The British War Memo.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Figured SOMEONE would have posted this since it's been a week plus since the British press broke the story. Here's the latest pitiance of coverage it's gotten in America, where we're too busy with runaway brides and stuff:

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/15/mccain.memo/

McCain: I don't agree with British war memo

 

Leaked document says U.S. set up conditions for Iraq invasion

 

Sunday, May 15, 2005 Posted: 1654 GMT (0054 HKT)

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. John McCain said Sunday he doesn't "agree with" the secret minutes of a high-level British meeting in 2002 saying "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support a U.S.-led war in Iraq -- well before the president sought approval on the war from Congress.

 

The memo was made public earlier this month by the Times of London newspaper. British officials did not dispute its authenticity.

 

McCain, speaking on ABC's "This Week," said he has not seen any evidence that the Bush administration manipulated evidence, but admitted that "certain serious mistakes [were] made."

 

"But I do not believe that the Bush administration decided that they would set up a scenario that gave us the rationale for going into Iraq," the Arizona Republican said.

 

The Bush administration still has not commented on the memo. On May 6, 89 Democratic members of Congress sent President Bush a letter asking for an explanation of the memo.

 

The meeting described in the memo took place in London on July 23, 2002.

 

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon, Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, MI6 chief Richard Dearlove and others attended the meeting.

 

According to the minutes, a British official identified as "C" said that he had returned from a meeting in Washington and that "military action was now seen as inevitable" by U.S. officials.

 

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," the memo said. "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

 

The memo further discussed the military options under consideration by the United States along with Britain's possible role and quoted Hoon as saying that the United States had not finalized a timeline, but that it would likely begin "30 days before the U.S. congressional elections," culminating with the actual attack in January 2003.

 

The congressional letter, initiated by Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the memo "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration."

 

"While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. treasury secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your administration," the letter said.

 

But, the letter said, when the document was leaked, Blair's spokesman called it "nothing new."

 

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said, quoting the British attorney general. "But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

 

The British officials determined to push for an ultimatum for Saddam to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq to "help with the legal justification for the use of force ... despite U.S. resistance."

 

Britain's attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, advised the group that "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action" and two of three possible legal bases -- self-defense and humanitarian intervention -- could not be used.

 

The third was a U.N. Security Council resolution, which Goldsmith said "would be difficult."

 

Blair thought that "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors."

 

"If the political context were right, people would support regime change," the memo said. Later, the memo said, Blair would work to convince Bush that they should pursue the ultimatum with Saddam even though "many in the U.S. did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route."

 

McCain seemed to follow Blair's reasoning, avoiding the question of the memo's contents except to say he didn't believe it was accurate.

 

"I think the important aspect of the opening of this conflict was that it's clear the status quo was not prevailing, that the sanctions were eroding, American pilots were being shot at every day, there was a clear intent on the part of Saddam Hussein that he'd shown throughout his entire regime, that he'd like to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction. He'd used them before.

 

"Was there a massive intelligence failure? Absolutely. But to somehow suppose that if we had not attacked Saddam Hussein, that everything would have been fine in Iraq, I think defies the history of Saddam Hussein and his attempts to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction. Even his own generals thought that he had weapons of mass destruction.

 

"Again, was it a massive intelligence failure? Should people be held responsible? Yes."

[cbacon 0]

Previous thread

 

It was no sold for the most part, except for the typical Republican talking point responses from Mike and Justice.

 

This isn't spying or code-breaking or something, this is a British government official reporting on conversations and meetings with American government officials. That's not intelligence, that's explaining what happenned.

 

The memo says that they had already decided to invade way in advance of doing so, and that they were searching for justifications to do so. The memo (assuming it is in fact true) is proof of waging aggressive war, and completely destroys anything Bush has said publically about the war. I'm fairly certain that's grounds for impeachment (and it's certainly grounds for war crimes charges).

[Boon 0]

It was no sold for the most part, except for the typical Republican talking point responses from Mike and Justice.

