• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says

Cassapolis

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
By DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: March 27, 2006

LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.

Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.

Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/i...tml?_r=1&incamp=article_popular_5&oref=slogin
 

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
aquapub said:
Bush was set on war with Iraq...Any sensible person should have been after eight years of Bill Clinton.

Pointless response as always aquapub. What exactly does Clinton's time in office have to do with Bush wanting to invade Iraq?

This like most other items involving Bush's agenda for pre-war Iraq will be glossed over and just seen as "liberal propaganda".

Personally I think Bush stepped over a line. Especially if the part about painting a US plane with UN colors in hopes it would be fired upon and planning to assassinate Saddam. When was it legal for the President of the USA to try and provoke war?

Who gave the US the power to decide the fate of other countries?
 
Last edited:

Deegan

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Gibberish said:
Who gave the US the power to decide the fate of other countries?

I believe the answer to that would be, USMC sir, but I could be wrong.;)
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Cassapolis said:
By DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: March 27, 2006

LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.

Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.

Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/i...tml?_r=1&incamp=article_popular_5&oref=slogin


..........so?

And by the way, the emboldened selection of words is untrue. Do you remember when U.S. Marines discovered those underground bunkers the size of football fields last year.........?
 

Cassapolis

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
GySgt said:
..........so?

And by the way, the emboldened selection of words is untrue. Do you remember when U.S. Marines discovered those underground bunkers the size of football fields last year.........?


Did you read the article or just the last paragraph? What you highlighted as being wrong was supposedly a fact that Bush and Blair conceded to before the invasion. When this memo was written they hadn't found any unconventional weapons.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Cassapolis said:
Did you read the article or just the last paragraph? What you highlighted as being wrong was supposedly a fact that Bush and Blair conceded to before the invasion. When this memo was written they hadn't found any unconventional weapons.

Yeah, I read this dribble. What is fact today is BS tomorrow and what is BS today is fact tomorrow. I said....meh.
 

Cassapolis

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
GySgt said:
Yeah, I read this dribble. What is fact today is BS tomorrow and what is BS today is fact tomorrow. I said....meh.

Well if you read the whole thing why did you say that was wrong? If they said they hadn't found anything how can something being found 2 years later make the origional statement false?
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Cassapolis said:
Well if you read the whole thing why did you say that was wrong? If they said they hadn't found anything how can something being found 2 years later make the origional statement false?


Because they are untrue. Any statement made abut not finding anything before they were searched for is rediculous. The entire memo is senseless.
 

Cassapolis

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
GySgt said:
Because they are untrue. Any statement made abut not finding anything before they were searched for is rediculous. The entire memo is senseless.

Perhaps they were talking about what the U.N was doing there? Remember the U.N was looking for WMD's in Iraq prior to our invasion and as far as we know they hadn't found anything. But I guess you would know more about this situation then Tony Blair's foreign policy advisor wouldn't you?
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Cassapolis said:
Perhaps they were talking about what the U.N was doing there? Remember the U.N was looking for WMD's in Iraq prior to our invasion and as far as we know they hadn't found anything. But I guess you would know more about this situation then Tony Blair's foreign policy advisor wouldn't you?

I know more than you think.

Besides that, who cares what the UN found? Considering that the protection of oil scandals was the agenda in focus for the UN, how hard did they actually look? Especially, considering what we know now.

It's a pointless memo.
 

Cassapolis

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
GySgt said:
I know more than you think.

Besides that, who cares what the UN found? Considering that the protection of oil scandals was the agenda in focus for the UN, how hard did they actually look? Especially, considering what we know now.

It's a pointless memo.


Enlighten us then. And it's pretty obvious that Bush and Blair don't care about what the UN think. What exactly do we know now?
 

BodiSatva

The Bodhisattva
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
2,081
Reaction score
49
Location
Bodega Bay, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Originally Posted by GySgt
The entire memo is senseless...It's a pointless memo.

Senseless? Pointless?

I am sure that you are in the thick of things and are privy to all sorts of top secret information...and THAT (even if it is true), is beside the point. You may choose to dismiss all of them and others may choose to embrace all of them...the point is that this memo has a point...it has many points in fact. The memo points to state of mind prior to the invasion among other things.
 
Last edited:

lily

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
GySgt said:
..........so?

And by the way, the emboldened selection of words is untrue. Do you remember when U.S. Marines discovered those underground bunkers the size of football fields last year.........?
This massive discovery you're talking about........did it contain any of the WMD that we claimed they had? If not, what's your point? At the begining of the war, we let the enemy go with their weapons. Hells bells........we let al Sadar and all his merry men go, with all their weapons, just so we could claim Najaf.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Cassapolis said:
Enlighten us then. And it's pretty obvious that Bush and Blair don't care about what the UN think. What exactly do we know now?


I wouldn't know what you know.

And the only people who care about the UN is the people who stood to benefit from the corruption within.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
BodiSatva said:
Senseless? Pointless?

I am sure that you are in the thick of things and are privy to all sorts of top secret information...and THAT (even if it is true), is beside the point. The memo points to motives and state of mind prior to the invasion. You may choose to dismiss all of them and others may choose to embrace all of them...the point is that this memo has a point...it has many points in fact.


No point. Nothing new. Same old content. Saddam had to go and the civilization in the Middle East has to change. Radical Islam is a precursor to terrorism. It lays the ideological and religious foundation for Islamic-inspired violence and, as such, represents a long-term threat to the national security of the United States of America. The ongoing Global War on Terrorism targets the current generation of terrorists; however, unless the ideology that spawned them is also countered the long-term threat to the U.S. will exponentially grow with time.

Whatever got us there...got us there.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
lily said:
This massive discovery you're talking about........did it contain any of the WMD that we claimed they had? If not, what's your point? At the begining of the war, we let the enemy go with their weapons. Hells bells........we let al Sadar and all his merry men go, with all their weapons, just so we could claim Najaf.

It was reported that tons of ammunition and weapons were found. It ommitted equipment of "other sorts" and documents implicating two other countries - one, European.
 
Last edited:

BodiSatva

The Bodhisattva
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
2,081
Reaction score
49
Location
Bodega Bay, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Nothing new now...
But again this goes to state of mind prior to the invasion.
It is something that revisionists can use and conspiracy junkies can grasp.

True, we are there now and that is all that really matters...lets move forward.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
BodiSatva said:
Nothing new now...
But again this goes to state of mind prior to the invasion.
It is something that revisionists can use and conspiracy junkies can grasp.

True, we are there now and that is all that really matters...lets move forward.

Well, the state of mind prior to the invasion was a determination to take Saddam out no matter what. The future change of the Middle East, which is necessary for our securities, which trumps any UN speed bumps to protect their slothful interests, demanded an absent Saddam Hussein.
 

lily

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
GySgt said:
It was reported that tons of ammunition and weapons were found. It ommitted equipment of "other sorts" and documents implicating two other countries - one, European.

Then your answer is no. It didn't contain any WMD. You were using your statment to defend the WMD argument, were you not?

Any country with an army.......and Iraq had an army is going to have conventional weapons....and they are going to be hidden in underground bunkers. I would venture to guess, that the US has such sites. I don't think it would be a good strategy to keep all your weapons in one place.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
lily said:
Then your answer is no. It didn't contain any WMD. You were using your statment to defend the WMD argument, were you not?

Any country with an army.......and Iraq had an army is going to have conventional weapons....and they are going to be hidden in underground bunkers. I would venture to guess, that the US has such sites. I don't think it would be a good strategy to keep all your weapons in one place.

No I was not. The WMD argument is about weapons and the equipment necessary to build such weapons. "Conventional weapons" is what was reported to the public. That is not all that was found. Hence, the "equipment of other sorts" part of my sentence.
 

lily

Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
You're confusing me. Then these football fields were full of un-conventional weapons????
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
26,272
Reaction score
11,626
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
lily said:
You're confusing me. Then these football fields were full of un-conventional weapons????


They were full of conventional weapons and equipment that was for the production of non-conventional weapons. They were also filled with documents that implicated two other countries as far as where this equipment and weaponry was concerned - one European.

The only thing reported to the public was the "conventional weapon" findings.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,772
Reaction score
12,343
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Let me guess .. the European country was France.....this France bashing without a shred of proof is getting old. Or maybe it was Germany, a country we already knew that had sold equipment that could be used in the manufacture of chemical weapons.. but hey dont let a decade mean anything.

Where was Saddams main income? Oil for Food or the illegal smuggling accross the Jordanian and Turkish border with the full knowledge and acceptance of the US and its allies?

Blaming the UN for everything is getting old, especially when the USA could have blown the whistle on oil for food and all the illegal smuggling years before it came out... why did it not? Why did the brits not? And considering that they knew and were warned time and time again of odd contracts, they did NOTHING. The oil for food witchhunt in the US is nothing but a huge smoke screen to avoid the truth that the US was just as much to blame as anyone else in the whole thing.
 

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Its amazing what levels the Bush apologists on this board will go to to defend this man and his policies. Let me give you a clue, no matter what you argue, the Country isn't buying it. It is abundantly clear and has been for quite a while that Rumsfield/Cheney/Rove wanted to invade Iraq before Bush was ever selected. The WMD was the first lie to justify the invasion, but they made a little mistake, they didn't plan on what to say when they didn't produce them, so then the focus changed to the reason we invaded was to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

I have one plea to the Bush Apologists....OK, we get it, you Love this man because he is promoting the agenda of the radical right....that's ok......he has done and is doing what you want him to do.....and even though I disagree with that agenda, so be it. But there comes a time when you need to stop apologizing for every idiotic thing this man does just because of this. CLUE: You don't have to apologize and support everything this man does....he will still pursue your right-wing agenda.
 
Top Bottom