AP
LONDON – When Prime Minister Tony Blair’s chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn’t want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about “regime change” in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.
In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war.
“U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing,” Ricketts says in the memo. “For Iraq, `regime change’ does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam.”
The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America’s top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.
“The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September,” said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
“But even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.”
Details from Rice’s dinner conversation also are included in one of the secret memos from 2002, which reveal British concerns about both the invasion and poor postwar planning by the Bush administration, which critics say has allowed the Iraqi insurgency to rage.
The eight memos ” all labeled “secret” or “confidential” ” were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
I wonder if Mary Mapes is involved in this story?
The report also states:
“The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.”
Neither Bush nor Blair have said the memos don’t exist or that they are false. They deny and refute some of the allegations, but not the authentiicity of the memos (meaning the memos are actual UK documents). The original “Downing Street Memo” was penned by the head of M16.
2-Again reference this Ellis-Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
Again, reference thjis, peejz: “The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.â€
Your turn.
4-You just don’t get it do you? The guy is claimed he typed out copies of all the memos:roll: Yep, those are authentic. About as reliable as your “friend” in the news business.:roll:
And according to Tommy Franks, they were discussing Saddam as early as December 01. It was all in his book that was released in June 04. So what exactly is the big coverup?
5. My “friend” in the news biz is legit as I’ve said. I refuse to have you ghouls find out who he is, or to have anyway of contacting him. I don’t give a shit what you or your cohorts think. Deny the truth all you want.
As to Smith and his “copy” … he said he typed “copies” of the original … not that he “made up the original” … also see the following:
“A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war “to put pressure on the regime”was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice.
The advice was first provided to senior ministers in March 2002. Two months later RAF and USAF jets began “spikes of activity”designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating and giving the allies a pretext for war.
The Foreign Office advice shows military action to pressurise the regime was “not consistent with”UN law, despite American claims that it was.
The decision to provoke the Iraqis emerged in leaked minutes of a meeting between Tony Blair and his most senior advisers ” the so-called Downing Street memo published by The Sunday Times shortly before the general election.”
I think you’re running scared because the events leading to invasion are becoming more clear and focused.
6. “Discussing” Saddam, and ordering war are two different things. The first is natural planning. The latter is a violation of the Constitutional requirement that only Congress can declare war.
8-No one declared war. They were discussing it. And the POTUS most certainly does have the ability and the right to do so. Do you think Congress just comes up with this on their own? He discussed it with military leaders and allies. If you recall, Saddam was given ample time to comply with the UN, but chose not to. Then we went to war.:roll:
7-”As to Smith and his “copy”… he said he typed “copies”of the original : not that he “made up the original”… also see the following:”- No kidding Ellis:roll:
7-”I think you’re running scared because the events leading to invasion are becoming more clear and focused.”- The only thing scaring me is your ignorance. How pathetic.:roll:
Keep chasing your tail Ellis.
11, 12. We’ll see. Your ilk is scary.
“Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.”
So this is just like the supposed Bush/National Guard memos from CBS? There are no authentic copies involved? Is this the same for the “Downing Street Memo”? If so, this blows any legitimacy that these may have had out of the water.
Ted
7, ellis, you have no crediblity here. Anonymous sources are just a euphamism of the Left meaning, “I made the whole thing up”.
So far you have proof of nothing, boy.
14- The article is referring to the Downing Street Memo. Yes you are correct.
8.
“The latter is a violation of the Constitutional requirement that only Congress can declare war.”
That’s not entirely true, but I guess that all depends upon your definition of “war”. If so, then Viet Nam, Korea, Somalia, Desert Storm and every UN police action we have ever participated in was illegal.
One has to be consistent with the use of the terminology.
Ted
17, but Ted,the requirement that ellis be consistant in the use of his words violates every tenant of Liberal/Progressive argument, or don’t you read Prof. Lackoff? or was that “Whackoff”?
18. Doesn’t the nuance lie in that the UN can declare military action and its member countries therby agrre thatit’s consent? Thus, Congress doesn’t have to specifically approve a UN action as it has already consenteds to the UN ability to so decide?
That’s different from the US going to war alone (or with a few Allies) in opposition to the UN.
pcd, your childlike verbiage and namecalling are humorous at best; pitiable at least.
15. As I said, pcd, I don’t give a flying fig newton what you think. Deny the obvious. Have you ever wondered why multiple right wing shows/news outlets have virtually the same content?
19,
That’s relativism at it’s best.
First, the UN position has nothing to do with the legality of America utilizing it’s military. If it is in support of or in opposition to the UN wishes is of no relevance.
War can only be declared by Congress, however the President has the legal authority as Commander-in-Chief to authorize military action via executive order. This is why the participation in a UN police action is legal, and also how all the other conflicts I listed above, including Iraq, is legal.
Ted
“Effective immediately, I resign the office of President of the United States”
G.W. Bush (sometime in the very near future)
22-Good example of a forged document and thank-you for pointing out how easily it is done.
Have we all forgotten what led up to the invasion of Iraq? 9 YEARS of UN inspectors being led on wild goose chases and kicked out of the country. Dozens of UN pleadings, threats and warnings about Saddam’s weapons. Saddam shooting at American planes over Iraq.
The memo discussed here was supposedly (and in the absence of an original and with a government confirmation under the protection of anonymity) written two months before President Bush went to the UN. At that time he told Saddam to let inspectors in or else. Saddam defied him and almost every member of Congress was pressuring the President to invade.
It’s only in hindsight that those people have changed their tunes. It would have been irresponsible for the President NOT to have been discussing an invasion of Iraq when he first went into office. After 9/11, it would have been insane not to.
I’m afraid, thanks to the hounding of the media, we’ve forgotten where we were back then.
ALSO, the affect of the war on the Middle East has been phenomenal — democratic repercussions in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan and more.
If the memo is true (and the statement is speculative, not fact), it is nothing to be ashamed of and certainly not the “smoking gun” progressives make it out to be.
“in the absence of an original” — I imagine the original being questioned is the copy originally given to Smith; not the actual original internal docuement. I’m not certain, but that would make sense. Surely the actual original wasn’t removed from Downing Street offices.
No, we are questioning whether there is an original.
I understand that the presence of an actual original has been authenticated, and that neither Bush nor Blair have denied its existence. Their responses at the joint press conference they had two weeks ago addressed the timing of actions and when they went to the UN. Neither questioned the exisitence of the docs. Also, I don’t think there is any question re: authenticity in the UK.
24. “It would have been irresponsible for the President NOT to have been discussing an invasion of Iraq”
Agreed, and that is not the point or debate. The issue is whether GW committed to war illegally, and without Congressional approval. Strategizing is natural and to be expected. Implementation is something else.
27- No the original has never been authenticated. Remember he is potecting the source.
28,
“The issue is whether GW committed to war illegally, and without Congressional approval.”
If that’s the question, then Iraq was perfectly legal- as Commander-in-Chief he can legally use troops via Executive Order as was the case in Korea, Viet Nam, Somalia, etc, etc…
Ted
27,
Just because Bush and Blair didn’t question the existence of the document in a press conference by no means authenticates it’s existence either, let alone the contents (which they outright said was false). To me, it says nothing one way or the other to the matter.
Ted
32-:lol::lol: