LA TIMES: Feature Article On DSM - Memos Detail Early Plans for Invasion

[Tiggeroshii]

The documents help flesh out the background to the formerly top-secret "Downing Street memo" published in the Sunday Times of London last month, which said that top British officials were told eight months before the war began that military action was "seen as inevitable." President Bush and his main ally in the war, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, have long maintained that they had not made up their minds to go to war at that stage. The new documents indicate that top British officials believed that by March 2002, Washington was already leaning heavily toward toppling Hussein by military force. Condoleezza Rice, the current secretary of State who was then Bush's national security advisor, was described as enthusiastic about "regime change."

.......

Meyer wrote that he had argued that Washington 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 wrong-foot Saddam on the inspectors and the and the critical importance of the as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy. If all this could be accomplished skillfully, we were fairly confident that a number of countries would come on board."

.........



"The U.S. has lost confidence in containment," the document said. "Some in government want Saddam removed. The success of Operation Enduring Freedom , distrust of U.N. sanctions and inspection regimes, and unfinished business from 1991 are all factors.

"Washington believes the legal basis for an attack already exists. Nor will it necessarily be governed by wider political factors. The U.S. may be willing to work with a smaller coalition than we think desirable," it said.The paper said the British view was that any invasion for the purpose of regime change "has no basis under international law." The best way to justify military action, it said, would be to convince the Security Council that Iraq was in breach of its post-Gulf War obligations to eliminate its store of weapons of mass destruction. The document appeared to rule out any action in Iraq short of an invasion.

Failed to state "Intelligence was fixed behind policy."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-britmemos15jun15,0,3650829.story?page=2&coll=la-home-headlines

[althecat]

1. Bugger (SNAP) beat me by a hair :)

This is a HUGE FEATURE STORY.... 2019 words...

Someone seems to be waking up...

If you are still around Tiger I would suggest a better headline..

LA TIMES: Feature Article On DSM - Memos Detail Early Plans for Invading Iraq


This link takes you to all three pages in one..
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-fg-britmemos15jun15,1,4769512,full.story?coll=la-iraq-complete&ctrack=2&cset=true

[Tiggeroshii]

2. I'll do that, thanks! Still a newb, I guess; getting used to things n/t

[leftchick]

3. could you also include a couple of snips from the article?

It requires registration so for the folks that can't or won't register, including part of the article is very important. Thanks and

Welcome to DU!

:toast:

~snip~

LONDON — In March 2002, the Bush administration had just begun to publicly raise the possibility of confronting Iraq. But behind the scenes, officials already were deeply engaged in seeking ways to justify an invasion, newly revealed British memos indicate.

Foreshadowing developments in the year before the war started, British officials emphasized the importance of U.N. diplomacy, which they said might force Saddam Hussein into a misstep. They also suggested that confronting the Iraqi leader be cast as an effort to prevent him from using weapons of mass destruction or giving them to terrorists.

~snip~


Manning said it could prove helpful if Hussein refused to allow renewed U.N. weapons inspections.

"The issue of weapons inspectors must be handled in a way that would persuade Europe and wider opinion that the U.S. was conscious of the international framework, and the insistence of many countries on the need for a legal basis. Renewed refusal by Saddam to accept unfettered inspections would be a powerful argument," Manning wrote Blair.

[Tiggeroshii]

4. THANKS! How is this? n/t

[leftchick]

6. great job!

You can only use four paragraphs per DU copywrite rules!
As Al says this is an explosive article indeed!

:woohoo:

Check this out....

~. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam." That was why the issue of weapons of mass destruction was vital, he said.~

Ya Think???

[AllyCat]

19. Use www.bugmenot.com!!!

You put in the web address and then it spits out a BS email, username, or password...whatever is required for free, unmonitorable fun!

For instance, put in a90 for the user name and aaaaaa for the password to read this particular web page!

[deliusmax]

5. Unable to read the article, site requires registration

Bugmenot doesn't seem to work.
Anyone have a loginname? thanks

[Tiggeroshii]

7. I added some snippits... How's that?

[leftchick]

8. Tigger

edit to four paragraphs per DU copywrite rules. Thanks!