 

Well thank you for contributing your typical anti-Bush, impeachment, war crimes bullshit nonsense.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I'd say that if this does end up being verified on this side of the pond (as has been stated in each report on the story, the Brits aren't disputing its authenticity), then there are a LOT of questions that will have to be answered. It won't get him impeached or anything, but it'll certainly do a lot to wreck initiatives he had in mind for his second term.

 

EDIT: Sorry C-Bacon, I saw that thread title, but since it was vague as hell I didn't check to see if it was about this as well.

[cbacon 0]

It was no sold for the most part, except for the typical Republican talking point responses from Mike and Justice.

 

Well thank you for contributing your typical anti-Bush, impeachment, war crimes bullshit nonsense.

Thanks for proving my point. What's that? Mike isn't here to post what you were gonna say anyway, right?

[Boon 0]

I just don't think this needs to continue. Looking back at the previous thread, this was already declared non-news.

 

Typical Republican talking points? Well yeah, if you consider relevant, complete, and accepted information as talking points, I can see why you'd be so upset by the thread being "no sold." All of it suggests that this was the policy, initiated by Clinton, and you're just itching for something to throw at America to support your blatant, overzealous bias. I've got no beef with you hating the man, but stop using every little thing you can to make Bush look bad. It gets really old, really fast.

 

I'm sure you'd much rather have pages filled with "Bush should be impeached" and "Bush should be tried for war crimes," but there's a reason the previous thread died off so quickly.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Hey, dude's gone. Stick to the issues, people.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I just don't think this needs to continue. Looking back at the previous thread, this was already declared non-news.

Possible fixing of facts and evidence in order to send our soldiers on an invasion of a foreign country (1,600 of which have perished thus far) is non-news?

[Boon 0]

I just don't think this needs to continue.  Looking back at the previous thread, this was already declared non-news.

Possible fixing of facts and evidence in order to send our soldiers on an invasion of a foreign country (1,600 of which have perished thus far) is non-news?

No, what's non-news is that the memo said it was America's policy to go into Iraq and oust Sadaam. Although, if you listen to enough media, people have been saying that the administration lied from the very beginning, so that would be old news, if you believed it.

 

I don't believe that the administration intentionally manipulated information in order to justify the war. Unfortunately, I will however concede that what probably happened is that the information they got sucked and they were ready to believe it in order to justify the war. I guess I'm claiming ignorance on this one, not conspiracy.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Yes, I'd much rather (no sarcasm here) hear that they just took shoddy information and used it for a war they were jonesing for rather than intentional manipulation.

[SuperJerk 0]

In the previous thread, which I ignored, the argument was made that there was nothing wrong with Bush Administration wanting to oust Saddam Hussein before the evidence was there because the Clinton Administration had also stated a preference for regime change in Iraq.

 

 

Obviously the subtlties between wanting something and actually seeking out rationales to sell to the public and putting a plan in place to do it using a massive invasion were lost on our more conservative CE folder brethren, not to mention oddness of the shift in focus from Al Quaeda to Iraq so soon after 9/11.

[Boon 0]

How quickly we forget

 

Clinton wanted it, Bush wanted it. The difference was that Bush had (albeit shitty) information to justify it, and went further then Clinton did. We've already conceded that the information sucked, and I'll be right alongside all you hippies that say it wasn't the brightest idea.

 

/me Still claiming the administration was a little too eager to go there.

[SuperJerk 0]

Clinton wanted it, Bush wanted it.

 

from the memo:

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.

[Boon 0]

from the memo:

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.

...

 

I assume you're going somewhere with that...

 

I'll meet you there. Bush used 9/11 and information linking terrorists to Iraq in order to justify military action. Clinton used information about Iraq's nuclear program. Pick your poison- fact is, they both wanted the regime change, and it's no conspiracy.

 

Edit: Before it's even said- I would've much preferred missile strikes to a full fledged invasion, too, so don't even toss that noise my way.

[SuperJerk 0]

from the memo:

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.

...

 

I assume you're going somewhere with that...

Just wanted to back up my point that Bush's actions were 2 or 3 steps beyond what Clinton did. A point totally ignored by the people who keep dragging Clinton into this.

[Art Sandusky 0]

That was weird to read a CNN.com page from 1998. There wasn't even a high-speed option on the videos.

[SuperJerk 0]

Wouldn't it be cool to be able to surf the 1998 internet?

 

And by "cool", I mean "wierd".

[Boon 0]

from the memo:

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.

...

 

I assume you're going somewhere with that...

Just wanted to back up my point that Bush's actions were 2 or 3 steps beyond what Clinton did. A point totally ignored by the people who keep dragging Clinton into this.

Yeah, except for when I said this:

 

Edit: Before it's even said- I would've much preferred missile strikes to a full fledged invasion, too, so don't even toss that noise my way.

 

Oh, and this:

 

The difference was that Bush had (albeit shitty) information to justify it, and went further then Clinton did.

 

Thanks, though, for actually reading what I wrote.

 

[SuperJerk 0]

Thanks, though, for actually reading what I wrote.

I wasn't only talking about YOU, though.

 

My noun of choice was "people" (which is plural, FYI).

 

Since I was talking directly to you at the time, I'd have said "you keep dragging" instead of "people who keep dragging".

[Boon 0]

Well I'm a people. And I'm the only people at this point in time bringing Clinton into this, since Mike is teh b4nn3d. Plus I'm self-centered and egotistical.

[SuperJerk 0]

Oh, you had to go and use the "M" word, didn't you? I was trying to avoid coming out and flatly saying that's who I was trying to refute.

[cbacon 0]

If you don't find the line, "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" to be frightening and exceptionally wrong I really worry about what's going on in your head, Boon, Justice, etc.

 

Also, waging aggressive war is illegal and is agreed as being wrong by virtually everyone on Earth.

[NoCalMike 0]

Remember a few years ago when this was simply written off as "conspiracy theories" Ugh....

[Boon 0]

If you don't find the line, "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" to be frightening and exceptionally wrong I really worry about what's going on in your head, Boon, Justice, etc.

*Sigh* Did you even read anything I said?

 

Here:

 

I don't believe that the administration intentionally manipulated information in order to justify the war. Unfortunately, I will however concede that what probably happened is that the information they got sucked and they were ready to believe it in order to justify the war. I guess I'm claiming ignorance on this one, not conspiracy.

 

I don't know any other way to say it. Prove to me that it was a conspiracy, and I'll be frightened, admit that it is exceptionally wrong, and I'll come to Canada and buy you fucking lunch. The burden of proof is on you, chief, and it's going to take more then a shotty British memo.

 

Also, waging aggressive war is illegal and is agreed as being wrong by virtually everyone on Earth.

 

Thanks for the ethics lesson. I really thought that war was daisies and lollipops.

[Justice 0]

Previous thread

 

It was no sold for the most part, except for the typical Republican talking point responses from Mike and Justice.

 

This isn't spying or code-breaking or something, this is a British government official reporting on conversations and meetings with American government officials. That's not intelligence, that's explaining what happenned.

 

The memo says that they had already decided to invade way in advance of doing so, and that they were searching for justifications to do so. The memo (assuming it is in fact true) is proof of waging aggressive war, and completely destroys anything Bush has said publically about the war. I'm fairly certain that's grounds for impeachment (and it's certainly grounds for war crimes charges).

*giggles* Aww, I love you too. Internet goes down for a weekend and I miss this lovenote.

 

Anyways, this still isn't news. If you want to write it off to 'same old Republican talking points', you should really read your posts because Lord knows you parrot the exact same stuff in just about anything and everything you post.

 

Clinton wanted the same thing. And whether you like it or not, RJ, even if Bush went an extra step in execution, the policy was still the same: Get Saddam out of office. Bush just went through with it, Clinton simply wanted to weaken him. Different approaches but still the same idea, no matter what way you really want to look at it.

 

But seriously... what's all that new in the letter? They had decided on military intervention in Iraq in July of 2002. They were cynical about trying to push something through the UN. When he says "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy", he's not referring to possible fact-fixing, he's referring to options. Look at the next sentences:

 

"The NSC had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record."

 

He meant that they were set on how they wanted to promote this and how they wanted to go about this, and they were cynical about using the other means. The facts they wanted to present were being fixed due to the policy, and thus not including other facts or options (Hence the mention of the disdain for the UN route, and the publishing of Iraq's record). In the end, though, they still went to the U.N and wasted theri time there, and still made those arguments. There's no 'smoking gun' here, no matter how desperately someone like C-Bacon wants there to be one.

[SuperJerk 0]

But seriously... what's all that new in the letter?

 

 

from the memo:

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.

 

This was news to me. And it shows that the administration itslef doesn't buy the argument that the invasion was okay just because of something the Clinton Administration had stated, despite conservatives' arguments to the contrary. Using the justification "well, the Clinton's wanted regime change too" as a justification is ridicules. Hell, the Clinton Administration wanted universal health care...you don't see Bush invading Canada to get it.

 

 

Clinton wanted the same thing. And whether you like it or not, RJ, even if Bush went an extra step in execution, the policy was still the same: Get Saddam out of office. Bush just went through with it, Clinton simply wanted to weaken him. Different approaches but still the same idea, no matter what way you really want to look at it.

 

Two guys go fishing at a nearby pond.

 

One guys gets a poll and sits by the water. The other guy throws dynamite into the water and tries to catch the fish as the pond explodes.

 

Different approaches, but they had the same idea, right?

[Boon 0]

And it shows that the administration itslef doesn't buy the argument that the invasion was okay just because of something the Clinton Administration had stated, despite conservatives' arguments to the contrary.  Using the justification "well, the Clinton's wanted regime change too" as a justification is ridicules. 

The argument that conservatives are making is that Clinton wanted it and Bush wanted it. Clinton justified it by citing Iraq's nuclear program, Bush justified it by making ties to terrorism. Conservatives certainly aren't saying that Bush is just finishing what Clinton started for the sake of finishing it, they simply both wanted the same thing and went about it different ways.

 

Nobody is saying "well the Clintons wanted it too, so we have to do it." What they're saying is that regime change in Iraq was on both agendas, and that it started with Clinton. What's ridiculous is saying that in 2002, wanting a regime change in Iraq was some sort of evil scheme. We knew a long time ago that regime change was on the agenda, and nobody tried to hide it.

[SuperJerk 0]

People certainly HAVE tried to claim that Bush is just finishing what Clinton started.

 

What's ridicules is that Bush used terrorism to justify a war that he wanted to start all along.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

So, you don't see the importance of a stable democracy in defeating terrorism.

[Justice 0]

But seriously... what's all that new in the letter?

 

 

from the memo:

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.

 

This was news to me. And it shows that the administration itslef doesn't buy the argument that the invasion was okay just because of something the Clinton Administration had stated, despite conservatives' arguments to the contrary. Using the justification "well, the Clinton's wanted regime change too" as a justification is ridicules. Hell, the Clinton Administration wanted universal health care...you don't see Bush invading Canada to get it.

...

 

That's the British Attorney General. So I ask again, what is new?

 

People certainly HAVE tried to claim that Bush is just finishing what Clinton started.

 

What's ridicules is that Bush used terrorism to justify a war that he wanted to start all along.

 

This makes absolutely no sense. Bush was continuing the policy of getting Saddam out of office. Clinton was looking into arming opposition groups to boot him out. Bush simply used the United States Army to. Not exactly like the comparison you made earlier, eh?

 

I don't understand why the 'terrorism' claim instantly 'ridicules' this. In a time where terrorism at home has suddenly become a reality, saying a guy that was reported by everyone to have massive stocks of bio and chem weapons and a grudge against the US suddenly nulifies the entire idea of taking down Saddam? Bush used terrorism because that's where the reality of an attack lies now. Clinton didn't because terrorism wasn't as much as a 'threat' in our minds back then, even though the reality was quite different.

 

Edit: I just realized you wanted to say 'ridiculous'. But my statements still stand. And apparently Martin was as bad as Saddam? I don't like the guy much, but he was as much a tyrannical despot as Bush or Clinton. o.0

Edited May 18, 2005 by Justice