New Evidence Shows Bush and Blair Planned Iraq War, Manufactured Justification

[PeachMonkey]

From the London Sunday Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592904,00.html
"The document reveals Blair backed “regime change” by force from the outset, despite warnings from Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, that such action could be illegal."

"It records a meeting in July 2002, attended by military and intelligence chiefs, at which Blair discussed military options having already committed himself to supporting President George Bush’s plans for ousting Saddam."

"The political strategy proved to be arguing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed such a threat that military action had to be taken. However, at the July meeting Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, said the case for war was “thin” as “Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran”. Straw suggested they should “work up” an ultimatum about weapons inspectors that would “help with the legal justification”. Blair is recorded as saying that “it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors”.

A separate secret briefing for the meeting said Britain and America had to “create” conditions to justify a war."

The minute leaked to the Sunday Times is available here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

More coverage in The Independent:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=634702

"A damning minute leaked to a Sunday newspaper reveals that in July 2002, a few weeks after meeting George Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Mr Blair summoned his closest aides for what amounted to a council of war. The minute reveals the head of British intelligence reported that President Bush had firmly made up his mind to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, adding that 'the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy'. At the same time, a document obtained by this newspaper reveals the Foreign Office legal advice given to Mr Blair in March 2002, before he travelled to meet Mr Bush at his Texas ranch. It contains many of the reservations listed nearly a year later by the Attorney General in his confidential advice to the Prime Minister, which the Government was forced to publish last week, including the warning that the US government took a different view of international law from Britain or virtually any other country."

So far, not a peep from the so-called US liberal press.

 

[Jeff Boler]

 

[dubljay]

Are we supposed to be surprised? What does it matter now?


We have gone in and turned Iraq upside down. For better or worse we disrupted the lives of the Iraqi people (in my opinion getting rid of saddam was worthy enough of a reason), having disrupted their lives we must finish what we started. Meaning whether or not Bush and Blair created justified reasons to start the war, we have a justified reason to have a continued presence until Iraq can order its affairs.

 

[Flatlander]

Are we supposed to be surprised? What does it matter now?


We have gone in and turned Iraq upside down. For better or worse we disrupted the lives of the Iraqi people (in my opinion getting rid of saddam was worthy enough of a reason), having disrupted their lives we must finish what we started. Meaning whether or not Bush and Blair created justified reasons to start the war, we have a justified reason to have a continued presence until Iraq can order its affairs.

This thesis matters now because these people are elected representatives of free people, and it illustrates their level of credibility. Rather than shoot the messenger, can you refute the argument? I cannot; I find that, when reconciled with other well demonstrated arguments we have on record here, a pattern of intent is emerging.

However, please don't confuse this with my position - the means, however unjustifiable legally, still justify the end.

 

[dubljay]

This thesis matters now because these people are elected representatives of free people, and it illustrates their level of credibility. Rather than shoot the messenger, can you refute the argument? I cannot; I find that, when reconciled with other well demonstrated arguments we have on record here, a pattern of intent is emerging.

However, please don't confuse this with my position - the means, however unjustifiable legally, still justify the end.

True enough. The credibility of these leaders is undermined, which is reflected upon those who elected them. Looking at the issue strictly in legal terms, should President Bush and PM Blair be held accountable by their respective peoples, or perhaps by the UN (which was tossed aside in this matter)? What price should they pay for deceiving those who put their trust into them? Should the US and British (ect) troops be pulled from Iraq and allow UN troops (from non-participating countries) take over so actions can be taken against US and Great Brittan without worry of the consequences to the Iraqi people?

Arguing that Bush will no longer be eligible for president after this term, ending his position of power is moot. Legal cases are often decided on history and precedents. If it was OK for Bush to muddle the issue to start a war, will it be OK for the next ambitious person in office?


-Josh

 

[Flatlander]

Those are very good, but very difficult questions. I have no good answers at this time.

:asian:

 

[dubljay]

You and me both. Those questions are reserved for the poli-sci majors... I'll stick to my engineering stuff.

 

[Kane]

No matter what the reason, I feel this war was justified ONLY because Saddam is out of power. Honestly guys, once you learn more about Saddam the more you grow to hate him. This guy is pure evil. He has been killing since childhood, and killed around million of his own people. I think in some way he is even more wose than Hitler or Stalin, I mean Hitler and Stalin didn't even kill from childhood (that is not an apalogy for all the things they did). In fact I would probably rank Saddam higher than Hitler and Stalin in terms of pure evil.

Don't get me wrong, as of late I am don't really like many of the things Bush is doing. The war however no matter who's agenda I am still all for it.

 

[dubljay]

No matter what the reason, I feel this war was justified ONLY because Saddam is out of power. Honestly guys, once you learn more about Saddam the more you grow to hate him. This guy is pure evil. He has been killing since childhood, and killed around million of his own people. I think in some way he is even more wose than Hitler or Stalin, I mean Hitler and Stalin didn't even kill from childhood (that is not an apalogy for all the things they did). In fact I would probably rank Saddam higher than Hitler and Stalin in terms of pure evil.