:)

[Tiggeroshii]

11. I hope this is what you mean :)

[deliusmax]

18. Thanks, from one newbie to another.. n/t

[RamboLiberal]

67. You can try and see if DailyKos is registered

A while back, I asked people to register a "dailykos" account for every free site requiring a registration.
Well, it's a rare day when I come across a site that doesn't have one set up. Heck, the last post, taken from the Evansville (IN) Courrier & Press, had an account. So we're not talking big time papers here. So here's a reminder to the old times and announcement to the more recent visitors:

If the site asks for a username, it's:

dailykos
If the site asks for an email login, it's:
[e-mail]
(BTW, don't email me at [e-mail], since all email sent to it goes straight into a spam folder unless you're in my address book.)
There are two possible passwords. Most of the time, it'll be:

dailykos
However, there's a minority of sites that require a number in the password, so if "dailykos" doesn't work, try:
dailykos1
Now, if you come across a site that doesn't have a dailykos account, please set one up.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Framing: DSM shows Bush made plans

Funny how the 'fixing the intelligence to justify the war' part has been dropped huh?

So the spin is that the DSM shows that Great Leader made plans to steer us through the perilous post-911 world and topple the dangerous Saddam. O Great Leader, you have saved us!

The part where Great Leader ordered his minions to concoct stories about how dangerous Saddam was so that a phony justification for war could be foisted on the american people, on congress, and on the united nations seems to have vanished into the memory hole.

[Tiggeroshii]

10. To me, with every new article; the significance of the memo is downplayed

...to mean something more insignificant

[janx]

29. Are you reading the same article I'm reading?

This is the best summary about the memos I've seen so far.

[Supersedeas]

39. Exactly -Marginalize the Manipulation of Intelligence to talk about eager

personalities...we all know Bushie is an eager beaver.

[shadowknows69]

12. too bad nobody reads newspapers anymore n/t

[leftchick]

13. So much for the "exhausting all peaceful options" eh, chimpy?

~snip~

The document appeared to rule out any action in Iraq short of an invasion.

"In sum, despite the considerable difficulties, the use of overriding force in a ground campaign is the only option that we can be confident will remove Saddam and bring Iraq back into the international community," it said.

[Tiggeroshii]

14. Hmm..

It's gonna be really interesting seeing if this developes or has any significance whatsoever in considirably bringing the chances of impeachment. It's scary how much of a corporate bias FOX news has brought to the mainstream media, and we're seeing the results of that right now with our current topic here.... =\

[SittingBull]

15. This is the beginning

of the end of bush-junta...


Enjoy it folks!

[Tiggeroshii]

16. With the consideration...

Of how successful Dems have been with previous chances of bringing down Bush, winning elections, etc. It still makes some people pessimistic as to our successes with this. But I still, they could only survive their own corruption for so long, and then..... this. I hope you're right!

[krkaufman]

23. Chuckle.

Have you learned nothing? I'm hopeful, but nothing sticks to these rat bastards.

Maybe the accompanying low ratings will supply the media w/ sufficient courage to take this story further.

[SittingBull]

36. Don't be distrustful

if you believe nothing could bring them down, nothing will bring them down. It's all in the people minds.
You'll be not so motivated if you think you can't change a thing.
Maybe they want you to think that?

I've been sad and upset for a long time now because obviously nothing seem to have consequences for them.
But there IS a growing momentum of Anti-Bush-Movement.

Suppose that most people fear terror and stay freeze because of this...

Hope...You can get rid off it...

[PunkPop]

24. I think you're right Sitting Bull

The momentum genuinely seems to be building...

And welcome to DU!

[rodeodance]

27. rather a lull last few days--hope Conyers forum can bring back the

"momentum"

[PunkPop]

31. So sad we have to pin our hopes on ONE man

This stuff should be exploding all over the place. I guess when I see this on the front page of my local right-wing-Bush-apologist rag the Dallas Morning News I tend to get excited.

[Ishoutandscream2]

34. Check it out, it's on page one of the DMN today (Wednesday)

I couldn't believe it when I saw it this morning.

[PunkPop]

38. I know. I saw it.

Strange world when DU and the DMN have the same story on their front page.

ON EDIT: Welcome to DU by the way from a fellow metroplexer.

[Bread and Circus]

17. From reading the article, seems to seal the deal.

There is no question about it. Bush and co. were hellbent for war, even when they were telling us they were not. One bold-faced lie on top of another.

[janx]

30. This article makes that very clear, better than any MSM media

that have preceded it.

[leftchick]

32. I agree janx, this is the Best yet!

greetings to you and your weimies too!

:hi:

[starchimes]

20. The Dallas Morning News is Running the same article on the

front page. It's picking up steam.

[krkaufman]

21. "already were deeply engaged in seeking ways to justify an invasion"

beautiful. "seeking ways to justify an invasion" hits the nail on the head. Why has it been so hard for the media to finally say this? Well, I'm glad someone finally has.

[Spazito]

22. Very thorough article! It is great to see!

Thanks for the link.

[faithnotgreed]

25. wonderful (and so sad). the link took me to page 2 and this stuck out

Another memo, from British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on March 22, 2002, bluntly stated that the case against Hussein was weak because the Iraqi leader was not accelerating his weapons programs and there was scant proof of links to Al Qaeda.

"What has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," Ricketts wrote. "Attempts to claim otherwise publicly will increase skepticism about our case….

"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is so far frankly unconvincing," he said.

Ricketts said that other countries such as Iran appeared closer to getting nuclear weapons, and that arguing for regime change in Iraq alone "does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam." That was why the issue of weapons of mass destruction was vital, he said.


- no al quaeda link to iraq (which of course we know and knew)
- us scrambling to establish link (richard clarke revealed over a yr ago that bush wanted only a 9/11 connection to iraq but media didnt respond with much interest in that bombshell even with the flurry of tv appearances)
- one of the true reasons actually revealed (grudge/regime change)

THANK YOU la times. i know its their job but we have seen scant evidence of any of the major media doing that for some time

eta: spelling

[PunkPop]

26. If you haven't read the whole thing - READ IT!

Some choice bits:

<snip>

"Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed. But there were some signs, since we last spoke, of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks…. From what she said, Bush has yet to find answers to the big questions:

• How to persuade international opinion that military action against Iraq is necessary and justified;
What value to put on the exiled Iraqi opposition;

• How to coordinate a US/allied military campaign with internal opposition (assuming there is any);

• What happens the morning after?"

<snip>

"We backed regime change," he wrote, "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."

<snip>

It's all right there in black and white. Their goal is to SELL IT. The "plan had to be CLEVER". How do we persuade "international OPINION". Anybody with half a brain knows this war was a sham but now it has been documented EXTENSIVELY. I believe (crossing fingers with eyes looking upward) this is the beginning of the end for commander cuckoo bananas and his criminal gang.

[goclark]

28. Since the LA TIMES has been leaning way Left

IMO, this is a start for them.

Let's pray they get it soon.

[esvhicl]

60. LA Times

told my mom when she was cancelling her subscription, "You know, we are not going to be so liberal any more"...'

They must've thought that was why she was cancelling...

And they did little or no investigative journalism to prevent this war. So I don't know how "liberal" they are.

[goclark]

64. I see papers sitting in the bins at the stores

People are not buying this rag.

[bpilgrim]

40. the CRIMES have been DOCUMENTED

Blair could get himself off the hook if he plays the 'deep-throat' role to the hilt... which means never outing himself till he's on 90 or somet'n :evilgrin:

:hi:

peace

[Richard D]

33. What's really needed . . .

. . . is some hard proof that * was planning to attack Iraq before 9/11.

[AceAlmighty82]

46. there is proof

It's just a matter of finding it or having it leaked out like the rest of the Memo(s) have been since May 1st..we either have to wait it out a bit more for it to be released or it's right under our nose and just don't see it yet...on a side note..i was talking to a friend last night and she mentioned sanctions over in Iraq(what they are idk) but she hates bush as the next American..but with sanctions being in the way..its unlikely he could be impeached. With that said, could someone explain to me why that could be the case..i don't think it should matter

[kitkat65]

54. I thought there was some proof that * was taking money from one

source and squirreling it away to finance the impending war. The action was before he went to congress for approval. Seems I read that somewhere here on the DU.

[AceAlmighty82]

61. Now I'm guessing...

is we've gotta find out who * is...but all of them like to squirrel away our money

[SittingBull]

35. Soon after 9-11???

LATimes:

Published accounts, including those by the Washington Post's Bob Woodward and former U.S. counter-terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke, said that Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld began focusing on Iraq soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon.

++++++++++++++++


Maybe these sources say that- but this is crap.

If you add the affidavit of former treasury minister Paul O’Neill, you’ll see that they are focussing on iraq since first day in government.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml
At 2001. Jan 30th, the National Security Concil had just this first issue: Top A: war plans to oust Saddam Hussein.
And furthermore there was this incredible letter to Clinton by PNAC-Members, which state quite the same in the late ninetees,
what later became real point for point.

[Old Vet]

37. Conyers on FSTV today...

Tommorrow ought to be very intresting, Alot of people worked hard to get the DSM some print. Has anyone heard if C-Span will air live????

[Fla4kerry]

59. dsm cspan2

They will reair on cspan 2 on Friday at 8pm est.. if you get cspan 3 it will air live or on cspan video. I read MSM will cover this also..
I HOPE this will be the begining of the end for this who cover up. I guess much depends how the lame media takes this up for more than 1 day..

Organize Now!!

[warsager]

42. Where are the outraged parents?

The outraged husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, grandparents, friends, etc. of all the dead soldiers? I am lucky that I do not personally know anyone in the war, but I DO know that if a loved one of mine had lost his/her life, I would be marching in the streets screaming about the murder of my family/friend all for a packs of lies.

I am ready to march out in the streets for this and like I said, I know no one personally, but I still CARE about humanity and people and this is so wrong, so so wrong!!!

Did you read about the 33 dead today? What about the 23 dead yesterday? And the day before? And the day before that??

:cry:

[Whoa_Nelly]

41. Wouldn't it be great if someone placed actual DSMs

in all major newsppers?

Get it in for free by claiming this is a "Lost" ad...

LOST: 1700+ American troops Lost and gone forever, but not forgotten. Please read why: <<insert DSMs here>>

[Barkley]

43. This reminds of the movie "Crash"

With the L.A. D.A. (Matt Dillon) playing the part of Bush
The D.A.'s black female assistant (Nona Gaye, daughter of Marvin Gaye) playing the part of Condi

and Don Cheadle (the police forced to lie and distort the police report in order to save the D.A.'s ass) playing the part of Colin Powell.

[esvhicl]

58. Matt Dillon

didn't play the D.A. It was Brendan Fraser.

[CarlWoodward]

44. My newspaper

My hometown paper, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, featured a pretty good DSM story on Page 1 more than a month ago, thanks to Knight-Ridder. There's a link to it at:

<http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/iraq/intelligence/11574296.htm>

[McCamy Taylor]

45. LA Times hated Papa Bush for introducing Crack Cocaine to their city.

For a while they hated Baby Bush for the Price Gouging of California by Enron and Co, but lately it has seemed that they have been giving the administration a free ride. Here is hoping that they return to their former Bush skeptical ways.

[the phantom shouting]

47. L.A. Times gets the story right...

It is encouraging to read a piece on the British memos that is not slanted toward dismissing the revelations the documents contain. I just sent this letter off to the N.Y. Times after reading their most recent hatchet piece:


Friends,

What the hell is going on here? I have read many questionable stories in the N.Y. Times, but never before have I encountered a piece so actively deceitful in it’s intent. This is wrong on so many levels that I am astounded your editors allowed the article to run.

Your story 'Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made', was the most ludicrous, easily-derided piece of garbage journalism I have ever had the misfortune of coming across.

In it, your reporter states: “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 publication of the memorandum is significant because a previously leaked document, now known as the Downing Street Memo, appeared to suggest that a decision to go to war may have been made that summer."

You evil bastards.

The toady who wrote those lines knows as well as I do that the briefing document referred to in the article's title was written on July 21, two days before the July 23 'Downing Street Memo', and is therefore of no use whatsoever in determining whether or not the decision to go to war had been made by the time the Downing Street meeting took place.

And can you please explain to me how is it that your reporter, Mr. David Sanger, didn’t find these additional lines from the Cabinet Office paper newsworthy enough to fit into in his ‘story’: "Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law” so “it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action."

Did you catch that gang? ‘Create the conditions’? Naw, that couldn’t mean what we think it means, could it?

You bet your sweet New York asses it could.

Evidently, by the time of the meeting the Downing Street memo describes, the big boys in the White House had indeed come to the conclusion that they were ready to rumble, and were so giddy from War Fever that they had become delirious, kicking their legs in the air and spouting off to anyone who’d listen that nothing, especially not some worthless rotting document like the U.S. Constitution, was going to stand in their way.

Friends, please, we need the talented journalists at the N.Y. Times to do their jobs NOW, and stop running puff-pieces handed down from the Bush administration as ‘the story’.

The longer the writers and editors of the N.Y. Times insist on sabotaging the Downing Street Memo story and others like it, you and your paper are not just disappointing a whole nation who turn to you for journalistic excellence, you are contributing to a war effort that already has gotten over 1700 of our kids killed over ‘fixed facts’.

There is still time to GET IT RIGHT!

Good luck,
J. Riley

[Old Vet]

48. Excellent Post Phanthom....

Well said Sir.....

[glitch]

49. Second that.

And very welcome to DU Old Vet!

[Old Vet]

50. Thank You-

And Iam excited to be part of a movement that finally takes action.

