Bush & Blair: Making & Breaking Rules for Agendas

[pattylou]

This is the title of a book describing how Bush and Blair have been making and breaking their own rules for their own agendas. Part of the book has to do with a January 2003 memo, reported in the New York Times today; you can read about the memo without a subscription, at the BBC report linked below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4849744.stm

This is more than a little reminiscent of the Downing Street memo.

The White House and Downing Street have not denied the memo, in any way, although it has been out for several weeks.

I thought you should be aware of this new memo. I didn't see it on my home page this morning, and so I don't think it is getting much coverage (yet.)

Summarising the two-hour White House meeting, the memo says: "Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning."

Mr Bush is paraphrased as saying: "The start date for the military campaign was now pencilled in for 10 March. This was when the bombing would begin."

Although the US and UK pushed for a second UN resolution on Iraq, the memo cites Mr Bush saying he did not believe one was needed.

"The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would twist arms and even threaten," Mr Bush is paraphrased as saying.

Article continues at the link.

If this has been discussed in some other thread, such as "Republican lies..." I apologise. I've skimmed through the titles of recent posts but don't have time at the moment to read through all the threads where this topic might be under discussion.

 

[pattylou]

So the thread has been read about 2 dozen times, and I assume a response on the thread will get a few more views. I'd like to ask your input on something.

So here's two questions to anyone reading.

If you have read the memo(s), or the related articles in the NYT, then are you of the opinion that bush wanted to invade Iraq even without conclusive evidence that WMD would be found (as indicated in this latest leaked memo) and without UN support, and through means of "fixing intelligence" or by "arranging the diplomatic strategy around the military plan?"

IOW Question 1: Are you of the opinion that he would break laws in this way? (For whatever reason. Perhaps he really saw himself as doing God's work; perhaps he saw himself as a liberator of the oppressed Iraqi's; perhaps he thinks some laws are more important than others; whatever. Do you think he ignored law in order to invade, as implied by these memos?)

.
.
.
.
.
.

...time so that you can decide yes or no...


.
.
.
.
.


Question 2:If you think he would or did break law in this way, do you then think that such a person might be willing to get into the White House in an illegal manner, if the opportunity was available?


~~~~~


It's a simple idea, one that our parents taught us all - Slick Willy was raked over the coals for it. You have to have integrity. If you're lacking it one area, then you probably lack it in others.

What do you think?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think Bush (the man himself) probably thought that there were WMD in Iraq and if evidence was fabricated I don't think it was his decision but he may have gone along because he believed it wasa true.

No I don't think Bush (the man himself) would have rigged or had anyone else rig the election for him. If it was rigged I think that it was someone elses work and he likely was not in the know.

 

[pattylou]

I think Bush (the man himself) probably thought that there were WMD in Iraq and if evidence was fabricated I don't think it was his decision but he may have gone along because he believed it wasa true.

It's possible he thought that.

The memo introduces some question on that score, however:

The memo indicates both leaders acknowledged it was possible no unconventional weapons would be found in Iraq before the invasion, the New York Times says.

From the link in the OP.

Perhaps in this snippet, bush 'meant' that he thought Saddam would move putative WMD. Or, perhaps he meant that he knew the evidence wasn't as sound as he was promoting publically. I think it has to be one or the other - I don't see a third possibility.

If he thought WMD would be moved, I wonder if he would have tried to put some intelligence on monitoring that sort of activity? If he didn't put any effort into monitoring that type of activity, then I'd conclude that he was acknowledging (in the meeting that generated the memo) that WMD might not exist at all.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If he thought WMD would be moved, I wonder if he would have tried to put some intelligence on monitoring that sort of activity? If he didn't put any effort into monitoring that type of activity, then I'd conclude that he was acknowledging (in the meeting that generated the memo) that WMD might not exist at all.

I'm quite sure that there was intelligence gathering going on in and over Iraq. I couldn't say just what they were gathering intelligence on ofcourse since they were gearing up for a possible war but I would imagine that any significant movements were monitored even if it wasn't explicitly stated that they were to look for WMD.

 

[Gokul43201]

If I heard this right on CNN, the memo also reveals that Bush had suggested (something close to) painting a U2 plane with UN colors and flying it over Saddam's head, hoping he'd shoot it down. This attack would then provide the justification for retaliation.

Hearing that, I was reminded strongly of the tactics used by Reagan's thinktanks against Qadhafi in the Gulf of Sidra incident.

 

[RVBuckeye]

First, I don't want to soley base my opinion on someone elses approximation of this memo. I would much rather see the actual memo first. Without it, its' just speculation. I'm not denying that it exists, and it might even say exactly what is reported. However, if you want speculation, in that case, it sounds like two peoples private converstion in a brain-storming session. From what they reported, I don't really see any shocking revelations.

"Twist arms"- is a figure of speech. It could mean putting diplomatic pressure on countries that disagreed. It doesn't necessarily suggest we would threaten them militarily. What do you think diplomacy is? At least it shows they wanted a resolution authorizing them to take action, even though they knew all along that they could do it anyway.

"assasination plan"- military spy planes painted as UN planes? We've been patrolling the "no fly Zone" in Iraq for years. If they would have downed one of our f-18's, that would have done the trick.

Bringing out a defector to expose his WMD, sounds like a plausible idea. Maybe they should have pursued it.

Assasination is an iffy subject. It was discussed in the media as well at that time. The fact is, we didn't.

Hey, we all know they were wrong with there predictions about post-war Iraq. That's not some big secret either.

 

[russ_watters]

This is the title of a book describing how Bush and Blair have been making and breaking their own rules for their own agendas.

Could you elaborate on how this memo applies to your claim that "Bush and Blair have been making and breaking their own rules for their own agendas" - especially to explain just what you mean by that?

You may not be getting the responses you were hoping for because you haven't really said anything of substance here. Yes, you brought it to peoples' attention (thanks), but perhaps they just read it, thought it wasn't worth commnting on, and absent a comment from you to agree/disagree with, didn't see any reason to post. That was my first reaction and why I hadn't posted sooner.

 

[loseyourname]

From the link in the OP.

The memo indicates both leaders acknowledged it was possible no unconventional weapons would be found in Iraq before the invasion, the New York Times says.

Perhaps in this snippet, bush 'meant' that he thought Saddam would move putative WMD. Or, perhaps he meant that he knew the evidence wasn't as sound as he was promoting publically. I think it has to be one or the other - I don't see a third possibility.

