Well, it now appears obvious how all this should play out.
British whistleblowers and leakers will provide more than required to impeach Bush.
from the Sunday Times-Britian
timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … 22,00.html
[quote]Ministers were told of need for Gulf war
And in another view of this…
[quote]‘Downing Street’ Memo Has Left Wingers Drooling
By Bobby Eberle, June 13, 2005
If there’s one thing left wingers love, it’s a good, old-fashioned conspiracy. Give them a small nibble of a “claim” of wrong doing against the current White House, conservatives, or Republicans, and the left wing fringe will pounce into action. Facts? Data? Evidence? Those items are simply minor inconveniences to their “analysis” of right wing efforts to rule the world, steal elections, plant White House reporters, or a host of other perceived dirty deeds.
Like chum in a pool of sharks, the left has been stirred into a frenzy over the so-called “Downing Street” memo. This document, written by a British foreign policy official, chronicles a meeting among British officials including Prime Minister Tony Blair. The memo conveys a sense of the direction America was heading in regard to dealing with Saddam Hussein and Iraq, prior to the commencement of military operations. The memo contains a passage that the left is now calling the “smoking gun” that they say shows President Bush purposely manipulated intelligence information to build the case for war. Once again, the left wing zealots are putting facts and evidence aside and letting their conspiracy theory fears run wild.b[/b]
Downing Street’ Memo Has Left Wingers Drooling[/quote]
Here is the actual memo being referred to. Its a gun that is not smoking.
[quote]IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER’S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam’s regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. 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 UN 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.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun “spikes of activity” to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
© CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT (- end memo)
memo courtesy of Powerline Blog[/quote]
And for those who do not pay much attention to history, Clinton committed the US government to regime change in Iraq back in 1997 or 1998 with the Iraq Freedom Act. Remember? So, whoops, I guess we have to go back a bit farther. I have no doubt that the British realized that the US had lost patience with Saddam and that is the impression they were writing about. Yes, all true. A conspiracy? Nope. The only conspiracy that needs to be written about is the one staring everyone in the face. US$69 billion in Oil for Food payments and UN, French and Russian officials feeding at the trough. It was the LARGEST UN agency in terms of staff numbers and as such had created a very strong vested interest in maintaining its existence. Lots of high-paying salaries and benefits and no one wanted to lose them. Let’s have a “smoking gun” on that as well, shall we? haha
Actually you missed another one Fred. The $8 billion missing from the Coalition Provisional Authority.
There is $8 billion missing but no evidence that it was “stolen” or “misappropriated” either though I have no doubt a great deal of it was. The problem regarding this misappropriation that you willfully misrepresent as being $8 billion stolen is that there were no accounting departments in the newly liberated Iraq to account for each and every penny spent. Monies were going to rebuild the country, supply food, etc etc. and there was no functioning Iraqi government. That is also why so much of US reconstruction aid has been held up. There is no one there to sign off on it or to monitor its effective dispersement. So yes, you are right $8 billion is missing but that does not mean that $8 billion was stolen. It merely means that there is no way to account for how and when it was spent.
Very different from Saddam and the Oil for Food program where we have a very nice paper trail of who was benefiting and how. Right?
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Here is the actual memo being referred to. Its a gun that is not smoking.
[/quote]
referred to only by you…
of course i suppose it’s part of the background of the story. my intent in starting this thread was to point out a series of memos (notice the links) which paint some unpretty pictures. yeah, there’s downing street, but the one the article mentions has the british trying to find a legal excuse for war.
[quote=“s.b.”]Well, it now appears obvious how all this should play out.
British whistleblowers and leakers will provide more than required to impeach Bush.
from the Sunday Times-Britian
timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … 22,00.html
[quote]Ministers were told of need for Gulf war
Where did Tetsuo say it was stolen?
Well if it was not stolen or misappropriated Rascal, then it is clearly not in the league as the $69 billion “misappropriated” during the Oil for Food scandal by the organization you seem to love so much the UN. He did not say stolen. My mistake. It was my impression of his post. So strike the stolen, but then let me ask, what’s the relevance?
Hey, I’m just saying it’s missing. And more importantly, that no-one seems to care that it’s missing, which is kinda scary considering that’s a fair wedge of cash. I don’t know and don’t claim to know what happened to it, all I know is that something happened, and I think it deserves investigation.
Tetsuo:
I would love to be that your “concern” is what moves you. Please contact your congressmen or parliamentarian to demand a full investigation into the eggregious theft of funds that resulted in the deaths of 500,000 to 1 million Iraqis while enriching Saddam, Russian and French business people and UN officials.
Now, again, I have explained that one of the reasons that the $8 billion cannot be accounted for is the total lack of accounting departments or procedures during the invasion and for welll after the immediate aftermath. Some of that money was not doubt stolen or misappropriated may even $1 billion? But compare that with what went on under the UN and I am sure that your outrage will be greatly enhanced by a factor of tens. Ergo, I am very glad to hear that you will be pressuring your elected representatives to conduct a complete, comprehensive and detailed investigation into the travesty of justice that the UN Oil for Food program represented. I too want to know how all those women and children could suffer and die while some French businessman in cahoots with UN officials went on ski holidays or bought his mistress a Hermes scarf. Shocking!
