Memo: Bush Discussed Drawing Saddam into War

[DLR'sCock]

The White House Memo
By Gary Gibbon
Channel 4, London

Thursday 02 February 2006

Revealed: Bush and Blair discussed using American spy plane in UN colors to lure Saddam into war.
Channel 4 News tonight reveals extraordinary details of George Bush and Tony Blair's pre-war meeting in January 2003 at which they discussed plans to begin military action on March 10th 2003, irrespective of whether the United Nations had passed a new resolution authorising the use of force.

Channel 4 News has seen minutes from that meeting, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. The two leaders discussed the possibility of securing further UN support, but President Bush made it clear that he had already decided to go to war. The details are contained in a new version of the book 'Lawless World' written by a leading British human rights lawyer, Philippe Sands QC.

President Bush said that: "The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway."

Prime Minister Blair responded that he was: "solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam."

But Mr. Blair said that: "a second Security Council resolution would provide an insurance policy against the unexpected, and international cover, including with the Arabs."

Mr. Sands' book says that the meeting focused on the need to identify evidence that Saddam had committed a material breach of his obligations under the existing UN Resolution 1441. There was concern that insufficient evidence had been unearthed by the UN inspection team, led by Dr Hans Blix. Other options were considered.

President Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

He went on: "It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddam's WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated."

Speaking to Channel 4 News, Mr. Sands said: "I think no one would be surprised at the idea that the use of spy-planes to review what is going on would be considered. What is surprising is the idea that they would be used painted in the colours of the United Nations in order to provoke an attack which could then be used to justify material breach. Now that plainly looks as if it is deception, and it raises some fundamental questions of legality, both in terms of domestic law and international law."

Also present at the meeting were President Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice and her deputy Dan Fried, and the President's Chief of Staff, Andrew Card. The Prime Minister took with him his then security adviser Sir David Manning, his Foreign Policy aide Matthew Rycroft, and and his chief of staff, Jonathan Powell.

Those present, as documented in Mr. Sands' book, also discussed what might happen in Iraq after liberation.

President Bush said that he: "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups."

The Foreign Office issued a statement: "The Government only committed UK forces to Iraq after securing the approval of the House in the vote on 18 march 2003."

"The decision to resort to military action to ensure Iraq fulfilled its obligation imposed by successive UN Security Council Resolutions was taken only after all other routes to disarm Iraq had failed."

"Of course during this time there were frequent discussions between UK and US Governments about Iraq."

-------

[FORD]

Blair-Bush deal before Iraq war revealed in secret memo

PM promised to be 'solidly behind' US invasion with or without UN backing

Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday February 3, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

Tony Blair told President George Bush that he was "solidly" behind US plans to invade Iraq before he sought advice about the invasion's legality and despite the absence of a second UN resolution, according to a new account of the build-up to the war published today.

A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.

"The diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning", the president told Mr Blair. The prime minister is said to have raised no objection. He is quoted as saying he was "solidly with the president and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam".

The disclosures come in a new edition of Lawless World, by Phillipe Sands, a QC and professor of international law at University College, London. Professor Sands last year exposed the doubts shared by Foreign Office lawyers about the legality of the invasion in disclosures which eventually forced the prime minister to publish the full legal advice given to him by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith.

The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:

· Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".

· Mr Bush even expressed the hope that a defector would be extracted from Iraq and give a "public presentation about Saddam's WMD". He is also said to have referred Mr Blair to a "small possibility" that Saddam would be "assassinated".

· Mr Blair told the US president that a second UN resolution would be an "insurance policy", providing "international cover, including with the Arabs" if anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning oil wells, killing children, or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq.

· Mr Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book.

The revelation that Mr Blair had supported the US president's plans to go to war with Iraq even in the absence of a second UN resolution contrasts with the assurances the prime minister gave parliament shortly after. On February 25 2003 - three weeks after his trip to Washington - Mr Blair told the Commons that the government was giving "Saddam one further, final chance to disarm voluntarily".