I'd sure like to see the actual memo. "Acknowledging the possibility" of something is not a very strong statement or necessarily indicative of belief. Similarly, if someone asked you to acknowledge the possibility that Saddam actually had WMDs and even intended to use them within the next fifteen years, wouldn't you have to? That certainly seems to be a third possibility - that each leader believed WMDs were in Saddam's possession, but acknowledged the possibility that these would never be found (presumably by the UN inspectors).

If I heard this right on CNN, the memo also reveals that Bush had suggested (something close to) painting a U2 plane with UN colors and flying it over Saddam's head, hoping he'd shoot it down. This attack would then provide the justification for retaliation.

I could have sworn that Iraqi forces somehow did engage British forces in the no-fly zone in the weeks leading up to the invasion, before it was decided publicly that the US and UK would actually go into depose Saddam. In fact, I thought that was the proximate impetus for the issuance of the ultimatum asking him to peacefully step down or otherwise be forcefully removed from power.

I don't have links for this or anything since I just remember hearing all of this on the radio during my regular commute as it was happening four years ago, but doesn't anyone else remember this? Am I remembering it all wrong?

 

[RVBuckeye]

I could have sworn that Iraqi forces somehow did engage British forces in the no-fly zone in the weeks leading up to the invasion, before it was decided publicly that the US and UK would actually go into depose Saddam. In fact, I thought that was the proximate impetus for the issuance of the ultimatum asking him to peacefully step down or otherwise be forcefully removed from power.

I don't have links for this or anything since I just remember hearing all of this on the radio during my regular commute as it was happening four years ago, but doesn't anyone else remember this? Am I remembering it all wrong?

I don't remember this happening in the weeks leading up to the invasion, but I have first hand knowledge that US planes were engaged several times during operation southern watch. Yet, this never triggered an invasion in those circumstances either. Who knows what would have happened if they actually shot down one of our planes. I do know they never did.

 

[Art]

I could have sworn that Iraqi forces somehow did engage British forces in the no-fly zone in the weeks leading up to the invasion, before it was decided publicly that the US and UK would actually go into depose Saddam. In fact, I thought that was the proximate impetus for the issuance of the ultimatum asking him to peacefully step down or otherwise be forcefully removed from power.

I don't have links for this or anything since I just remember hearing all of this on the radio during my regular commute as it was happening four years ago, but doesn't anyone else remember this? Am I remembering it all wrong?

You are 'remembering it all wrong' The USA and Britain stepped up bombing of targets in the no-fly zones dramatically in the months preceding the invasion in the hope of provoking Saddam into an act of retaliation to provide an excuse for the planned invasion. I provided a link some time back providing data on the actual tonnage dropped during this pre-war period.

Here's a similar link referring to the provocative bombing;

OK, just to refresh everyone's memory, in the July 23, 2002 meeting summarized by the DSM, UK Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon said the US had begun "spikes of activity to put pressure on the regime." We also know that in May of that year, Donald Rumsfeld greatly expanded the parameters of the No-Fly Zone patrols to include offensive strikes against communications facilities. The evidence of these raids is made plain by the RAF's own bombing statistics.

Maybe Mr. Blair was out of the loop in 2002, but it's clear that his military was taking part in the same covert air war that the Americans were waging.

Let's keep in mind that the purpose of the No-Fly Zones was to prevent Saddam's military from attacking Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north. And that's all they were for. Pilots had specific orders to engage only when engaged, to attack only those radar or antiaircraft installations that targeted or shot at them.

But in May 2002, this defensive mission was turned on its head when Rumsfeld issued orders to allow the UNPROVOKED attack of "command and control" facilities. Of paticular interest was Saddam's newly installed fiber optic communications network. Since the lines themselves were underground and impossible to locate, the bombing was directed at the repeater stations. Small problem with that, though--some of these probably shared space with civilian phone networks. That might explain why every so often a telephone exchange would suddenly explode.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/2005/06/blair-lies-again-on-pre-war-bombing.html

And another

Liberal Democrat Sir Menzies Campbell, who asked the Ministry of Defence about British and American air activity in 2002 in the southern no-fly zone of Iraq - the zone created to protect southern Shias after Saddam Hussein brutally suppressed their 1991 uprising against him.

The MoD response shows that in March 2002 no bombs were dropped, and in April only 0.3 tonnes of ordnance used. The figure rose to 7.3 tonnes in May, however, then to 10.4 in June, dipping to 9.5 in July before rising again to 14.1 in August. Suddenly, in other words, US and British air forces were in action over Iraq. <snip>
That May, however, Donald Rumsfeld had ordered a more aggressive approach, authorising allied aircraft to attack Iraqi command and control centres as well as actual air defences. The US defence secretary later said this was simply to prevent the Iraqis attacking allied aircraft, but Hoon's remark gives the game away. In reality, as he explained, the "spikes of activity" were designed "to put pressure on the regime".

What happened next was dramatic. In September, the amount of ordnance used in the southern no-fly zone increased sharply to 54.6 tonnes. It declined in October to 17.7 tonnes before rising again to 33.6 tonnes in November and 53.2 tonnes in December. The spikes were getting taller and taller.

In fact, as it became clear that Saddam Hussein would not provide them with the justification they needed to launch the air war, we can see that the allies simply launched it anyway, beneath the cloak of the no-fly zone.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200505300013

 

[pattylou]

General comment:

The text of the memo, for those who are requesting it, is reported to be in the NYT. I don't have a subscription.

There are plenty of headlines otherwise, if you also don't have a subscription and wish to read more. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=memo+bush+blair&ie=UTF-8

The "paint a plane to look like a UN plane in the hopes it will be shot at by Saddam" is being widely reported and directly claimed to not be denied by senior US/UK officials.

McClellan has said that the presidents public comments are entirely consistent with his private comments. Yet:

Public statement:

Bush: “We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq.” [3/8/03] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030308-1.html

Private statement:

“The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours,” the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. “If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.” [Bush/Blair meeting, 1/31/03] As reported in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26eiQ3D5094Q26enQ3D1a8220fd45b2aca0Q26hpQ3DQ26exQ3D1143522000Q26partnerQ3DhomepageQ26pagewantedQ3Dprint&OP=5c75ef97Q2FQ2A.Q5EEQ2ArnQ5C_ynn4Q20Q2AQ20wwQ5DQ2AwHQ2AQ20Q7CQ2AQ24Q7E4Q5EyQ7Eo4Q24nQ7EoTQ2AQ5E7yn0Q5EQ2AQ20Q7CzQ5Eznad4zT and elsewhere

 

[pattylou]

Could you elaborate on how this memo applies to your claim that "Bush and Blair have been making and breaking their own rules for their own agendas" - especially to explain just what you mean by that?

You may not be getting the responses you were hoping for because you haven't really said anything of substance here. Yes, you brought it to peoples' attention (thanks), but perhaps they just read it, thought it wasn't worth commnting on, and absent a comment from you to agree/disagree with, didn't see any reason to post. That was my first reaction and why I hadn't posted sooner.

I didn't 'hope for' any particular response.

Rather, it occurred to me after posting that if Bush is the sort of person who would lie, in order to go to war, then he may also be the sort of person who would accept the presidency whether it was gotten legitimately or not. So I posted again.

As far as the claim about making and breaking rules, that is the premise of the book "Lawless World;" I didn't 'claim' it. You can (1) read about the book here:

http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,0_0713997923,00.html

(2) A review and interview with the author here (recommended for left leaners on the forum particularly):

http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2005/12/philippe_sands.html

And (3) an excerpt from the book (I believe) here:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1423230,00.html

Those should provide some elaboration of the "make and break rules" idea.

If I have any 'premise' here, it is that a person who would lie in order to start war is not unlikely to cheat in order to get into a position of power to do so. I wonder if others would agree with that assessment.

 

[edward]

Here is a pretty good read on the subject.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/27/europe/wev.0327memo.php
click "next page" at the bottom right to get the entire story.

there was an article which appeared on page seven of my local paper even though it was more damning than the Downing street memo. It is the account of the meeting written by Blairs top foreign policy advisor. Condi and Card were at the meeting also.

It appears that the invasion of Iraq was going to happen regardless of whether WMD were found. But by now we all know that anyway.

 

[loseyourname]

You are 'remembering it all wrong'

Nope. Found it:

Iraqi fighter planes have shot down a US unmanned surveillance drone over southern Iraq.

...

The Iraqi military confirmed the plane was shot down at 1535 (1235GMT) on Monday, saying the drone had breached Iraqi airspace.

"With God's help, and with the will of the men of our heroic air defence forces and brave sky eagles, it was shot down in a delicate and planned operation," the Iraqi statement said.

