Sunday Times: Ministers were told of need for Gulf war "excuse"

[evermind]

Ministers were told of need for Gulf war "excuse"
Michael Smith

MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.

The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.

The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.

This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.

This story is probably what the Times were talking about recently, when they said they would have more on the Downing Street memo.

The story refers to a leaked "briefing paper" - information for the participants of the meeting of which the DSM was the minutes.

The article quotes from the (apparently new) briefing paper:

“US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia,”

(legal issues) “would arise virtually whatever option ministers choose with regard to UK participation”.

“It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject” (in order to create a pretext for war).

Hopefully Conyers et al will be getting hold of a copy of this one..

(update: The full text of the briefing paper (it's long!) is at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758,00.html )

(I've also posted it in GD at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3836794 )


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1650822,00.html

Edits: get rid of bogus characters in title. Add story link! Whoops! Add links to full text of leaked paper

[aquart]

1. Link?

[LynnTheDem]

4. GMTA (great minds think alike).

:D

[grytpype]

59. Let's see Bush explain this away.

Seriously, this makes the original DSM look like nothing.

[LynnTheDem]

2. Link?

Please :)

[OKNancy]

3. Please post a link to the story

thanks!

[Cooley Hurd]

5. All in all, it's...

...ANOTHER BRICK IN CONYER'S WALL!:thumbsup:

[rodeodance]

8. and a bigger hole in Bush/blair DIKE!!

[Supersedeas]

157. a wall and a dike that the US Corporate Media would rather ignore

blonds in Aruba, Jacko suspense, sports or weather anyone?

[Olney Blue]

188. Don't let Conyers get on an airplane....

his leadership in this fight is too important!

[daleo]

6. What kind of legal reasoning is this?

"The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair's inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was necessary to create the conditions which would make it legal."

If the police or a prosecutor did this, wouldn't it require some form of entrapment or a frame-up? How can you set the conditions up to make something legal (regime change), that is illegal? To me, it doesn't pass the test of common sense, let alone jurisprudence.

One hundred thousand people, maybe more, have died over this.

[rodeodance]

that is the point--they needed to make it 'appear' legal (hense WMD).

[TahitiNut]

23. Under international law, waging war for the purpose of regime change ...

... is illegal. That is, it is not a legitimate casus belli.

It is well understood that, under widely recognized international law, no nation has an inherent unilateral right to breach the sovereignty of any nation and to relieve people of any nation of their leader or government. -- Dennis Kucinich, December 2004
http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icc/2004/1209kucinich.htm

As is now clear beyond a reasonable doubt, the Bush/Blair War Conspiracy had, as its strategy in 2002, the falsification of a facade of legitimacy due to the fact that the only real objective (removal of Saddam) did not and does not justify an attack.

It was a deliberate fraud on a global scale. It was a war crime more egregious than Mussolini's invasion and occupation of Ethiopia. It was a war crime more egregious than Hitler's invasion and occupation of Czechoslovakia. It's a crime against humanity.


As Pravda said in February 2003,
"President George Bush of the United States of America is either an idiot, or a liar. His declarations on the Middle East in his speech on Wednesday in Washington spelt a telling story of a man wholly incompetent to be in his position who is either unable to understand the issues at stake or else manipulates the evidence to suit his discourse. In short, he is either an idiot or a liar."
http://english.pravda.ru/usa/2003/02/28/43818.html


On edit: Some may argue that the centuries-old definition of a "just war" (as enshrined in the United Nations Charter!) is outmoded and that oppressive regimes may be a casus belli. This argument is made moot by the very fact that Bush/Blair gave complete credence and affirmation to this definition by the mere fact that they strove to concoct the fraud.

[rodeodance]

33. thanks for your post.

[Straight Shooter]

41. Excellent point, Tahiti Nut

"... Bush/Blair gave complete credence and affirmation to this definition by the mere fact that they strove to concoct the fraud."

One does not fabricate a case for war unless fabrication is required.

Now we await the right wing spin ...

"Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out." (Bush, March 2002)

[LiberalFighter]

88. I wonder if gw*dipshit would feel the same if other countries...

ganged up and waged war against the United States for the sole purpose of removing the dipshit from office as well as try him for crimes?

[alarcojon]

204. And, of course,

these other countries would have to "create the conditions which would make it legal"!

[TankLV]

207. I wish they would.

Really.

[reprobate]

228. Ah, grasshopper. You see the future. And I'll help build the gallows.

[warrens]

284. Cool, a roadie. Can I get a backstage pass?

[truth2power]

47. So....

(imagine this is in about 36 point font, I'd hafta' go look for the code)

WHEN ARE THEY GONNA IMPEACH THE BASTARD????? :banghead:

[William Seger]

90. No way in hell...

... will this Republican congress will impeach the SOB. But the 2006 election is shaping up to be a referendum on impeachment, eh? :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Gronk Groks]

92. THAT IS THE CAMPAIGN LINE!!!!!!!

"Congressman are you willing to Impeach George W. Bush for intentionally deceiving you and the American Public for the reasons to Invade Iraq."

Just keep hammering ever Rethug congressman with that ONE question!

If he says "No", you can ask him if he considers it acceptable to lie to the American Public on an issue of such magnitude.

If he says "Yes", his own base will tear him apart!

IT IS A NO-WIN SITUATION!!!

:toast:

[TahitiNut]

101. I think you get it. See my post (#99) below ...

... which I was composing as you posted. It's a line of reasoning I believe is rationally inescapable.

[ktowntennesseedem]

280. Great point! Welcome to DU, Gronk!

Think I'll be writing my Repug rep and asking him those very questions. Should get an interesting answer from John Duncan. He's a dyed-in-the-wool Repug, but he had the balls to vote AGAINST the war resolution, something that our own pres & v-pres candidates couldn't claim. He is quite conservative, but he tends to think for himself, and if the rest of Congress goes against what he thinks is best, he won't hesitate to go against the grain and vote his conscience. Could be interesting!

[TahitiNut]

99. Here's the problem I see with that "no way in hell" ...

Let's accept that the world community, or at least the better part of it, fully recognizes that the Bush/Blair conspiracy was a deliberate, premeditated crime against humanity. It's a basic tenet of agreed-upon international law that the nation whose 'leaders' are guilty of such heinous crimes have the first 'dibs' on prosecuting those crimes. (The international courts are courts of last resort.) That means, under our Constitutional form of government, that Congress must impeach in the House, find guilty in the Senate, remove from office, indict and prosecute for crimes, and ascertain just guilt for those involved in such crimes. Absent this being accomplished while they're in office, it must then be done by the subsequent administration's Department of Justice (since the impeachment process would then be moot).

So, we get just that much time before the community of nations say "time's up" and trigger the last resort. But then what's the story? It seems to me that the deliberate failure to prosecute would expand the number of people then indictable under international law. In other words, the political leadership of the House of Representatives would then become accessories to the war crimes by their failure to perform their Constitutional duties.

To the degree a reasonable certainty that the international community will eventually act against these criminals exists, I believe ("fear of God") pressure can be brought to bear on even a Republican Congress. If they deliberately fail to act, they could actually be deemed complicit in those crimes.

I've thought about this and I believe that it must absolutely be under consideration both in the European Union states and member countries of the Organization of American States - not to mention the UN, in which the US has too much power. As we watch the relationship of the US with both those bodies deteriorate, it seems to confirm that my conjecture is on solid grounds. These are some very smart folks ... and if this all falls through in the next 4-6 years and no action is taken, then the "doomsday clock" on global justice and civility would be approaching midnight. In other words, any half-ways rational international politician/statesman would have to pale at the consequential global impact of such a complete collapse of international law.

Make sense? So, I really don't see the US's interaction with the EU, the OAS, and the UN as mere sideshows or secondary to our domestic political problems. These organizations are obviously (to me) preparing for eventual indictment and prosecution. They have no choice.


FWIW, this thinking is what also leads me to believe that Chimperor Codpiece will be 'martyred' before November 2008. It'd be killing two birds (and some bird-shit) with one fatal event.

[bluesbassman]

141. TahitiNut, your conclusions are right on the mark.

And that is the reason that Cheney and Rove have been trying so hard to place Bolton in the U.N. It is obvious that the only way this pack of traitors and thieves will escape accountability for their crimes is to dismantle both U.S. and international law. But there is a light shining through the fog. Just as "average" Americans began to understand that they were being lied to near the end of Viet Nam, we are starting to see an awakening among our fellow citizens. Some in the Right's leadership are changing their positions because the believe it is beneficial politically, but that is my point. If they believe that supporting the Bush regime policies will hurt them politically, then they must know that their constituents are no longer believing the propaganda.

The DSM is the match that will light the fuse. While in and of itself it is no more damning than hundreds of other revelations concerning the administration's treason, it is the one that has traction. That is why we must not let up in pressing this issue and not let this opportunity slip into the archives. We must pound this issue relentlessly. We must support the fight that John Conyers has initiated. I am committing to sending an e-mail or letter, or making a phone call every day to my representatives in Washington demanding that they take action against George W.Bush and his administration for high treason! If they had the effrontery to impeach Clinton for lying about consensual sex, then we cannot stand by while they do nothing about the treason of Bush lying us into a war that has killed at least 1600 of our sons and daughters, and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.

Remember: They can't ignore you if you shout above the noise!

[Frederik]

210. Amen!

It has been said too often in this forum, but I'll say it anyway: it may seem like the tide is turning.

Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[KoKo]

181. Interesting. Although the 4-6 year window

is too long a time frame for me and probably many others to bear thinking about, what you say is probably the more reasonable time frame. Given the enormity of the crimes it may very well take that long for it all to be revealed. Hopefully the revelations coming out about how he and his cronies have lied about more than Iraq and his tanking poll numbers means some "restraint" will be applied to them before they do more damage to international relations and to our Constitution..but it's hard to be hopeful given what we've seen so far. :eyes:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

286. I personally think that the International community has already been....

...acting in ways to isolate and weaken the US as quickly as possible economically, financially, and militarily. If true, I believe that China, Russia, Germany, France and certain members of OPEC began to work on US containment as soon as we invaded Iraq.

It's pretty clear what's being done economically and financially. All one has to do is look first, at the rise in gasoline prices, second, at our rapidly growing trade debt, and third, to the continued actions by foreign countries to withdraw assets from investment vehicles in the US to include the Stock Market. China is the big player on this block. Look for China to start establishing other markets around the world willing to take their goods and services as they slowly turn off the tap to the US.

The military part is a little more complex, but their goal is to draw the US into as many conflicts as possible to bleed us a little at a time. Iraq and Afghanistan are now a total collective quagmire, and thanks to the recklessness and utter disregard of the NeoCon Junta, we are now involved in multiple conflicts around the globe.

[tavalon]

115. Or a referendum on Diebold n/t

[thereismore]

245. Referendum on impeachment 2006! YeeeHaaaaw! n/t

[mountainvue]

247. There is no way a Republican congress or senate will

stand behind someone who has been branded a war criminal. No way. This could finally be the fall of this house of cards.

[geckosfeet]

77. excellentanti !

[KoKo]

84. "....strove to concoct the fraud." Bush/Blair....Well said and thanks for

that insight....

[LiberalFighter]

91. I hope other countries push this hard in their newspapers and other media

It would easier for U.S. media to give this minimal exposure if the media around the world doesn't. So, hopefully thre are many readers from other countries that push their media to print or broadcast it.

[KoKo]

102. Another thought...who is leaking this?

Would seem that Blair is in deeper trouble than Bush given that GB has to abide by the International Law Treaty that the US never signed.

These leaks verified by sources not authorized to speak about them, may be coming from Blair himself. As I read Pincus's report I kept thinking that Pincus was "shifting the dialog" from "illegal war" to Bush not preparing for the "aftermath."

Not preparing for the "aftermath" switches the subject from "Illegal War" to one not "prepared for adequately."

Does Blair really think he can change the conversation from "Illegal?" Is this what Blair and Bush REALLY discussed in Blair's visit to the US last week? IOW: "How can we worm our way out of this Georgie...because I'm on the hook more than you?" It's hard to know since Blair seemed to walk away without Kyoto promise of support, and without any real new funding of aid to Africa..according to what I read.

Tony's got to look good for the G-8 Summit. So shift the blame of Iraq to "aftermath problems" and ignore or downplay his complicity? Maybe Blair's pulling the "sympathy" card out of the deck?

:shrug:

[TahitiNut]

113. That's a very interesting question.

I think it's possibly being done with the 'plausible deniability' of some member or members of Blair's government, possibly Brown. It seems very clear to me that the manner in which the PM forms a cabinet from MP's in the House of Commons makes it impossible for him to get as many butt-kissing toadies as Chimperor Codpiece has. I also think that UK's system precludes the depth of bureaucratic sycophancy we see in D.C.

While it's possible there's a maverick group within MI6(?) or the Foreign Ministry, I'm inclined to believe that the cover and concealment for these leaks is at the cabinet level.

The number of heads that'd roll in Blair's government is far fewer than in the Bushoilini Regime. Blair could get off light if he did the international equivalent of "turning state's evidence" in an eventual prosecution of the Bushoilini Regime.

In short, I think international events of the next 4-6 years could make Watergate and Iran/Contra and Pinochet look like trivialities.

[FredStembottom]

232. Yes, Minister?

I don't know how many Americans here have ever had the priviledge to see the BBC comedy "Yes, Minister"?

Apparently, all ministers in Parliament (who come and go at the public's whim) are "bolstered" by a never-changing staff of civil servants. This show made a hilarious case for the civil servants actually being the British Government.

I can't help but wonder if there is a real- life "Sir Humphrey" in the cabinet somewhere. Someone who knows more than the ministers themselves at times - who has seen a need for truth to come out. Bit by bit.

[KoKo]

246. Both of you may be correct.

Whomever is leaking, I hope to hell they keep it up!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

289. Or, the CIA using their conduits in foreign intelligence agencies.....

...and the foreign media. Remember, they have a major bone to pick with the NeoCons, and they NEVER forget.

[nolabels]

122. Tell Pravda it's possible to be both a liar and a idiot

:rofl:

[evermind]

24. "Creating the conditions" probably refers to

"the need to wrongfoot Saddam" on the weapons inspectors, which was being discussed in US/UK meetings as early as March 2002.

As I posted, at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3809302 there was a set of six earlier cabinet papers leaked in the UK dating from early 2002. They hit the British press in September 2004.

Two of these papers were reports of meetings between UK diplomatic staff and Condoleeza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz. Both of these reports make reference to what seems to have been a British plan on the weapons inspections to fool Saddam into making decisions that could be made to look like a legal basis for war.

This is extremely damning, and gives the lie to Bush/Blair protestations of seeking a peaceful resolution: the inspections process was being manipulated to create a legal and political pretext for war!

From the two memos I posted earlier:

(From British ambassador to Washington Christopher Meyer to Downing Street foreign policy adviser David Manning: )

1 Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, came to Sunday lunch on 17 March.

2 On Iraq I opened by sticking very closely to the script that you used with Condi Rice last week, We backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option. It would be a tough sell for us domestically, and probably tougher elsewhere in Europe. The US could go it alone if it wanted to. But if it wanted to act with partners, there had to be a strategy for building support for military action against Saddam. I then went through the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN SCRs and the critical importance of the MEPP as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy. If all this could be accomplished skilfully, we were fairly confident that a number of countries would come on board.

(SCR: security council resolution, MEPP: Middle East Peace Process)

(From David Manning to Tony Blair)

The issue of the weapons inspectors must be handled
in a way that would persuade European and wider opinion that the US was conscious of the international framework, and the insistence of many countries on the need for a legal base. Renewed refusal by Saddam to accept unfettered inspections would be a powerful argument;

For more on these earlier Downing Street leaks, see the original story in the Daily Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar118.xml and the bbc story at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/4336727.stm

[daleo]

40. "Wrongfoot" sounds like a euphemism for entrap

"I then went through the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN SCRs..."

Under British or American law, a prosecutor who did this could be up on charges himself. Furthermore, a prosecutor who ignores all exculpatory evidence and only concentrates on evidence favorable to his case (and invents some and gets other evidence by entrapment) would definitely be in breech of his duty as an officer of the court.

As you say, this is damning to anyone who is willing to see the obvious truth. Blair, Bush and their cabinets were all involved in a criminal conspiracy to wage aggressive war.

[chalky]

42. Another example of "creating the conditions": goad Saddam into war.

"THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown."

[AuntiBush]

198. Ya-ka! Here's Betting UK Citizens Won't Take this Sitting Down...

Sure hope our Brit counterparts display their anger over this. Unlike, well... us.

I hear there is 1 super-huge march taking place in September up in DC. We're talking more then millions.

September seems to far away.
http://www.rainbowpush.org/conferences/annualconference/2005/

Oddly, none of the news on this big March is coming up on Google. Wonder why... C-Span aired it awhile back. It will be tons of groups nation-wide, of all races, creeds, etc.

[Goldeneye]

7. This isn't quite right is it?

??? Conyers promised to deliver it to Bush once it reached 250,000 signatures. By Friday morning it already had more than 500,000 with as many as 1m expected to have been obtained when he delivers it to the White House on Thursday. ???

It hasn't even hit 500,000 yet and its Saturday night.
It's an important piece though. I think Conyer's will find it useful. Recommended

[oregonjen]

14. Does that include the signatures Conyers already had to begin

with, before MoveOn joined?

[Goldeneye]

16. I thought it was all of them,

but maybe it is just Moveons signatures.

[Frederik]

55. I think they deleted some

illegitimate signatures?

[evermind]

45. Yeah, I thought that was strange. Still, after this one hits the US

press (they can't ignore it - it's much stronger evidence than the DSM, (imho!)) they might well reach 1m by thursday! :-)

[faithnotgreed]

106. midnight: just a few thousand short of 500k so we can get 1m

if things roll tomorrow (sunday shows perhaps talk of san francisco and washington post and new york times articles) into monday and its on more talk radio perhaps even some msm then 1m is feasible

incredible. eminems "mosh" playing right now.... quite apropos

[Pryderi]

196. I'm re-emailing my friends again to make sure they signed the petition!

And I'm sending the new Downing St. information!! Let's bug our friends again!

[faithnotgreed]

227. a follow up is always good! you never know...

[WePurrsevere]

9. Hopefully...

this story will make the news on this side of the pond but considering how well the Downing Street Memo/Minutes has been covered by the mainstream media so far I'm not as sure as I'd like to be that will... it seems like Howard Dean's been in the news more for a whole lot less.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. Hmmmm ... still no link?

:popcorn:

[WePurrsevere]

12. hi...

I see a link (he added it)... maybe if you hit refresh? :)

[evermind]

13. Link now included. Sorry! Don't know what I was thinking!(n/t)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

27. Don't worry about it. There is a small group of posters on this board...

...that like to make demands like that in an attempt to embarrass the original poster.

IMHO, those people are just too lazy to find the links themselves.

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. Next week

is going to be a real bad week for W. He must be jonesing for a diversion really bad right now.

[WePurrsevere]

15. There does seem to be a pattern...

It's what type of diversion he and his admin may come up with that concern me.

[rodeodance]

19. I think they will stick to the lines they gave at the press conference-and

repeat it over and over--this tactic works for them so very often.

[burythehatchet]

18. I got a feeling Michael Jackson is going to be hearing a verdict this week

Let the circus begin

[AAARRRGGGHHH]

138. So true

Great post.

Thank God we have MJ and the rest of the 'real news' to distract us from this.

[Lilith Velkor]

248. Welcome to DU

Great sceenname. :hi:

[Barrett808]

17. "contradicts claims by Blair and Bush"

The suggestions that the allies use the UN to justify war contradicts claims by Blair and Bush, repeated during their Washington summit last week, that they turned to the UN in order to avoid having to go to war.

It couldn't be clearer. This could be the biggest of the smoking gun documents.

[rodeodance]

20. I agree--it is as important --if not more so than the 'minutes'--seems to

me that a briefing paper trumps a minutes (which theorically can take on lots of interpretations). anyway, just a thought.

[MrPrax]

21. What More is Needed Now?

A leaked videotape of the BLiar/Chimp team laughing and saying,

"fuck'em, we're gonna invade Iraq-- their dirty arabs--we waste a bunch, take their oil--Sharon will be happy, we'll be rich and the public are idiots...do I have a second on that motion?"

"I see no opposition to the motion, no questions-- carried"

"Next order of business, before we sacrfice a virgin to Baal--which democrat are we running in 2004?"

[leftchick]

34. oh god, there she is again...

:cry:

I am so sorry what my country has done to you sweet baby.

[tavalon]

117. We don't have it on video

but in March 2002 � a full year before the invasion � Bush outlined his real thinking to three U.S. senators, �Fuck Saddam,� Bush said. �We�re taking him out.� It was reported in Time magazine.

[MrPrax]

218. Ah...good memory...

I was alluding to that one--according to the Time account, Bush stalked down the hall and shoved his head in Rice's office and said it in front of Senators. If I recall Graham had this all figured out, but nobody was listening or cared.

Too bad there are so few 'heroes' in any of this that stood tall for principles, law and common sense consistently.

Like most of this stuff, it does confirm the most cynical suspicions of informed observers even causally looking at their 'evidence/rationale'-- but it doesn't make it any better to live or understand the growing conspiracy of coverup and denial ebbing out from this scandalous and treasonous decision.

[postulater]

187. That picture rips my guts everytime I see it

Thanks for posting it. It is too easy to turn away from the horror.

I am ashamed of my country.

[understandinglife]

22. And, this appeared before Frank Rich's latest NYTimes op-ed. Just ...

... imagine what his next op-ed could contain.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3836428


Peace.




www.missionnotaccomplished.us- don't stop at 500,000 signatures; don't stop at 10,000,000 signatures; don't stop until Bush and the neoconsters are indicted and prosecuted for their heinous crimes against humanity and our Constitution.

edit: Forgot to say 'thank you' evermind for your OP. Thank you!

[rodeodance]

25. The article included support organizations/ papers.

.......AfterDowningStreet.org, another website set up as a result of the memo, is calling for a congressional committee to consider whether Bush�s actions as depicted in the memo constitute grounds for impeachment.

It has been flooded with visits from people angry at what they see as media self-censorship in ignoring the memo. It claims to have attracted more than 1m hits a day.

Democrats.com, another website, even offered $1,000 (about �550) to any journalist who quizzed Bush about the memo�s contents, although the Reuters reporter who asked the question last Tuesday was not aware of the reward and has no intention of claiming it.

The complaints of media self-censorship have been backed up by the ombudsmen of The Washington Post, The New York Times and National Public Radio, who have questioned the lack of attention the minutes have received from their organisations.........

[understandinglife]

32. Exactly. As Congresswoman Pelosi notes in her Raw Story interview:

.... "I�ve had reporters say to me, I have orthodontia, I have tuition, I have mortgage, I need access, I�m not writing your story,� Pelosi remarked.

She continues:

�It�s very exciting,� she said. �What I like about it is that you can know what somebody is saying. You don�t need an interpreter. You don�t need a reporter who is going to change what you say.�

�It is, as you say, the raw story,� she added. �If you depend on the print press, they will either leave you out of the story, or mis-characterize what you are saying, or you get two sentences in a twenty-five paragraph story which doesn�t give weight to the argument that you have.�

Pelosi also hit the press over Iraq.

�I think that the recent statement by the Newsweek bureau chief who was there longer than any U.S. ambassador was probably the closest to the truth that we�re going to get,� she explained. �I don�t think that the embedded reporters who have the full security of the U.S. military there are going to give us the cutting-edge story.�

More at the link:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Democratic_leader_Pelosi_lauds_blogs_We_have_to_destory_the_0610.html

Mr. Rich's commentary would either suggest he isn't worried about his mortgage, or, more likely, he is as passionate and committed as we are to saving "America" and humanity from even another day of Bush and the neoconsters criminal behavior.


Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - don't stop at 500,000 signatures; don't stop at 10,000,000 signatures; don't stop until Bush and the neoconsters are indicted and prosecuted for their heinous crimes against humanity and our Constitution.

[CrispyQ]

192. That's no excuse ...

.... "I�ve had reporters say to me, I have orthodontia, I have tuition, I have mortgage, I need access, I�m not writing your story,� Pelosi remarked.

<snip>

Despite her concerns about the mainstream press, she says she doesn�t blame reporters for what they do.

�What are they going to do?� she added. �They�re going to antagonize the White House? They�re a very unforgiving crowd over there. They take prisoners. You won�t have access if you don�t write the story they want. Especially if you make a habit of it.�

</snip>

These 'reporters' are as bad as worse than the pharmacists who won't fill a birth control Rx because of their religion. Why would you want access to the White House when you know all they spew is bullshit & the same bullshit to everyone? What happened to getting the scoop on a story? If you don't have the integrity to do your job, get another fucking job.

The Corrupt Corporate Media is as guilty as Bushco in these crimes. The blood of the dead is as much on their hands as Bushco.

Thanks for the link.

[KansDem]

238. Truer words have rarely been spoken...

The Corrupt Corporate Media is as guilty as Bushco in these crimes. The blood of the dead is as much on their hands as Bushco.

We must always remember if the Fourth Estate had done its job, BushCo would never have achieved power, or at least have had a much harder time doing so. Certainly many of their shenanigans could have been stopped cold. The blood of over 100,000 world citizens is on the hands of both the Bushistas and members of the Whoreth Estate.

[sendero]

291. You know why I think that reporter is despicable?

Because the Bush** white house gives them NOTHING anyway!

What ACCESS? Access to hear a bunch of canned answers to a set of permitted questions.

So, the reporter is not only a whore, the reporter is a fool.

[berni_mccoy]

26. Put A Fork In The Administration

They are done. Well Done.

This corroborating evidence PROOVES without a doubt that Bush made up every bit of the case to go to war, a violation of his duty to the Constitution and the American People.

I wonder if this was Conyers recent ominous posting: http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000137.htm

[rodeodance]

29. does anyone think the WH is sweating right now?

[LiberalFighter]

89. Sweating for that reason requires a conscience

[rodeodance]

153. te he---forgot that fine point!!

[Stephanie]

28. And WE'RE called "conspiracy theorists" - it WAS a freaking conspiracy

Which shall be their downfall! Too many people to keep the secret! Hah!

So Blair was strong-armed in April of 2002 -

[redacted]

111. No longer dealing with conspiracy theories, we deal in conspiracy FACTS!

Thank you Stephanie, point well taken.

[Dover]

And Blair just visited the U.S.. Was it to agree to an attack on Iran,

Syria, or some other target?

[rodeodance]

31. What is a good media blaster (i lost my link)--so we all can send to

media and ask that they cover this new story!!!!

[Nancy Waterman]

44. This is the story now at Times on line by Michael Smith

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1650565,00.html

It is more of a summary of what we already knew and less about the new evidence. I can't find the other story except through the link from this post.

[evermind]

49. Go to www.timesonline.co.uk, click on "Ministers needed Iraq Excuse"

underneath the smiling face of Gordon Brown!

Your story is from the Review section. (ST is like the NYT: loads of sections!)

[MisterP]

142. Sharon and Lover Boy Abdullah also visited shortly before

[Dover]

30. .

[KoKo]

35. Many thanks for these new links...i

it will take awhile to get through them, but was hoping that this story would grow new legs like "centipede."

We've seen so many "blockbuster" stories about Bush Family and Bush/Cheney/Rummy/PNAC CRIMES go down the "Memory Hole" that we are sort of "gun shy" at this point.

We just gotta hope that this keeps going. LIES are WRONG. We tell our kids this...but how do we explain to them when our own P-Resident and Gov't are doing it?

How can our kids understand this? How can WE Understand it. :shrug:

What's left to believe in if EVERYONE LIES?

[rodeodance]

37. nicely said

[Chicago Democrat]

36. More info supporting the Downing Street Minutes

Great news.

[rodeodance]

38. nominated. lets keep this on our radar!!

[rodeodance]

39. make sure to contact (below)-c-span and ask to cover Conyers hearing

next Thrusday.

[e-mail]

[Supersedeas]

252. calling Dana Milbank calling Dana Milbank--time to bury this story plz

[Rainscents]

43. Alright... Another link added to my bookmarks! I need all the help!

I can't wait until Thursday, June 16th... I'll be watching!

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[howmad1]

137. What do you want to bet......

....that the Michael Jackson jury will come up with a verdict next Thursday morning. It's not beyond the pale to believe Rove will tamper with judge and jury to take the the attention of the merkin sheeple away from Conyers. Just a thought. }(

[usregimechange]

46. Kick and Recommended for Greatest, DSM2?

[Sparkly]

48. I have to look at the briefing paper, but does it include the Niger claim

re: yellowcake?

[mike_c]

50. the paper trail is beginning to catch up with the rat bastards....

When will the military, sent to fight and die in a discretionary war that went horribly wrong, start to demand a full accounting?

[Beaver Tail]

51. The Shit has hit the fan

Looks liek the sling is starting to spin.. wonder how far the Killer B's will fly

[Sparkly]

52. "a transcript rather than the original document"

The following is a transcript rather than the original document in order to protect the source.

Does that mean someone read it to a reporter? Can it be verified?

[evermind]

54. That is an interesting question. All the worries that were

applied to my earlier posts about UK Cabinet leaks from early 2002 (see #24, above) would apply here.

But it's early days. The UK Gov will presumably have to respond to this. (BTW, I hope it will give fresh legs to the DSM story in UK, which effectively died after Labour were re-elected - perhaps not the impression you'd get reading the US press and stories here, but true.)

I think the Times will have taken steps to verify, and it's probable (I guess) that the source is the same as for the DSM (and quite possibly those earlier leaks) which have not been contested by the UK government.

Did we ever see the *actual* DSM? I don't remember seeing it. So I guess that was a transcript too? (I'd be happy to be proved wrong, BTW)

[IndianaGreen]

53. This makes the entire British cabinet complicit, including Gordon Brown

Chancellor of the Exchanger and heir apparent to Blair.

Meanwhile back in America, let's talk about that missing blonde in Arruba.

[BrotherBuzz]

56. LOL, this thread isn't about the fundie ministers receiving secret orders!

Good stuff, nevertheless. I think, all in all, I'm approaching overload on this religion stuff lately.

[MelissaB]

75. LMAO! That's what I thought at first ,too. Good thing I kept reading.

:crazy:

[LordshipLadyship]

57. kick

:kick:

[wrate]

58. This is an extraordinary turn of events. Could this take Blair down? And

if it did, would that start a domino effect that could take * down too?

[evermind]

61. Hehe, maybe Gordon Brown is the one doing the leaking! ;-) (n/t)

[Carla in Ca]

139. That is what I think, too

Memos and secret documents are 'leaked' by someone who gains from the fallout of the info. Blair lost seats last election but since he is still PM, this comes out.
I think Blair is done.

[rodeodance]

62. oh lets just take the two poodles down as a pair!!!!!1

[usregimechange]

60. Big!

[stevedeshazer]

63. Terror alert alert

If they're gonna pull something, they'd better do it soon. :scared:

[ClayZ]

65. I hope he pulls the limo up,

climbs in with all his friends and flys to his oasis OUT of country....


Run george Run!

BYE BYE

Then we can start printing the "Wanted for Crimes Aganst Humanity" posters.


I would chip in on the REWARD!

[senseandsensibility]

64. kick

This must be investigated. If our "journalists" won't do it, and we know they won't, let's hope the British ones do.

[Dawgs]

66. Now that we have backup to the DSM, it's time to...

put pressure on the press.

Let them know that they might be missing the next Watergate if they don't cover it. Let them know that they may be missing the next Monica. Let them know that they be missing the next IMPEACHMENT!!!

They can't cover this up forever.

[rodeodance]

67. whats a good media blaster?

[Career Prole]

70. Here's one set up for mass mailing...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x198836


Found that here...
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/National_Media_Blaster


Yay, Demopedia! :D

[rodeodance]

150. Thank you so very much--I just could not find it.

[leesa]

68. Saddam outfoxed them and they don't have a leg to stand on

"14. It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003."

[LuPeRcALiO]

72. That he did.

And if manages to stay alive I hope he seeks legal redress.

[tavalon]

121. Are you

using the enemy of my enemy is my friend argument here? Because, guess what, there are two bad guys here. What the Bush administration did was evil and they did it to an evil man.

May George and Saddam by cell buddies after they are both tried and convicted of war crimes.

We should never have done what we did but that doesn't mean Saddam is an angel.

[nolabels]

125. I wonder who gets to be the bitch

:evilgrin:

[LuPeRcALiO]

135. If Saddam committed any crimes against the US or its citizens

I'd like to know what they are.

[tavalon]

144. Gosh

Is that the only thing that matters? Americans? War crimes are war crimes whether committed against Americans or any other humans or committed by Americans or any other humans.

[LuPeRcALiO]

145. Yes, that's the only thing that matters

because that's the only legal or moral justification for attacking a sovereign nation.

It's Bush that should be on trial in Iraq, not Saddam.

[tavalon]

211. You're missing my point

I'm saying don't diefy Saddam just because Bush is a demon. Just because we are bad doesn't make Saddamn good.

[LuPeRcALiO]

213. He's a victim of genocide

and crimes against humanity like every other citizen of Iraq. Whether he's "good" or not is irrelevant.

p.s. I'm not missing your point, just saying it's moot.

[tavalon]

219. OK

Then I disagree with you. I don't think it's moot at all.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

290. If you think that anything Saddam did to his own people justifies our....

...illegal invasion and continued occupation of Iraq, then I submit that you're the one that's missed the point.

In short, where are the WMDs that the NeoCons used as the primary reason for attacking Iraq? Where are the connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda/Osama Bin Laden? Where are all of the other reasons that have been trotted out by the NeoCons as each previous reason has been proven to be a lie?

Here's a hint...the invasion of Iraq was NEVER about any of the things listed above....it was about OIL, pure and simple. Iraq had it, and the NeoCons wanted it. All of the things listed above were used to justify the invasion to the American people. And now we know that it's all been a major fabrication that has cost the lives of tens of thousands of Americans, Iraqis, and Brits lives, as well as the lives of hundreds among the so-called allies that we paid to send troops to Iraq.

[TahitiNut]

233. In dealing with the 'Saddam is a bad guy' rationale ...

... I merely say that never is it MORE important to adhere to the Rule of Law and respect the rights of people (and nations) than when that Rule and those rights are being ignored because the person is a "bad guy."

When the ACLU defended the rights of the Nazis to march in Skokie, I became a lifetime member of the ACLU ... not because I admire the Nazis but because I admire the Bill of Rights!

[LuPeRcALiO]

239. great point

personally I'm no great Saddam fan and he doesn't seem to have been all that popular (at least until we got there) but he did a heck of a lot more to improve the lives of Iraqis than we'll ever begin to.

[ROH]

69. Nominated (n/t)

[CantGetFooledAgain]

71. All I can say is, careful everyone...

I'm not saying this is what this is, but the classic Rovian gambit right now would be to leak an explosive document of some kind that was fake and could be discredited and in turn, take some of the heat off the DSM.

That being said, I hope that this is genuine and that there is much more to come.

[Lecky]

74. What he said!

I'm paranoid

[evermind]

76. The UK Gov will *have* to have a response to this.

Isn't it likely, though, the source is the same as the DSM? Same paper, same meeting.

There is being careful, and there is cutting of your nose to spite your face.

[manxkat]

82. Rove can't control EVERYTHING

and I think the Times wouldn't be stoopid, so I do think this is genuine.

[NEOBuckeye]

136. Exactly. It may not seem like it, but he is only human, after all.

Real people screw up and make mistakes. Even Rove.

Whatever political genius he has is destined to be trumped by his own arrogance and the hubris of the Bush Misadministration.

[evermind]

105. WP: "the material was confirmed as authentic"

From Walter Pincus' Washington Post article:

"That memo [the new one, from Jul 21] and other internal British government documents were originally obtained by Michael Smith, who writes for the London Sunday Times. Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post, and the material was confirmed as authentic by British sources who sought anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter. "

[tavalon]

123. Yep

I think it's a little premature to be media blasting just yet. Let's let the British Government confirm or deny the authenticity of this latest round.

[evermind]

124. See post #105, just up from yours, though.

[helderheid]

203. if that's the case

wouldn't the US media be all over it? Rove would want the US media to report on it - just like poor Dan Rather. I think this could be the real deal!

[HeeBGBz]

73. Is this as good as it sounds?

Nominated and spreading it around.

[RetroLounge]

78. And the Spin Machine will be in full force tomorrow

Nothing to see here. Jacko all day...

RL

[dchill]

79. How do Bush and Blair...

...square this news with the bald-faced lies they told the world at their press conference earlier this week?

Hmmm?

[The_Casual_Observer]

81. "Saddam was a madman ,,,,,The world is safer without Saddam.."

then, say " Are you saying that the world would be better off with Saddam is power???"


The plan was/is to use this as the rational if all else failed.

[TankLV]

212. And I would tell them to reply: "Yes. Yes the worldWOULD be better off

with Saddam still in power!"

There are all sorts of reasons why this statement is true.

Yes, he was/is a bad guy. But what bushco has done IN OUR NAME is far worse.

[TahitiNut]

250. The 'argument' of vigilanties and mobs forever.

It's the moral bankruptcy of amoral consequentialists that makes such an argument, i.e. "the ends justify any means."

So, since the majority of the world's people believe George W. Bush is a threat to world peace, does the same rationale hold? Does such an opinion legitimate assassination or murder? the slaughter of over 100,000 human beings? (That's a Nazi 'argument.') Tell George to walk unguarded along the streets of Baghdad, Damascus, Tehran, or even Cairo if he believes this immoral hogwash!

[understandinglife]

80. Scoop.nz picks up the story:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3837202#3837358

Peace.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4173.htm



www.missionnotaccomplished.us - Please, everyone, don't stop at 500,000 signatures; don't stop at 10,000,000 signatures; don't stop until Bush and the neoconsters are indicted and prosecuted for their heinous crimes against humanity and our Constitution.

[Pithy Cherub]

83. Twice in my life? Is a republican president to resign

rather than be impeached? My heart breaks for every single world citizen's family that has lost a loved one because of a bogus war and egos.

This is so bad that can you imagine Sadam's defense lawyers with this - the ultimate earthly irony Saddam and bush both lose their presidencies over this.

[Rose Siding]

85. Pincus has it in tomorrow's Post: "Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Iraq Plan"

A briefing paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the British memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of that country.

The eight-page memo, written in advance of a July 23, 2002, Downing Street meeting on Iraq, provides new insights into how senior British officials saw a Bush administration decision to go to war as inevitable, and realized more clearly than their American counterparts the potential for the post-invasion instability that continues to plague Iraq.

In its introduction, the memo "Iraq: Conditions for Military Action" notes that U.S. "military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace," but adds that "little thought" has been given to, among other things, "the aftermath and how to shape it."

The July 21 memo was produced by Blair's staff in preparation for a meeting with his national security team two days later that has become controversial on both sides of the Atlantic since last month's disclosure of official notes summarizing the session.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100723.html

[kskiska]

86. WP/Pincus: Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Iraq Plan (Pg 1!!!)

Advisers to Blair Predicted Instability

A briefing paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the British memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of that country.

The eight-page memo, written in advance of a July 23, 2002, Downing Street meeting on Iraq, provides new insights into how senior British officials saw a Bush administration decision to go to war as inevitable, and realized more clearly than their American counterparts the potential for the post-invasion instability that continues to plague Iraq.

In its introduction, the memo "Iraq: Conditions for Military Action" notes that U.S. "military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace," but adds that "little thought" has been given to, among other things, "the aftermath and how to shape it."

