chair’s job is all about.
As usual, it is up to the PEOPLE to make the case against the Iraq war, and against Bush as a traitor. An impeachment, were it to start (unlikely but possible), would have to begin as always with the grassroots. For all the obvious reasons, it cannot start within the representatives themselves. John Conyers would not be pushing so hard if not for the hundreds of thousands of letters he has received, including from the pro-impeachment efforts of me and my friends for the last three years, which focussed on trying to get him to file an impeachment bill.
I am very happy now that this evidence is coming out; that Conyers is willing to carry the torch; and that 94 Dems have announced their willingness to support the investigation that may lead to impeachment.
Leftists continue to ignore the politics, down the parties as the same, and downplay the DSM on the argument that it is redundant to their superior knowledge of all things (except politics). Instead, they ought to be fighting their asses off moving the issue forward. Instead, the appeals to Huffington and other political-fringe voices, as if that has any weight in Congress.
Comment by Paul in LA — June 13th, 2005 @ 6:27 pm
78.
John, I consider the just DSM another nail in the coffin.
And yes Carlos, I can discuss the DSM without discussing the day to day events of the war.
The deflections were bringing up, Bill , Hillary, Albright, Lieberman-anything but discussing the implications of DSM. I’m also very happy that this site stays on top of it and keeps me up to date with emails. great job!
Comment by MNoops — June 13th, 2005 @ 6:30 pm
79.
Very interesting dialogue, especially when able to rise above name calling and malicious labelling.
My synopsis would be that it is agreed that our government is corrupt and non-representative of the “real” public and that the public is growing increasingly frustrated. The constant questions regarding motives and allegiances are indicitive of such.
The war/invasion/campaign/crusade, whatever you wish to call it, is most certainly wrong. Legalities and tactics can be argued all day. The bloodshed, however, is the only truth and the most troubling.
Now, I do not wish to throw my hat in anyone’s ring but I do find that Carlos is one of the few talking around the edges of the real solution. No violence, no emails to political or religious figures, no alignment with this pundit or that one. Rather, clear and civilized actions are what is necessary. This is, after all, a democracy for, of, and by the people. What to do? Here are some thoughts:
- Stop paying taxes
- Start Protesting
- Stop being “politically correct” (ie; you cannot support the troops but not support the war)
Start doing something or stop complaining. It’s one or the other.
Comment by Stephen — June 13th, 2005 @ 6:42 pm
80.
This posting shows just how knowledgable Americans are. Thanks for voting Bush in again, World Peace will be a step closer come 2008 when he leaves office.
Comment by Gary — June 13th, 2005 @ 8:44 pm
81.
Clinton gave us NAFTA, Welfare Reform and the WTO, all great for the republicans and the corporate lobby, rotten for the American people.
The dems didn’t just screw up by supporting the war. Look at Feinstein’s voting record, she’s given W everything he’s requested except women’s rights issues. Lieberman can’t go five minutes without reciting the right’s talking points in regards to Iraq having made the world safer. Did you see the way W dry humped Lieberman’s leg after his last State of the Union?
Dems have supported the Class Action Fairness nightmare, the Bankruptcy horror, the Medicare Reform pile, figure it out, folks, they don’t represent the people.
Ever since Clinton showed the Dems how easy it was to raise cash by catering to big business we’ve been stuck with the republican party and the republican-light party.
If you’re hoping for a hero to arrive from the left side of the aisle then you’re deluded. They’re bought and paid for. Look at their voting records, it’ll take you five minutes.
Comment by Kev — June 13th, 2005 @ 9:57 pm
82.
Slim odds are better than no odds.
Comment by Skid — June 13th, 2005 @ 10:04 pm
83.
The entire world, including we Democrats knew Bush was lying about Iraq and the WMD fiasco. Until the DNC can find another media savy nominee, and we (the main stream ‘regular’ folks), get off our lazy butt’s and VOTE it won’t matter what anyone thinks or says. Christian Fundamentalist people are in the minority, believe it or not. But they are the one’s that are active. I think the rest of us now are out of denial and ready to vote. Bring Gov. Bill Richardson on. Get Dean a retirement community to harass.
Comment by karen kelly — June 13th, 2005 @ 10:53 pm
84.
my first visit… loved it. Thanks. Loved all of the opinions. My first thought. Bill Hicks said it soo well. “I think the puppet on the left is of my liking. I think the puppet on the right is my liking. Wow! Look…. It is the same pupeteer holding them both.” I think that we all really know this. Reps and Dems all feed at the trough. It is all about oil and passage ways for whatever the powers that be feel need to be opended. Be it NAFTA/CAFTA, European Union. I urge everyone to read Howard Zinn’s book on the history of America since 1492. A must read.
Thanks.
Comment by Ron E — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:00 pm
85.
I am glad to hear the likes of Carlos. Who was it that said, “Dissent is the greatest form of Patriotism?”
But let’s examine the powers that be. If we clump together the dems and neo-cons as part of the same corporate-driven machine, my only concern would be that if some other fringe party were to miraculously rise up and take power, where would it leave us in terms of global hegemony? Would a stand-down, pacifistic change of government truly encourage the world’s terrorists to offer an olive branch? If we’re not to take some active role in stablizing the Middle East and secure the future’s oil supply, who will?
With China and India in higher demand for oil-energy, it concerns me that the ultimate dilemma stems from pur continued fossil fuel addiction. And look how the rest of the world is getting hooked. Someone has to keep the junkies in check. I’d feel safer if it was us and not Iran, or China, or Russia, or even the EU.
Comment by DJ Robbie Rouser — June 13th, 2005 @ 11:33 pm
86.
Paul in LA,
Great comments as usual, you seem to have confidence that Bush is in trouble and I badly want to agree, but here is what stops me: we have our echo chambers and they have theirs. Ours is filled with knowledge, true patriotism and much passion. Theirs gets played on a thousand radio stations and on most of the TV outlets. The vast majority of our fellow Americans hear their story and not ours. The fact that there has been any traction at all on the DSM, Tom Delay, Iraq disaster, etc. surprises (but encourages) me. I’m also encouraged by the recent show of nerve by a handful of editorial pages that have called the Bush administration what it is: a lying cabal. Cautiously optimistic, I suppose.
In an earlier post you state that “this is a coup” and I was hoping you would elaborate. Is this based on Bush’s plummeting poll numbers or something more tangible?
I think that ANY Democrat that is openly criticizing Howard Dean should be considered a clear impediment to the cause of revolutionary change in our political landscape. He is showing courage, speaking the truth, fighting like hell and not being intimidated by harsh attacks that he knew would be coming. Maybe he didn’t know they’d be coming from the likes of Joe Biden, but you can be sure everyone that knows how valuable Dean is to the future of a true “progressive” movement has put Biden’s name on their shitlist. Every time one of these whores opens their mouth they expose their priorities….and those priorities are not democracy first. Those politicians must be firmly rebuked.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Monday, June 06, 2005
New 'Deep Throat for Iraq', says Nixon rival
June 4th, 2005 1:55 am
New 'Deep Throat' needed for Iraq, says Nixon rival
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US media needs a modern-day "Deep Throat" within the administration of President George W. Bush to reveal how America was "misled" on Iraq, former presidential contender George McGovern said.
"We need someone like that who is highly placed to tell us what's really going on. We know that we were misled on Iraq," McGovern told Fox News Radio.
McGovern, a former senator, unsuccessfully ran against Richard Nixon for the White House in 1972.
Deep Throat, revealed this week as former FBI assistant director Mark Felt, acted as a source to The Washington Post newspaper, helping to bring down Nixon's presidency over the Watergate scandal in 1974.
"I wish there were somebody of the Deep Throat time in this administration who are aware of what's going on," McGovern told Fox News Radio.
"This war in Iraq, in my opinion is worse than anything Nixon did. I think Nixon deserved to be expelled from office in view of the cover-up that he carried on and the laws that he violated.
"But we have an administration in power now that led us to a war that is internationally illegal; it's a war that we are fighting with a country that has no threat to us that has nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks.
McGovern said Nixon was undoubtedly "tricky," but said of Bush: "This man claims to be Christian, following the will of God, and then he misleads the whole nation on a totally fraudulent enterprise in Iraq that we should have never been attached to."N
New 'Deep Throat' needed for Iraq, says Nixon rival
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US media needs a modern-day "Deep Throat" within the administration of President George W. Bush to reveal how America was "misled" on Iraq, former presidential contender George McGovern said.
"We need someone like that who is highly placed to tell us what's really going on. We know that we were misled on Iraq," McGovern told Fox News Radio.
McGovern, a former senator, unsuccessfully ran against Richard Nixon for the White House in 1972.
Deep Throat, revealed this week as former FBI assistant director Mark Felt, acted as a source to The Washington Post newspaper, helping to bring down Nixon's presidency over the Watergate scandal in 1974.
"I wish there were somebody of the Deep Throat time in this administration who are aware of what's going on," McGovern told Fox News Radio.
"This war in Iraq, in my opinion is worse than anything Nixon did. I think Nixon deserved to be expelled from office in view of the cover-up that he carried on and the laws that he violated.
"But we have an administration in power now that led us to a war that is internationally illegal; it's a war that we are fighting with a country that has no threat to us that has nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks.
McGovern said Nixon was undoubtedly "tricky," but said of Bush: "This man claims to be Christian, following the will of God, and then he misleads the whole nation on a totally fraudulent enterprise in Iraq that we should have never been attached to."N
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
The Downing Street Memo :: What is it?
The Downing Street Memo :: What is it?: "Today is June 1, 2005
27 days since congressional request for investigation.
The Downing Street 'Memo' is actually a document containing meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002—a full eight months PRIOR to the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003. The Times of London printed the text of this document on Sunday, May 1, 2005, but to date US media coverage has been limited. This site is intended to act as a resource for anyone who wants to understand the facts revealed in this document.
The contents of the memo are shocking. The minutes detail how our government did not believe Iraq was a greater threat than other nations; how intelligence was 'fixed' to sell the case for war to the American public; and how the Bush Administration’s public assurances of 'war as a last resort' were at odds with their privately stated intentions.
Congressman John Conyers is calling on American citizens to sign on to a letter to the President that demands a response to questions originally posed by Conyers and 88 other members of Congress in a similar letter dated May 5, 2005. Conyers has committed to personally delivering the letter to the White House when it garners 100,000 citizen signatures.
Let's help him get there. Follow this link to sign.
When asked, British officials 'did not dispute the document's authenticity.' and a senior American official has described it as 'absolutely accurate.' Yet the Bush administration continues to simultaneously sidestep the issue while attempting to cast doubt on the memo’s authenticity.
Nobody wants to go to war. We trust our leaders to shed blood in our name only when absolutely necessary. But the facts revealed by the Downing Street Memo force us to ask ourselves: Was I misled? Did President Bush tell me the truth when he said he would not take us to war unless absolutely necessary?
More than two years after the start of the Iraq War, Americans are just learning that our government was dead set on invasion, even while it claimed to be pursuing diplomacy. Please join us in demanding that we get to the bottom of this issue.
"
27 days since congressional request for investigation.
The Downing Street 'Memo' is actually a document containing meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002—a full eight months PRIOR to the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003. The Times of London printed the text of this document on Sunday, May 1, 2005, but to date US media coverage has been limited. This site is intended to act as a resource for anyone who wants to understand the facts revealed in this document.
The contents of the memo are shocking. The minutes detail how our government did not believe Iraq was a greater threat than other nations; how intelligence was 'fixed' to sell the case for war to the American public; and how the Bush Administration’s public assurances of 'war as a last resort' were at odds with their privately stated intentions.
Congressman John Conyers is calling on American citizens to sign on to a letter to the President that demands a response to questions originally posed by Conyers and 88 other members of Congress in a similar letter dated May 5, 2005. Conyers has committed to personally delivering the letter to the White House when it garners 100,000 citizen signatures.
Let's help him get there. Follow this link to sign.
When asked, British officials 'did not dispute the document's authenticity.' and a senior American official has described it as 'absolutely accurate.' Yet the Bush administration continues to simultaneously sidestep the issue while attempting to cast doubt on the memo’s authenticity.
Nobody wants to go to war. We trust our leaders to shed blood in our name only when absolutely necessary. But the facts revealed by the Downing Street Memo force us to ask ourselves: Was I misled? Did President Bush tell me the truth when he said he would not take us to war unless absolutely necessary?
More than two years after the start of the Iraq War, Americans are just learning that our government was dead set on invasion, even while it claimed to be pursuing diplomacy. Please join us in demanding that we get to the bottom of this issue.
"
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
The Downing Street Memo
The Downing Street Memo
Congressman John Conyers, Jr.
May 27, 2005
Dear Friend:
As many of you are aware, a classified memo was recently disclosed in Great Britain that I believe has serious ramifications for the integrity of the United States Government. Dubbed the “Downing Street Memo,” but actually comprising the minutes of a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and other top British government officials, the memo casts serious doubt on many of the contentions of the Bush Administration in the lead up to the Iraq war. With over 1,600 U.S. servicemen and servicewomen killed in Iraq, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and over $200 billion in taxpayer funds going to this war effort, we cannot afford to stand by any longer.
Along with 88 of my colleagues, I wrote to the President requesting answers about this grave matter. Thus far, our search for the truth has been stonewalled and I need your help. I believe the American people deserve answers about this matter and should demand directly that the President tell the truth about the memo. To that end, I am asking you to sign on to a letter to the President requesting he answer the questions posed to him by 89 Members of Congress.
I will personally insure that this letter is delivered to the White House.
You can read the letter here and sign on to it below. You and I know the White House is just hoping that this matter will fade away, but in a few short weeks, with our steadfastness, the memo has found its way into leading newspapers and White House press briefings. With your help, we can hold this Administration accountable.
Please pass on this important letter to your friends and colleagues, and ask them to sign as well.
Thank you for your help and support.
John Conyers, Jr.
Congressman John Conyers, Jr.
May 27, 2005
Dear Friend:
As many of you are aware, a classified memo was recently disclosed in Great Britain that I believe has serious ramifications for the integrity of the United States Government. Dubbed the “Downing Street Memo,” but actually comprising the minutes of a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and other top British government officials, the memo casts serious doubt on many of the contentions of the Bush Administration in the lead up to the Iraq war. With over 1,600 U.S. servicemen and servicewomen killed in Iraq, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and over $200 billion in taxpayer funds going to this war effort, we cannot afford to stand by any longer.
Along with 88 of my colleagues, I wrote to the President requesting answers about this grave matter. Thus far, our search for the truth has been stonewalled and I need your help. I believe the American people deserve answers about this matter and should demand directly that the President tell the truth about the memo. To that end, I am asking you to sign on to a letter to the President requesting he answer the questions posed to him by 89 Members of Congress.
I will personally insure that this letter is delivered to the White House.
You can read the letter here and sign on to it below. You and I know the White House is just hoping that this matter will fade away, but in a few short weeks, with our steadfastness, the memo has found its way into leading newspapers and White House press briefings. With your help, we can hold this Administration accountable.
Please pass on this important letter to your friends and colleagues, and ask them to sign as well.
Thank you for your help and support.
John Conyers, Jr.
Friday, May 27, 2005
The Secret Downing Street Memo: Where We Are Going
Blogged by JC on 05.09.05 @ 10:55 PM ET
The Secret Downing Street Memo
Where We Are Going
On talk radio today, and on the Internet, there is a palpable frustration about the lack of mainstream media (or as many appropriately call it, "corporate media") coverage of the secret Downing Street memo. I share this frustration. In my view, it is inexcusable that the cable news networks and the major newspapers have failed thus far to give this story the attention it deserves. At its core, the disclosure represents a vindication of the assertions of all of us who opposed the war, and truth-telling former Administration officials who were smeared for daring to provide the public the information it is entitled to. More importantly, it shows an Administration that appears to have lied to the American people and their elected representatives, while simultaneously telling the truth to the representatives of the British people, about the most grave matter for any nation -- the decision to go to war.
To be sure, there is more coverage in the last three days about this than in the previous week. A new story by Knight-Ridder puts an appropriate context on the letter I circulated, and -- while scant -- CNN at least saw fit to mention the letter over the weekend.
However, if you will excuse the sports analogy (the NBA playoffs are in full swing and my Detroit Pistons are the defending champions), in basketball, it is frequently the case that a team will feel it is getting a series of unfair calls from the referees, and will expend so much energy worrying about the lack of fairness, that it loses track of its game plan.
A smart team, on the other hand, will adopt a two-tier strategy. They will work the refs, meaning complain about the calls, and try to urge the officials to do better. But, more importantly, they will simply play harder so that the bad calls will not be outcome determinative.
How does this apply to the situation at hand? As Eric Alterman has noted in his book What Liberal Media?, the right-wing has made its fortunes by loudly complaining when the media fails to do its bidding or -- as Alterman dubs it -- "working the refs". We must do the same. In letters to the editor, newspaper ombudsmen, calls to talk radio, and diaries on liberal websites, we must loudly decry the media's failure to cover this important story. Please continue to do your part to bring this story to the attention of the cable networks and major newspapers, as well as your elected representatives. Don't give up. I assure you I will press ahead in every way to get this story this coverage and context it deserves.
More importantly, we must put aside the dereliction of duty of the corporate media and simply fight harder for our nation. A media that fails to serve the public interest cannot be our source of validation or our barometer of political success. We must continue to beat the drum on talk radio, liberal websites and other alternative media. When you see the furor this story generates in the alternative media, that should be sufficient for you to know that many, many people recognize this serious breach of the public trust for what it is.
While a lack of mainstream media attention makes the fight for a more progressive and free America more difficult, it does not make the shift that is occurring any less inevitable. Politics is cyclical. The way things are now is not the way they will be in the near future. Let's fight to make that change happen as soon as possible.
The Secret Downing Street Memo
Where We Are Going
On talk radio today, and on the Internet, there is a palpable frustration about the lack of mainstream media (or as many appropriately call it, "corporate media") coverage of the secret Downing Street memo. I share this frustration. In my view, it is inexcusable that the cable news networks and the major newspapers have failed thus far to give this story the attention it deserves. At its core, the disclosure represents a vindication of the assertions of all of us who opposed the war, and truth-telling former Administration officials who were smeared for daring to provide the public the information it is entitled to. More importantly, it shows an Administration that appears to have lied to the American people and their elected representatives, while simultaneously telling the truth to the representatives of the British people, about the most grave matter for any nation -- the decision to go to war.
To be sure, there is more coverage in the last three days about this than in the previous week. A new story by Knight-Ridder puts an appropriate context on the letter I circulated, and -- while scant -- CNN at least saw fit to mention the letter over the weekend.
However, if you will excuse the sports analogy (the NBA playoffs are in full swing and my Detroit Pistons are the defending champions), in basketball, it is frequently the case that a team will feel it is getting a series of unfair calls from the referees, and will expend so much energy worrying about the lack of fairness, that it loses track of its game plan.
A smart team, on the other hand, will adopt a two-tier strategy. They will work the refs, meaning complain about the calls, and try to urge the officials to do better. But, more importantly, they will simply play harder so that the bad calls will not be outcome determinative.
How does this apply to the situation at hand? As Eric Alterman has noted in his book What Liberal Media?, the right-wing has made its fortunes by loudly complaining when the media fails to do its bidding or -- as Alterman dubs it -- "working the refs". We must do the same. In letters to the editor, newspaper ombudsmen, calls to talk radio, and diaries on liberal websites, we must loudly decry the media's failure to cover this important story. Please continue to do your part to bring this story to the attention of the cable networks and major newspapers, as well as your elected representatives. Don't give up. I assure you I will press ahead in every way to get this story this coverage and context it deserves.
More importantly, we must put aside the dereliction of duty of the corporate media and simply fight harder for our nation. A media that fails to serve the public interest cannot be our source of validation or our barometer of political success. We must continue to beat the drum on talk radio, liberal websites and other alternative media. When you see the furor this story generates in the alternative media, that should be sufficient for you to know that many, many people recognize this serious breach of the public trust for what it is.
While a lack of mainstream media attention makes the fight for a more progressive and free America more difficult, it does not make the shift that is occurring any less inevitable. Politics is cyclical. The way things are now is not the way they will be in the near future. Let's fight to make that change happen as soon as possible.
The Downing Street Memo: Bush lied!
May 19, 2005
Juan Cole on Salon, by way of introduction to that Downing Street Memo
Link: Salon.com News | The lies that led to war.
I love Juan Cole's blog, and it is neat to have his clear-headed words on this topic too.
The lies that led to war
A leaked British memo, and other documents, make it clear that Bush intended all along to invade Iraq -- and lied about it to the American people. The full gravity of his offense has not yet sunk in.
By Juan Cole
May 19, 2005 | When Newsweek's source admitted that he had misidentified the government document in which he had seen an account of Quran desecration at Guantánamo prison, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita exploded, "People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said. How could he be credible now?"
Di Rita could have said the same things about his bosses in the Bush administration.
Tens of thousands of people are dead in Iraq, including more than 1,600 U.S. soldiers and Marines, because of false allegations made by President George W. Bush and Di Rita's more immediate boss, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, about Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and equally imaginary active nuclear weapons program. Bush, Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice repeatedly made unfounded allegations that led to the continuing disaster in Iraq, much of which is now an economic and military no man's land beset by bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and political gridlock.
And we now know, thanks to a leaked British memo concerning the head of British intelligence, that the Bush administration -- contrary to its explicit denials -- had already made up its mind to attack Iraq and "fixed" those bogus allegations to support its decision. In short, Bush and his top officials lied about Iraq.
Going to war is the most serious decision a president can make. It should never be approached in a cavalier fashion. American lives, the prestige and influence of the country, international relations, the health of its defenses, and the future of the next generation are at stake. Yet every single piece of evidence we now have confirms that George W. Bush, who was obsessed with unseating Saddam Hussein even before 9/11, recklessly used the opportunity presented by the terror attacks to march the country to war, fixing the intelligence to justify his decision, and lying to the American people about the reasons for the war. In other times, this might have been an impeachable offense.
The media circus around the Newsweek story arrived in time to further divert attention from the explosive British memorandum. Although the leaked Downing Street memo, published by the London Times on May 1, revealed the deeply dishonest and manipulative way that the Bush administration took the United States (and the United Kingdom) to war against Iraq, the American press corps studiously ignored it for two weeks.
The memo reported a July 2002 meeting of key British Cabinet and other officials, held when Sir Richard Dearlove, head of the British intelligence service, MI6, returned from a trip to Washington. It revealed that the decision to go to war had already been made by that point: "Military action was now seen as inevitable," the notes by British national security aide Matthew Rycroft revealed. Dearlove reported, "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."
Members of the British Cabinet were worried by the news, the memo shows, since they knew that the case against Iraq was tissue-thin in international law and that there were several more egregious sinners in the weapons area than Iraq. Because the United Kingdom, unlike the United States, is a member of the International Criminal Court, its officials had to worry about being tried for war crimes if they became involved in an illegal war of aggression launched by Bush and lacking U.N. Security Council sanction. Prime Minister Tony Blair put his hopes in a ploy. He thought that Bush should arrange for the United Nations to demand a return to Iraq of weapons inspectors, with the hope that Saddam Hussein would refuse, thus creating a legal justification for war acceptable to the international community.
[...]
Go read the whole thing!
Juan Cole on Salon, by way of introduction to that Downing Street Memo
Link: Salon.com News | The lies that led to war.
I love Juan Cole's blog, and it is neat to have his clear-headed words on this topic too.
The lies that led to war
A leaked British memo, and other documents, make it clear that Bush intended all along to invade Iraq -- and lied about it to the American people. The full gravity of his offense has not yet sunk in.
By Juan Cole
May 19, 2005 | When Newsweek's source admitted that he had misidentified the government document in which he had seen an account of Quran desecration at Guantánamo prison, Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita exploded, "People are dead because of what this son of a bitch said. How could he be credible now?"
Di Rita could have said the same things about his bosses in the Bush administration.
Tens of thousands of people are dead in Iraq, including more than 1,600 U.S. soldiers and Marines, because of false allegations made by President George W. Bush and Di Rita's more immediate boss, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, about Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and equally imaginary active nuclear weapons program. Bush, Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice repeatedly made unfounded allegations that led to the continuing disaster in Iraq, much of which is now an economic and military no man's land beset by bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and political gridlock.
And we now know, thanks to a leaked British memo concerning the head of British intelligence, that the Bush administration -- contrary to its explicit denials -- had already made up its mind to attack Iraq and "fixed" those bogus allegations to support its decision. In short, Bush and his top officials lied about Iraq.
Going to war is the most serious decision a president can make. It should never be approached in a cavalier fashion. American lives, the prestige and influence of the country, international relations, the health of its defenses, and the future of the next generation are at stake. Yet every single piece of evidence we now have confirms that George W. Bush, who was obsessed with unseating Saddam Hussein even before 9/11, recklessly used the opportunity presented by the terror attacks to march the country to war, fixing the intelligence to justify his decision, and lying to the American people about the reasons for the war. In other times, this might have been an impeachable offense.
The media circus around the Newsweek story arrived in time to further divert attention from the explosive British memorandum. Although the leaked Downing Street memo, published by the London Times on May 1, revealed the deeply dishonest and manipulative way that the Bush administration took the United States (and the United Kingdom) to war against Iraq, the American press corps studiously ignored it for two weeks.
The memo reported a July 2002 meeting of key British Cabinet and other officials, held when Sir Richard Dearlove, head of the British intelligence service, MI6, returned from a trip to Washington. It revealed that the decision to go to war had already been made by that point: "Military action was now seen as inevitable," the notes by British national security aide Matthew Rycroft revealed. Dearlove reported, "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."
Members of the British Cabinet were worried by the news, the memo shows, since they knew that the case against Iraq was tissue-thin in international law and that there were several more egregious sinners in the weapons area than Iraq. Because the United Kingdom, unlike the United States, is a member of the International Criminal Court, its officials had to worry about being tried for war crimes if they became involved in an illegal war of aggression launched by Bush and lacking U.N. Security Council sanction. Prime Minister Tony Blair put his hopes in a ploy. He thought that Bush should arrange for the United Nations to demand a return to Iraq of weapons inspectors, with the hope that Saddam Hussein would refuse, thus creating a legal justification for war acceptable to the international community.
[...]
Go read the whole thing!
The Downing memo: Bush lied!!