...

Iraq does not recognise the zones and its air defences regularly open fire at allied planes. Iraqi aircraft are barred from the zones.

At least two other drones have been shot down over the no-fly zones in the past two years.

Iraqi Jet Shoots Down US Drone

I knew I remembered this being all over the news back when I had just moved back to California from New Jersey. Here's part of a CNN broadcast transcript:

HARRIS: Let me ask you this, also. This is not the first time we've lost drones in that area. Is it the first time one has been shot down? Is there a policy or procedure about that? Do they go after the Iraqi jet, even if it does leave the no-fly zone, or what?

STARR: Well, if they can determine what exactly happened, of course, the U.S. policy is to retaliate against any violation of the no-fly zones or any violation of the U.N. resolutions. That's what these airstrikes have been all about, of course.

But they're going to take a very hard look and try and figure out exactly what happened here. As I said, right now, we are being told it was hostile fire, but we're not being told exactly how it happened. We should say, indeed, some Predators have been lost in the past, both in southern Iraq and, of course, in Afghanistan, deemed unmanned drones. They are flown remotely, of course, and sometimes they do run into technical problems with their controls.

We're not aware that the -- and the Iraqis have made claims in the past about shooting down Predators, of course. But this is the first time U.S. military officials have said, yes, indeed, they believe indeed it was hostile fire.

So apparently, Iraqi forces had fired before on US drones, and several had been lost, but this was the first time the military came out and said that a drone had been shot down by the Iraqi air defense, and the Iraqis claimed credit for it as well.

I don't know what the real significance of this was, but I remember talking about this with people, because we were certain after this incident that war was pretty much inevitable. As minor an occurence as this really seems to have been, it just gave you that feeling, with the constant reports of tension and Bush starting to build his case in the public forum. After this was all over the news, you just knew it was for real. Before this, I had trouble believing Bush would actually invade. I just figured Saddam would eventually cooperate and allow full access to UN inspectors, and Bush would back off and allow them enough time to do their jobs.

In retrospect, how naive. We were probably set on the path to war well before Dec. 2002.

Wow, I even found this, from way back in July of 2001:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Pentagon officials say Iraq came close to hitting a U-2 spy plane with an unguided surface-to-air missile Tuesday, the second attempt by Iraq to shoot down a U.S. surveillance plane in less than a week.

Iraq Almost Hits US Plane in No-Fly Zone

Imagine if that missile had actually hit, and the Iraqis had shot down a U2 in July '01. We might have invaded even before 9/11. At the very least, I would imagine massive air strikes would be authorized against all of the Iraqi air defense units.

 

[RVBuckeye]

You are 'remembering it all wrong' The USA and Britain stepped up bombing of targets in the no-fly zones dramatically in the months preceding the invasion in the hope of provoking Saddam into an act of retaliation to provide an excuse for the planned invasion. I provided a link some time back providing data on the actual tonnage dropped during this pre-war period.

Well, you're statement caused me to do some open-minded research. I didn't want to jump to any conclusions before I read the terms of the cease-fire that Iraq signed at the end of Gulf war I. Especially in regards the "no-fly zones". http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html and http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm

First, for those who don't know or don't remember, (like me) they passed 12 resolutions in the UN, each as a condition of the cease-fire. (note: not an end to the war, just a cease-fire, at least that's how I always viewed it.) The one concerning the "no-fly zone" is resolution 688. Also, it quotes two other resolutions (649 and 716), but they deal with cyprus and not Iraq. (feel free to double-check). However, I could not find specific instructions on what was allowed and what was considered a breach of the cease-fire in relation to this issue. Are you assuming his actions were criminal or in doing so the US and Britain violated an international law? Name one country that has offered a complaint via resolution about the legality of the no-fly zone, or the legality of these bombings in particular. If there aren't any, could we conclude that this too was met with the tacit approval of the member nations?
I actually used the united nations website as my actual source. The link above is meant to show impartiality as it is a liberal organisation. If there were anything that could contradict my conclusions, I'm sure you would find it there. I have not.

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't 'hope for' any particular response.

I didn't say you were hoping for a particular response, I said you were hoping for a response. In your second post, you appeared to express dismay over the lack of response.