The July 21 memo was produced by Blair's staff in preparation for a meeting with his national security team two days later that has become controversial on both sides of the Atlantic since last month's disclosure of official notes summarizing the session.

more�
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100723.html

[UpInArms]

112. here's the transcript of the LIARS from April 6 2002

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020406-3.html

excerpt:

Q Thank you. Mr. President, you have yet to build an international coalition for military action against Iraq. Has the violence in the Middle East thwarted your efforts? And Prime Minister Blair, has Bush convinced you on the need for a military action against Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Adam, the Prime Minister and I, of course, talked about Iraq. We both recognize the danger of a man who's willing to kill his own people harboring and developing weapons of mass destruction. This guy, Saddam Hussein, is a leader who gasses his own people, goes after people in his own neighborhood with weapons of -- chemical weapons. He's a man who obviously has something to hide.

He told the world that he would show us that he would not develop weapons of mass destruction and yet, over the past decade, he has refused to do so. And the Prime Minister and I both agree that he needs to prove that he isn't developing weapons of mass destruction.

I explained to the Prime Minister that the policy of my government is the removal of Saddam and that all options are on the table.

THE PRIME MINISTER: I can say that any sensible person looking at the position of Saddam Hussein and asking the question, would the region, the world, and not least the ordinary Iraqi people be better off without the regime of Saddam Hussein, the only answer anyone could give to that question would be, yes.

...more...

google for george bush tony blair crawford april 2002 press

and you will not find one goddamn freakin' lazy ass snews organization link on the front page

:argh:

[rodeodance]

154. good find--thanks

[Pirate Smile]

87. WP: Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Iraq Plan (includes DSM on A1)

Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Iraq Plan
Advisers to Blair Predicted Instability

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 12, 2005; Page A01

A briefing paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the British memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of that country.

The eight-page memo, written in advance of a July 23, 2002, Downing Street meeting on Iraq, provides new insights into how senior British officials saw a Bush administration decision to go to war as inevitable, and realized more clearly than their American counterparts the potential for the post-invasion instability that continues to plague Iraq.

In its introduction, the memo "Iraq: Conditions for Military Action" notes that U.S. "military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace," but adds that "little thought" has been given to, among other things, "the aftermath and how to shape it."

The July 21 memo was produced by Blair's staff in preparation for a meeting with his national security team two days later that has become controversial on both sides of the Atlantic since last month's disclosure of official notes summarizing the session.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100723.html

[rodeodance]

147. we knew this over 6 weeks ago when we read the memo--now the WP

FINALLY gets around to putting it in their paper!!!!!

[Pirate Smile]

93. WP: Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Iraq Plan (includes DSM on A1)

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 12, 2005; Page A01

A briefing paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the British memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of that country.

The eight-page memo, written in advance of a July 23, 2002, Downing Street meeting on Iraq, provides new insights into how senior British officials saw a Bush administration decision to go to war as inevitable, and realized more clearly than their American counterparts the potential for the post-invasion instability that continues to plague Iraq.

In its introduction, the memo "Iraq: Conditions for Military Action" notes that U.S. "military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace," but adds that "little thought" has been given to, among other things, "the aftermath and how to shape it."

-snip-
That memo and other internal British government documents were originally obtained by Michael Smith, who writes for the London Sunday Times. Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post, and the material was confirmed as authentic by British sources who sought anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100723.html
Mods, if it is a dupe, please dump it into the original thread instead of just locking without explanation.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

94. Looks like the WaPo is finally getting warmed up on this story.

Maybe all the recent attention being paid to Deep Throught got them to remembering their glory days of Watergate, and what their job really is. We can hope.

[autorank]

95. Great post. Pincus must be exhausted; he's actually doing his job.

Well, well, well..."manaement" must be very upset at *. They're letting the news leak...

Contact the DNC and Give 'em Hell About NOT Acting on Election Fraud

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

[leesa]

97. Well, sort of...he is blaming it on the British Intelligence Chief and

saying Bush and Blair denied it at the press conference this past week. They didn't deny it.
Also putting the emphasis on planning of aftermath, which is shilling the idea that the invasion itself was A-OK but the lack of planning was the problem. Essentially ignoring the real issue...the illegality of the invasion.

[KoKo]

103. And shifting the dialog to Bush's lack of planning rather than "LIES" that

got us into Iraq. Not dissing Pincus, but even our best in the media can't be trusted today to tell the whole truth and not to "shade" it to what might be the best "compromise." :shrug:

[rodeodance]

155. the blond ?Baines? on Capitol gang last night also blamed it on the

'failed' intel!!

[clydefrand]

96. The link doesn't work for me. Does it for others?

[leesa]

98. It didn't take me directly there but click on the Post's news link.

[Nancy Waterman]

100. The WP story and the London Times story are about different memos

These are two different stories and should be two different threads. One is about the memo circulated at the July 23 meeting that they needed an excuse to make an illegal war legal, such as getting Saddam to thwart the inspectors. The WP story is about the US not preparing for the aftermath of war which really shocked the British.

The moderator combined them but they are two different stories.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100723.html

[Spazito]

104. They are talking about the same memo from what I can tell

Both newspapers use the header from the memo:

Iraq: Conditions for Military Action"

From the WP:

In its introduction, the memo "Iraq: Conditions for Military Action" notes that U.S. "military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace," but adds that "little thought" has been given to, among other things, "the aftermath and how to shape it."


From the Sunday Times transcript of the memo:

The paper, produced by the Cabinet Office on July 21, 2002, is incomplete because the last page is missing. The following is a transcript rather than the original document in order to protect the source.
PERSONAL SECRET UK EYES ONLY



IRAQ: CONDITIONS FOR MILITARY ACTION (A Note by Officials)

[TahitiNut]

107. Yep. I agree. The 'combine' was an error. (We all make mistakes. )

:shrug:

[Pirate Smile]

108. I posted the Wash Post story in GD after two LBN's got dumped into

here. It is a different story by a different author but a US paper which means the US media will cover it. I gave up after two times and posted the same thing in GD. It made it onto the Greatest Page within a couple of minutes. Here is the link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3837563&mesg_id=3837563

[evermind]

109. Same memo, different slant

Washington Post:

In a section titled "Benefits/Risks," the July 21 memo states, "Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks."

From the Sunday Times' memo:

Benefits/Risks

19. Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular, we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective as set out in paragraph 5 above. A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired endstate would be created, in particular what form of Government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor. We must also consider in greater detail the impact of military action on other UK interests in the region.

[Pirate Smile]

110. I updated it. They moved the article from its first spot but luckily they

haven't moved it from A1.

[nittygritty]

116. Be sure to thank WP for covering REAL NEWS!

About damn time...

[helderheid]

205. thank them AND the LondonTimes!!!!!

They are more likely to report our appreciation and they DESERVE IT!

[Hailtothechimp]

114. Of course all of the Sunday shows will ignore this.

Little Russ will be too busy impeaching Joe Biden with things he said in 1992. And all of the other talkfests will just whistle past the graveyard.

That being said, this has some real potential to bring more attention to DSM. Bring it on.

[markam]

118. I checked out freeper land

What a surprise, not a peep about this.

1000 comment thread about the teenager's body found in aruba, and a big thread about mike tyson's fight.

These people are in serious denial.

[Presidentcokedupfratboy]

120. They would never say anything harmful to Bush

on pain of death.

[tavalon]

130. They're probably afraid

that if they bring up the topic, they will begin to disassemble.

[Pirate Smile]

133. Faux news will NOT be diverted. Missing people and celebrity trials

will be covered in excruciating detail. Have no fear....

[Presidentcokedupfratboy]

119. Just proves what all thinking people knew all along

Bush was jonesing for an invasion no matter what he had to do. What a bunch of craven crroks and liars these guys are.

They make Nixon look benign, if such a thing is possible.

[tavalon]

132. I love your username

and yes, amazingly, they make the Nixon days look quaint and kind of cute by comparison.

The nice thing here is that if Bush has to resign to avoid being impeached, even if the next in line pardons him, he will still be charged in the international court for war crimes.

[Presidentcokedupfratboy]

249. Thank you kindly

I was inspired by Bill Maher calling the chimp a "coked-up Fratboy."

[sabra]

126. Sunday Times: The leak that changed minds on the Iraq war

<<SNIP>>
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1650565,00.html

The leak that changed minds on the Iraq war
Michael Smith

Six weeks ago The Sunday Times published the leaked minutes of a July 2002 Downing Street meeting in which Tony Blair committed Britain to war in Iraq months before parliament was consulted.

They detailed a secret pledge to President George W Bush to help oust Saddam, showed that Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, had warned such action could be illegal and that Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, had thought the case for war was �thin�.

....

What is clearer is that they are having a strong effect on public perception in America, where there has been a wave of interest in the leak. At least two websites, afterdowningstreet.org and downingstreetmemo.com, have been set up to draw public attention to the leaked minutes. The former received more than 1.6m hits on a single day last week (it averages above 1m a day) while the latter has been selling out of T-shirts bearing the legend: �Did you get the Downing Street Memo?� Last week the leaked documents stormed the mainstream US media when they were raised at a White House news conference, forcing Tony Blair and George Bush to address the issue.

....


John Conyers, the Demo-cratic congressman who drafted the letter, promised when downingstreetmemo.com was set up last week that once 250,000 people had signed the website�s petition demanding the same answers he would deliver it to Bush.
By Friday more than 500,000 people had signed and it seems likely that by next Thursday when Conyers carries the petition up to the White House gates the names on it will number well over a million.

<</SNIP>>

[artemisia1]

127. I wouldn't get your hopes up...

Long as a significant percentage of the population believes that George will "protect" them from Gay Marriage or that he receives his instructions from God, nothing will truly matter to them.

Sorry to sound pessimistic, but if I hear one more "Bush popularity at all time low" or "people are coming around" and will soon hold this admin. responsible for the Iraq debacle - I will scream. Ain't gonna happen folks; at least unless the economy truly (and I mean 1930's era truly) tanks.

[sabra]

128. hmmm...

I think you are going to be screaming alot!

[NJCher]

140. not to worry

Ain't gonna happen folks; at least unless the economy truly (and I mean 1930's era truly) tanks.

That's in the cards, too. Bushie hits another trifecta.


Cher

[darkism]

129. Over a million by next week!

The thought gives me goosebumps...the good kind.

WOW! Outrage is still alive!

[Spazito]

131. Excellent summary of key issues in the two memos

as well as mentioning the increase in bombing in July/04 and the AG warning that the action could be illegal.

This part leaped out at me in spades:

"It makes clear that both Blair and Bush have a lot to apologise for: �When the prime minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change,� it states, adding that �regime change per se is illegal�.

As a prime minister had agreed to do something that was illegal under British interpretation of international law, it was �necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support regime change�, the briefing paper says."

[Charles19]

134. Wouldn't it be surreal if the trial against GW is before Saddam's (n/t)

[Gelliebeans]

143. Rate it up

What do we want? Answers.
When do we want them? NOW.

[rodeodance]

152. rate what up?

[Gelliebeans]

240. oops

I posted this in the wrong thread, Sorry rodeodance I was trying to catch up on DU at 1 a.m., my bad :blush:

[symbolman]

146. PLEASE USE THE TERM DS "MINUTES"

A Memo could be a post-it note, but MINUTES are considered to have much more Legal Gravitas..

MINUTES are not something someone jotted down to remind themselves, they are OFFICIAL and certified by a group of people, those that attended the meeting..

Tell everyone you know, Especially Al Franken and the rest of Air America Radio, and media you write to, that these are

MINUTES! Very important to get that out into joe sixpack's brain..

[Window]

148. My, my. A British "Deep Throat"

Keep it comin'

[redacted]

149. kick!

[rodeodance]

151. the sheepy are awakening from their slumber!!!---with the Wpost story-

the resolution from both dems and repugs--Walter P. story today!! --combined with the new UK briefing paper!! (the DMS-2).

Grand day---I will be optimist now!!

[rodeodance]

156. Reminder to contact c-span to cover the Conyers hearing next Thrus.

[e-mail]

"Glory Days"

[Pirate Smile]

159. The Washington Post article mentions the Conyers Hearing scheduled for

this week.

"The "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," said the memo -- an assertion attributed to the then-chief of British intelligence, and denied by U.S. officials and by Blair at a news conference with Bush last week in Washington. Democrats in Congress led by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), however, have scheduled an unofficial hearing on the matter for Thursday."

[powwowdancer]

158. This just gets sicker and sicker...

Now, another "memo" from downing street confirms that Bush had no plan for what to do after "mission accomplished." Here's the WASHINGTON POST story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100723.html?nav%3Dmost_emailed_emailafriend⊂=AR



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." -John Bradshaw
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach
their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by
a downright moron." -H. L. Mencken
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." -Thomas Jefferson

[Frederik]

209. The truth is percolating into the mainstream

More and more people will realize how screwed up this whole ordeal is.

Welcome to DU!

:toast:

[Ice4Clark]

160. Here are links to many Minutes, most in PDF

The site has the following:

The "Downing Street Memo" to David Manning from Matthew Rycroft on July 23rd 2002

Memo from Jack Straw To Tony Blair March 25, 2002

Memo from Peter Rickets March 22 2002

Memo from Overseas & Defense Secretariat March 8 2002

Memo from Chris Meyer To David Manning March 18 2002

David Manning Memo to Tony Blair on March 14 2002, describing his trip to the US.

Memo on legal grounds for war


SOURCE

[evermind]

193. Those earlier papers were leaked Sept 2004

I drew attention to them here, at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3809302#3823156 which has transcripts of two of them.

The original Telegraph story from 2004 is at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar118.xml

Scoop/NZ picked them up from my post on here, and then because of the renewed interest, cryptome re-hosted them at http://cryptome.org/leaks-brief.htm

Juan Cole reported on one about a meeting with Wolfowitz, March 17 2002, at his blog on 10th Jun, and the latest WashPost "DSM2" story from today carries quotes from a couple of them. (And verifies their authenticity, from (albeit anonymous) British Government sources, it seems.)

The cryptome link has a good summary and analysis by British academic Michael Lewis, who I think was the source of the PDFs (though not the source of the leaks, obviously!)

[Roland99]

161. One thing bothers me with this not showing the *original* document.

Couldn't they just redact the heading or other parts and still protect the source?

I sure hope this doesn't turn into a big setup.

[muriel_volestrangler]

182. Copies made on government scanners or photocopiers can be traced

and this has been done in the past to work out who leaked government documents to newspapers. It's possible that you might be able to fuzz the images enough to prevent this, I suppose. It's quite possible that taking documents like this home with you would be prohibited, and the leaker wouldn't want to take the chance of it being discovered in a random search of their briefcase. Better to transcribe it by hand (which you could probably hide amongst general papers).

I'm sure that the Sunday Times won't be holding a copy of the original papers - the government would be able to obtain it with an injuction, unfortunately.

[Roland99]

183. Papers can't be sneaked out and copied at home or a Kinko's?

[muriel_volestrangler]

186. They could try

and it may well be done sometimes; but if you're caught, you'd face a jail sentence. These are classfied, defence-related documents: the civil servant who disclosed to The Guardian when nuclear cruise missiles were arriving in US air bases in the UK was jailed for it. It's also possible that sensitive documents have to be accounted for each day (and anyone taking papers out with them over their lunch break would be a target for a search).

[Roland99]

189. True...I suppose it is rather risky.

Then we have people like O'Neill providing reams of papers and CDs to Ron Suskind. I wonder if there's anything in that mound of evidence that would look better in the DSM light?

[steve2470]

185. kick nt

[evermind]

190. Did you see the *original* DSM? Copies may contain internal

variations that allow the leaker to be traced, whether they photocopied at home or at work.

In any case the Washington Post has obtained confirmation from British sources that this (and the other March 2002 leaks, from Sept 2004, which I drew attention to earlier) are genuine.

See post #105 in this thread.

[dooner]

162. "More Life on DSM' with Leak of New Document"

More Life on "Downing Street" with Leak of New Document in London
Editor & Publisher
June 11, 2005 10:00 PM ET


NEW YORK Just as the U.S. media attempts—-albeit a month late—-to get on top of the so-called “Downing Street Memo,” the Sunday Times in London reports another leaked document which confirms and goes behind the message of the memo.

“Ministers were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal,” the Sunday Times reports.

<snip>

“The briefing paper is certain to add to the pressure, particularly on the American president, because of the damaging revelation that Bush and Blair agreed on regime change in April 2002 and then looked for a way to justify it,” the newspaper declared.

<snip>

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000955273

[Barad Simith]

163. ...it was "necessary to create the conditions" which would make it legal

"The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair�s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was 'necessary to create the conditions' which would make it legal."

[DBoon]

164. Why are all these leaks coming from the UK?

Does the Bush administration have the US government sealed so tight that the leaks never get out?

[evlbstrd]

165. I think you pretty much nailed it.

The U.S. press has utterly failed its responsibilty to the people. The U.K. press is still free, so far.

[DBoon]

166. or if the UK press get a phone call from Karl Rove

they just hang up.

[evlbstrd]

167. He has nothing on them. No power outside the U.S.

And he's beginning to lose control here.

[mountainvue]

251. That is true.

I think he has very little influence outside the US.

[Trajan]

169. We are thankful that the Brits have some in government ...

.. that take their oaths to democracy very seriously ...

The Bush Administration is SO locked into its own dogmatic worldview that anyone who reeks of heterodoxy is tossed out and silenced with mocking jeers, aided and abetted by the MSM ...

[Whoa_Nelly]

170. It's not Bush, it's the GOP--Read this excellent article by Robert Parry

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/060205.html

The Real Lessons of Watergate
By Robert Parry
June 3, 2005


As the Washington Post again basks in the faded glory of its Watergate coverage, many of the scandal�s crucial lessons remain obscure even to people close to the iconic events of 33 years ago. Ironically, that�s especially true for those on the winning side.

Indeed, it could be said that today�s U.S. political imbalance � tilting so much in favor of Republicans over Democrats � derived from the simple fact that conservatives learned the real lessons of Watergate while the liberals didn�t.

Most importantly, the bitter experience of Watergate taught the conservatives the need to control the flow of information at the national level.

Following President Richard Nixon�s resignation in 1974, former Treasury Secretary William Simon and other conservative leaders began pulling together the resources for building the right-wing media infrastructure that is now arguably the most intimidating force in U.S. politics. A key goal was to make sure they could protect future Republican presidents from �another Watergate.�

More, and well worth the read:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/060205.html

[NJCher]

194. excellent article by Robert Parry!

That is a very revealing article and well worth reading. He shows that press intimidation started with Iran-Contra. How I wish I'd been more politically involved then so I could have seen it. Instead, I missed it up until I saw what was happening with Clinton. The right has literally intimidated most journalists out of their jobs. What's left are conservative sympathizers.

What a disaster our press is. It has to be torn down and built up from the bottom. Of course,they are doing a nice job of self-destruction on their own (viewership and readership of newspapers is tumbling) and technology is helping them out a great deal, too (someday people will write the news, Google's self-ordered news pages, etc.).

Read this article!! It explains so much!!


Cher

[Pachamama]

171. Guess our Deep Throat II for current times needs to be Brits...

...since it seems impossible for anyone here in the US to come forward out of fear of Bush Co retribution....

How ironic...our nation was founded on the desire to break away from Great Britain because of Tyranny, and yet 229 years later, it may be patriots from Great Britain to rescue us from our own tyranny. :patriot:

[DoYouEverWonder]

177. I think Tony Blair

is trying to save his retched soul.

[pacalo]

168. I especially like this part...

The (London) Sunday Times observed: �The complaints of media self-censorship have been backed up by the ombudsmen of The Washington Post, The New York Times and National Public Radio, who have questioned the lack of attention the minutes have received from their organizations."

[Dover]

172. Why aren't Americans descending on the White House over this?

We should have half the country at their doorstep!

[magellan]

173. Because most people still haven't heard about it

...and those who have mostly learn of it through the Bush**-apologists running our corporate news.

Presenting 'DSM-lite'!, the little memo that could -- if only it were possible to verify its authenticity (simper), if only the American people hadn't already resolved the issue of the legality of the Iraq war for themselves long ago (misrepresent), if only the President himself didn't call it wrong ("And that's the truth, pffftttt!!")....yada yada, spin spin.

Oh yes indeedy, the Repugs obviously learned a LOT from Watergate about how to cover up their crimes against people and country while avoiding jail. Isn't that grand!

Well, we'll just see about that. :evilgrin:

[Melodybe]

175. Give us time, we have 3 1/2 years of massive protests to look forward to.

[DoYouEverWonder]

178. Because this is the 21st Century

and we use the Internet instead.

[formercia]

174. DSM, the prequel

Panned by all republican pundits everywhere.

[Supersedeas]

176. Dana Milbank trivialize marginalize and help make this go away

[BamaBecky]

179. Amazing.....e-mail this out to EVERYBODY you know...n/t

[Catchawave]

180. Just saw this on CNN Headline News....

It's definitely out there :hi:

[Dawgs]

195. Woohoo!!! CNN

Not exactly what we're looking for, but it's something.

[Roland99]

184. Anyone remember Devon Largio's paper? 27 Rationales?

I mentioned it in my blog but I think listing it here would help people realize how they worked to "shape public opinion"

http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio.htm

[staticstopper]

191. What happened to the SEXED UP Dossier?

Remember all the "sexed-up" stuff? Doesn't all this tie in?
What happened to all the ppl at the BBC?
:shrug:

[Ice4Clark]

200. Makes me really wonder now if that guy in UK really killed

himself? or was he snuffed out. Think he was the one that used the term "sexed up". I remember sometime after his death the people EMTs) who responded to the scene after he was found near the woods said they didn't buy the story he did himself in. Was little blood found, etc........i'll have to google and see if I can find their stories.

[CantGetFooledAgain]

202. FYI: "Timeline: The David Kelly affair"

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/25/kelly.timeline/

[evermind]

208. See also

this story originally from the UK Independent newspaper (02/16/05) "WMD Expert Reopens Row About 'Sexed-Up' Dossier"

Dr Barton, a microbiologist who worked for Australian intelligence for more than 20 years, said John Scarlett, then head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, asked for "new elements" to be included in a draft report he was producing on the WMD in Iraq. The head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, refused.

Dr Barton told Australia's ABC TV: "Both Washington and London wanted other things put in to make it - I can only use these words - to make it sexier.

"We left the impression that, yes, maybe there were ... WMD out there. So I thought it was dishonest. Dr Barton, who joined the United Nations' search for Saddam's illicit arsenal in 1991, said the censorship in the US investigation began after Charles Duelfer became the head of the ISG last February.

He claimed Mr Duelfer wanted "a different style of report altogether", which he had discussed with President George Bush and the CIA.

More at:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0216-06.htm

[myrna minx]

282. Remember the Blair's plagiarized dossier?

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=374

Speaking to the United Nations on Wednesday, in an address that was broadly portrayed as a case for war with Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell argued that, "Iraq today is actively using its considerable intelligence capabilities to hide its illicit activities." To support that claim, Powell said, "I would call my colleagues attention to the fine paper that United Kingdom distributed yesterday, which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities."

It turns out, however, that much of that "fine paper" � a dossier distributed by the office of British Prime Minister Tony Blair under the title, "Iraq - Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation" � was not a fresh accounting of information based on new "intelligence" about Iraqi attempts to thwart UN weapons inspections. Rather, the document has been exposed by Britain's ITN television network as a cut-and-paste collection of previously published academic articles, some of which were based on dated material.

Substantial portions of the report that Powell used to support his critique of Iraq were lifted from an article written by a postgraduate student who works not in Baghdad but in Monterey, California, and who based much of his research on materials left in Kuwait more than a dozen years ago by Iraqi security services.

ITN's Channel 4 News (http://www.channel4.com/news/) revealed Thursday night that at least four of the government report's 19 pages had been copied from an internet version of an article by the California researcher, Ibrahim al-Marashi, which appeared in September, 2002, in an academic journal, the Middle East Review of International Affairs. According to al-Marashi, he was not contacted by the British government regarding his research or his sources.

[marylanddem]

197. More Downing Street revelations: Impeachment Is Inevitable

That pos in the White House must go.

[usregimechange]

199. It confirms what we already knew.

[helderheid]

201. I'm nominating all threads!!

This is terrific - thank you! I am part of an organization locally that will be issuing a press release tomorrow about our concern over the DSM - hope to get some local media attention on it. If you belong to a local political group or caucus, I suggest you do the same. Also, here's a tip - always fax press releases - the others get deleted.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

206. IMPEACHMENT! Goddamn it! Which Dem is going to have the balls?

Conyers? Rangel? Clinton? Kennedy? Who's going to step up to the plate and push for articles of impeachment on our criminal President?

JB

[SF Bay Area Dem]

214. WE MUST KEEP UP THE PRESSURE! THE RW SMEAR MACHINE HAS NOT GEARED UP YET..

... on this issue as they do not see it as a threat. However, with the Sunday morning talk-shows covering it the RW corporate media's smear machine is gearing up. They are now beginning to smell that this can and should bring Bush down via impeachement...

[McCamy Taylor]

215. When Tony Blair is removed from office the MSM will have to report.

Maybe W. will invade England to rescue his buddy.

[rodeodance]

216. see these Sept 04 articles by same author--"secret" docs mentioned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3839763#3839981

[rodeodance]

217. sept 04 articles also "Secret papers show Blair was warned of Iraq chaos"

I posted these elsewhere but will also do here as these past articles by same author are pertinent. He has others also from the Telegraph


and here is another one (on edit)"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=XMHIRTFETCUUTQFIQMGCM5WAVCBQUJVC?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar18.xml

Secret papers show Blair was warned of Iraq chaos
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 18/09/2004)

Tony Blair was warned a year before invading Iraq that a stable post-war government would be impossible without keeping large numbers of troops there for "many years", secret government papers reveal.

The documents, seen by The Telegraph, show more clearly than ever the grave reservations expressed by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, over the consequences of a second Gulf war and how prescient his Foreign Office officials were in predicting the ensuing chaos.

......The documents further show that the Prime Minister was advised that he would have to "wrong foot" Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, and that British officials believed that President George W Bush merely wanted to complete his father's "unfinished business" in a "grudge match" against Saddam.

But it is the warning of the likely aftermath - more than a year in advance, as Mr Blair was deciding to commit Britain to joining a US-led invasion - that is likely to cause most controversy and embarrassment in both London and Washington.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/20...

Ministers were told premier was seen as stooge
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 24/09/2004)

British officials gave warning more than two years ago that Iyad Allawi, the interim Iraqi prime minister, was seen as "a western stooge" who "lacked domestic credibility", secret documents seen by The Telegraph reveal.

The Cabinet Office told ministers a year before the war in Iraq that the external opposition, made up of Mr Allawi's Iraqi National Accord and Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, was "weak, divided and lacks domestic credibility".

Mr Allawi, who was closely aligned with the CIA, and Mr Chalabi, who was initially the choice of many within the administration as Iraqi leader, were regarded by most Iraqis as "western stooges", warned a "Secret UK Eyes Only" options paper.

A coup attempt in 1996 allegedly organised by Mr Allawi, a neurosurgeon who was trained in Britain, in tandem with the CIA ended in "wholesale executions", according to the paper, which was prepared by the Overseas and Defence Secretariat in March 2002.
.........

[phoebe]

220. Important to remember that Bush rejected War Crimes Treaty in early 2002

right around the same time as "fixing policy".

Here's one of many articles written regarding said rejection.

U.S. defies creation of war crimes court

Treaty's refusal may mean Bosnia pullout
July 2, 2002

FREE PRESS NEWS SERVICES

WASHINGTON -- The United States is challenging the creation of an international war crimes court and threatening to pull out of UN peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and elsewhere unless Americans are given immunity from prosecution.

From Reuters

The conflict has been building for months as President George W. Bush's desire to protect Americans from possible trumped-up charges has clashed with an international drive to punish people responsible for crimes against humanity.

The United States has refused to ratify the 1998 treaty that created the International Criminal Court. At the United Nations on Sunday, it vetoed a 6-month extension of the mandate to continue peacekeeping in Bosnia. The extension would have made Americans in Bosnia subject to the court's jurisdiction.


Bosnia appears to be a convenient "excuse"...

[JRob]

221. My favorite part...

"The document said the only way the allies could justify military action was to place Saddam Hussein in a position where he ignored or rejected a United Nations ultimatum ordering him to co-operate with the weapons inspectors."

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

222. WARNING! I smell a set-up!!!!!!! Attempt to discredit authentic DSM.

Without the actual document, THERE IS NO WAY TO INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY its veracity and authenticity. If I were a betting man, I would stake odds that this recent document is a fake meant to discredit (by association) the gist of the authentic DSM.

Until we have the actual document, I don't think it would be wise for us to latch onto this apparently new and supporting evidence.

JB

[Spazito]

225. The WP says that British sources verify the authenticity

"That memo and other internal British government documents were originally obtained by Michael Smith, who writes for the London Sunday Times. Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post, and the material was confirmed as authentic by British sources who sought anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter."

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

229. Encouraging, but without an actual copy of the document it's a problem.

Having the actual document is the strength of the DSM. The same cannot be said for this recent document because no actual document has been produced and all authentication sources are remaining anonymous.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy if this turns out to be additional authenticated and unassailable information on Bush's criminal behavior. However, the CBS Bush AWOL document set-up reveals some of the tactics used to discredit and diffuse otherwise truthful information on BFEE skeletons and crimes.

JB

[evermind]

230. Where is the "actual document" of the DSM?

I haven't seen it, but I'd like to - do you have a link?

What really counts, in the case of the DSM, and the other six cabinet leaks from last september, is the absence of any official denial, and confirmations from well placed sources.

The documents are genuine and almost certainly from the same source.

Lots of people have posted this "Wait ... Karl Rove ... " idea - I find it pretty implausible that Rove not only has someone placed in the UK gov. apparatus to leak fake documents, but can also nobble the sources used by Washington Post, the Times, the Telegraph and the Guardian to confirm their bonafides.

That's way over-cautious, I think.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

234. I never said Rove. British Intelligence is quite capable of deception

I don't have the direct link for the DSM, but a copy has been posted before...maybe on the Times London site?

Frankly, I hope you are right.

JB

[Spazito]

231. I see nowhere in the Sunday Times article that they don't have

the original document only that they have transcribed it to protect the source rather than put it up as a pdf. I stand corrected if someone can point me to where it says they do NOT have the document.

"The paper, produced by the Cabinet Office on July 21, 2002, is incomplete because the last page is missing. The following is a transcript rather than the original document in order to protect the source."

As to the DSM, I believe they did the same, they printed the content of the document and did not post a pdf of it to protect the source and we know that it is authentic.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

235. If it comes to using these memos as evidence in any impeachment hearing

The ACTUAL documents will need to be produced or the authenticating source will need to reveal him/herself and go on record; otherwise, these memos are just fodder for dissent and scoring political points for our side.

JB

[evermind]

236. These wouldn't be sufficient in a hearing anyway - you'd need US

documents and testimony. What these are good for is getting the ball rolling.

Relax. They're real enough.

Reasoning:

There have been 8 documents leaked in all, in three stories, all by journalist Michael White, and therefore all presumably from the same source.

All the leaks agree with respect to three damning allegations:

1) The fact that the US was committed to war months in early 2002.

2) The plan to manipulate the weapons inspection proceess to provide a pretext for war

3) The lack of US planning for the post-invasion period.

(Admittedly, only the DSM itself alleges US intelligence fraud directly, but documents from the first six, as well as the latest one talk about the need to manipulate public opinion, which hints broadly at the same thing.)

Now the first six were confirmed officially by the Foreign Office.

Blair and the UK Govt. have had ample time to deny the original Downing Street Memo, and have not done so. The official position has been "no comment on leaks" - but that indicates the leaks are genuine: if they're not genuine, they're not leaks and can be commented on.

It's a racing certainty that the Times and Washington Post sought official comment on the current one, but were told it could only be confirmed off the record.

In any case, three sets of leaked documents, same source, same journalist, telling the same story. It just does not stack up for one of them to be fake.

Contrast this with the case of the faked-up copy of the UK Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith's legal advice that was circulated April 29th in Britain: the police were called in, the document was described as a fake, and went unpublished.

[helderheid]

223. BE SURE TO THANK THEM!

The Times wants to hear from us!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3839506&mesg_id=3839506

[Triana]

224. HAS ANYONE sent this stuff to Conyers?

He has a tip line...anyone sent this info to him? He'll need it for next week.

[Spazito]

226. He has it on his blog already!

http://www.conyersblog.us/

[Triana]

237. COOL! Thanks... (n/t)

[Turn CO Blue]

241. Remember to bookmark this thread, everyone. You'll need it

for reference in the coming week/weeks.

[mountainvue]

242. Looks like our

generation's version of Deep Throat has a British accent.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

243. I like this bit:

"In practice, much of the international community would find it difficult to stand in the way of the determined course of the US hegemon."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1648758_3,00.html

[ailsagirl]

244. Wonder who the angel is who leaked these docs in the first place

And I hope said person is well protected.
:hide:

[Moderator]

253. kick to combine

[Spazito]

254. New 'Downing Street Memo' says Bush, Blair agreed on 'regime change'

New 'Downing Street Memo' says Bush, Blair agreed on 'regime change' in 2002; Iraq seen to 'slide into civil war'; and more.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005




Is it a second Downing Street Memo -- or something even more damning for both the Bush administration and the government of British Prime Minister Tony Blair?

On May 1, Britain's Sunday Times broke the story of the now-infamous Downing Street Memo; that document, the minutes of a meeting of Blair's top advisers, showed that the prime minister had known, some eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, that a war not authorized by the United Nations would be illegal for British troops to take part in. Now The Times has scooped its rivals again with the news -- and the text of -- a leaked, extremely secret British Cabinet Office briefing paper dated July 23, 2002.

Prepared for Blair and his closest advisers, this newly discovered document clearly states that "since regime change was illegal, it was 'necessary to create the conditions' which would make it legal."

The Times' news story, written by defense reporter Michael Smith, about the newly discovered, secret briefing paper noted that it had confirmed that Blair "had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W. Bush three months earlier." In his news article, Smith explained that fabricating conditions for going to war "was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal U.S. action."


more

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/06/14/worldviews.DTL

(Be sure to click on the link to Eric Margolin's column as well, excellent read!)

[Goldeneye]

255. Woah, check this out.

Its a link from the sfgate article to a toronto sun article on the DSM.
http://torontosun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2005/06/12/1083345-sun.html

[Double T]

260. Toronto Sun article says it all.....

I am absolutely outraged and believe the entire bush and blair administrations need to be put in shackles and tried for war crimes in the Hague. Impeachment should begin in the US immediately for bush, cheney and most of their cabinet. These outrageous, deadly actions makes Watergate seem insignificant. Everyone in CONGRESS who has supported the bush administration over the lies and deceptions of the illegitimate Iraq War should resign immediately or also face impeachment. bush and his administration and blair and his administration should also be tried along with Sadam.

[Lorien]

273. That post would make a great letter to the media

they need to know that this matter deserves at least as much attention as the Michael Jackson case.

[Double T]

278. Thanks for the endorsement....

it is appreciated. Love your cats, I have 5 of my own.

[demgrrrll]

281. Wow. He is on fire. Great article.

.

[jmcon007]

256. now I must ask...

Does the United States House of Representatives need anything further to begin impeachment proceedings against this asshole? Democratic Congressmen should bring it's proceedings to a halt until this question is answered, because since it is clear that Bush is a criminal and treasonous traitor, how can this country afford one more day of him?
And if the MSM attempts to let him off the hook yet again, then each of these corporate heads should be investigated for complicity in Bush's crimes.
Period. No more talk.

[calimary]

266. And what are we doing to back this up? Anybody call your reps this

morning?

Remind them that "Impeachment IS an Option."

They need to keep hearing the "I" word over and over and over and over until it seeps into their bone marrow.

[Coexist]

257. Margolis' column could be a thread in itself!

that was a good read. Scathing.

[Spazito]

259. I couldn't post it in LBN because it was a column but

I just posted it in GD, thanks for the idea. I, too,think it is a scathing, truth-telling column, I love Eric, he never pulls his punches.

[Coexist]

261. GDP might be better

for some reason there are still an absurd number of MJ threads handing around GD. Go figure!

[Spazito]

263. LOL and thanks, will do that too

You are right, MJ IS the flavor of the day it seems!

[muriel_volestrangler]

279. Already posted in Editorials

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=131742

[PurityOfEssence]

258. "Make it legal, Mugsy..."

I still want to hear details on Junior's alleged quote of: "Fuck Hussein, we're taking him out."

[Just Me]

262. I would charcterize this as reporting. WOW!!!

This is an excellent summary of the revelations contained in the minutes/memos.

:bounce:

[Pawel K]

264. I am extremely worried about all these memos coming out

if even one proves to be a fraud the whole case gets dropped and Bush goes away undamaged and we all look like a bunch of crack pots. We need to be really careful about this.

[drm604]

265. That's an excellent point Pawel.

That's exactly the type of thing that Rove would do. Create one fake, expose it, then shift the conversation to the fake.

[Spazito]

268. That might work in the US but this is a British leak and they have

been occurring since Sept 04, well before the leak of the Downing Street Minutes. I just don't see even the 'all-seeing'(sarcasm) Rove being able to plant fakes 7 months ahead of a document that has been verified as authentic therefore not a document blair or bush would want publicized.

I know it is hard to believe but the leaks are probably targeted primarily at blair because many British are enraged at him and bush's part is secondary to them and a bonus if they bring him down too.

[Lorien]

274. Exactly

Rove is not omnipotent. He doesn't control what happens in Britain.

[alarcojon]

267. NBC claims to have verified them

But now, war critics have come up with seven more memos, verified by NBC News.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8207731

[kster]

270. Verified ? ?

RW news verifies the story, but doesn't have wall to wall coverage on TV ??????

[goclark]

269. DSMinutes is the title I believe

unless this new info is not in the form of MINUTES but MemoS.



It makes a big difference.

[usregimechange]

271. Guys get this out their, media blast.

[usregimechange]

272. Gun smoking...

[shantipriya]

275. DSM memos

A significant chunk of Americans were stupid enough to believe that a basket case of a nation like Iraq which had been reduced to rubble by 10 years of American bombings and sanctions was capable of mounting a chemical,biological and nuclear war against the US!!!!!
My point is that these DSM memos are not going to change anything. We have ineffective opposition and blind partisan loyalty to do anything about Bush's lies!!!

[nolabels]

277. In your face

Look here if you don't like what people NOW think why don't you talk them like they might of learned the lesson and got smart ( me cynically smirking in the background :sarcasm: )

Me thinks they will go as far as the people let them, next stop, the draft

White House rejects call for Iraq pullout timetable

Mon Jun 13, 2:45 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House rejected calls for setting a precise timetable for a US withdrawal from
Iraq, even as a new poll showed almost six in 10 Americans want at least a partial pullout of US forces.
ADVERTISEMENT

"We will leave when we complete the mission," spokesman Scott McClellan said a day after a representative in US
President George W. Bush's Republican party said he would push legislation fixing a firm schedule for such a withdrawal.
(snip)
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050613/pl_afp/usiraqwhouse
http://www.antiwar.com/

[LynnTheDem]

276. Exactly as Claire Short & Robin Cook said, and totally denied by bLiar.

There's a reason his name is Tony bLIAR.

bush, of course, has ALWAYS been a total liar.

[othermeans]

285. "trumpeted by the tame [American] media that came to resemble

the lickspittle press of the old Soviet Union. Ironically, in the end, horrid Saddam Hussein turned out to be telling the truth all along , while Bush and Blair were not."

Lickspittle Press I like that

[Chauga]

283. The more the truth is reported, the more the right-wing ignores it.

[Bread and Circus]

287. "creating the conditions necessary to justify government military action"

Meaning:

Fixed the facts and the intelligence around the policy.

It all fits. It's all been a scam.

[Bread and Circus]

288. Another astounding quote in the article:

"1. The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace."

and then there is this:

"efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion"

Shape public opinion = propaganda.

[cthrumatrix]

292. of course our "corporate CIA infested media" will HIDE this from the sheep

[converted_democrat]

293. Surely this is enough to start the impeachment ball rolling....Right?