It’s not about the French. It’s not about the UN.It’s about the 8billion that went missing, Frederick.
Then perhaps someone should have had the common sense not tho throw money into a big hole; where the hell do you expect to see the money go?
And if one of the reasons is that there were no accounting departments or procedures in place, why weren’t there any? Why would anyone spend that much money and not have some system in plae to make sure it was put to the right use. I mean shit, the amount of money that was and is being pumped into that place is bound to tempt someone, whether into outright dishonesty or just into ill-considered spending.
Personally I agree, Fred, that more than likely only a portion of the money’s been misappropriated. But if I were paying that much cash into anything I’d sure as hell like to know where it was going. And I’m certain that, with your outrage at the perfidious actions of the UN, you too are endeavoring to see a full account of the money. I mean if other people’s misused money concerns you so, I’d imagine the misuse of your own and that of your countrymen must do so far more.
Oh, and I would be writing to my MP if New Zealand could make any difference. No matter how vociferously NZ yelled, attempted to pressure, and campaigned, we’d be met with the same general response we’ve got to just about anything directed to the US (well, anything that doesn’t directly favor the US) since going nuclear free - a diplomatically worded “kiss my ass.” The UN thing though? Well, there is an election coming up…
The great thing is seeing Fred huff and puff about how we shouldn’t even be asking questions about the missing 8 billion. “No accountability” is the motto of the Bush administration – a mantra that puts them into the same league as crack whores and third-world despots.
Based on a soiled dress and a failed investment, the Republicans launched a huge investigation against Bill Clinton. However, when they’re dropping 8 billion down the crapper and telling lies that are getting American troops killed, they can’t bear the thought of any basic levels of scrutiny.
“When you get in these people when you…get these people in, say: “Look, the problem is that this will open the whole, the whole Bay of Pigs thing, and the President just feels that” ah, without going into the details… don’t, don’t lie to them to the extent to say there is no involvement, but just say this is sort of a comedy of errors, bizarre, without getting into it, “the President believes that it is going to open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again. And, ah because these people are plugging for, for keeps and that they should call the FBI in and say that we wish for the country, don’t go any further into this case”, period!”
Richard Nixon, June 23, 1973
[color=blue]Doesn’t seem like much of a smoking gun either but this passage – where Nixon tells Haldeman to use the C.I.A. to ward the F.B.I. off the Watergate investigation – was the smoking gun which brought Nixon’s presidency down.[/color]
[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote=“s.b.”]Well, it now appears obvious how all this should play out.
British whistleblowers and leakers will provide more than required to impeach Bush.
from the Sunday Times-Britian
timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … 22,00.html
[quote]Ministers were told of need for Gulf war
:bravo: :bravo: :bravo:
I am quite upset about the unaccounted for $8 billion. The minutes of the meetings at Downing Street note that not only was the Pentagon gearing up for an invasion before Bush went to the U.N., but also that they had no plan for the aftermath - no plan for running the country once they took it. :loco:
Bodo
[quote=“s.b.”]No, TC, sorry for any confusion, but the “Downing Street Memo” that you posted is a different document than the briefing paper that was prepared for the meeting discussed in the article I posted. Anyway, I understand it can be a little confusing, that was sorta the point of the original post, that these leaks are coming quick and fast with enough info to impeach a Democrat, if not a Republican.[/quote]s.b. -
Thank you for the additional memo and clarification.
More leaks than a screen door on a submarine.
Interesting thread:
part 1: thread about Downing Street Memo leak
part 2: hijack attempt with “missing 8 billion/blame Bush”
part 3: the obligatory “Ohhh Fred, you just don’t get it”
part 4: spook somehow has brought Nixon into this -(the Joos/Israel is next)
A thrill a minute here folks, Step right up and try your luck!
First of all this money is not “missing” it is “unacconted for” as you have so rightly pointed out. Compare that with the $69 billion that went through the UN Oil for Food program. Compare that with the 500,000 to 1 million Iraqis who died because of the corruption. Compare that with the fact that the Oil for Food program was the largest UN program with strong vested interests in maintaining itself and its bureaucrats high salaries. Compare that with the fact that these monies might have been responsible for much of the opposition in the UN to the plan to remove Saddam not concerns over “international law” or whether Saddam had wmds or not. Every major nation bar none believed that Saddam had wmds. The UN inspectors believed that he was hiding something, but they did not know what. Everyone said Saddam was NOT in compliance.
Quite right. That is after all why the US wanted to go to the UN precisely BECAUSE it wanted to invade. There would have been no reason to go to the UN if there had been no plan to deal with Saddam once and for all after 12 years of dicking around about this, that and the other. Remember Clinton committed the US to regime change with the Iraq Freedom Act in 1997. So suddenly, the British have the idea that the US was already planning to get rid of Saddam? Say it isn’t so. What gave anyone that idea?
Untrue. The memo is eight months before the invasion. The British had the impression that there was very little planning but hey you cannot have this both ways. On the one hand, you are saying that the US was wrong to have this plan to invade Iraq even before consulting the UN and then on the other you are criticizing it for not planning enough even though you are suggesting earlier that doing so before going to the UN would have been wrong. So which is it? Are you complaining that the US was too Machiavellian or not Machiavellian enough?