As far as the claim about making and breaking rules, that is the premise of the book "Lawless World;" I didn't 'claim' it.

Yes, you did, pattylou. You wrote this thread. That means you take ownership of the claim and you bear the responsibility for proving it. Otherwise, you are just repeating hearsay.

If I have any 'premise' here, it is that a person who would lie in order to start war is not unlikely to cheat in order to get into a position of power to do so. I wonder if others would agree with that assessment.

So in other words, this is another Bush-stole-the-election thread?

 

[russ_watters]

Regarding the no-fly zones - US military aircraft were engaged on a near daily basis for the entire time following the Gulf War and averaged more than one airstrike a week from '98 to 2002. They were fired on "thousands of times" during that decade, including 500 or so during 2002 alone. 90 missions (not significantly more than the average of 72) were flown in response. http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2003/02legacy03.pdf

Larger-scale bombing campaigns happened periodically during that time due to those engagements and as a result of Saddam's other actions. Clinton's "Desert Fox" was one such campaign:

Operation Desert Fox was the military codename for a major three-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets from December 16-December 18, 1998 by the United States and United Kingdom. These strikes were ordered by the President Bill Clinton 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 inspectors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Desert_Fox

Regarding the WMD issue or, more generally, the issue of whether or not Saddam was a threat: people have conveniently forgotten that there was no question about it - no controversy. The world community was in near-unanamous agreement that Saddam was a threat. You've all read the UN resolutions that state it explicitly and even Clinton agreed, stating it several times, including in his justification for Desert Fox. The speech is so similar to what Bush could have said that I once tricked people in this forum into thinking it was Bush by posting quotes from it without mentioning it was Clinton who said them:

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Bush could easily have said those exact words in 1993. Notice how matter-of-factly Clinton states the existence of Hussein's NBC programs. There was no question - it was generally accepted fact. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

Before we attacked Iraq in '93, there was no global debate over the threat that Iraq posed. Everyone agreed the threat existed. The only question was how far we should go to stop him.

 

[pattylou]

I didn't say you were hoping for a particular response, I said you were hoping for a response. In your second post, you appeared to express dismay over the lack of response. Yes, you did, pattylou. You wrote this thread. That means you take ownership of the claim and you bear the responsibility for proving it. Otherwise, you are just repeating hearsay.

You aren't being logical, Russ.

...Bush stole the election...

In a sense, every thread on the forum is "just another Iraq War" thread. I trust you have enough sophistication to appreciate the nuances between threads, and variations on ideas, in those separate threads.

So, what do you think? Does Bush have integrity? How do you understand the latest memo?

 

[Gokul43201]

Regarding the WMD issue or, more generally, the issue of whether or not Saddam was a threat: people have conveniently forgotten that there was no question about it - no controversy. The world community was in near-unanamous agreement that Saddam was a threat.

A threat to who ? And of what nature ? I doubt the international community was ever unanimous in asserting that Saddam was a direct and imminent nuclear threat to the US. Bush's addresses differ from Clinton's in their characterization of the threat.

 

[pattylou]

Currently,

North Korea is a threat. Syria is a threat. Iran is a threat.

China is an (economic) threat. So is India.

There are troubling developments in Palestine (Hamas) and Afghanistan (Taliban).

The argument for war was always designed to play to people's fear. Lots of us didn't buy it, but more of us did. It was never ever discussed in terms of likely outcomes. rather, it was discussed in terms of wishful thinking - both in terms of whether WMD were there, and that the Iraqis would welcome us. We didn't even have an exit strategy.

 

[pattylou]

Additional pieces from the memo appear in this link:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/27/news/war.php

One excerpt:

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While Bush's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that Bush and Blair acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a U.S. surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Saddam.

Another:

At their meeting, Bush and Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. Bush spoke as if an invasion was unavoidable. The two leaders discussed a timetable for the war, details of the military campaign and plans for the aftermath of the war

"As for the future government of Iraq, people would find it very odd if we handed it over to another dictator," Blair is quoted as saying.

"Bush agreed," Manning wrote. This exchange, like most of the quotations in this article, have not been previously reported.

