British Memo(#3) Blasts Iraq Planning (CBS/AP)

[Up2Late]

(I hope this isn't the beginning of a "Flood the Zone" campaign, to confuse and dilute the bad news coming out in the "British Memos")

British Memo Blasts Iraq Planning
June 12, 2005

(CBS/AP) Eight months before the invasion of Iraq, a staff paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair concluded that postwar occupation plans by the U-S military were inadequate.

The memo obtained by The Washington Post says the post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a "costly nation-building exercise." It also shows how the British were afraid that the U-S could look to Britain to "to share a disproportionate share of the burden."

The Post says that the eight-page memo and other internal British government documents have been confirmed as authentic by British sources.

The newspaper reports that the memo's introduction says that "little thought" has been given to "the aftermath and how to shape it."

(related news at link above)

[Pirate Smile]

1. Here are a couple threads on the articles in the Sunday Times and

Washington Post.

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.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1541405

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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3837563

[Supersedeas]

15. thanks for the links PS =)

[KC21304]

2. I think this is about memo #2 that I read here last night.

At least last night I thought it was # 2 unless I missed one.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1541405

[Up2Late]

3. Yes, that was #2 or DSM 2 as some here are calling it

This one is the latest leak to hit the media, about lack of U.S. planning being done for post war Iraq.

[johncoby2]

4. So? Whats news about that?

I mean this is not anything new.

It isnt right, but it is not new. The media is writing all of this off.

[Up2Late]

5. I don't know, compared to the last 5 years, this feels like...

..."Gaining Traction" as they used to say in the 90's.

[Inland]

14. It's new to them, and an excuse to republish

what many Americans were saying before the war.

It prevents the Bushites from repeating the mantra of "Nobody could have EVER predicted that (put latest debacle here)." It wasn't just America haters and smelly hippies that were noting the lack of American planning and shaping of intel. It was 1) our own people in state and DOD, effectively muzzled and 2) our closest ally.

[dArKeR]

6. US had no plan for post-war Iraq, UK memo confirms

A staff paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair eight months before the invasion of Iraq concluded that US military officials were not planning adequately for a postwar occupation, the Washington Post reported.
"A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise," authorities of the briefing memo wrote, according to the Post. "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."

The eight-page memo was written in advance of a July 23, 2002, meeting at Blair's Downing Street offices, the Post reported in editions yesterday.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/06/13/2003259133

[Erika]

7. Bush just knew his objectives

and didn't consider the consequences on our kids -www.icasualties.org

[AuntiBush]

22. And watch bLAIR cover his butt! Do you think bLair will take all blame?

At least he breaks a brow-sweat. Our Prez seems to think he can beat all odds. Ba$tard$, everyone of them.

[architect359]

8. Goddamn it

This administration's move on Iraq is infantile at best - criminal at worst. It doesn't surprise me that there is no plan for reconstruction. Everything seems so short sighted and stupidly over optimistic. Arggh! I'm preaching to the choir here! We all know this crap. Sorry. I had to vent.

[expatriot]

9. The administration's defense.....

"We were very much aware (in the months leading up to the war) that once our forces had liberated Iraq the situation would be very fluid and creating conditions to facilitate the completion of mission necessitated an ability to respond very quickly to the rapid evolution of the state of affairs oin the ground in Iraq. Thusly, it was agreed upon, after lengthy discussion and ample and robust rounds of healthy debate, that it would be most prudent and most expedient to the probabilty that, ultimately, freedom and security would finally be achievedfor the people of Iraq, the people of the United States and the rest of the world, that we set out on the path towards freeing the Irawi people and securing the region and the world from extremist threats competely unburdened by any academic presuppositions or any "armchair generaling" if you will."

[leesa]

10. They are cherry picking the memo to pretend the issue is planning

rather than that the war is illegal. Don't let them get away with it. Write to your papers.

[ekelly]

18. Exactly!

I could say to a friend:
"If my sister's husband were arrested for abusing her, I plan to help her move to a secret place, change her name and get a job to improve her life."

I could also say:
"I want my sister's husband out of her life. He is kind of a jerk and I never liked him. She would be better off without him. Now, I just need to find a way to make everyone believe he is abusing her so I can get him arrested."

Two completely different scenarios.
One is saying what I would do ....if only....(not illegal)
The other is saying that I plan to set him up fraudulently (illegal)

Planning how to deal with a situation, should it occur, is not illegal.
We can't let that part of the story be the focus of this fiasco.

[Bridget Burke]

11. This was reported on the CBS (really early) TV news today.

In between missing coed/ Michael Jackson stories. And they definitely linked this memo with the earlier memo/minutes.

[mod mom]

17. Perhaps Dan Rather's emotional pleas for real reporting is sinking in. nt

[Plaid Adder]

12. There are only two documents.

I know it's confusing because some sources call #2 a memo and some call it a briefing paper, and because #1 is always called a memo even though it really isn't.

Right now there are two things out there: a document that was written up about the meeting with Washington and distributed to Blair's advisors in advance of the July 2002 meeting (#2), and the minutes of the meeting at which they discussed that document (#1).

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Inland]

13. Son of DSM nt

[marylanddem]

16. First laugh of the day

Thanks, Inland

[wishlist]

19. This NY Times summary says 'no political decision had been made"

Looks like the statement in the memo that no political decision had been made by Bush Admin to go to war can be used to defuse the earlier memo, although this latest memo says that U.S. military had done extensive invasion planning.


By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: June 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 12 - A memorandum written by Prime Minister Tony Blair's cabinet office in late July 2002 explicitly states that the Bush administration had made "no political decisions" to invade Iraq, but that American military planning for the possibility was advanced. The memo also said American planning, in the eyes of Mr. Blair's aides, was "virtually silent" on the problems of a postwar occupation.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/politics/13downing.html

The entire article can be accessed under Google News without having to sign in to the NY Times
http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us

[PATRICK]

20. Blair shared my theory

that the lazy plan was to dump the post war on the Brits and the "coalition" and the UN. They in effect lost all three which even in this malicious scheme proves very poor planning itself. The win/win turned lose/lose since they clung to one principle above all others. The US gets everything exclusively and lets others to pay and do the work. This is Bush/Cheney right down to their shorts. It is a mindset not a plan as out of touch with reality as Daddy Bush at the checkout counter.

The other part of the mindset is never acknowledging a mistake never changing a path. meanwhile Blair is stupidly trying to evaluate the obvious with rational judgment, outrageously adapting to it, ignoring the 800 pound dictator he is sleeping with.

[dArKeR]

21. I get your point but didn't the GOPWhores know there was no

"coalition" to dump it on? They knew that long before their Iraqi slaughter began!

[PATRICK]

23. They keep assuming

that under constant pressure everyone(who needs oil) will have to do our bidding while at the same time having to live with American dominance and control. Hitler's thinking. It keeps working. Bush does it as long as he can do it. That means forging ahead despite "setbacks". The WH is NOT sane, by the way. That is the salient fact that Blair should have acted upon.

I think the prospect of the world spurning a "piece of the action" made them all the more gloating that they were now justified in taking the whole pie. Which in a sneakier way they intended to do all along. They are still very satisfied with possession like a starving man cackling over a hoard of gold.

[Miss Chybil]

24. We've known this since day one. nt