British memos on Iraq provide one piece of puzzle, but no smoking gun

[sabra]

<<SNIP>>
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/14/news/memo.php

British memos on Iraq provide one piece of puzzle, but no smoking gun
By Todd S. Purdum The New York Times

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2005


WASHINGTON The disclosure of British government memorandums portraying the Bush administration as bent on war with Iraq by the summer of 2002, and insufficiently prepared for post-invasion problems, has caused a political stir on both sides of the Atlantic, in part because opponents of President George W. Bush and the British prime minister, Tony Blair, see the documents as proof that both men misled their countries into war.

But the documents are not quite so shocking: Three years ago, the near-unanimous conventional wisdom in Washington held that Bush was determined to topple Saddam Hussein by any means necessary. Plenty of people, chief among them Colin Powell, then the U.S. secretary of state, were also warning in public and private that the Pentagon was ill-prepared for prolonged occupation.

What no one knew then, although some lonely voices did predict it, was that American forces would not find any chemical or biological weapons that Bush and Blair said made Iraq so dangerous, or that the anti-American insurgency would be so durable and deadly. That is why the British memos' foresight, read with the benefit of hindsight, rings so bittersweet for those who tried in vain to avert the war, and remain aghast at its human and material costs.

....

But the memos are not the Dead Sea Scrolls. There has been ample evidence for many months, and even years, that top Bush administration figures saw war as inevitable by the summer of 2002. In the March 31, 2003, issue of The New Yorker magazine, with the invasion just underway, Richard Haass, then the U.S. State Department's director of policy planning, said that in early July 2002 he had talked to Condoleezza Rice, then the U.S. national security adviser, about invading Iraq "and she said, essentially, that that decision's been made, " Haass said then.

<</SNIP>>

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. ok now they are denying it

[merwin]

2. Isn't lying to congress and the citizens a federal offence?

[gratuitous]

3. Have we conveniently forgotten?

The numerous, multiple protestations of the various folks in the Bush administration, including Chimpy himself, that there were no plans or preparations for a war with Iraq, and that nothing had been decided all throughout 2002 and even into 2003, when the massing of troops on all sides of Iraq made the claim seem preposterous?

This passage from the story sure seems to indicate that we've forgotten all about that: "Three years ago, the near-unanimous conventional wisdom in Washington held that Bush was determined to topple Saddam Hussein by any means necessary."

Additionally, the fact that Scott Ritter, Hans Blix and various other folks including Colin Powell had concluded that Saddam didn't have any weaponry capable of striking any appreciable distance beyond his own borders also seems to have gotten flushed: "What no one knew then, although some lonely voices did predict it, was that American forces would not find any chemical or biological weapons."

"Some lonely voices"? The only reason those voices were lonely is because of the raucous cacophony of the war drum beat kept up by the administration's media mouthpieces. But that's apparently not evidence of any sort that Blair and Bush misled their countries into war. No, something more is required to provide conclusive proof or even a colorable claim of deception and dissembling, though writer after writer fails to tell us just quite what it would take to satisfy them.

What a load of hogwash.

[Malva Zebrina]

4. forget the meme 'smoking gun"

and call it what it is. This is a shot to the bow and points out the despicable and criminal behavior of an ignorant, stupid, sadistic and greedy man--the worst president ever in the history of our country--responsible for the murders of 1,705 of our own young warriors, and and estimated 100,000 innocent civilians--half of which may be children.

We don't need no "smoking gun" anymore and we should stop using that catch phrase that makes a mockery out of hard fact as if these revelations were suitable only for tabloid publications.

[jobycom]

5. The documents aren't smoking guns, they are "eye witnesses"

A smoking gun is evidence linking a suspect directly to the crime as it happened. A smoking gun in this case could be a recording or memo of Bush saying he knew there were no WMDs but he would claim there were, anyway.

These documents are eye witness accounts that Bush was planning a crime. We know from other evidence that the crime was carried out. A full investigation would uncover more evidence that Bush is guilty of treason and war crimes than the prosecution had to bring Michael Jackson or OJ Simpson to trial.

We should push for the investigation. That's the way we'd get it done.

[Malva Zebrina]

8. I know

that is why I think we ought to treat this without using trite memes such as "smoking gun" as tabloid journalism is so fond of doing. They deserve full, sober and serious considerations without the implications of "gotcha" or images of persons chomping at the bit just waiting to latch something on Bush in order to impeach him.

[jobycom]

10. Good point! nt.

[jobycom]

6. I love these Republican tactics: Deny the accusations until evidence

is found proving they are true, then say "What's the big deal, that's old news, everyone knew all along."

The did that with the slander coup against Clinton, with the fixed election in Florida, now with Iraq. Unless we force a legal investigation, they will never be stopped.

Fuck 2008. We have to have impeachment now.

[Supersedeas]

21. BINGO--deny deny deny--then flip to the old trivial news button

[marylanddem]

7. Hey, Todd

Facts being "fixed" to justify a decision to lead American troops into a prolonged bloodbath are not the Dead Sea Scrolls either. Can you out-clever yourself any more cleverly? You so-called corporate "journalists" make me sick.

[SnowGoose]

9. some lonely voices *my ass*

I personally stood in downtown Ann Arbor with several hundred others holding signs and pleading for the administration to wait and let the UN inspectors do their damn job. I know this scene was repeated in many other places, but nooooo.... we had to rush in there. Most people who shared my view didn't say "Let's vow never to invade no matter what." We just said "What's the damned *rush*? Can't we 'err on the side of life?' Let the inspectors finish!"

Lonely voices. What BULLSHIT. There were thousands of us across the country - marching, carrying signs, chanting, singing, praying, cursing, writing letters to the editor. What in god's name does it take to get through to these people?

