New Iraq War Controversy

[FlamesAddiction]

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11574296.htm

It says that Bush had fixed intelligence and facts around the policy to build up Iraq as a threat. It also says that Bush made the absolute desision to invade Iraq 9 months before the invasion took place, which would basically verify that all those so-called attempts to avoid war were really just a smoke screen.

WASHINGTON - A highly classified British memo, leaked in the midst of Britain's just-concluded election campaign, indicates that President Bush decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by summer 2002 and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.

The document, which summarizes a July 23, 2002, meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair with his top security advisers, reports on a visit to Washington by the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service.

The visit took place while the Bush administration was still declaring to the American public that no decision had been made to go to war.

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable," the MI-6 chief said at the meeting, according to the memo. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," weapons of mass destruction.

The memo said "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003.

The White House has repeatedly denied accusations made by several top foreign officials that it manipulated intelligence estimates to justify an invasion of Iraq.

It has instead pointed to the conclusions of two studies, one by the Senate Intelligence Committee and one by a presidentially appointed panel, that cite serious failures by the CIA and other agencies in judging Saddam's weapons programs.

The principal U.S. intelligence analysis, called a National Intelligence Estimate, wasn't completed until October 2002, well after the United States and United Kingdom had apparently decided military force should be used to overthrow Saddam's regime.

I hope those lazy Democrats actually pursue this and don't let fears of people questioning their "patriotism" stop them from doing their jobs.

[Mike F]

The London Times has uncovered a British Document which revealed that as early as "July 2002... Blair... [had] already committed himself to supporting President George Bush’s plans for ousting Saddam [militarliy]"

One of the most startiling revelations is the discussion amongst top British officials of the need to establish political and legal support for a war by essentially fabricating evidence to support it

“If the political context were right, people would support regime change,” said Blair. He added that the key issues were “whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan space to work”.

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.

As reported here, following the publication of this story, 88 members of the US Congress sent an official letter to Bush "calling on President Bush to answer questions about a secret U.S.-UK agreement to attack Iraq"

From the letter:

As a result of this recent disclosure, we would like to know the following:

1) Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?

2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?

3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?

4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?

5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

The signatories are seeking an inquiry.

[FlamesAddiction]

Freaky Mike.

Maybe a moderator could combine my thread to this one since they are almost the same.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

If George W Bush doesn't go down as one of (if not the most) disgraced presidents in the history of the U.S., I'll be shocked.

So many innocent people dead, or going to die, all because of a war based on a lie.

A great country, with so many great people, and he's the best the U.S. can come up with?

Sad.

[Mike F]

We need a mod to combine these two threads...

Pretty please.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@May 8 2005, 10:58 PM
Freaky Mike.

Maybe a moderator could combine my thread to this one since they are almost the same.

LOL, I just posted the same thing in the other thread.

[KevanGuy]

You guys are the same.

[Claeren]

Funny how wars like this always go badly and then even when they end eventually trigger other wars.... lies beget lies, distrust begets distrust, and so on...

The American controlling elite are lying war mongers who cannot be trusted. While it may be in some peoples best interests those are seldom qualities that lead to the world being a better place in the long run. There are battles that need to be fought and peoples who need liberating but doing any of it from anything but the highest and most truthful ground possible is always a recipe for disaster...


Claeren.

[Agamemnon]

I don't see how this changes much.

I think the 'public' is already fairly aware of the Bush' administration tweaking the facts to support their geopolitical ambitions. This issue has already been addressed by the Republican administration ad nauseum; what we said then doesn't matter, we got Saddam, and thats what _really_ counts. He was an evil, brutal dictator, and we had to lie to you to remove him, and now that we have (and you see how evil he is) then you forgive us because we did the right thing.

And the American people buy it... so I don't see the issue. Government's lie to the people because the people aren't really able to do anything about it, except vote Democrat in another 3 years, and Bush isn't up for re-election. I think the neo-con payoff from the war (re-shaping the Newer World Order) is considered greater by the neo-con's than any political damage 'lying' can cause. These people see themselves as the successors to the Cold Warriors that defeated the Soviet empire... same war today, different enemy.

I'd get used to it too... there will always be an enemy that state/media propaganda will turn us against, regardless how ficticious the 'evidence'. When was the last time the US didn't have an enemy somewhere? The US has been in more wars in the last 2 centuries I believe than any other state. Thats a Lot for a peaceful, democratic nation. What gives?

[Looger]

the very idea that this is all on bush and the neocons,

to me is such a bad way to approach the problem in the united states of big-business lobby.

this administration is a symptom,

IT IS NOT THE PROBLEM