Don't get me wrong, as of late I am don't really like many of the things Bush is doing. The war however no matter who's agenda I am still all for it.

I understand that.... read my initial post in this thread. But the terms of which we waged this war were on shaky leagle ground.

 

[Andrew Green]

Didn't the US put him in Power in the first place?

Oh well, guess he stopped doing what he was told...

There was no justification for an attack, the Iraqi people are still fighting back, which kinda hints that just maybe, the American Invasion wasn't welcomed with open arms by everyone...

WMD did not exist, there was no threat to neighbouring countries, no threat to the US. Nothing, just a bunch of civillians trying to rebuild from the last war. Now a bunch of them are dead and they are back to having nothing again.

 

[arnisador]

Are we supposed to be surprised? What does it matter now?

I hate to say it, but sadly I think I may be in agreement with this sentiment. Does it matter now? Investigate, etc., sure. But realistically, it's moot.

 

[dubljay]

How sure are you that the majority of the attacks are made by Iraqi people and not forign nationals? Democracy is not viewed too well by Arab/Muslim nations. With Iraq becoming democratic it destablizes the totalitarian governments in its proximity. Also how many of these attacks are made by fanatics that just want a peice of the US and care nothing for the fate of the Iraqi people?

-Josh

 

[Andrew Green]

Democracy is not viewed too well by Arab/Muslim nations.

Which begs the question, "Why try to force a system of government on a people when it does not fit their culture and beliefs?"

 

[dubljay]

Which begs the question, "Why try to force a system of government on a people when it does not fit their culture and beliefs?"

Uhhh uhhhh uhhhh....

No one said that Bush & Co. were the brightest of the world leaders....

I think its based on the theroy that if it works for us it can work for them?

 

[SwedishChef]

Well since Saddam broke the old treaty like 14 times we didn't really need any other reason to attack...but besides that I wonder what sinister motive Blair had? Perhaps he is Doctor Evil in disguise and will use this manuever to take over the world..mwahahahaha!!!

 

[dubljay]

Well since Saddam broke the old treaty like 14 times we didn't really need any other reason to attack...but besides that I wonder what sinister motive Blair had? Perhaps he is Doctor Evil in disguise and will use this manuever to take over the world..mwahahahaha!!!

Haha, good humor on the subject.


The point still stands that the US and Great Britan acted on their own, they briefly paused to see what the UN was going to say, then went on the war path. The resolutions made with Saddam were not with the US and GB, they were made with the UN, does the US and GB superceed the power of the UN?

(sorry for playing devil's advocate)

 

[michaeledward]

The Prime Minister of Austrailia was re-elected ... He supported the war

The President of the United States was re-elected ... He supported the war

The polls indicate the Prime Minister of Great Britian will be re-elected ... He supported the war

It would appear that, even though this war was illegal, unjustified, ill planned and poorly executed, the citizens of the greatest democracies on the planet don't really care if their governments lie to them.

I guess I was, and am, wrong. Who'da thunk!

 

[dubljay]

The Prime Minister of Austrailia was re-elected ... He supported the war

The President of the United States was re-elected ... He supported the war

The polls indicate the Prime Minister of Great Britian will be re-elected ... He supported the war

It would appear that, even though this war was illegal, unjustified, ill planned and poorly executed, the citizens of the greatest democracies on the planet don't really care if their governments lie to them.

I guess I was, and am, wrong. Who'da thunk!

I don't know about Austrailia or Great Britian, but Bush was re-elected under the banner of the 9/11 attacks. Whether right or wrong Pres. Bush acted imediately after the attacks. But there is more to elections than just this war. This diverges into a political debate.... There were many factors that got Bush re-elected, the war played a role in the political campaign but it wasn't the only one.

It would be the US congress that could hold Pres. Bush responsible for his actions. Did he exceede his power by invading Iraq? My memory of the early stages of the war are fuzzy at best.... did Congress declare war on Iraq or was this all under the war powers act? It would be the UN to decide if the participating countries were acting for the good of the Iraqi people or for their own profit for the oil.

 

[raedyn]

I don't know about Austrailia or Great Britian, but Bush was re-elected under the banner of the 9/11 attacks.

Yeah. Because a small majority of Americans still believe the absolute untruth that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. That's messed up.

 

[dubljay]

Yeah. Because a small majority of Americans still believe the absolute untruth that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. That's messed up.

Can you show me a statistic on that? Iraq may have harbored those who commited the attacks but Iraq being directly responsible? If many Americans belived that we would have not gone into Afganhistan first looking for Osama now would we?

The main reason Bush won election is that his opponents namely Kerry did not have the conviction that Bush had. We are still recovering emotionally (as a country) from the September 11th Attacks. We wanted a strong, decisive leader. Kerry presented NONE of those traits during his campaign for election. That is mostly why Bush won the election. Among other reasons. If you wish to get into the political neuances of the 2004 election then feel free to start a new thread and I will post further there.