PDA

View Full Version : Memo: Bush Made Intel Fit Iraq Policy



DLR'sCock
05-07-2005, 04:10 PM
Memo: Bush Made Intel Fit Iraq Policy
By Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott
Knight Ridder

Washington - A highly classified British memo, leaked in the midst of Britain's just-concluded election campaign, indicates that President Bush decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by summer 2002 and was determined to ensure that US intelligence data supported his policy.

The document, which summarizes a July 23, 2002, meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair with his top security advisers, reports on a visit to Washington by the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service.

The visit took place while the Bush administration was still declaring to the American public that no decision had been made to go to war.

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable," the MI-6 chief said at the meeting, according to the memo. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," weapons of mass destruction.

The memo said "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq since the US invasion in March 2003.

The White House has repeatedly denied accusations made by several top foreign officials that it manipulated intelligence estimates to justify an invasion of Iraq.

It has instead pointed to the conclusions of two studies, one by the Senate Intelligence Committee and one by a presidentially appointed panel, that cite serious failures by the CIA and other agencies in judging Saddam's weapons programs.

The principal U.S. intelligence analysis, called a National Intelligence Estimate, wasn't completed until October 2002, well after the United States and United Kingdom had apparently decided military force should be used to overthrow Saddam's regime.

The newly disclosed memo, which was first reported by the Sunday Times of London, hasn't been disavowed by the British government. A spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington referred queries to another official, who didn't return calls for comment on Thursday.

A former senior US official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity.

A White House official said the administration wouldn't comment on leaked British documents.

In July 2002, and well afterward, top Bush administration foreign policy advisers were insisting that "there are no plans to attack Iraq on the president's desk."

But the memo quotes British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, a close colleague of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, as saying that "Bush had made up his mind to take military action."

Straw is quoted as having his doubts about the Iraqi threat.

"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 memo reported he said.

Straw reportedly proposed that Saddam be given an ultimatum to readmit United Nations weapons inspectors, which could help justify the eventual use of force.

Powell in August 2002 persuaded Bush to make the case against Saddam at the United Nations and to push for renewed weapons inspections.

But there were deep divisions within the White House over that course of action. The British document says that the National Security Council, then led by Condoleezza Rice, "had no patience with the UN route."

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the leading Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, is circulating a letter among fellow Democrats asking Bush for an explanation of the document's charges, an aide said.

-------

DLR'sCock
05-08-2005, 11:39 AM
Beuller?

FORD
05-08-2005, 12:48 PM
Where's the outrage indeed?

Nixon's crime was insignificant compared to this. Clinton's was never a crime to begin with.

IMPEACH THESE CRIMINAL FASCIST PIECES OF SHIT NOW!

DLR'sCock
05-09-2005, 02:25 PM
No seriously, this is grounds for impeachment.

Guitar Shark
05-09-2005, 02:36 PM
Has the actual memo been released yet?

American Gypsy
05-09-2005, 02:39 PM
So was artificially prolonging Viet-Nam. Half the country went to the barricades with no result other than dead students and soldiers.
Who gives a shit?

kentuckyklira
05-09-2005, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Where's the outrage indeed?

Nixon's crime was insignificant compared to this. Clinton's was never a crime to begin with.

IMPEACH THESE CRIMINAL FASCIST PIECES OF SHIT NOW! They pray, they believe in the right god, they´re against gay marriage and abortion, so they simply can´t be bad. No matter how many innocent civilians they´ve ordered slaughtered!

DLR'sCock
05-09-2005, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Has the actual memo been released yet?

Shark, I was waiting for this story to take off, and I haven't seen or heard a peep. Yeah, left-wing media.....

ODShowtime
05-09-2005, 06:17 PM
Oh my God! I can't believe it's true :rolleyes:

DLR'sCock
05-11-2005, 05:30 PM
Yeah, it's all a big fat lie!!!

Seshmeister
05-11-2005, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by DLR'sCock
Shark, I was waiting for this story to take off, and I haven't seen or heard a peep. Yeah, left-wing media.....

Throughout the last week of the election campaign here it was now accepted knowledge that Blair had lied.

He still got in because of the economy doing pretty well and the main opposition being a bunch of assholes who also supported the war.

If the conservatives had done it then they would have been thrown out but because most of the anti war people are liberals then they're not going to vote for the right. It's like if Clinton had taken the US into Iraq.

There are moves to impeach Blair but I don't think it will happen.

The public are fickle. If this had come out a year or two ago then maybe it would have caused them both a lot of shit, now too many people have the attitude of 'lets move on'.

Basically politicians can do and say what they want as long as they keep it secret for a couple of years. That's what a world of low attention span instant media does for you.

Cheers!

:gulp:

Warham
05-11-2005, 06:05 PM
60 Minutes will be providing this memo shortly. I hear Dan Rather has got the inside story, courtesy of Bob Burkett.

Seshmeister
05-11-2005, 06:05 PM
Good.

For what it's worth...

Nickdfresh
05-11-2005, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by DLR'sCock
Memo: Bush Made Intel Fit Iraq Policy
By Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott
Knight Ridder
Washington - A highly classified British memo, leaked...The memo said "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

The White House has repeatedly denied accusations made by several top foreign officials that it manipulated intelligence estimates to justify an invasion of Iraq.

It has instead pointed to the conclusions of two studies, one by the Senate Intelligence Committee and one by a presidentially appointed panel, that cite serious failures by the CIA and other agencies in judging Saddam's weapons programs.
-------

NO! You mean the damn CIA analysts aren't to blame! Nobody was bullied and the Administration's enemies were not attacked for not drinking the fucking kool-aid containing the blood of 1,600+, and counting, US troops and perhaps 100,000 Iraqis? C'mon!

rucalobe
05-11-2005, 09:39 PM
IMPEACH DUBYA NOW!!!!!!!!

Nickdfresh
05-12-2005, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by DLR'sCock
Shark, I was waiting for this story to take off, and I haven't seen or heard a peep. Yeah, left-wing media.....

It is...

Bush asked to explain UK war memo
Thursday, May 12, 2005 Posted: 2:49 AM EDT (0649 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/index.html)) -- Eighty-nine Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war in mid-2002.

The timing of the memo was well before the president brought the issue to Congress for approval.

The Times of London newspaper published the memo -- actually minutes of a high-level meeting on Iraq held July 23, 2002 -- on May 1.

British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity, and Michael Boyce, then Britain's Chief of Defense Staff, told the paper that Britain had not then made a decision to follow the United States to war, but it would have been "irresponsible" not to prepare for the possibility.

The White House has not yet responded to queries about the congressional letter, which was released on May 6.

The letter, initiated by Rep. John Conyers, 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.

Hmmm...

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

In addition to Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon, Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, MI6 chief Richard Dearlove and others attended the meeting.

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. 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.

It quoted Hoon as saying 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.

"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.

"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."

DLR'sCock
05-12-2005, 07:44 PM
It's about time.

It's getting hot in here!

Warham
05-12-2005, 09:16 PM
Yeah, when is the left wing media going to get on Hillary Clinton's ass about that fund raiser in California?

Yeah, right wing media. :rolleyes: