What Key Point is the Blogosphere Missing on the Downing Street Disclosure

[justicebuilder]

I have a relevant post on my blog that may shed some light on just what the key issues are here... They really don't have anything to do with "fixed" intelligence per se but with the entire structure of the rush to war, and the fact that it was fundamentally deceptive quite apart from the manipulated intelligence.

In other words, what's new about the Downing Street disclosures is not that it shows that Bush was fixing intelligence around a predetermined policy, but that he was fundamentally unconcerned with the goal of disarming Iraq.
Check it out here.

justicebuilder
aka
The Ape Man

[Dhalgren]

1. Well, didn't he have to be "fundamentally unconcerned"

with the goal of disarming Iraq when, in fact, Iraq had no weapons that needed to be "disarmed" - and Bush knew it. How could he be concerned with achieving the goal of something he knew was non-existent?

The fundamental issue, here, is that he is guilty of murder, pure and simple; and we all know it. He is criminally culpable for everything that ensued from his willful lying. That's murder.

[justicebuilder]

4. Which is fine, if you're preaching to the converted.

But what about the people who don't "all know it?"

Seems it might be useful to have information to present to such people that they will have trouble fitting into their version of reality. No amount of evidence that Saddam didn't have WMD will ever suffice - Bush's loyalists can always blame the intelligence services. But here we have evidence that Bush never cared one bit whether Iraq had WMD or not.

That's why this is so important. You may not realize it, but even many Democrats believe that before the Iraq invasion, "Saddam didn't let the inspectors in." They believe it because Bush said it over and over, and people assume that no one would tell such a blatant lie which could be so easily disproven.

I in fact had this very conversation with my wife (a left-liberal who opposed the war) yesterday, and when I showed her the evidence that Saddam had in fact allowed the inspectors in, and that they had been able to do their jobs without molestation or obstruction, she literally became sick to her stomach. She told me she could not believe she had been so naive.

Never underestimate the power of speaking truth, even if you may believe that "everyone knows it." You'll often be very suprised just what everyone knows, and what they don't.

[Dhalgren]

8. Do you mean that everyone has simply ignored or forgotten

Blix and his team's report in the winter of 2003? They "don't know" about the inspectors who were allowed into Iraq and carried out their inspections unhindered; that was covered in the news from the fall of 2002 through the winter of 2003? The fact that inspectors went into Iraq and found nothing is well known, isn't it? If you are saying that most people, even lefties who are against the war, don't remember the inspectors going into Iraq and reporting that Iraq had no weapons prior to our invasion JUST TWO YEARS AGO, then why bother? The same bunch will quickly forget within the next couple of days. The evidence shows that Bush lied - he says, "No I didn't", and the problem goes away. The evidence shows that Bush was unconcerned about WMD - he says, "Yes I was", how is this more damning?

[justicebuilder]

9. Sounds crazy, doesn't it?

Talk to some people about it. You tell me if people have forgotten about it.

I asked ten random people yesterday (not scientific, but the point is made) who the head inspector was prior to the Iraq war. Six didn't know. Four said David Kay.

Try it yourself.

[Dhalgren]

11. Jesus! It can make your head explode! Aaarrrgghhhhh!

[EVDebs]

2. "Abuse of federal agencies" charge in Nixon's Impeachment

Topic seems totally off the radar screens of the blogoshpere and especially M$M.

In order for this stovepiping of patently FALSE intell (with Treasonous aspects, as Patrick Lang of the DIA have speculated on referring to "Curveball", Chalabi, and Iranian intelligence), you have to have the Bush incompetents ACTIVELY IGNORING the legit intell personnel's warnings INTENTIONALLY.

[Roland99]

5. And the proof is in the doubts and reservations removed from the NIE

[EVDebs]

15. Yes, the 'smoking gun'

It's completely rational behavior for the criminals to try to erase their tracks. But to watch them do in publicly and have the M$M vouch for them...it's too much to bear.

[justicebuilder]

6. But it's important to be precise

What the UK disclusures show us is that the British planners believed, with much justification, that war would be illegal unless Iraq refused to cooperate with UN inspections. Iraq did cooperate with UN inspections, and those inspections showed that Iraq did not have a banned weapons program.

So why did we invade?

[Just Me]

3. The key point is that the administration conspired to defraud,...

,...congress and the American people in order to get them to do what they would not do otherwise: wage an aggressive war in violation of US and international law.

Now, to bust open the profiteering scheme that ties into this conspiracy: Cheney's secret energy meetings and the contracts granted to US multi-national companies with ties to the conspirators.

[justicebuilder]

7. Don't get ahead of yourself

Before you move on to the next thing, make sure you do your part to spread understanding of this thing. Go around to the blogs you read, post a comment linking to rawstory or to The Ape Man. We all need to be singing from the same hymnal on this one.

The direct WMD stuff is a red herring. Bush can always claim that his own intel people were telling him something other than what MI6 was telling Blair. What he can't explain is why he terminated inspections in order to invade Iraq.

[Just Me]

10. I remain firm on my position that the minutes demonstrate ,...

,...that the adminisitration knowingly and willfully engaged in a conspiracy to defraud congress and the American people to wage a war unlawful under the laws of the US and the international community.

The administration's actions amount to "high crimes and misdemeanors" in addition to violations of federal and international law.

Each and every member of the administration should be prosecuted.

[justicebuilder]

12. Yes, that's precisely my position

But it's important to provide specific citations that prove this is the case. That's what I've done in this blog post.

[Toots]

13. Here are a few to consider

Introduction

1. The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it.

The Goal

5. Our objective should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD. It seems unlikely that this could be achieved while the current Iraqi regime remains in power. US military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination if Iraqi WMD. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of UK officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other. Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi WMD, it is certainly not a sufficient one.

Military Planning

6. Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq. In a 'Running Start', military action could begin as early as November of this year, with no overt military build-up. Air strikes and support for opposition groups in Iraq would lead initially to small-scale land operations, with further land forces deploying sequentially, ultimately overwhelming Iraqi forces and leading to the collapse of the Iraqi regime. A 'Generated Start' would involve a longer build-up before any military action were taken, as early as January 2003. US military plans include no specifics on the strategic context either before or after the campaign. Currently the preference appears to be for the 'Running Start'. CDS will be ready to brief Ministers in more detail.

7. US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia. This means that legal base issues would arise virtually whatever option Ministers choose with regard to UK participation.

Justification

11. US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law. But regime change could result from action that is otherwise lawful. We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council. A detailed consideration of the legal issues, prepared earlier this year, is at Annex A. The legal position would depend on the precise circumstances at the time. Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable in both the first two instances but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality. Further legal advice would be needed on this point.

12. This leaves the route under the UNSC resolutions on weapons inspectors. Kofi Annan has held three rounds of meetings with Iraq in an attempt to persuade them to admit the UN weapons inspectors. These have made no substantive progress; the Iraqis are deliberately obfuscating. Annan has downgraded the dialogue but more pointless talks are possible. We need to persuade the UN and the international community that this situation cannot be allowed to continue ad infinitum. We need to set a deadline, leading to an ultimatum. It would be preferable to obtain backing of a UNSCR for any ultimatum and early work would be necessary to explore with Kofi Annan and the Russians, in particular, the scope for achieving this.

13. In practice, facing pressure of military action, Saddam is likely to admit weapons inspectors as a means of forestalling it. But once admitted, he would not allow them to operate freely. UNMOVIC (the successor to UNSCOM) will take at least six months after entering Iraq to establish the monitoring and verification system under Resolution 1284 necessary to assess whether Iraq is meeting its obligations. Hence, even if UN inspectors gained access today, by January 2003 they would at best only just be completing setting up. It is possible that they will encounter Iraqi obstruction during this period, but this more likely when they are fully operational.

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


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.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3836794

[justicebuilder]

14. Good post

Always great to see people posting specific, detailed information. Thanks for gracing my thread!

jb
aka
The Ape Man
aka
AP Short