Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Bush asked to explain UK war memo


Recommended Posts

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Eighty-nine Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war in mid-2002 -- well before the president brought the issue to Congress for approval.

The Times of London newspaper published the memo -- actually minutes of a high-level meeting on Iraq held July 23, 2002 -- on May 1.

British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity, and Michael Boyce, then Britain's Chief of Defense Staff, told the paper that Britain had not then made a decision to follow the United States to war, but it would have been "irresponsible" not to prepare for the possibility.

The White House has not yet responded to queries about the congressional letter, which was released on May 6.

The letter, initiated by Rep. John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the memo "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration. ...

"While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your administration," the letter said.

But, the letter said, when the document was leaked Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman called it "nothing new."

In addition to Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon, Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, MI6 chief Richard Dearlove and others attended the meeting.

A British official identified as "C" said that he had returned from a meeting in Washington and that "military action was now seen as inevitable" by U.S. officials.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

"The NSC had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

The memo further discussed the military options under consideration by the United States, along with Britain's possible role.

It quoted Hoon as saying the United States had not finalized a timeline, but that it would likely begin "30 days before the U.S. congressional elections," culminating with the actual attack in January 2003.

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said.

"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

The British officials determined to push for an ultimatum for Saddam to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq to "help with the legal justification for the use of force ... despite U.S. resistance."

Britain's attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, advised the group that "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action" and two of three possible legal bases -- self-defense and humanitarian intervention -- could not be used.

The third was a U.N. Security Council resolution, which Goldsmith said "would be difficult."

Blair thought that "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors."

"If the political context were right, people would support regime change," the memo said.

Later, the memo said, Blair would work to convince Bush that they should pursue the ultimatum with Saddam even though "many in the U.S. did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route."



Sure, we have war plans for a lot of countries, but I don't think we are suppose to list down reasons to look for...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 10
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • girty1600


  • __Kratos__


  • warden


  • Dissidentia


Top Posters In This Topic

Interesting read, good find! thumbsup.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many revelations like these does it take to get a President impeached? Clinton was nearly impeached because of what he did with his willy, for Pete's sake. The Downing Street minutes are reasonably solid proof that Bush and Co. misled the US Congress to start a war. Is that not an impeachable offense? At the very least, the minutes should be the spark that starts a proper investigation (not a farce like the 9-11 commission) and preliminary impeachment proceedings. There's plenty of other evidence around that would support a case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will not coment on bush as i have not got the full facts ,but blair ,oh boy come on,to lie to the public and then try and explain it as if we the British public all 55 million of us were thick pr-cks,and then the edgits go and vote him back in to office

I dont mind a leader blowing of a lot of sh-t and saying sorry after it to the public but i cant see it comming from both sides of the Atlantic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really didnt think he would get elected again it seems all of europe was unhappy with BLair what happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i hope bush gets kicked out, but that won't happen because he didn't get his wang shellacked in the white house

Edited by I am me
Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone got a link to the actual memo? i really don't like newpaper article cliffnotes, the papers have a habit of not giving us the whole picture (eg the 9/11 report)

as for clinton, he wasn't threatened with impeachment for fooling around with Ms Lewinsky, i do believe it was that line "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" that got him in trouble, that said i don't think there should have been a fuss made about his little affair in the first place, but americans have always been (i'm being general here) fairly prudish when it comes to this kind of stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does this man just keep getting a free pass on everything? This may be obvious proof that he mislead the US to going to war with Iraq, this to most sane people is much more damaging to our country then anything Clinton did. The man is and always has been a warhawk (or chickenhawk as I like to refer to him) and he apparently is willing to say and do just about anything get us into a war.

Why aren't people as up in arms over stuff like this as they were about Clinton saying he didn't have sex with Monica?

Partisan politics as usual I guess...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.