This is only a "snapshot" of a day in the months before the invasion. But, it adds to the growing picture of what bush's mindset was, and what he may have really thought about the presence or absence of WMD, despite his public speeches about diplomacy and 'immediate threats.' (The memo does not report Bush and Blair talking about Saddam in terms of an an immediate threat. Rather, their discussion is more accurately characterized as describing Saddam as being someone who could easily be taken out.)

The memo says that Bush said the planned air campaign "would destroy Saddam's command and control quickly." Bush also said he expected the Iraqi Army to "fold very quickly." He also told Blair that the Iraqi Republican Guard would be "decimated by the bombing."

 

[Burnsys]

A threat to who ? And of what nature ? I doubt the international community was ever unanimous in asserting that Saddam was a direct and imminent threat to the US. Bush's addresses differ from Clinton's in their characterization of the threat.

Saddam was a threat to U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in U.N. colours, and a threat to predator drones.!

“The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours,” the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. “If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach.” [Bush/Blair meeting, 1/31/03] As reported in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=ht...Q7CzQ5Eznad4zT and elsewhere

This strategy reminds me rumsfeld's "Proactive Preemptive Operating Group ", which consist of provoking terrorists to act.

One way to invigorate U.S. intelligence would be to "Develop an entirely new capability to proactively, preemptively evoke responses from adversary/terrorist groups," according to the DSB. Such an approach would "improve [intelligence] information collection by stimulating reactions" from the target [5] (http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2002/10/102802.html) ... which is to say, provoke the terrorists into action. See Counterpunch article (http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd1101.html) .

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Proactive_Preemptive_Operations_Group

 

[Burnsys]

The study called for the Pentagon and CIA to develop a new capability to "evoke responses" from terrorist groups so they can be attacked pre-emptively. Covert action, psychological operations, computer attacks, special operations forces and "deception operations" would be combined in that role. (CNN, November 13, 2002).

I guess bush was thinking in this when he thougt about painting a plane with UN colors.


The 'war on terrorism' requires a steady stream of alleged 'terrorist' actions and who better to arrange them than the CIA and Rumsfeld's 'Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group' or other 'special' forces."

Fabricating an Enemy
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO301B.html

 

[pattylou]

My God.

Why on Earth would you want to provoke an entire group into aggression? The shortsightedness of such a plan is breathtaking, to say nothing of the lack of integrity of the people promoting such a plan.

 

[Burnsys]

My God.

Why on Earth would you want to provoke an entire group into aggression? The shortsightedness of such a plan is breathtaking, to say nothing of the lack of integrity of the people promoting such a plan.

Becouse it's a Lawless world pattylou

A past reference of this are the Northwoods documents:

Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington" "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." (See the declassified Top Secret 1962 document titled "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba"16 (See Operation Northwoods at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html ).

 

[Amp1]

This was also cited in and by so called conspiracy theorist as the link and reason for 911; it being pointed out that Bush and his admin hardly seemed suprised when they received word of what happened.

 

[pattylou]

Are the Northwoods documents credible? I hadn't heard of these before.

 

[Burnsys]

Are the Northwoods documents credible? I hadn't heard of these before.

They are real declasified DOD Documents.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

 

[BobG]

So the thread has been read about 2 dozen times, and I assume a response on the thread will get a few more views. I'd like to ask your input on something.

So here's two questions to anyone reading.

If you have read the memo(s), or the related articles in the NYT, then are you of the opinion that bush wanted to invade Iraq even without conclusive evidence that WMD would be found (as indicated in this latest leaked memo) and without UN support, and through means of "fixing intelligence" or by "arranging the diplomatic strategy around the military plan?"

IOW Question 1: Are you of the opinion that he would break laws in this way? (For whatever reason. Perhaps he really saw himself as doing God's work; perhaps he saw himself as a liberator of the oppressed Iraqi's; perhaps he thinks some laws are more important than others; whatever. Do you think he ignored law in order to invade, as implied by these memos?)

Question 2:If you think he would or did break law in this way, do you then think that such a person might be willing to get into the White House in an illegal manner, if the opportunity was available?


