http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article342859.eceBush 'plotted to lure Saddam into war with fake UN plane'
By Andy McSmith
Published: 03 February 2006
George Bush considered provoking a war with Saddam Hussein's regime by flying a United States spyplane over Iraq bearing UN colours, enticing the Iraqis to take a shot at it, according to a leaked memo of a meeting between the US President and Tony Blair.
The two leaders were worried by the lack of hard evidence that Saddam Hussein had broken UN resolutions, though privately they were convinced that he had. According to the memorandum, Mr Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
He added: "It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddam's WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated." The memo damningly suggests the decision to invade Iraq had already been made when Mr Blair and the US President met in Washington on 31 January 2003 * when the British Government was still working on obtaining a second UN resolution to legitimise the conflict.
The leaders discussed the prospects for a second resolution, but Mr Bush said: "The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway." He added that he had a date, 10 March, pencilled in for the start of military action. The war actually began on 20 March.
Mr Blair replied that he was "solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam." But he also insisted that " a second Security Council resolution would provide an insurance policy against the unexpected, and international cover, including with the Arabs" .
The memo appears to refute claims made in memoirs published by the former UK ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, who has accused Mr Blair of missing an opportunity to win the US over to a strategy based on a second UN resolution. It now appears Mr Bush's mind was already made up.
There was also a discussion of what might happen in Iraq after Saddam had been overthrown. President Bush said that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not respond. Details of the meeting are revealed in a book, Lawless World, published today by Philippe Sands, a professor of law at University College London.
"I think no one would be surprised at the idea that the use of spy planes to review what is going on would be considered," Mr Sands told Channel 4 News last night. "What is surprising is the idea that they would be painted in the colours of the United Nations to provoke an attack which could then be used to justify material breach.
"Now that plainly looks as if it is deception, and it raises... questions of legality, both in terms of domestic law and international law."
Other participants in the meeting were Mr Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, her deputy, Dan Fried, the chief of staff, Andrew Card, Mr Blair's then security adviser, Sir David Manning, his foreign policy aide, Matthew Rycroft, and his chief of staff, Jonathan Powell.
The Downing Street spokesman later said: "The Prime Minister only committed forces to Iraq after securing the approval of the Commons in the vote on 18 March 2003."
The spokesman added: "All these matters have been thoroughly investigated and we stand by our position."
* The Ministry of Defence will publish casualty figures for UK troops in Iraq on its website within the next few weeks, the Government disclosed last night. Defence Secretary John Reid said the figures * which will be regularly updated * would identify the number of personnel categorised as seriously injured and very seriously injured. He promised to alert MPs before the first publication of the figures. The pledge came in a Commons written reply.
George Bush considered provoking a war with Saddam Hussein's regime by flying a United States spyplane over Iraq bearing UN colours, enticing the Iraqis to take a shot at it, according to a leaked memo of a meeting between the US President and Tony Blair.
The two leaders were worried by the lack of hard evidence that Saddam Hussein had broken UN resolutions, though privately they were convinced that he had. According to the memorandum, Mr Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
aps said:Ha ha ha, danarhea. You beat me to the punch. I heard about this last night on Keith Olbermann. One of these days, people will find out that their president lies and exaggerates on multiple issues.
hipsterdufus said:More evidence is out today that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq , and was even willing to fly US planes disguised as UN planes to justify going to war.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article342859.ece
Yeh!!1! ..........................Navy_Pride said:You just never give up hips.........Why are your links always from the dar left?
Don't you think if there was any creditability to the Downing Street Memo that the Liberal media in this country would be all over it like white on rice................
Stick with the NSA thingy my friend you are much better off........
danarhea said:I did? Thats news to me. LMAO.
tecoyah said:What disturbs me most....is not the report, but the fact I actually think it could be true. What I have seen in myself, simply because there are so many little indications of deciet by this administration, is more willingness to believe these stories, and use them to form my opinions. I think I am psycologically scarred at this point.
Between the obvious attempts to hide , or deny access to information, and the endless stream of misinformation coming from the white house....I no longer have faith in the ability of this administration to lead. Truly, this is a sad day in my own personal paradise.
That's a very interesting question. I wonder...aps said:I am surprised this isn't getting more coverage.
KCConservative said:That's a very interesting question. I wonder...
aps said:Good morning, KC. Do you want to tell me what your thoughts are on why it's not getting more coverage?
How did your audition go last weekend?
KCConservative said:My guess is if this story gets legs outside of the extremist papers and websites, then we might have something to talk about. Of course it's good stuff for the haters.
I was offered a show in St. Louis. I may accept it if nothing doesn't come up here in KC during the same time frame.
KCConservative said:My guess is if this story gets legs outside of the extremist papers and websites, then we might have something to talk about. Of course it's good stuff for the haters.
I was offered a show in St. Louis. I may accept it if nothing doesn't come up here in KC during the same time frame.
Navy Pride said:You just never give up hips.........Why are your links always from the dar left?
Don't you think if there was any creditability to the Downing Street Memo that the Liberal media in this country would be all over it like white on rice................
Stick with the NSA thingy my friend you are much better off........
The truth really hurts, doesn't it Navy? Why not rebut the story instead of attacking the poster?Navy Pride said:You just never give up hips.........Why are your links always from the dar left?
Don't you think if there was any creditability to the Downing Street Memo that the Liberal media in this country would be all over it like white on rice................
Stick with the NSA thingy my friend you are much better off........
Source: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htmStatement of PrinciplesJune 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
In conclusion the Downing Street Memo and this further revelation is so instep with the above manifesto only a blind apologist can deny it's authenticity. While it's admirable to be loyal to a cause, it is not admirable to support lies, especially that lead to war.Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer,William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes,
Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad,I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?