Just in at CNN
by RetLtCol
Wed May 11th, 2005 at 18:57:00 PDT
"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 -- 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."
Goes with bumper sticker I saw last week.
"Impeach the Lying Son of a Bush!!!"
E-Mail your member of congress and senators!!!
by RetLtCol
Wed May 11th, 2005 at 18:57:00 PDT
"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 -- 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."
Goes with bumper sticker I saw last week.
"Impeach the Lying Son of a Bush!!!"
E-Mail your member of congress and senators!!!
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Under the Bush Crime Family
Under the Bush Crime Family:
Amnesty International ranked US the top torturer country in the world. US leads the world in committing acts of torture, curbing civil rights, killer of innocent people, etc.
Another day I was watching a film named "Pra frente Brasil". This movie was filmed in the seventies. The movie was about the military ditatorship that ruled Brazil for about twenty years. The movie showed how a innocent family was distroyed by the military special forces.
This special force use to get money from the corporations to get funded, and it's speciality was to torture and kill the so called guerrilas or terrorists (which were patriots whose only fault was to be
against the ditatorship).
I was shocked when in one of the meetings betwween the businessmen and the special force, the guy who was teaching torture was no other than a CIA guy.
So this US torture in Iraq, Afghan and in Guantanamo is nothing new. US is exporting torture for more than 40 years to his ditactors friend.
Amnesty International ranked US the top torturer country in the world. US leads the world in committing acts of torture, curbing civil rights, killer of innocent people, etc.
Another day I was watching a film named "Pra frente Brasil". This movie was filmed in the seventies. The movie was about the military ditatorship that ruled Brazil for about twenty years. The movie showed how a innocent family was distroyed by the military special forces.
This special force use to get money from the corporations to get funded, and it's speciality was to torture and kill the so called guerrilas or terrorists (which were patriots whose only fault was to be
against the ditatorship).
I was shocked when in one of the meetings betwween the businessmen and the special force, the guy who was teaching torture was no other than a CIA guy.
So this US torture in Iraq, Afghan and in Guantanamo is nothing new. US is exporting torture for more than 40 years to his ditactors friend.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Downing Street Secret Memo
Downing Street Secret Memo
The Evidence We Need to End the Bush Presidency
Home
Act for Justice
Real War Heroes
Iraq News
Justice in Palestine
Links to Justice
Pelosi & War Crimes
Republicans Say...
Downing Street Memo
Search this Website
Talk to Tom Joad
Real War Heroes
Those who resist
While there is little doubt that a great crime was hatched by the U.S. & British authorities in commencing a war of aggression against a sovereign state for bogus reasons, there was not a "smoking gun" but rather a mountain of circumstantial evidence. Until now. If all goes well, if there is any justice left in the United States, this memo will become widely known here as it is already widely known in Europe, and the crimes described therein will be the basis for charges of impeachment brought against President Bush. This will take patience, persistence, and much effort on the part of ordinary people, but it must be done. Our action is the only thing that will end the illegal occupation of Iraq, and prevent a similar war in the very near future.
This memo, is the Pentagon Papers of our time. It describes that the "facts were being fixed" to justify an invasion of Iraq.
Below is the Full Text of the Downing Street Memo, also known as the "Rycroft Memo".
Read here for an article by James McGovern on the "Fixed Facts" in the Memo, and what this means.
Another commentary by Greg Palast can be found here.
And while the Democratic leadership (is that an oxymoron?) has been mostly silent on the issue, 89 House members have signed a letter authored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) calling on President Bush to answer questions about the issues it brings up.
Remember, the same Bush administration that was obsessed with regime change in Iraq had key advisors that at an earlier time had urged military aid to Saddam during the bloodiest time of his career, during the Iran/Iraq war. See the story on Daniel Pipes .
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. 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 UN 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.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. 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.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
The Evidence We Need to End the Bush Presidency
Home
Act for Justice
Real War Heroes
Iraq News
Justice in Palestine
Links to Justice
Pelosi & War Crimes
Republicans Say...
Downing Street Memo
Search this Website
Talk to Tom Joad
Real War Heroes
Those who resist
While there is little doubt that a great crime was hatched by the U.S. & British authorities in commencing a war of aggression against a sovereign state for bogus reasons, there was not a "smoking gun" but rather a mountain of circumstantial evidence. Until now. If all goes well, if there is any justice left in the United States, this memo will become widely known here as it is already widely known in Europe, and the crimes described therein will be the basis for charges of impeachment brought against President Bush. This will take patience, persistence, and much effort on the part of ordinary people, but it must be done. Our action is the only thing that will end the illegal occupation of Iraq, and prevent a similar war in the very near future.
This memo, is the Pentagon Papers of our time. It describes that the "facts were being fixed" to justify an invasion of Iraq.
Below is the Full Text of the Downing Street Memo, also known as the "Rycroft Memo".
Read here for an article by James McGovern on the "Fixed Facts" in the Memo, and what this means.
Another commentary by Greg Palast can be found here.
And while the Democratic leadership (is that an oxymoron?) has been mostly silent on the issue, 89 House members have signed a letter authored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) calling on President Bush to answer questions about the issues it brings up.
Remember, the same Bush administration that was obsessed with regime change in Iraq had key advisors that at an earlier time had urged military aid to Saddam during the bloodiest time of his career, during the Iran/Iraq war. See the story on Daniel Pipes .
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. 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 UN 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.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. 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.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
Daily Kos :: Downing Street Evidence -- Washington Post Refuses to Cover Story
Daily Kos :: Downing Street Evidence -- Washington Post Refuses to Cover Story
Downing Street Evidence -- Washington Post Refuses to Cover Story
by Apian
Tue May 10th, 2005 at 15:17:37 PDT
It's a great day to be alive. Readers are demanding that the Washington Post cover the story of the Downing Street evidence, and the paper is refusing. Not because the evidence is unauthenticated ior unnewsworthy. But because it is that explosive and damning. A story too big to cover?
There is a news blackout on the UK's Attorney General's opinion on the illegality of the war on Iraq, and liability for prosecution in the International Criminal Court. Bush's fatal error in the rush to war was that he did not order Blair to un-sign the UK membership in the ICC. If Blair is brought up on war crimes charges, his ally will also be tried. Either Tony Blair takes the fall, or he starts naming names.
As it was Downing Street that released both the minutes of the July 23, 2002 war intelligence meeting, and the Goldsmith opinion, it looks like Blair is prepared to name names. In spite of the WaPo’s refusal to cover the Goldsmith legal opinion, the news is getting through this blockade. The reaction is a call for impeachment and prosecution for war crimes. These are interesting times to live through.