[leftchick]

56. wow! RoCha Cha too!

My old stomping grounds!

Welcome to Du!

:toast:

[I Have A Dream]

53. Thanks for your efforts. Well done! n/t

[Tiggeroshii]

55. Thank you for that

Very good letter. Powerful, I think.

Let's hope they get the picture soon =)

[Spazito]

63. Excellent letter!

Succinct and to the point on all the key issues.

[Blue_In_AK]

68. WOW!! Excellent rant! Well done! Two thumbs up!

[leftchick]

78. Please tell me you really did send this!

With a copy to Sanger! :)

Welcome to DU phantom!

:toast:

[go west young man]

51. Unravel. Unravel. Unravel.

The truth is getting out and it turns out Osama Bin Laden and Saddam arent the only bad guys we need to be worried about.

[Fire Walk With Me]

52. This is the front page of the LA Times

Bottom half, but still... The original DSM story was on Page 3.

Even though they don't say "fixed the facts", they give the source for anyone who wants to follow up with a full-read through. Not complete, but better than nothing.

I am happy.

Welcome to all the newbies this one seems to have attracted into a single spot.

[esvhicl]

57. War plans began upon Bush taking office

Not after 9/11.

Greg Palast has the scoop!

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=417&row=1

[POAS]

62. Actually they go back to PNAC in the late 90's

[Media_Lies_Daily]

65. The US military has contingency plans for use against virtually every....

...country in the world and they go back to the end of WWII, updated annually. But, as you noted, the PNACers approached Clinton in 1997 with the idea of attacking Iraq immediately...and Clinton told them "no".

[POAS]

69. Yes, I know the military keeps such contingency plans but

I was particularly talking about the political machinations necessary to accomplish any such effort.

In particular, the actual decision to go. What did they decide and when did they decide it.

Which was the actual process:
1. "We may have to go to war, let's see if that will be necessary and what our allies think."

0r

2. We are going to war, get what we need to bring the public and allies on board and get Afghanistan out of the way quickly so we can move on to Ieaq.

[brettdale]

66. kick

kick

[redacted]

70. LOS ANGELES TIMES: NEW MEMOS DETAIL EARLY PLANS FOR INVADING IRAQ

British officials believed the U.S. favored military force a year before the war, documents show.

By John Daniszewski
Times Staff Writer

June 15, 2005

LONDON — In March 2002, the Bush administration had just begun to publicly raise the possibility of confronting Iraq. But behind the scenes, officials already were deeply engaged in seeking ways to justify an invasion, newly revealed British memos indicate.

Foreshadowing developments in the year before the war started, British officials emphasized the importance of U.N. diplomacy, which they said might force Saddam Hussein into a misstep. They also suggested that confronting the Iraqi leader be cast as an effort to prevent him from using weapons of mass destruction or giving them to terrorists.

The documents help flesh out the background to the formerly top-secret "Downing Street memo" published in the Sunday Times of London last month, which said that top British officials were told eight months before the war began that military action was "seen as inevitable." President Bush and his main ally in the war, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, have long maintained that they had not made up their minds to go to war at that stage.

"Nothing could be farther from the truth," Bush said last week, responding to a question about the July 23, 2002, memo. "Both of us didn't want to use our military. Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."

MORE (LONG)

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fg-britmemos15jun15,1,4096951.story?coll=la-home-headlines%3E&track=mostemailedlink

[grytpype]

71. Wow. The drumbeat is getting faster.

This is like the Pentagon Papers and Watergate all happening in fast motion.

[sasquatch]

74. Please, it won't fucking matter

This whorish media will allow the Bush Crime Family to get away with it because they're in business together. If it does get through the media then Karl Rove knows that Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman will kill it too.

[grytpype]

77. It's different this time.

Bush is tottering. Even his own people are starting to turn on him.

[evermind]

72. Great article - posted it yesterday in Eds and Other, but

unfortunately a dupe in here too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1550283

[Blue_In_AK]

73. Bush is such an idiot...

"Both of us didn't want to use our military." This is the way the 'leader of the free world' talks??? Don't most people say something like "Neither of us wanted to use our military" ... or is it just me? I am being one of those liberal elites?

[shraby]

75. By saying "both of us didn't want

to use our military", he is actually saying both of us didn't but one of us did.

[Blue_In_AK]

76. Oh, is THAT what he's saying?

How tricky he is with words. He's inadvertently telling the truth while he's trying to tell a lie. Oh, what a tangled web.......... Maybe he's just too smart for me to understand. :sarcasm: