DSM (parts 2-7) Six New Secret British Documents Leaked!

[paineinthearse]

Rececived by email from afterdowningstreet

The Raw Story piece has been posted - see http://www.rawstory.com

Six new British documents reveal details on case for war quoted in the UK press but never printed raw; Longer narrative later today.

The Iraq options paper - After axis of evil, British foreign secretary says Iraq case weak - Condi committed to regime change in 2002 - The British legal background - Admission that Iraq WMD program hadn't changed - The 'need to wrongfoot' Saddam on inspectors

====================================================

BREAKING NEWS

Later today RawStory.com <1> will be posting an article that they have been researching for several days. Six new secret British documents have been leaked and made widely available on the internet, including via the links below. These were retyped from the originals to protect the source, but RawStory.com <2> has verified the authenticity and will be reporting on that research, on the significance of the documents, and on the timeline of the events illuminated by this information, known to the British media but new on this side of the pond.



• "Iraq Options Paper," UK Overseas and Defense Secretariat, March 8, 2002

The greater investment of Western forces, the greater our control over Iraq's future, but the greater the cost and the longer we would need to stay. The only certain means to remove Saddam and his elite is to invade and impose a new government, but this could involve nation building over many years. Even a representative government could seek to acquire WMD and build-up its conventional forces, so long as Iran and Israel retain their WMD and conventional armouries and there was no acceptable solution to the Palestinian grievances.

SIGNIFICANCE: UK government anticipated "nation building over many years," in contradiction to public case by Bush administration. British also believed Iraq might acquire WMD without Saddam Hussein in power.

We have looked at three options for regime change...

OPTION 3: A GROUND CAMPAIGN

The aim would be to launch a full-scale ground offensive... A pro-Western regime would be installed... The optimal times to start action are early spring.

SIGNIFICANCE: Timing of invasion already set in March 2002. Aim is not an Iraq which can democratically choose its policies, but a "pro-Western regime."

Most Iraqis see the INC/INA as Western stooges.

SIGNIFICANCE: The head of the INC (Iraqi National Congress) was Ahmed Chalabi; Chalabi is now acting Oil Minister of Iraq. The head of the INA (Iraqi National Accord) was Ayad Allawi; Allawi was Prime Minister of the Iraqi Interim government from June 1, 2004-April 7, 2005.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/ods020308.pdf <3>

• "Iraq: Legal Background," UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, March 8, 2002

The US... maintain that the assessment of breach is for individual member States. We are not aware of any other State which supports this view.

SIGNIFICANCE: Bush administration's interpretation of international law, which eventually invoked for the invasion, was so bizarre it was not shared by any other nation on earth (including UK).

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/fcolegal020308.pdf <4>

• Memo from David Manning (Foreign Policy Advisor to Blair) to Blair on Manning's Dinner with Condoleezza Rice, March 14, 2002

I said you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion... Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed.... Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions:... what happens on the morning after?

SIGNIFICANCE: Aim was always regime change. Bush had no plan for future of Iraq.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/manning020314.pdf <5>

• Memo from Christopher Meyer (UK Ambassador to US) to David Manning on Meyer's lunch with Wolfowitz, March 18, 2002

"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 skillfully, we were fairly confident that a number of countries would come on board."

SIGNIFICANCE: UN process was a sham for Blair's sake; aim was not disarmament but regime change, which had already been decided on.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/meyer020318.pdf <6>

• Memo from Peter Ricketts (Political Director, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office) to Jack Straw (UK Foreign Secretary), March 22, 2002

For Iraq, "regime change" does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam. Much better, as you have suggested, to make the objective ending the threat to the international community from Iraqi WMD...

SIGNIFICANCE: Aim was regime change, but that wouldn't sell; WMD issue was useful for PR reasons.

US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al aida is so far frankly unconvincing.

SIGNIFICANCE: Even UK government at the highest levels believed the Bush administration claims of an Iraq-Al Qaida links were false.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/ricketts020322.pdf <7>

• Memo from Jack Straw to Blair, March 25, 2002

We have also to answer the big question—what will this action achieve?... has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured, and how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be better.

SIGNIFICANCE: UK government at its highest levels did not believe the US had any plan to be certain a new Iraqi government would be an improvement on Saddam and would not develop WMD.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/straw020325.pdf <8>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is from After Downing Street Dot Org
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/

The URL for this story is:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=205

Links in this article
<1> http://www.rawstory.com
<2> http://www.rawstory.com/
<3> http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/ods020308.pdf
<4> http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/fcolegal020308.pdf
<5> http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/manning020314.pdf
<6> http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/meyer020318.pdf
<7> http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/ricketts020322.pdf
<8> http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/straw020325.pdf

[grasswire]

1. damning, damning, damning

And Condi's in the thick of it, too.

[seabeyond]

2. but we knew this. the significance to me

is the world knew this. at the u.n. meeting, powell and bush gave evidence of wmd from manipulated reports. the public would not go with all this stuff that bush wanted to go to war for. what he gets in trouble for is knowing this, and creating cia document to back it. was a matter of saying, you really are suggesting all this; but, if you are lying, your ass is in toruble. he was lying. his ass is in trouble

we all suspect and suggested bush was doing this during the summer and fall prior to war. we would say we think he is doing this, but we had no proof. or enough to convince media or the people. bush convinced a lot of americans, and yes, our senators and representitives to back him in this war. we knew he was going in. an ungodly number. seems the low 80's.

psychologically as a nation i think many of us had to say, k, we are going to support. we dont trust. none of it feels right. i dont think so........but fuck. who knows. and if bush is lying

cause i could remember having the feel cia was opposed and didnt see a threat. and of course powell. and when i saw those to turn over......

i really sat saying to the tv, surely they are not arrogant enough to lie on this shit. this is people dying, our people. powell wouldnt do that to his men

[paineinthearse]

3. hello?

Posted in GD, as 2 replies in 2 hours is not exactly earthshaking.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=104&topic_id=3846744&mesg_id=3846744

[mrgorth]

4. grrr

:banghead:

[WePurrsevere]

5. I was just pointed to this thread for more info

this is exellent info... thank you for posting it. :)