Downing Street Evidence -- Washington Post Refuses to Cover Story
by Apian
Tue May 10th, 2005 at 15:17:37 PDT
It's a great day to be alive. Readers are demanding that the Washington Post cover the story of the Downing Street evidence, and the paper is refusing. Not because the evidence is unauthenticated ior unnewsworthy. But because it is that explosive and damning. A story too big to cover?
There is a news blackout on the UK's Attorney General's opinion on the illegality of the war on Iraq, and liability for prosecution in the International Criminal Court. Bush's fatal error in the rush to war was that he did not order Blair to un-sign the UK membership in the ICC. If Blair is brought up on war crimes charges, his ally will also be tried. Either Tony Blair takes the fall, or he starts naming names.
As it was Downing Street that released both the minutes of the July 23, 2002 war intelligence meeting, and the Goldsmith opinion, it looks like Blair is prepared to name names. In spite of the WaPo’s refusal to cover the Goldsmith legal opinion, the news is getting through this blockade. The reaction is a call for impeachment and prosecution for war crimes. These are interesting times to live through.
Bush's approval rating hits a low
May 24th, 2005 2:16 pm
Bush's approval rating on crucial issues hits a low
By Susan Page / USA Today
WASHINGTON — President Bush's approval ratings for handling the economy, Iraq and Social Security have fallen to the lowest levels of his White House tenure, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday.
Satisfaction with congressional Republicans also has sagged. By 47%-36%, those polled say the country would be better off if Democrats controlled Congress. That's the best showing for Democrats since the GOP won control of both houses of Congress in 1994.
USA TODAY/CNN/GALLUP POLL
Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?
Approve: 46%
Disapprove: 50%
No opinion: 4%
Full Poll Results
Americans express more concern about the price of gas than they do about the high-profile dispute over Democrats' filibuster of Bush's judicial nominations, the survey shows. And they are holding Republicans, who control the White House and Congress, responsible for their unease about the economy and Iraq.
"If people are not happy with the way things are going, the people in charge get the heat," says Andrew Kohut, director of the non-partisan Pew Research Center. A Pew poll released Thursday showed similar trends.
"We don't get caught up in week-by-week polling," White House press secretary Scott McClellan says. Bush "is going to remain focused on the big priorities and build on the progress we're making" on job creation and "spreading freedom."
In the sample of 1,006 adults, 36% call themselves Democrats, 29% Republicans. Including those who "lean" toward a party, 51% are Democrats, 40% Republicans. The survey isn't "weighted" for party ID, which fluctuates from poll to poll. Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, says the poll findings are "dubious" because the breakdown "does not accurately reflect the partisan makeup of America."
Bush's overall approval rating was 46%, down 4 percentage points since early May but higher than the 45% low in March. On specific issues, 40% approved of his handling of Iraq and the economy, 33% of his handling of Social Security.
Only on handling terrorism did Bush receive a net positive rating: 55% approve, 40% disapprove.
Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg says Bush is losing ground on "big, defining issues," including the economy and Iraq. "On Social Security, he's moved from being the person offering interesting ideas to the guy who wants to cut Social Security benefits."
Republican pollster David Winston says gas prices and Iraq violence have "unsettled the electorate" and affected Bush's standing.
There are red flags for Bush on two standard measures of a president's political health. The proportion that says he has "the personality and leadership qualities a president should have" fell to a new low of 52%. A record 57% say they disagree with him on the issues that matter the most to them.
On the filibuster confrontation — defused by a compromise announced late Monday — those surveyed favored the Democrats by 48%-40%. But they saw merit in the arguments of each side. A 53% majority say the filibuster — the ability of at least 41 senators to continue debate and delay a vote — should be preserved. Still, 69% wanted the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on judicial nominees.
Interest in the issue wasn't particularly high, though. A 57% majority wasn't following the news on filibusters closely; more than one in three weren't following it at all.
Other items in this section
Mike's Letter
Latest News
In The News
More of Mike's Latest News
May 24th, 2005 9:20 pm
'Nightline' to Honor 'The Fallen'
May 24th, 2005 8:58 pm
CIA Employees May Testify in Navy Case
May 24th, 2005 7:31 pm
The Believer
May 24th, 2005 6:51 pm
Contracting Rush For Security Led To Waste, Abuse
May 24th, 2005 5:10 pm
AP: Records Reveal Guantanamo Stories
May 24th, 2005 4:47 pm
Congressman Slams Maher Over Army Remark
May 24th, 2005 4:21 pm
Seattle students picket military recruiters
May 24th, 2005 4:13 pm
UW-Stout chancellor blocks ROTC from campus
May 24th, 2005 3:36 pm
Laura Bush Endorses Mubarak's Ballot Plan
May 24th, 2005 2:38 pm
Leaving the Army not an easy decision, but it's an increasingly common one
Mike's Latest News Archive
Suggestions / Ideas
If you have an idea or suggestion for our News section, please CLICK HERE
Bush's approval rating on crucial issues hits a low
By Susan Page / USA Today
WASHINGTON — President Bush's approval ratings for handling the economy, Iraq and Social Security have fallen to the lowest levels of his White House tenure, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday.
Satisfaction with congressional Republicans also has sagged. By 47%-36%, those polled say the country would be better off if Democrats controlled Congress. That's the best showing for Democrats since the GOP won control of both houses of Congress in 1994.
USA TODAY/CNN/GALLUP POLL
Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?
Approve: 46%
Disapprove: 50%
No opinion: 4%
Full Poll Results
Americans express more concern about the price of gas than they do about the high-profile dispute over Democrats' filibuster of Bush's judicial nominations, the survey shows. And they are holding Republicans, who control the White House and Congress, responsible for their unease about the economy and Iraq.
"If people are not happy with the way things are going, the people in charge get the heat," says Andrew Kohut, director of the non-partisan Pew Research Center. A Pew poll released Thursday showed similar trends.
"We don't get caught up in week-by-week polling," White House press secretary Scott McClellan says. Bush "is going to remain focused on the big priorities and build on the progress we're making" on job creation and "spreading freedom."
In the sample of 1,006 adults, 36% call themselves Democrats, 29% Republicans. Including those who "lean" toward a party, 51% are Democrats, 40% Republicans. The survey isn't "weighted" for party ID, which fluctuates from poll to poll. Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, says the poll findings are "dubious" because the breakdown "does not accurately reflect the partisan makeup of America."
Bush's overall approval rating was 46%, down 4 percentage points since early May but higher than the 45% low in March. On specific issues, 40% approved of his handling of Iraq and the economy, 33% of his handling of Social Security.
Only on handling terrorism did Bush receive a net positive rating: 55% approve, 40% disapprove.
Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg says Bush is losing ground on "big, defining issues," including the economy and Iraq. "On Social Security, he's moved from being the person offering interesting ideas to the guy who wants to cut Social Security benefits."
Republican pollster David Winston says gas prices and Iraq violence have "unsettled the electorate" and affected Bush's standing.