He added: "Even now, today, we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntary disarmament through the UN. I detest his regime - I hope most people do - but even now, he could save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully."

On March 18, before the crucial vote on the war, he told MPs: "The UN should be the focus both of diplomacy and of action... [and that not to take military action] would do more damage in the long term to the UN than any other single course that we could pursue."

The meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Blair, attended by six close aides, came at a time of growing concern about the failure of any hard intelligence to back up claims that Saddam was producing weapons of mass destruction in breach of UN disarmament obligations. It took place a few days before the then US secretary Colin Powell made claims - since discredited - in a dramatic presentation at the UN about Iraq's weapons programme.

Earlier in January 2003, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, expressed his private concerns about the absence of a smoking gun in a private note to Mr Blair, according to the book. He said he hoped that the UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, would come up with enough evidence to report a breach by Iraq of is its UN obligations.

Downing Street did not deny the existence of the memo last night, but said: "The prime minister only committed UK forces to Iraq after securing the approval of the House of Commons in a vote on March 18, 2003." It added the decision to resort to military action to ensure Iraq fulfilled its obligations imposed by successive security council resolutions was taken only after attempts to disarm Iraq had failed. "Of course during this time there were frequent discussions between the UK and US governments about Iraq. We do not comment on the prime minister's conversations with other leaders."

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat acting leader, said last night: "The fact that consideration was apparently given to using American military aircraft in UN colours in the hope of provoking Saddam Hussein is a graphic illustration of the rush to war. It would also appear to be the case that the diplomatic efforts in New York after the meeting of January 31 were simply going through the motions.

"The prime minister's offer of February 25 to Saddam Hussein was about as empty as it could get. He has a lot of explaining to do."

Prof Sands says Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's UN ambassador at the time, told a foreign colleague he was "clearly uncomfortable" about the failure to get a second resolution. Foreign Office lawyers consistently warned that an invasion would be regarded as unlawful. The book reveals that Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the FO's deputy chief legal adviser who resigned over the war, told the Butler inquiry into the use of intelligence during the run-up to the war, of her belief that Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, shared the FO view. According to private evidence to the Butler inquiry, Lord Goldsmith told FO lawyers in early 2003: "The prime minister has told me that I cannot give advice, but you know what my views are".

On March 7 2003 he advised the prime minister that the Bush administration believed that a case could be made for an invasion without a second UN resolution. But he warned that Britain could be challenged in the international criminal court. Ten days later, he said a second resolution was not necessary.


link (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1700881,00.html)

[Warham]

It's interesting how these memos somehow get leaked to just the right liberal journalists and op/ed writers in the press, isn't it?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
It's interesting how these memos somehow get leaked to just the right liberal journalists and op/ed writers in the press, isn't it?

I don't think the BBC or the Guardian are liberal by any means.

They're simply examples of an honest and free press. Remember when we had one of those in this country? :(

[Warham]

I would suggest that our press is freer than any press in Great Britain or the rest of Europe.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
I would suggest that our press is freer than any press in Great Britain or the rest of Europe.

Then why are they rarely able to cover the corruption of the current fraudministration, despite the fact that a new crime seems to surface every week?

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
Then why are they rarely able to cover the corruption of the current fraudministration, despite the fact that a new crime seems to surface every week?

Which paper are you reading???

[DrMaddVibe]

I thought Cheney did all of the thinking?

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by FORD
I don't think the BBC or the Guardian are liberal by any means.


The Guardian is pretty liberal...:)

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Warham
I would suggest that our press is freer than any press in Great Britain or the rest of Europe.

But they just chose not to be?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
It's interesting how these memos somehow get leaked to just the right liberal journalists and op/ed writers in the press, isn't it?

Define "liberal press." Maybe they should have "leaked them" to a right wing 'journalist' as per Administration policy.:)

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/novakvalerie6x72.jpg

[LoveWalksIn]

i read somewhere that Bush had a war plan as early as college. i mean, this guy is a war monger if i've ever seen one! he only wants to kill and im sick of it.

thank God for Cindy Sheehan. she sohuld run for president get our troops out of the middle east and New Orleans even. that was a travisty and a mess by Bush himslef.

[FORD]

OK, let's not stray off the topic here. This is further evidence that Chimpy and B-Liar knew they had no valid reason to invade Iraq but were determined to do so anyway. What do you Busheep have to say about that?

Can you still attempt to justify the war crimes of this Fraudministration?

[Hardrock69]

Originally posted by Warham
I would suggest that our press is freer than any press in Great Britain or the rest of Europe.

Ford is right.

If our press is so free, why do we keep discovering way after the fact that Chimpy & Co. are up to no good?

What about the New York Times sitting on a story for an entire fucking YEAR due to pressure from the White House?


Freedom of the Press?

Only as far as mundane bullshit like traffic accidents and sports news. IF it concerns Foreign Policy, or the activities of the Chimp administration (the pretenders to the throne), it is only through leaks and whistleblowers that we CAN ever hear this shit.

ALL of the wolrd's media is controlled by only a dozen or so corporations.

How hard is it to control them?

Pretty easy when you are in cahoots with the Fraudministration.

I have to laugh at the sheep in this country.

Oh NO!
:eek:

President G.W. Bush would NEVER do THAT!

:rolleyes:

Buncha ignorant motherfuckers.

[LoveWalksIn]

Originally posted by FORD
OK, let's not stray off the topic here. This is further evidence that Chimpy and B-Liar knew they had no valid reason to invade Iraq but were determined to do so anyway. What do you Busheep have to say about that?

Can you still attempt to justify the war crimes of this Fraudministration?


exactly. like i said i heard that Bush had war plans as early as college and i wouldn't doubt it.

why do we as a nation put up with this liar?

i have republican friends and sometimes i just want to punch them right in the face!!

idiots!!

[LoveWalksIn]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Ford is right.

If our press is so free, why do we keep discovering way after the fact that Chimpy & Co. are up to no good?

What about the New York Times sitting on a story for an entire fucking YEAR due to pressure from the White House?


Freedom of the Press?

Only as far as mundane bullshit like traffic accidents and sports news. IF it concerns Foreign Policy, or the activities of the Chimp administration (the pretenders to the throne), it is only through leaks and whistleblowers that we CAN ever hear this shit.

ALL of the wolrd's media is controlled by only a dozen or so corporations.

How hard is it to control them?

Pretty easy when you are in cahoots with the Fraudministration.

I have to laugh at the sheep in this country.

Oh NO!
:eek:

President G.W. Bush would NEVER do THAT!

:rolleyes:

Buncha ignorant motherfuckers.



we are just puppets of this administration. plain and simple. theyu are going to bring this country down in flames and nothing willbe left but ashes.

there is no such hting as a Liberal bias in the press. there never has been! it all started with that fatass Rush and the surge of college drop-out turned conservative radio sho hosts. they planted that thought in our minds.

i fucking hate these people!!

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
It's interesting how these memos somehow get leaked to just the right liberal journalists and op/ed writers in the press, isn't it?

Gee, you're so right.

Should have leaked it to Jeff Gannon / Jimmy Guckert of "Talon News"

or Robert Novak.

Or maybe Armstrong Lewis or Bill Kristol


:rolleyes:


Maybe Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton are behind all of this Warpig?

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Gee, you're so right.

Should have leaked it to Jeff Gannon / Jimmy Guckert of "Talon News"

or Robert Novak.

Or maybe Armstrong Lewis or Bill Kristol


:rolleyes:


Maybe Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton are behind all of this Warpig?

Ted Kennedy isn't smart enough to be behind this, but he is smart enough to control your party's agenda.

Comforting, isn't it?

[McCarrens]

Anyone who doesn't think the Guardian isn't liberal is a moron.

[Hardrock69]

Liberal or Conservative is IRRELEVANT.....

The facts have been stated: Bush was determined to INVENT ANY KIND OF STORY he could use to rationalize his plan to kill hundreds of thousands of people....as well as thousands of Americans.


What do you call someone who sells out his own country and causes the deaths of thousands of his countrymen for no reason?

BUSH IS A TRAITOR!

[Warham]

Originally posted by Hardrock69
Liberal or Conservative is IRRELEVANT.....

The facts have been stated: Bush was determined to INVENT ANY KIND OF STORY he could use to rationalize his plan to kill hundreds of thousands of people....as well as thousands of Americans.


What do you call someone who sells out his own country and causes the deaths of thousands of his countrymen for no reason?

BUSH IS A TRAITOR!

Your logic is flawed. Bush had plenty of reason for going into Iraq.

Come back again when you have a better arguement.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by LoveWalksIn
exactly. like i said i heard that Bush had war plans as early as college and i wouldn't doubt it....

How would BUSH have had "war plans" in college? Yeah, I'm sure he accurately predicted the 1990-91 Gulf War. Then he surmised his father would lead a Coalition against Saddam Hussein, and that Saddam would later try to kill his father in revenge. He, being a banner-C+ student, also figured that the USSR would fall, leaving a rising CHINA as our main competitor for dwindling oil resources, so he planned to invade Iraq on false pretenses.

Of course! It all makes sense now!:rolleyes:

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
How would BUSH have had "war plans" in college? Yeah, I'm sure he accurately predicted the 1990-91 Gulf War. Then he surmised his father would lead a Coalition against Saddam Hussein, and that Saddam would later try to kill his father in revenge. He, being a banner-C+ student, also figured that the USSR would fall, leaving a rising CHINA as our main competitor for dwindling oil resources, so he planned to invade Iraq on false pretenses.

Of course! It all makes sense now!:rolleyes:

Don't tell FORD that, Nick. He believes that Bush was groomed to become the Supreme Chancellor of the BCE, their plans decades, perhaps centuries in the making. Their purpose: total control of the world!

:rolleyes:

[Hardrock69]

It is not Chimpy's plan.

He is just the puppet installed by the regime.

[Warham]

Let me guess. The former congressman from Wyoming is running the show, right?

[diamondD]

Originally posted by Warham
Don't tell FORD that, Nick. He believes that Bush was groomed to become the Supreme Chancellor of the BCE, their plans decades, perhaps centuries in the making. Their purpose: total control of the world!

:rolleyes:

Don't forget that FORD thinks he's the anti-Christ, so he probably does think this has all been planned.

[FORD]

Originally posted by diamondD
Don't forget that FORD thinks he's the anti-Christ, so he probably does think this has all been planned.

Actually, I think he's too stupid to be THE antichrist But he is definitely against Christ in his words and actions.

[Warham]

Everybody alive is against Christ in their actions and words at one time or another. You are every time you assume his identity on this forum.

[jhale667]

Who was it that said "Chimpy's not the Anti-Christ, but he's one HELL of an opening act....!" ? :D

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Warham
Everybody alive is against Christ in their actions and words at one time or another.

Of course.

I just find it ironic that so many of the ones that are most often, are those who claim most loudly to be Christians.

Just the same with the Muslim superstition.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Warham
It's interesting how these memos somehow get leaked to just the right liberal journalists and op/ed writers in the press, isn't it?

Maybe it's because those are the only people interested in investigating this stuff! :confused:

[jhale667]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Of course.

I just find it ironic that so many of the ones that are most often, are those who claim most loudly to be Christians.

Just the same with the Muslim superstition.



But unlike Christianity, you don't see a groundswell of muslims going "Those zealot extremists do not represent us or our religion!!!"---and there SHOULD BE ONE.....yet they seemingly refuse to denounce their own crazies....:confused:

[Nickdfresh]

*Wrong thread.* Fucking browser...