~~~~~


It's a simple idea, one that our parents taught us all - Slick Willy was raked over the coals for it. You have to have integrity. If you're lacking it one area, then you probably lack it in others.

What do you think?

The memo, by itself, isn't that significant, but it is another example of the mentality, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality." There's just too many astonishing interpretations of law - the Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld case, the Moussaoui case (if you look at the wording of federal law, the government is lucky Moussaoui decided to hang himself), the NSA eavesdropping, detainee abuse. Their legal interpretations would seem to be at about the level as their pre-war assessments. In other words, it almost smacks of incompetence more than evilness. For example, it's hard to see seeking the death penalty for Moussaoui as evil, but why would they choose a federal charge of conspiracy - while conspiracy can be punishable by death under many state laws, a federal charge of conspiracy isn't punishable by death.

As to the second question, hiring Karl Rove as campaign manager speaks for itself. No campaign actions that result in legal ramifications should be taken, but anything else is fair territory. Anything truly questionable should be accomplished by someone not directly associated with the campaign staff. Karl Rove might be the only competent member of the Bush staff - at least within his realm of expertise. He's worked with 'the best' of dirty politics - Donald Segretti and Lee Atwater - and the only time he actually broke the law was while he was still a young rookie (he stole Democratic letterhead from their campaign headquarters and invited the homeless to an upscale Democratic fundraiser with the promises of free beer, wine, and food - funny, but technically petty theft).

 

[edward]

BobG

Now that we are an empire, who is the emperor, is it Bush or Cheney?

Can an Empire finance a war by borrowing money from non empires?

 

[SOS2008]

Question 2:If you think he would or did break law in this way, do you then think that such a person might be willing to get into the White House in an illegal manner, if the opportunity was available?

Yes, Bush's entire life has consisted of dishonesty. I have posted repeated examples of this, and anyone who attempts an argument against it, fool me once...

So to the specific issue of Iraq... We know BushCo mislead Americans with connections between 9-11 terrorism and Saddam. We know UN inspections indicated little likelihood of WMD. At the minimum we know BushCo received information from several sources to the contrary, such as Joe Wilson, Naji Sabri, Iraq’s foreign minister, etc., but ignored the information -- if for no other reason than "happy ears" that only hear what one wants to hear...Because we know the invasion was planned in advance of Bush becoming president (The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC))...Which calls to question how he knew he would be elected before being elected.

You probably aren't getting a lot of feedback because of fatigue, not only on this issue, but the immensity of constant scandals associated with BushCo/GOP. And quite frankly, as long as there is a Republican majority in Congress, there will be no investigation--no matter how obvious the lies or abuses.

In the meantime, King George continues to place himself above the law by either completely ignoring laws (i.e., breaking laws), or changing laws to his liking with "signing statements" for example the torture amendment, and more recently the renewal of the Patriot Act and a "signing statement" by Bush to the effect that he would not feel bound to comply with some of the provisions of the law.

THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW - Vote for Democrats in 2006!

 

[pattylou]

You probably aren't getting a lot of feedback because of fatigue, not only on this issue, but the immensity of constant scandals associated with BushCo/GOP. And quite frankly, as long as there is a Republican majority in Congress, there will be no investigation--no matter how obvious the lies or abuses.

I am not too concerned about feedback one way or the other. I posted a second time because I had a new thought about the topic.

I think it is important to continue to bring these topics up, again and again and again. I plan to post updates about electronic vote fraud sometime in the next few days.

I had forgotten about Joe Wilson, for example. If people were discussing it, it would still be in my active memory. This latest memo hasn't even been in the main headlines. these things need to be brought up.

In fact, let me go have a looky at some of the minor headlines.

 

[pattylou]

Well, here's one.

A few posts up I posted the following excerpt from the memo:

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Blair agreed with that assessment.

(link provided above.)

Well, in the news 44 minutes ago is this release from the state department:

Bush Calls Iraqi Ethnic, Sectarian Strife Legacy of Saddam Hussein
Says the end of the regime was "the necessary first step" to restore freedom

President Bush said former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein exacerbated ethnic and sectarian divisions within his country in order to keep himself in power, and the current “toxic atmosphere” in Iraq “bears witness to his terrible handiwork.”

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=March&x=20060329181244ESnamfuaK0.2574732&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html

So let's see: Sectarian violence was thought to be unlikely, three years ago. Saddam, under whom there was little sectarian violence, would be easily disposed of.

Now, three years after our invasion, sectarian violence is erupting. And the the line we are being fed is... That this is because of Saddam's leadership.
(and despite the fact that three years ago, Bush thought sectarian violence would be unlikely, and Blair agreed.)

 

[selfAdjoint]

Saddam, under whom there was little sectarian violence,

Umm, did you read Chomsky's speech? Saddam bloodily put down a Shi'ite uprising, and you know what he did to the Kurds, who were also in rebellion against his (Sunni-secular) regime.