Friday, May 06, 2005

Secret British Memo Shows Bush Tampered with Iraq Intelligence

A top secret British memorandum dated 23 July 2002 was leaked in the run-up to yesterday's parliamentary elections in the UK (which Blair won, though his Labour Party was much weakened by public disgust with such shenanigans as the below). I mirror the memo below, from the Times Online site. It summarizes a report to Blair and others in the British government by Sir Brian Dearlove (This is the press release when he was appointed in 1999). The head of MI6, or the foreign intelligence service of the UK, is known as "C."



"C [Dearlove] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. 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 intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

Oh dear..... not more proof that things were never as stated.....

Sunday Times May 1, 2005

---

<blockquote>Friday, May 06, 2005

Secret British Memo Shows Bush Tampered with Iraq Intelligence

A top secret British memorandum dated 23 July 2002 was leaked in the run-up to yesterday's parliamentary elections in the UK (which Blair won, though his Labour Party was much weakened by public disgust with such shenanigans as the below). I mirror the memo below, from the Times Online site. It summarizes a report to Blair and others in the British government by Sir Brian Dearlove (This is the press release when he was appointed in 1999). The head of MI6, or the foreign intelligence service of the UK, is known as "C."



"C [Dearlove] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. 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 intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

Oh dear..... not more proof that things were never as stated.....

Sunday Times May 1, 2005</blockquote>

But then there was this report.

Seems inquiring minds want to know about the fabrications which led to the Iraq War.

...troubling questions, indeed.

On May 5th, 88 members of Congress signed a letter that gives the president a chance to explain himself. That letter is reprinted below and is linked in a pdf file below.

May 5, 2005

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write because of troubling revelations in the Sunday London Times apparently confirming that the United States and Great Britain had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action. 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. However, when this story was divulged last weekend, Prime Minister Blair's representative claimed the document contained "nothing new." If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own Administration.

The Sunday Times obtained a leaked document with the minutes of a secret meeting from highly placed sources inside the British Government. Among other things, the document revealed:

*
Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a July 2002 meeting, at which he discussed military options, having already committed himself to supporting President Bush's plans for invading Iraq.

*
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that 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."

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

*
A British official "reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. 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."



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?



We have of course known for some time that subsequent to the invasion there have been a variety of varying reasons proffered to justify the invasion, particularly since the time it became evident that weapons of mass destruction would not be found. This leaked document - essentially acknowledged by the Blair government - is the first confirmation that the rationales were shifting well before the invasion as well.

Given the importance of this matter, we would ask that you respond to this inquiry as promptly as possible. Thank you.

PDF file with all 88 signatures....

Did your Congressman sign this letter? If not... why not?

---

Yea, it's probly likely that the administration was in a
hurry to go to war. Many people in the army believe this to
be the case as well.

According to the Constitution, it is the legislative branch
that is supposed to declare war, and for the executive branch
to enforce the declaration. That is, Congress determines when
we should go to war, and the President (executive) executes the
decision. This is what the Founders had in mind I think.

With Iraq, it looks like the President was trying to bypass the
process in various ways. It appears that the executive has it the
other way around and that they think that it is they who have this
power instead.

The one exception that I can think of is that there would be an
IMMEDIATE threat that is posed to our security or to the security
of an allied nation. In this case there may not be enough time to
consult the Congress, and military force should be taken because
the executive is responsible for defending our national security.

<blockquote>Yea, it's probly likely that the administration was in a
hurry to go to war. Many people in the army believe this to
be the case as well.

According to the Constitution, it is the legislative branch
that is supposed to declare war, and for the executive branch
to enforce the declaration. That is, Congress determines when
we should go to war, and the President (executive) executes the
decision. This is what the Founders had in mind I think.

With Iraq, it looks like the President was trying to bypass the
process in various ways. It appears that the executive has it the
other way around and that they think that it is they who have this
power instead.

The one exception that I can think of is that there would be an
IMMEDIATE threat that is posed to our security or to the security
of an allied nation. In this case there may not be enough time to
consult the Congress, and military force should be taken because
the executive is responsible for defending our national security.

</blockquote>

It's in the rules, the president on his own authority can deploy troops (IIRC for 60 days), for a limited amount of time. Like everything else in government the rules are largely convoluted, some bordering on ceremonial, and there is always a loop-hole around them.

I didn't need the WMD excuse (IMO that is all it was anyway). I saw a number of good ways for this to play out, and most of those had very little to do with Iraq. The jury is still out on whether they will come to be (some have, but many will take years to happen). WMD was just a populous friendly message.

---

Still looking for something profound or inspirational to place here.

<blockquote>Don't mention it....</blockquote>

I won't then...

---

<blockquote><blockquote>Don't mention it....</blockquote>

I won't then...

</blockquote>

Nope, not worth it...

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

We're all sick of this crap, knowing it's going to go on for
How many years to come?
Voters elected GWB and they just stand there eating it
The US is up to it's ears in it -
The kids die for what?
There's not a damn thing thing anybody can do about it
You dont need a high school diploma anymore
To join up
The Marines and the Army are not seeking leadership
They need more warm bodies
Kids willing to bet they'll collect a bonus for surviving
The Bonus- they're paying it
Knowing drafting kids from high school would be so much easier
The bucks will come from somewhere
Liberty, democracy- Freedom
For the oppressed and downtrodden
By whose decree?
At what price?
Call me a cynical sonofabitch
Or call me a realist
I'm just looking at what's going down...cc

Carl, Alex, Pauly-poo,

Rant on all you like. Your guy lost big time, and Bush won. It's all over. Sorry, that's life.

Don't mention it . . . indeed.

Sorry, that's life.

---

Isn't democracy such a bitch? To have to live with the one elected by the majority! Such a drag! That the majority wasn't your party! This time!

Democracy sucks!!! Buh Huh huh huhhhhh!!!!!

No, a good old dictator, that we know!

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

<blockquote>Isn't democracy such a bitch? To have to live with the one elected by the majority! Such a drag! That the majority wasn't your party! This time!

Democracy sucks!!! Buh Huh huh huhhhhh!!!!!

No, a good old dictator, that we know!

</blockquote>
In Britain Blair's back in with a 67 seat majority after an election where 64% of those who voted, voted /against/ Labour, and 79% of eligible voters didn't vote for Labour.

---

<blockquote>Carl, Alex, Pauly-poo,

Rant on all you like. Your guy lost big time, and Bush won. It's all over. Sorry, that's life.

Don't mention it . . . indeed.</blockquote>

Actually I wasn't ranting. I was just expressing my
views about the lead up to the Iraq war. I'm also not
a fan of either of the two big parties Tom, so the other
guy wasn't my guy. And I respect the election results as
well.

The casualties of the Iraq war were also much higher than
the administration had predicted. The idea put forward for
the war was that we would go in there in a relatively fast
operation and suffer low casualties. This was despite the strong
warnings of many military officials (both active as well as retired)
that the casualties would be much higher in the long run than some administration
officials were indicating that they would be. Examples

Here's just one story that makes me think about Iraq the way that I do:

Soldiers have been wounded in war since the beginning of time — a fact that armies never like advertising. The Pentagon, which makes terse announcements when U.S. soldiers die in combat in Iraq, doesn't inform the public about those who have been wounded or release month-by-month injury counts. The wounded are mentioned only when some other soldier has been killed in the same attack. "When you join the Army, they send your picture to your hometown paper because they want everybody to know that you're leaving for the military," says Meinen, a dark-haired practical joker from Grangeville, Idaho. "But if you're wounded, the military doesn't tell them, because they might be worried about the public getting negative about what's going on over there." Says the serious, quiet-spoken Castro, from Santa Ana, Calif.: "Nobody knows what happened to us, even though it was one of the biggest ambushes in Iraq. People are only finding out about soldiers who are dying, but American soldiers are getting injured too."

Source: Thompson, Mark. "The Wounded Come Home." Time, 03 Nov 2003. Link. Posted 18 Dec 2003.

<blockquote>
In Britain Blair's back in with a 67 seat majority after an election where 64% of those who voted, voted /against/ Labour, and 79% of eligible voters didn't vote for Labour.
</blockquote>

You can only blame your election system for that! The election systems are different from country to country, and being called a democracy, it means that you, as a voter, with your fellow voters can change the system, if you want to. It will require some work and time, but it can be done!

So, when Blair is reelected, even a majority voted against him, your system is to blame! But UK is considered a democracy, right? So Blair is not a dictator!

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

Indignation Grows in U.S. Over British Prewar Documents

LA Times...
--------------------

(any response to the Congressional letter of inquiry?... not yet...)


"While the president of the United States was telling the citizens and the Congress that they had no intention to start a war with Iraq, they were working very close with Tony Blair and the British leadership at making this a foregone conclusion," -Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan.

If the documents are real, he said, it is "a huge problem" in terms of an abuse of power. He said the White House had not yet responded to the letter.

___________________

As is often the case we may not be able to know all the details of behind the scenes activities.... case in point, ...revelations about Iran/Contra affairs are still being slowly released after many years.

In a few short years, our nation has strayed a long ways from the open and honest government of our forefathers visions.

---

<blockquote>Actually I wasn't ranting. I was just expressing my views about the lead up to the Iraq war. I'm also not a fan of either of the two big parties Tom, so the other guy wasn't my guy. And I respect the election results as well.</blockquote>

Alex,
It just seems to me that you have, in the past, jumped on the Bush-is-responsible-for-everything-wrong-with-the-world bandwagon, and you chimed in on this thread, started by the chief Bush-basher on these boards. Perhaps that's why I lumped you in with my comment.

<blockquote>The casualties of the Iraq war were also much higher than the administration had predicted. The idea put forward for the war was that we would go in there in a relatively fast operation and suffer low casualties. This was despite the strong warnings of many military officials (both active as well as retired) that the casualties would be much higher in the long run than some administration officials were indicating that they would be. </blockquote>

For a full scale war, designed to completely defeat another country (Kuwait was meant to liberate a small country from an occupation force), the casualties have been quite low. The "low-tech" guerrilla attacks of the insurgents have been effective on a propaganda level (they certainly convinced you that the numbers are too high), but on a military level, a rather small terrorist group is expending a huge number of fighters in (rare) direct confrontations and they do not have an unlimited number of suicide bombers, despite what the media would have us believe.

<blockquote>Here's just one story that makes me think about Iraq the way that I do:

Soldiers have been wounded in war since the beginning of time — a fact that armies never like advertising. The Pentagon, which makes terse announcements when U.S. soldiers die in combat in Iraq, doesn't inform the public about those who have been wounded or release month-by-month injury counts. The wounded are mentioned only when some other soldier has been killed in the same attack. "When you join the Army, they send your picture to your hometown paper because they want everybody to know that you're leaving for the military," says Meinen, a dark-haired practical joker from Grangeville, Idaho. "But if you're wounded, the military doesn't tell them, because they might be worried about the public getting negative about what's going on over there." Says the serious, quiet-spoken Castro, from Santa Ana, Calif.: "Nobody knows what happened to us, even though it was one of the biggest ambushes in Iraq. People are only finding out about soldiers who are dying, but American soldiers are getting injured too."

Source: Thompson, Mark. "The Wounded Come Home." Time, 03 Nov 2003. Link. Posted 18 Dec 2003.</blockquote>

The first line says it all: "Soldiers have been wounded in war since the beginning of time — a fact that armies never like advertising." But we do have media coverage in country, and if they do not report on the injured, that is not so much the Pentagon's fault.

I hope from this you don't think that I like war, but some wars are needed to deal with a threat. I have explained many times (and without response from anti-war types), the reasons why this war is needed to deal with a very real threat, so I won't go through that again.

Project for a New American Empire

---

<blockquote><blockquote>Actually I wasn't ranting. I was just expressing my views about the lead up to the Iraq war. I'm also not a fan of either of the two big parties Tom, so the other guy wasn't my guy. And I respect the election results as well.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Alex,
It just seems to me that you have, in the past, jumped on the Bush-is-responsible-for-everything-wrong-with-the-world bandwagon, and you chimed in on this thread, started by the chief Bush-basher on these boards. Perhaps that's why I lumped you in with my comment.</blockquote>

I offered my opinion in this thread because the subject is about the decisions that may have been taken preceding the war in Iraq. I don't think that President George Bush is responsible for everything. But because he's the
president, and was at the time before the war, it's logical to criticize certain areas of his Iraq policy. That's different Tom from just chiming in or
jumping on the bandwagon I'd say.


<blockquote>The casualties of the Iraq war were also much higher than the administration had predicted. The idea put forward for the war was that we would go in there in a relatively fast operation and suffer low casualties. This was despite the strong warnings of many military officials (both active as well as retired) that the casualties would be much higher in the long run than some administration officials were indicating that they would be. </blockquote>

<blockquote>For a full scale war, designed to completely defeat another country (Kuwait was meant to liberate a small country from an occupation force), the casualties have been quite low. The "low-tech" guerrilla attacks of the insurgents have been effective on a propaganda level (they certainly convinced you that the numbers are too high), but on a military level, a rather small terrorist group is expending a huge number of fighters in (rare) direct confrontations and they do not have an unlimited number of suicide bombers, despite what the media would have us believe.
<blockquote>

My point was that the administration was not as forthcoming about the possible
casualties that we would suffer in a war with Iraq. I think that the attacks
by the querrillas are probly mostly aimed at preventing Iraqis from joining
the new Iraqi security forces as some military officials have said. And our continued presence in the country will only give them a reason to continue.