Once and for all, New York Times: WE TOLD YOU SO! Just fess up and admit that you marginalized the thousands who marched, and now you're trying to act like we weren't out there with our protests and signs and pleadings for reason.

[wookie294]

14. Indeed, many voices said Saddam had no WMD

FANTASY: George W. Bush (October 2002) "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." link

REALITY: Mohammed ElBaradei (International Atomic Energy Agency Director): "We have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapon program since the elimination of the program in the 1990s.” link

FANTASY: George W. Bush (October 2002): “Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past.” link

REALITY: Mohammed ElBaradei (International Atomic Energy Agency Director): “First, we have been inspected all of those buildings and facilities that were identified through satellite imagery as having been modified or constructed over the past four years. The IAEA inspectors have been able to gain ready access and to clarify the nature of the activities currently being conducted in these facilities. No prohibited nuclear activities have been identified during these inspections.” link

FANTASY: George W. Bush (October 2002): “Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.” link

REALITY: Mohammed ElBaradei (International Atomic Energy Agency Director): "A particular issue of focus has been the attempted procurement by Iraq of high-strength aluminum tubes, and the question of whether these tubes, if acquired, could be used for the manufacture of nuclear centrifuge. Iraqi authorities have indicated that their unsuccessful attempts to procure the aluminum tubes related to a program to reverse-engineer conventional rockets. To verify this information, the IAEA inspectors have inspected the relevant rocket production and storage sites, taken tube samples, interviewed relevant Iraqi personnel, and reviewed procurement contracts and related documents. From our analysis to date, it appears that the aluminum tubes would be consistent with the purposes stated by Iraq and, unless modified, would not be suitable for manufacturing centrifuges.” link

[EFerrari]

19. "Lonely voices my **@ss** II"

We tied up downtown Santa Monica for I don't know how many weekends, and there was every kind of citizen packing the buses to and from the beach.

Lonely voices, my balded headed granny on a bicycle!

Why is it that we knew the pretext was a pretext but the Gray Lady didn't? Maybe they need new management. Again.

[JDPriestly]

11. The DWMs implicate Tony Blair.

He was advised that the war, if fought without UN authorization, would be illegal. He ignored that advice, obtained a very questionable whitewash go-ahead memo from his Goldsworthy, his attorney general, days before the invasion that contradicted the months of memos prior to that time and invaded anyway. Goldsworthy's most persuasive argument shortly before the war was that even if the war was illegal, Blair could not be prosecuted because Iraq would not request his prosecution, and no other country would be able to bring charges against him. I think he was referring to the fact that no other country would be injured -- would have standing -- to bring charges against Blair.

See Goldsworthy's speech justifying the war based on Resolution 1441.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/28/legal.pdf


Here is UN Resolution 1441.
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

Bush and Blair tried to get another resolution that would have actually authorized war (remember Powell's speech to the UN and the whole Wilson/nuclear material controversy), but they could not. Here is the speech by Blix at the UN that showed that Saddam was complying with the requirements of 1441, and that, therefore, it would be difficult to argue that it was justified by 1441.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/recent%20items.html

You have to scroll down to the February 14 speech.

A court would have to decide whether the war really was illegal. But, this evidence might be enough to bring charges against Blair. Trials of that kind tend to work like dominoes -- evidence implicating people in the Bush administration would be produced, possibly right up to Bush himself. This is the practical way to go on this, but it would take international leadership.

[NNN0LHI]

12. No smoking gun?

Why do I suspect if a Democrat were president through all this there would be impeachment procedures underway right now? Even if the Dem's controlled both houses of Congress?

Don

[Julius Civitatus]

24. The NYT wasn't that picky during Whitewater

As a matter of fact, they would publish any piece of trash fed to them by any hobo from Arkansas that claimed to know the Clintons.

There wasn't a lie too mendacious, or evidence too flimsy to indict the Clintons and declare them guilty from their editorial pages.

It's funny how careful, picky, and cautious they are now that the Bushes are in power. Freaking cowardly hypocrites!

:mad:

[ElectroPrincess]

13. Translation: Reality is Fiction???? How much more is needed?

[jpak]

15. WTF???

Not one claim used to justify the war was true.

NOT ONE!!!!!!!

What did Paul O'Neill have to say about ChimpCo's plan to attack I-raq????

What did Richard Clarke say about ChimpCo's plan to attack I-raq????

And they want us to believe that the Chimp "had no war plans on his desk" and the intel was not "fixed around the policy".

The facts speak for themselves...

[daleo]

16. This doesn't prove they were planning aggressive war?

Because everyone knew all along that they were bent on aggressive war anyway? This is backwards reasoning, and a sick justification for illegal war. It is like saying the Zimmerman memo of WWI didn't prove anything, because the Germans were bound to go to war against the U.S. eventually anyway.

[Dr Fate]

17. Let Bush go on TV under oath and make these desperate excuses.

When did it become the NY Times job to make excuses for the President?

I want BUSH answering these questions, not some writer.

[confludemocrat]

18. OK, this is their (NYT) goddamned party line on their failure

as a newspaper to take the DSM for the importance it really has and is of a piece with their failure prewar to cover the issues at that time with any conviction or depth, not to get into their collusion in fabricating the phony evidence supporting war.

It is so nakedly obvious that they are looking for excuses for their enormous, gaping inadequacy as a newspaper.

But remember, they missed Watergate too.

They suck.

[EFerrari]

20. They do suck. And that's why DU gets my donation, not the NYT. nt

[Media_Lies_Daily]

22. Right. Typical captive mainstream media bullcrap.

[Julius Civitatus]

23. The NY Times is out to drown the DSM

Why are they so scared?
Two days in a row the NYT published articles specifically discrediting the Downing Street Minutes.

Interesting.

[Karenina]

25. They musta gotten

the memo! :evilgrin: