Were Russian President Vladimir Putin’s eyes lying when President Bush famously looked into them and liked what he saw? The world got another reason to wonder last week, with the news of an American military report that Russian spies passed information to Iraq about the 2003 invasion and U.S. troop movements. Even if the report is accurate, that doesn’t mean Putin or other top Russian leaders were involved; Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is right to try to find out. But none of this bodes well for U.S-Russia cooperation on Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- preordained1 on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
74 Comments
Can we Bush-bashers have a thread on the 2nd British memo story? We have so little to comment on any more. . .
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Another suggestion . . . How about this story where radioactive material was slipped in over the border. This war president is doing so well on national security.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/28/politics/28radiation.html?pagewanted=all
DD–
SCORE!
Or the fact that Andy Card resigned right after Rove “found” some 200 plus e-mails relating to the Valerie Plame outing.
Turns out that a White House computer was keeping logs that the Rove-ster thought he had destroyed.
Oops. Hate when that happens.
Now he’s “cooperating” with Prosecutor Fitzgerald.
Merry Fitzmas to all, and to Rove, a good night.
ROFLMAO ProudLib. You and DD score better than the basketball kid the preznit used for publicity!!!
Oh this is getting so old!!!It really is feeling like the O.J. vertict, every time you look at the evidence you wonder how in the Hell they could not convict?Of course our old friend Nathan mght have some spin to justify that injustice too!
It’s hard to be a bush pimp these days.
Just as card how hard.
Hehe. White girl rap.
Isnt this how we got into the whole iran/iraq mess anyway?
We took turns arming each one when it suited us, supporting the dictators who serially supported us, and the russians armed the other side?
Gee, go figure now it is biting us in the butt.
Afghanistan anyone?
Maybe the cold war isnt over yet. That ought to make the neocons happy.
I said it before and I will say it again.
This bunch has figured out the perfect strategy. Keep screwing up again and again.Bury the last outrage with a new one.Now it’s all coming so fast and furious no one can keep up.
Bush may as well try to fire cheney to bring up the poll numbers. He’s tried everything else, and it hasnt worked yet.
Well it worked for the Clintons!!
Didnt the preznit give India some classified information early in his first term? Because he LIKED their preznit and trusted him?
Looks like his ability to pick friends is slipping. What works in Austin are the four b’s. Back slaps, beer, barbeque and babes. If you pass that gauntlet, you are in like flynn.
What? You mean you cant judge your friends in the world by the same criteria as you judge texans?
Sheesh. Who knew?
Isnt it funny that the first poster here defending bush said:
Clinton did it?
hehehe.
“Well it worked for the Clintons!!”
Agree with KFG. The above is incredibly weak. You had better call in Don, so you can cheerlead on his innane comments.
I think I am starting to see something here. I thought they always threw out the “clinton did it” line for our benefit so that we could see bush was no better, er, I mean worse than clinton.
Now?
I think they say it to comfort themselves. I can hear them repeating to themselves. “no matter how bad bush is, clinton did it too.”
Or this mantra: “clinton is still worse, clinton is still worse”. hehehe.
I would think that would be cold comfort to the residents of wingnuttia, but then, any port in a storm, eh?
Except a port controlled by dubai!
ROFLMDAO
lol…good points..just couldn’t resist
I don’t always agree with Don thank you…I do have a mind of my own and though I support our troops and our President I don’t always agree with everything he does… I do have a mind of my own and though most of my thinking is indeed conservative it doesn’t mean that I am all the way to one extreme… like most of you.
Don must be busy cleaning the sandbox today, looking for other t**ds, er, cat box tailings.
your to much… with that great education you were so blessed to receive i would have thought you might have learned some manners and tact as well… oh well education can’t teach everything can it….
Least of all capitalization and punctuation.
I think it’s “you’re too much”.
correct… thank youthat good ol education kicking in.. glad to see you learned something while growing up..
” don’t always agree with Don thank you…I do have a mind of my own”
Rockl, I have no doubt that you have a mind of your own, but read your and Don’s previous posts. Sometimes I wonder if Don has a parrot.
We all know Don’s opinions, Sometime, maybe you’d like to give us yours.
Let’s see, Saddam ended up in a hole where we found him. He could have easily gone to Russia, France, or even to ksfarmgal’s or Proudlib’s house where he would have been treated like a king. Oh well, hindsight’s 20/20.
Sorry nojoco, you are gonna hafta come up with a better fallback position. I guess you missed the cartoon earlier this week. You and that tired “terrorist lover” line have been outed. heheh.
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=20528
The problems is that everyone who disagrees with this administration, this congress, etc. gets branded as a terrorist lover and treasonist. So I guess that makes us all fair game for domestic spying.
PS–I dont think anyone would want the ass kickin’ PL and I would give out. Especially crybaby apologists for bush, much less an old man like saddam.
there are many things I agreed with from a good many of you..(shudder even JR and once or twice with KFG) I think if the liberals would get past no one excepts me because we might be gay or believe in abortion.. and the conserative would get past Bush can do no wrong we might actually find that we agree on a good many things and that indeed the world is made up of a caring people on both sides fence
NoJo, this blog’s for you–enjoy.
*****
I had to go downtown (DC) over the weekend, and parked near Walter Reed. A group of young (I’m 55) college-age freeper types were out in full “Support the Troops” regalia. A couple of them took exception to my “GW Bush: How dumb is too dumb?” and “Support the troops, bring them home now” bumper stickers. What followed was the typical, stale, “You don’t love this country” and “You are hurting troop morale” bullshit. I took it for a minute, but eventually one of them pushed the wrong button. He told me that our troops were fighting and dying to protect the rights of “Pussies like you” to sport unpatriotic bumper stickers.
That did it. I turned and pointed to Walter Reed and informed the young prick that in 1972 I checked out of that very building with a Bronze Star, a Purple Heart, and enough frag in me to set off airport metal detectors to this day. I further informed him that as an ex-grunt I could guarantee him that “The only kind of support the infantry cares about is fire support, junior, so either put down your sign and pick up a weapon, or shut your f**king mouth.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364×765946
*****
NoJo, you either pick up a gun and volunteer for Iraq or you quit calling me a terrorist lover.
‘Cause I don’t see you shooting off anything except for your mouth.
Good quote PL. I have heard similar from many veteran friends.
As a combat vet, I walked the walk, and now I get to talk the talk. You repubs are so quick on the trigger, but I notice you aren’t too hot to back it up with some service to your country. You guys, Joeblow, Heckler, Don, Joe williams, et al talk pretty tough.
Get yourselves in a situation where you get shot at for your country, then come talk to me about who supports what.
Chickenhawks.
XXX,
There opinions are not any less valid because they have not served time taking fire.
Did you serve so only you could have an opinion or so that everybody could?
My father is a retired green beret who has 3 bullet wounds in his body..He fought with pride and honor and he now honors his country by showing respect for those who loving protect and love their country enough to work hard to give rights to others…in and out of the USA… and he is a proud conservative, before you judge who has and has not fought or joined to fight you might want to know what your talking about.
great question Nathan
Amen PL and XXX, BTW, thank you for your service to our country. It’s the opinions of people like you who have actually put yourselves and your life on the line for our country that I respect the most. You, more than anyone, have earned the right to be critical of the administration and the way Bush&Co have run our country into the ground. When you guys talk, I listen.
Yes Nathan, they’re opinions ARE more valid than those who talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk.
I want to echo Damoon in thanking XXX and PL for their service to our country, along with all other veterans. It takes guts to serve.
As a result their opinions should bear significant weight in matters of national defense.
There are veterans on all sides of the political landscape. Their opinions bear weight also. But an idea is an idea and has to pass scrutiny on it’s own, no matter who gives it voice. You can be assured that any idea espoused here has it supporters among veterans somewhere.
Thanks again XXX and PL. And thank you Nathan, who I understand is in the Marine reserve? As a matter of fact, I would be interested to know who among us are veterans or currently serving. Would you please post here if you are?
Credit of course to those who have served, voluntarily or otherwise. They ARE better qualified to speak to these matters. The combat vets most of all.
A better question might be who will continue to serve voluntarily or otherwise when we now KNOW that a President will lie to generate public support for a war; and when there are those who maintain that his doing so constitutes
“leadership”.
I found that revelation sickening.
I learned a lot today. It only reaffirmed that I am right to teach my son to avoid military service.
JR,
Bush did not lie to go to war regardless of how many times you keep saying it.
Nathan, Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war no matter how many times you keep saying it.
Darwin? will you please put up the link again? I think Nathan missed it.
Tara? Draw this guy a picture!
Nathan? Your own father acknowledges the deception out of necessity to gin up the public for a “necessarry war”
Now you have never been a particularly enlightened poster. You have your beliefs and you are not about to be moved. BUt your continued refusal to acknowledge reality is stretching your credibility pretty thin.
“Bush did not lie to go to war regardless of how many times you keep saying it.”I’m speechless, Nathan. You cannot possibly this blind. Here’s a perfect example posted by DD:+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I love this comparison between Bush’s private and public comments BEFORE the start of the Iraq war.
“Public statement:
Bush: “I’ve not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.” [3/6/03]
“Private statement
“The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March,” Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. “This was when the bombing would begin.” [Bush/Blair meeting, 1/31/03]
“Public statement:
Bush: “We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq.” [3/8/03]
“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]
“Public statement:
Bush: “Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it.” [3/17/03]
“Private statement:
“But [Bush] had to say that if we ultimately failed [to get a second U.N. resolution], military action would follow anyway.” [Bush/Blair meeting, 1/31/03]”
The whole story here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/27/mcclellan-on-the-defensive-bushs-public-and-private-iraq-statements-were-fully-consistent/
ATTENTION Wingnuts -This is your cue to chime in that Bush never lies. And to say that he is a vessel of pure truth and virtue. He, He, He – too much!
Posted by: Darwin’sDisciple | March 28, 2006 at 10:16 AM+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++DISARM!! Remember that word? Saddam was supposed to DISARM, or we would use military force. He didn’t have any (#$*&* weapons to disarm!!!
The greatest lie by your president is that he made Iraq look like an imminent threat, and it wasn’t. He didn’t care if it was a threat or not…he was hell bent on going to war anyway. Even if he had to LIE!
But these lies are justifiable, because you agree with the war, right? Because we NEED the oil, it’s perfectly justified to break international laws and invade another country, killing thousands of our troops and innocent Iraqis? UNBELIEVABLE.
Sorry, I can’t draw a picture for this one because I find none of it even remotely amusing. I can’t even express in words how horrifying it is to see our great country being destroyed by this evil, lying, conniving SOB.
VERY well said, Tara.
JR,
My father never acknowledged Bush as deceptive at all.
Please qoute me where he said that.
If it is one thing that I have learned in life, it is to consider the source. It seems to me to be human nature that if something is what your ears itch to hear, you will accept it without due diligence, qualification, or reservation. Sound like you, anyone?
I am thinking that was directed at JR and not me?
Nathan: I hope that didn’t sound like you!
Actually it intended to make a couple of different people on this thread think. Bloggers who will find a news story they like and accept it as gospel. Sometimes they will post the link and throw it down like a straight flush, all without having a clue as to whether it is a reliable source.
Outlander–I’m sure that applies to all of us.
Our immediate reaction is to accept something as fact if we’re already inclined to believe it. But most of us move past that gut reaction and examine the source. I first read the memo on the Something Awful forums…they’re pretty credible over there (especially since it costs 10-20 bucks to view/post in the forums, and its easy to get banned for pot-stirring).
If that Bush/Blair Iraq war memo turns out to be bogus, and if WMDs pop up in Iraq, I’ll gladly eat crow. Lots of it. With ketchup and Tabasco sauce.
Although sometimes they know what they are posting is partisan nonsense posing as evidence.
“Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain’s Official Secrets Act, which made it illegal to divulge classified information.”
Unless these two Brits are in on the left wing anti-Bush conspiracy, I’ll call this memo credible.
It’s possible of course…but I think the burden of proof would be on someone claiming the NYtimes cooked all of it up.
Great post Tara!And I don’t blame you not wanting to draw a picture to this. It doesn’t matter anyway. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I’d say Outlander is attacking the validity, cedibility, and intelligence of every single poster to this thread except
himself and Nathan
Now the other posters can fight their own fight and I will not presume to speak for them.
Oh and by the way Nathan? You’ve been to that thread and you saw your fathers post. So has every other poster here. I also will not do your research for you.And a quick scroll confirms my memory that Hank did not weigh in here. I wonder why.
Long story short Nathan and Outlander you are further marginalizing yourselves into irrelevancy due to failure to accept reality. And ya did a prettty good job of that already on the “peacenic” thread.
I don’t know Tara, I have only briefly reviewed the story. The Times has had it’s problems though. CF and I have previously agreed that they are not credible.
they site sources like two unnamed “senior British officials”. But what does that really tell you, Tara? They could be anyone in any branch. And they are only confirming that there is a memo. What about the author of the memo. Who is he or she? Are they credible or do they have an ax to grind? Is it hard evidence or just opinion?
So much information comes out so fast these days, and it is so easy to influence opinion with shoddy or biased work. Which is all the opinion makers really want to do, regardless of the truth.
JR,
It is real simple. You claim my father said:
“Your own father acknowledges the deception out of necessity to gin up the public for a “necessarry war”
I don’t read that in any of his statements. If you were to ask him if he believes that he would probably say no.
This is a perfect example of what Outlander was talking about.
JR: Who made you judge of relevancy? After your refusal to stop injecting religion into every subject, I am more than happy to let everyone draw their own conclusions.
Outlander, that’s true, but Scott McClellan addressed this memo. He didn’t deny its authenticity, he just tried to spin its contents. He said he hasn’t seen this “specific memo”, but if it sounded like a hoax they’d be be screaming bloody murder, you know?Per CNN.com, “British officials have not disputed the authenticity of the memo published by the Times.”
OK Tara, if you’re convinced of the authenticity of the memo, it’s time to move on to the next step. Who is the author. etc…
BTW, I will try to review tomorrow so I can form my own opinion on it!
Nathan?
Your quote?You claimed my father said:………
Those are my words. I never attributed them to your father. Get your facts straight.
Outlander??? I said I spoke only for myself. I did not make myself a judge for relevancy for anyone but myself. My comments to your relevance are my own opinion.
I also do not see that I injected religion into any post on this thread. It is a long thread and I may be mistaken. Can you show me where I injected religion in my last few posts or any post on this thread?
JR,
I know those were “your” words. You were saying in “your” words something my father never said.
JR: As far as I know you haven’t. You mentioned the “peacenic” thread with your irrelevance comment. I was just summarizing what went on there, which frankly, I don’t know why you would want to call attention to.
Nathan, I think this was what JR was talking about:
“I see leadership, not inconsistancy. He was trying to sell a neccessary war to a country that has been mislead by the anti-war democrats and media for over 10 years.”
“The war in the Mideast was necessary for the free flosw of oil. Our economy and therefore our national security depend on oil. For what ever historical reasons that we got ourselves into this predicament, the war against Iraq was necessary.”
Two words/phrases suggest deception to me. The first one is “sell”. To me, that suggests playing up something to make it more palatable than it really is. It means to convince, because simply presenting the option isn’t enough–it’s not a strong enough idea on its own to follow through. In this context, “selling” the war would be making it look more necessary than it really is by making Iraq look like an immediate threat. Remember the “mushroom cloud” comment? Way to strike fear into the hearts of the people already shaken by 9/11.
The second phrase in the second quote is “for whatever historical reasons we got into this predicament…” That suggests deception because it implies it doesn’t matter WHY we went to war. It doesn’t matter what the initial reasons given for. The initial reasons for invading are irrelevant, because war was necessary, and the ends (war) justifies the means (selling the war to the “misinformed” public).
Doesn’t that make it look like your father acknowledges the deception out of necessity to gin up the public for a “necessarry war”? (JRs words)
I’ve tried to look at it from another angle, but that’s just what I got out of those posts. That said, I loathe it when someone takes my words out of context, so if I’m wrong, please correct me and explain what was meant by those posts.Outlander, if you find any more info on that memo, definitely post it! I’ll see if I can do the same.
Nathan,”There opinions are not any less valid because they have not served time taking fire.”Excuse me?
EXCUSE ME?!?!
Now Nathan, if we had been attacked by Iraq, I’d be calling for the absolute obliteration of Iraq. But this is an elective and unjust war, and I have a real problem with that. With you I have no personal problem. Being a reservist, your life is on the line, too. At least you’re willing.
What I have a problem with is these chickenhawks that sit in front of their computers and support a war that endangers our troops when they haven’t faced that danger themselves. War looks a hell of a lot different after you’ve stared down the business end of a gun barrel.
Seems to me, a lot of conservative posters on these threads are real brave when it comes to sacrificing the lives and limbs of someone elses sons and daughters.
If you’ve faced what you’re willing to subject others to, I’ll respect your opinion. But if you haven’t, don’t bother me with your opinion.
If you haven’t been there, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Chickenhawks
Tara,
I suppose after you read into Hank’s statments, assume about 5 different things you are already predisposed into thinking, how you are able to assume Hank’s post can be seen like you see it…
For example you assume that the word sell is deceptive.
I sell memberships every now and then at the place I work.
I sit down with people for up to 30 minutes or more answering their questions and telling them information about the membership which is good.
I am not decieptful nor do I lie.
I am selling them a membership though.
THANK YOU TARA AND XXXX
I’m doing battle here with Outlander and Nathan.
Trying to reach for environmentalism with Nathan on another thread.
And off topic discussing social security with Hank on a third thread.
Out has quit the field after accusing me of injecting religion into this.
Rockl, you said, “great question Nathan”.
I have some questions for you. You’re a proud conservative war supporter, right?And you have kids? Do you think the war on terror will be over, say, by the time your kids reach military age? I’m figuring there’s going to be war as long as republicans are in power, if not Iraq, then Iran. Being a good republican war supporter, I assume you’ll encourage your kids to serve their country. I mean, to do otherwise would be hypocritical, wouldn’t it? And you may not have a choice. The army is at the breaking point now. I’ll bet we see a draft by the time your kids are old enough. The all volunteer army won’t support another 5-10 years of war. A draft will be needed to support the war you’re so in favor of. Yes, I’m sure you’ll be proud to have your kids serve their country on the front line.Maybe they’ll be lucky and only come home with the mental scars of war. Or maybe not.
I was always impressed by the caskets they sent my friends home in. They seemed huge. Some of them could have been sent home in a shoe box.
Rockl, is a neatly folded flag and a medal a fair trade for a child?
I’ve always wondered how any mother could support an unjust war.
The original memo story was on Channel 4 News in London. I saw that video online last week, before NYT, ABC or anyone else mentioned it. Sorry I can’t find a link. Usually I either bookmark or save to my overflowing desktop. Just google ‘channel 4 news london bush blair’ and you’ll find plenty of links with the video.
Many of your questions may be answered. Sorry, I didn’t take notes. (that’s sarcasm for the sarcasm-impaired.)
“Darwin? will you please put up the link again? I think Nathan missed it.”
Sorry, my kids had commandeered our computers last night. Didn’t see the above until this a.m. I see that Tara reposted the story.
Yesterday, I googled in search of a copy of this 2nd memo. I came up empty-handed. Anyone else know where the original source might be located?
I think it is interesting that this memo surfaces at this time. Isn’t this about the worst time for Bush? Low poll numbers, some Repubs threatening to break out of the corral, civil war continuing in Iraq, etc. etc. My assumptions on the timing of this (which I fully acknowledge conforms to my biases – as it does for everyone) is that this disclosure reflects the reluctant alliance from the British on this war. I think Tony Blair – the poor dupe – is really the only Brit who supports the war. I have often wondered what has Bush ever done for Blair? Not much that I can see other than being a huge political threat to him.
I will look again for a copy of the memo. Anyone, let me know where I can find a copy if it is on the net somewhere.
Thanks.
DD
Here’s the Channel 4 link.http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661
X i hate that we are at war.. I hate that someone is losing his or her child daily, or father, or husband, brother, mother, sister, wife… I pray for our soldiers daily as does my family…do I want my children to have to fight in a war…well no of course I don’t… I want to protect them from everything let alone a war, BUT will I support them if they do…Yes will it break my heart if they don’t come back, Yes!! OF course it would, but I have to send my kids out everyday into a world that is full of bad things, harmful people, evil in all forms (of NO KFG I don’t mean gays!!) and I would love to have a promise that nothing will happen to them, that war won’t happen, nor rape or kidnappings or shooting but you and I do not live in a world like that!! It happens everyday and as a mom as much as I would and possibly will hate it… I will stand proud (tears and all) if one or all of my children decide that they want to serve their country that way. My father did, my husband did, my uncles did and for me to do anything less then that to be would be disrespectful to all those who have fought, and who will fight so that I can enjoy the crazy world I live in.