There are red flags for Bush on two standard measures of a president's political health. The proportion that says he has "the personality and leadership qualities a president should have" fell to a new low of 52%. A record 57% say they disagree with him on the issues that matter the most to them.
On the filibuster confrontation — defused by a compromise announced late Monday — those surveyed favored the Democrats by 48%-40%. But they saw merit in the arguments of each side. A 53% majority say the filibuster — the ability of at least 41 senators to continue debate and delay a vote — should be preserved. Still, 69% wanted the Senate to hold up-or-down votes on judicial nominees.
Interest in the issue wasn't particularly high, though. A 57% majority wasn't following the news on filibusters closely; more than one in three weren't following it at all.
Other items in this section
Mike's Letter
Latest News
In The News
More of Mike's Latest News
May 24th, 2005 9:20 pm
'Nightline' to Honor 'The Fallen'
May 24th, 2005 8:58 pm
CIA Employees May Testify in Navy Case
May 24th, 2005 7:31 pm
The Believer
May 24th, 2005 6:51 pm
Contracting Rush For Security Led To Waste, Abuse
May 24th, 2005 5:10 pm
AP: Records Reveal Guantanamo Stories
May 24th, 2005 4:47 pm
Congressman Slams Maher Over Army Remark
May 24th, 2005 4:21 pm
Seattle students picket military recruiters
May 24th, 2005 4:13 pm
UW-Stout chancellor blocks ROTC from campus
May 24th, 2005 3:36 pm
Laura Bush Endorses Mubarak's Ballot Plan
May 24th, 2005 2:38 pm
Leaving the Army not an easy decision, but it's an increasingly common one
Mike's Latest News Archive
Suggestions / Ideas
If you have an idea or suggestion for our News section, please CLICK HERE
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
US ' backed illegal iraqui oil deals'
Bloglines | My FeedsMay 17th, 2005 12:17 pm
US 'backed illegal Iraqi oil deals'
Report claims blind eye was turned to sanctions busting by American firms
By Julian Borger and Jamie Wilson / Guardian
The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.
A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.
The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.
In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.
"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.
The report is likely to ease pressure from conservative Republicans on Kofi Annan to resign from his post as UN secretary general.
The new findings are also likely to be raised when Mr Galloway appears before the Senate subcommittee on investigations today.
The Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow arrived yesterday in Washington demanding an apology from the Senate for what he called the "schoolboy dossier" passed off as an investigation against him.
"It was full of holes, full of falsehoods and full of value judgments that are apparently only shared here in Washington," he said at Washington Dulles airport.
He told Reuters: "I have no expectation of justice ... I come not as the accused but as the accuser. I am [going] to show just how absurd this report is."
Mr Galloway has denied allegations that he profited from Iraqi oil sales and will come face to face with the committee in what promises to be one of the most highly charged pieces of political theatre seen in Washington for some time.
Yesterday's report makes two principal allegations against the Bush administration. Firstly, it found the US treasury failed to take action against a Texas oil company, Bayoil, which facilitated payment of "at least $37m in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime".
The surcharges were a violation of the UN Oil For Food programme, by which Iraq was allowed to sell heavily discounted oil to raise money for food and humanitarian supplies. However, Saddam was allowed to choose which companies were given the highly lucrative oil contracts. Between September 2000 and September 2002 (when the practice was stopped) the regime demanded kickbacks of 10 to 30 US cents a barrel in return for oil allocations.
In its second main finding, the report said the US military and the state department gave a tacit green light for shipments of nearly 8m barrels of oil bought by Jordan, a vital American ally, entirely outside the UN-monitored Oil For Food system. Jordan was permitted to buy some oil directly under strict conditions but these purchases appeared to be under the counter.
The report details a series of efforts by UN monitors to obtain information about Bayoil's oil shipments in 2001 and 2002, and the lack of help provided by the US treasury.
After repeated requests over eight months from the UN and the US state department, the treasury's office of foreign as sets control wrote to Bayoil in May 2002, requesting a report on its transactions but did not "request specific information by UN or direct Bayoil to answer the UN's questions".
Bayoil's owner, David Chalmers, has been charged over the company's activities. His lawyer Catherine Recker told the Washington Post: "Bayoil and David Chalmers [said] they have done nothing illegal and will vigorously defend these reckless accusations."
The Jordanian oil purchases were shipped in the weeks before the war, out of the Iraqi port of Khor al-Amaya, which was operating without UN approval or surveillance.
Investigators found correspondence showing that Odin Marine Inc, the US company chartering the seven huge tankers which picked up the oil at Khor al-Amaya, repeatedly sought and received approval from US military and civilian officials that the ships would not be confiscated by US Navy vessels in the Maritime Interdiction Force (MIF) enforcing the embargo.
Odin was reassured by a state department official that the US "was aware of the shipments and has determined not to take action".
The company's vice president, David Young, told investigators that a US naval officer at MIF told him that he "had no objections" to the shipments. "He said that he was sorry he could not say anything more. I told him I completely understood and did not expect him to say anything more," Mr Young said.
An executive at Odin Maritime confirmed the senate account of the oil shipments as "correct" but declined to comment further.
It was not clear last night whether the Democratic report would be accepted by Republicans on the Senate investigations committee.
The Pentagon declined to comment. The US representative's office at the UN referred inquiries to the state department, which fail to return calls.
US 'backed illegal Iraqi oil deals'
Report claims blind eye was turned to sanctions busting by American firms
By Julian Borger and Jamie Wilson / Guardian
The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.
A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.
The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.
In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.
"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.
The report is likely to ease pressure from conservative Republicans on Kofi Annan to resign from his post as UN secretary general.
The new findings are also likely to be raised when Mr Galloway appears before the Senate subcommittee on investigations today.
The Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow arrived yesterday in Washington demanding an apology from the Senate for what he called the "schoolboy dossier" passed off as an investigation against him.
"It was full of holes, full of falsehoods and full of value judgments that are apparently only shared here in Washington," he said at Washington Dulles airport.
He told Reuters: "I have no expectation of justice ... I come not as the accused but as the accuser. I am [going] to show just how absurd this report is."
Mr Galloway has denied allegations that he profited from Iraqi oil sales and will come face to face with the committee in what promises to be one of the most highly charged pieces of political theatre seen in Washington for some time.
Yesterday's report makes two principal allegations against the Bush administration. Firstly, it found the US treasury failed to take action against a Texas oil company, Bayoil, which facilitated payment of "at least $37m in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime".
The surcharges were a violation of the UN Oil For Food programme, by which Iraq was allowed to sell heavily discounted oil to raise money for food and humanitarian supplies. However, Saddam was allowed to choose which companies were given the highly lucrative oil contracts. Between September 2000 and September 2002 (when the practice was stopped) the regime demanded kickbacks of 10 to 30 US cents a barrel in return for oil allocations.