<blockquote>Here's just one story that makes me think about Iraq the way that I do:

Soldiers have been wounded in war since the beginning of time — a fact that armies never like advertising. The Pentagon, which makes terse announcements when U.S. soldiers die in combat in Iraq, doesn't inform the public about those who have been wounded or release month-by-month injury counts. The wounded are mentioned only when some other soldier has been killed in the same attack. "When you join the Army, they send your picture to your hometown paper because they want everybody to know that you're leaving for the military," says Meinen, a dark-haired practical joker from Grangeville, Idaho. "But if you're wounded, the military doesn't tell them, because they might be worried about the public getting negative about what's going on over there." Says the serious, quiet-spoken Castro, from Santa Ana, Calif.: "Nobody knows what happened to us, even though it was one of the biggest ambushes in Iraq. People are only finding out about soldiers who are dying, but American soldiers are getting injured too."</blockquote>

Source: Thompson, Mark. "The Wounded Come Home." Time, 03 Nov 2003.
Link. Posted 18 Dec 2003.</blockquote>

<blockquote>The first line says it all: "Soldiers have been wounded in war since the beginning of time — a fact that armies never like advertising." But we do have media coverage in country, and if they do not report on the injured, that is not so much the Pentagon's fault.

I hope from this you don't think that I like war, but some wars are needed to deal with a threat. I have explained many times (and without response from anti-war types), the reasons why this war is needed to deal with a very real threat, so I won't go through that again.
</blockquote>

Yes, it's true that soldiers have been wounded since the beginning of time, but like I've indicated before, I think that the amount of dead and wounded in this war is much higher than the present administration lead the country to believe it would be. Just my opinion, but the opinion of many others as well.

I don't think that you like war, and I agree that sometimes wars are necessary.
But the reason the administration gave for this war was that Saddam Hussein was producing and hiding WMD. Something that turned out not to be the case. I did say in another thread that I thought that Saddam Hussein should be removed, but maybe without us getting into a full scale war.

Alex,
I don’t normally do this, but I’m going to post a link to an article {Dr. Abrahamson’s Article} that discusses many of the discrepancies between pre-war predictions by opponents, and the way those predictions have turned out in the (short) two years that we have been in Iraq. Who can forget the chant “No Blood For Oil”, so reminiscent of the baseless anti-war slogans touted by people who care not for reality, but will say and predict anything to stir emotions to their position without regard to merit.

To Summarize Dr. Abrahamson’s article:

1) Critics/opponents of the war in Iraq predicted various things would happen that did not come true: oilfields burned; dams destroyed to flood large areas of the country; a half million or more starving Iraqi citizens; 100,000 plus civilian deaths; chemical and biological attacks by Saddam’s army (yes, even opponents thought Saddam had WMD and would use them); post-invasion Civil War; toppling of friendly governments elsewhere in the Mideast; and a bloody quagmire of much greater proportions than the rather small insurgency being waged now. It turns out that predictions about the Iraq war were no more accurate than predictions about Afghanistan (which was supposed to be a long futile war ending in a defeat like the one suffered by the Soviets).

2) There have been mistakes made in the prosecution of this war: too few troops for the occupation; misplaced expectations for postwar use of the Iraq army and security forces; unforeseen postwar looting and destruction of government buildings and records; and an insurgency that has taken hold and been reinforced by foreign terrorists. Despite negative press coverage, Coalition setbacks and casualties are not as bad as such problems in previous wars such as Vietnam and World War II. Also, there have been improvements in both social systems and infrastructure.

3) The media has presented destruction of WMD as the sole reason for the war. Other reasons, not widely reported, include violation of UN resolutions, terrorism and governmental brutality. An additional reason, democratization of the Middle East Arab nation also has merit, as a valid strategy in combating terrorism can be found in doing for the Mideast what was done for Germany and Japan following World War II.

4) Critics have claimed that the war was launched for oil, to avenge an assassination plot on President Bush’s father or to aid Israel. None of those criticisms are sustainable.

5) The war on terror has yielded emerging democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Other effects in the region include Palestinian elections, reforms in Egypt’s electoral process, Saudi Arabian crackdown on terrorism, withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon (still in process), Pakistani support of the war on terror (a sea change from Pakistan’s prior support of the Taliban and terrorist organizations), and Libyan destruction of their WMD programs.

These statements from Dr. Abrahamson’s article deserved full quotation: “Walid Jumblatt, the Lebanese Druze leader and former critic of the United States, has no doubt about that point: ‘[T]his process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq. I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw Iraqi people voting . . . , eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world.’ Even in the United States, the President has received kudos from unexpected sources. Martin Peretz, liberal publisher of The New Republic, described the American Mideast mission as ‘real, and far along, and it is showing thrilling accomplishments.’”