Rockl, I concur.Excellent response.
Thank you.. I appreciate that.
I might join your sentiment rockl.
But not about this war.
And not ever again as long as there are those willing to lie to put troops in harms way.
Hey, Double D–
You notice we still didn’t get that thread on the second Downing Street memo.
Not too surprising since the mainstream media ignored the first one as well.
Oh, well, turn on American Idol. Nothing to see here . . .
Darwin’s Disciple, glad you’re on it.
**********************************
This is from the NYT. The Eagle has refused to run the story, and the editors have refused to give us a thread to discuss it.
-CF
*********************************
Bush Was Set on Path to War, British Memo Says
By DON VAN NATTA Jr.Published: March 27, 2006
LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush’s public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.
But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair’s top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.
“Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning,” David Manning, Mr. Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.”The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March,” Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. “This was when the bombing would begin.”The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.
Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.
Stamped “extremely sensitive,” the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair’s most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book “Lawless World,” which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president’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. Mr. Bush predicted that it was “unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups.” Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.
The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.Those proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Mr. Bush’s extemporaneous suggestions, or were elements of the government’s plan.
Consistent Remarks
Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain’s Official Secrets Act, which made it illegal to divulge classified information. But one of them said, “In all of this discussion during the run-up to the Iraq war, it is obvious that viewing a snapshot at a certain point in time gives only a partial view of the decision-making process.”
On Sunday, Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said the president’s public comments were consistent with his private remarks made to Mr. Blair. “While the use of force was a last option, we recognized that it might be necessary and were planning accordingly,” Mr. Jones said.
“The public record at the time, including numerous statements by the President, makes clear that the administration was continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution into 2003,” he said. “Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply, but he chose continued defiance, even after being given one final opportunity to comply or face serious consequences. Our public and private comments are fully consistent.”
The January 2003 memo is the latest in a series of secret memos produced by top aides to Mr. Blair that summarize private discussions between the president and the prime minister. Another group of British memos, including the so-called Downing Street memo written in July 2002, showed that some senior British officials had been concerned that the United States was determined to invade Iraq, and that the “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.
The latest memo is striking in its characterization of frank, almost casual, conversation by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair about the most serious subjects. At one point, the leaders swapped ideas for a postwar Iraqi government. “As for the future government of Iraq, people would find it very odd if we handed it over to another dictator,” the prime minister is quoted as saying.
“Bush agreed,” Mr. Manning wrote. This exchange, like most of the quotations in this article, have not been previously reported.Mr. Bush was accompanied at the meeting by Condoleezza Rice, who was then the national security adviser; Dan Fried, a senior aide to Ms. Rice; and Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff. Along with Mr. Manning, Mr. Blair was joined by two other senior aides: Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, and Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide and the author of the Downing Street memo.
By late January 2003, United Nations inspectors had spent six weeks in Iraq hunting for weapons under the auspices of Security Council Resolution 1441, which authorized “serious consequences” if Iraq voluntarily failed to disarm. Led by Hans Blix, the inspectors had reported little cooperation from Mr. Hussein, and no success finding any unconventional weapons.At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. The president 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.
Discussing Provocation
Without much elaboration, the memo also says the president raised three possible ways of provoking a confrontation. Since they were first reported last month, neither the White House nor the British government has discussed them.
“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.”It also described the president as saying, “The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam’s W.M.D,” referring to weapons of mass destruction.A brief clause in the memo refers to a third possibility, mentioned by Mr. Bush, a proposal to assassinate Saddam Hussein. The memo does not indicate how Mr. Blair responded to the idea.Mr. Sands first reported the proposals in his book, although he did not use any direct quotations from the memo. He is a professor of international law at University College of London and the founding member of the Matrix law office in London, where the prime minister’s wife, Cherie Blair, is a partner.
Mr. Jones, the National Security Council spokesman, declined to discuss the proposals, saying, “We are not going to get into discussing private discussions of the two leaders.”At several points during the meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, there was palpable tension over finding a legitimate legal trigger for going to war that would be acceptable to other nations, the memo said. The prime minister was quoted as saying it was essential for both countries to lobby for a second United Nations resolution against Iraq, because it would serve as “an insurance policy against the unexpected.”