In its second main finding, the report said the US military and the state department gave a tacit green light for shipments of nearly 8m barrels of oil bought by Jordan, a vital American ally, entirely outside the UN-monitored Oil For Food system. Jordan was permitted to buy some oil directly under strict conditions but these purchases appeared to be under the counter.
The report details a series of efforts by UN monitors to obtain information about Bayoil's oil shipments in 2001 and 2002, and the lack of help provided by the US treasury.
After repeated requests over eight months from the UN and the US state department, the treasury's office of foreign as sets control wrote to Bayoil in May 2002, requesting a report on its transactions but did not "request specific information by UN or direct Bayoil to answer the UN's questions".
Bayoil's owner, David Chalmers, has been charged over the company's activities. His lawyer Catherine Recker told the Washington Post: "Bayoil and David Chalmers [said] they have done nothing illegal and will vigorously defend these reckless accusations."
The Jordanian oil purchases were shipped in the weeks before the war, out of the Iraqi port of Khor al-Amaya, which was operating without UN approval or surveillance.
Investigators found correspondence showing that Odin Marine Inc, the US company chartering the seven huge tankers which picked up the oil at Khor al-Amaya, repeatedly sought and received approval from US military and civilian officials that the ships would not be confiscated by US Navy vessels in the Maritime Interdiction Force (MIF) enforcing the embargo.
Odin was reassured by a state department official that the US "was aware of the shipments and has determined not to take action".
The company's vice president, David Young, told investigators that a US naval officer at MIF told him that he "had no objections" to the shipments. "He said that he was sorry he could not say anything more. I told him I completely understood and did not expect him to say anything more," Mr Young said.
An executive at Odin Maritime confirmed the senate account of the oil shipments as "correct" but declined to comment further.
It was not clear last night whether the Democratic report would be accepted by Republicans on the Senate investigations committee.
The Pentagon declined to comment. The US representative's office at the UN referred inquiries to the state department, which fail to return calls.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Bush and Blair memo about invadind Iraq
May 6th, 2005 7:37 pm
The secret Downing Street memo
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. 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 UN 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.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. 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.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Anti-Castro Tom DeLay smokes "Cuban cigar"
Michael Moore - Must Read
W E B E X C L U S I V E
But Did He Inhale?
Anti-Castro Majority Leader Tom DeLay enjoys a fine Cuban cigar
By KAREN TUMULTY
ZIV KOREN / POLARIS
SMOOTH: The Cuban in Question
Wednesday, Apr. 27, 2005
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes, according to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a cigar is an economic prop to a brutal totalitarian regime. Arguing against loosening sanctions against Cuba last year, DeLay warned that Fidel Castro "will take the money. Every dime that finds its way into Cuba first finds its way into Fidel Castro's blood-thirsty hands.... American consumers will get their fine cigars and their cheap sugar, but at the cost of our national honor."
DeLay has long been one of Congress' most vocal critics of what he calls Castro's "thugocracy," which is why some sharp-eyed TIME readers were surprised last week to see a photo of the Majority Leader smoking one of Cuba's best—a Hoyo de Monterrey double corona, which generally costs about $25 when purchased overseas and is not available in this country. The cigar's label clearly states that it was made in "Habana." The photo was taken in Jerusalem on July 28, 2003, during a meeting between DeLay and the Republican Jewish Coalition at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.
"Generally, the Hoyo de Monterrey is considered a very good cigar, especially in those oversizes," says Gregory Mottola, tasting coordinator for Cigar Aficionado magazine. A review of the Hoyo de Monterrey double corona on the website www.topcubans.com raves: "Love at first sight. The beauty of the stick, is matched by it's (sic) paradisiacal even roundness in the smoke. The Hoyo sweet tastes (crushed cacao/coffee, Moroccan leather), give this cigar a childish naughtiness character. This is a smoke full of prestige and smooth class."
DeLay's smoke may have run afoul of his principles, but it did not violate U.S. regulations at the time. However, it would now. Last September, the Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control tightened its prohibitions against U.S. citizens importing or consuming Cuban cigars. Even Americans licensed to bring back up to $100 worth of Cuban goods are no longer allowed to include tobacco products in what they carry. The regulation also noted that Americans are barred not only from purchasing Cuban goods in foreign countries, but also from consuming them in those countries.
Asked about the Majority Leader's consumption of a Cuban cigar, his spokesman Dan Allen replied there has been "no change in our Cuban policy."
W E B E X C L U S I V E
But Did He Inhale?
Anti-Castro Majority Leader Tom DeLay enjoys a fine Cuban cigar
By KAREN TUMULTY
ZIV KOREN / POLARIS
SMOOTH: The Cuban in Question
Wednesday, Apr. 27, 2005
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes, according to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a cigar is an economic prop to a brutal totalitarian regime. Arguing against loosening sanctions against Cuba last year, DeLay warned that Fidel Castro "will take the money. Every dime that finds its way into Cuba first finds its way into Fidel Castro's blood-thirsty hands.... American consumers will get their fine cigars and their cheap sugar, but at the cost of our national honor."
DeLay has long been one of Congress' most vocal critics of what he calls Castro's "thugocracy," which is why some sharp-eyed TIME readers were surprised last week to see a photo of the Majority Leader smoking one of Cuba's best—a Hoyo de Monterrey double corona, which generally costs about $25 when purchased overseas and is not available in this country. The cigar's label clearly states that it was made in "Habana." The photo was taken in Jerusalem on July 28, 2003, during a meeting between DeLay and the Republican Jewish Coalition at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.
"Generally, the Hoyo de Monterrey is considered a very good cigar, especially in those oversizes," says Gregory Mottola, tasting coordinator for Cigar Aficionado magazine. A review of the Hoyo de Monterrey double corona on the website www.topcubans.com raves: "Love at first sight. The beauty of the stick, is matched by it's (sic) paradisiacal even roundness in the smoke. The Hoyo sweet tastes (crushed cacao/coffee, Moroccan leather), give this cigar a childish naughtiness character. This is a smoke full of prestige and smooth class."
DeLay's smoke may have run afoul of his principles, but it did not violate U.S. regulations at the time. However, it would now. Last September, the Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control tightened its prohibitions against U.S. citizens importing or consuming Cuban cigars. Even Americans licensed to bring back up to $100 worth of Cuban goods are no longer allowed to include tobacco products in what they carry. The regulation also noted that Americans are barred not only from purchasing Cuban goods in foreign countries, but also from consuming them in those countries.
Asked about the Majority Leader's consumption of a Cuban cigar, his spokesman Dan Allen replied there has been "no change in our Cuban policy."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
