Bush asked to explain UK war memo
Foreign Policy · General Interest · War
submitted by billl on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 12:00pm PST
The story no one wants to talk about. Another pink elephant standing in the middle of the room that the mainstream media is ignoring. This should be on the front page of every paper. Liberal media my ass... A big thank you once again to John Conyers for speaking up!!
--Bill

[[Just Added 05/14]] Go here to sign the petition to ask the White House to address this issue. There are also links to send letters to our Reps and Senators.
http://downingstreetmemo.com/takeaction.html


They Lied to Us

Molly Ivins writes this week about the memo that many believe is proof that we were lied to about the Iraqi War:

I cannot let this astounding Downing Street memo go unmentioned. On May 1, the Sunday Times of London printed a secret memo that went to the defense secretary, foreign secretary, attorney general and other high officials. It is the minutes of their meeting on Iraq with Tony Blair. The memo was written by Matthew Rycroft, a Downing Street foreign policy aide. It has been confirmed as legitimate and is dated July 23, 2002. I suppose the correct cliché is "smoking gun." more...

Bush asked to explain UK war memo

Wednesday, May 11, 2005 Posted: 7:36 PM EDT (2336 GMT)

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."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/index.html
billl's blog | login or register to post comments
Comment viewing options:
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to submit your changes.
Text of Downing Street memo
submitted by billl on Tue, 05/17/2005 - 11:48pm PST
The secret Downing Street memo
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir
Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan
Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss
Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made.
It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its
contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment.
Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to
overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was
worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was
not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime
expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that
regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the
public was probably narrowly based.

C 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 NSC had no patience with the UN
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.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August,
Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short
(72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south.
Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to
Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000),
continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total
lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A
hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego
Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf
states were also important, but less vital. The three main options
for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps
with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying
down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of
activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken,
but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action
to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the
US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell
this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take
military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case
was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD
capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We
should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the
UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal
justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a
legal base for military action. There were three possible legal
bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC
authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this
case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult.
The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference
politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN
inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it
was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different
strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context
were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues
were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the
political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan
was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day
one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You
said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel,
added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a
military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On
this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy,
there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should
explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-
ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in
only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK
military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He
cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the
ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set
out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in
any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning
before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US
military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds
could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed
military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the
week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the
background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum
to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of
countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member
states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence
update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would
consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
login or register to post comments
DowningStreetMemo.com
submitted by billl on Sat, 05/14/2005 - 11:39pm PST
Janine Smalley forwarded this to me...


Bill,
I just wanted to pass on this website that I heard on AirAmericaRadio, the Mike Malloy show, regarding this memo. DowningStreetMemo.com
http://downingstreetmemo.com/takeaction.html

I just went on it and it has some good links for action.
Janine
login or register to post comments