The memo said Mr. Blair told Mr. Bush, “If anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning the oil wells, killing children or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq, a second resolution would give us international cover, especially with the Arabs.”
Running Out of Time
Mr. Bush agreed that the two countries should attempt to get a second resolution, but he added that time was running out. “The U.S. would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would twist arms and even threaten,” Mr. Bush was paraphrased in the memo as saying.The document added, “But he had to say that if we ultimately failed, military action would follow anyway.”
The leaders agreed that three weeks remained to obtain a second United Nations Security Council resolution before military commanders would need to begin preparing for an invasion.Summarizing statements by the president, the memo says: “The air campaign would probably last four days, during which some 1,500 targets would be hit. Great care would be taken to avoid hitting innocent civilians. Bush thought the impact of the air onslaught would ensure the early collapse of Saddam’s regime. Given this military timetable, we needed to go for a second resolution as soon as possible. This probably meant after Blix’s next report to the Security Council in mid-February.”Mr. Blair was described as responding that both countries would make clear that a second resolution amounted to “Saddam’s final opportunity.” The memo described Mr. Blair as saying: “We had been very patient. Now we should be saying that the crisis must be resolved in weeks, not months.”It reported: “Bush agreed. He commented that he was not itching to go to war, but we could not allow Saddam to go on playing with us. At some point, probably when we had passed the second resolutions — assuming we did — we should warn Saddam that he had a week to leave. We should notify the media too. We would then have a clear field if Saddam refused to go.”
Mr. Bush devoted much of the meeting to outlining the military strategy. The president, the memo says, said the planned air campaign “would destroy Saddam’s command and control quickly.” It also said that he expected Iraq’s army to “fold very quickly.” He also is reported as telling the prime minister that the Republican Guard would be “decimated by the bombing.”Despite his optimism, Mr. Bush said he was aware that “there were uncertainties and risks,” the memo says, and it goes on, “As far as destroying the oil wells were concerned, the U.S. was well equipped to repair them quickly, although this would be easier in the south of Iraq than in the north.”
The two men briefly discussed plans for a post-Hussein Iraqi government. “The prime minister asked about aftermath planning,” the memo says. “Condi Rice said that a great deal of work was now in hand.
Referring to the DefenseDepartment, it said: “A planning cell in D.O.D. was looking at all aspects and would deploy to Iraq to direct operations as soon as the military action was over. Bush said that a great deal of detailed planning had been done on supplying the Iraqi people with food and medicine.”Planning for After the WarThe leaders then looked beyond the war, imagining the transition from Mr. Hussein’s rule to a new government. Immediately after the war, a military occupation would be put in place for an unknown period of time, the president was described as saying. He spoke of the “dilemma of managing the transition to the civil administration,” the memo says.The document concludes with Mr. Manning still holding out a last-minute hope of inspectors finding weapons in Iraq, or even Mr. Hussein voluntarily leaving Iraq. But Mr. Manning wrote that he was concerned this could not be accomplished by Mr. Bush’s timeline for war.
“This makes the timing very tight,” he wrote. “We therefore need to stay closely alongside Blix, do all we can to help the inspectors make a significant find, and work hard on the other members of the Security Council to accept the noncooperation case so that we can secure the minimum nine votes when we need them, probably the end of February.”At a White House news conference following the closed-door session, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair said “the crisis” had to be resolved in a timely manner. “Saddam Hussein is not disarming,” the president told reporters. “He is a danger to the world. He must disarm. And that’s why I have constantly said — and the prime minister has constantly said — this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months.”
Despite intense lobbying by the United States and Britain, a second United Nations resolution was not obtained. The American-led military coalition invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, nine days after the target date set by the president on that late January day at the White House.
CF, thanks for the coverage. Well done!
This link is the most I have been able to find out about the 2nd British Memo. It has video from Channel 4 – the English TV station that recenlty covered the story. I might see if I can obtain Phillipe Sands book “Lawless World” – which supposedly quotes the memo at length.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11766.htm
I had not realized before that the memo was recorded at the White House. Therefore, it seems real unlikely that we will ever see a copy of it.