Bush Was Set on Path to War
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/inter ... gewanted=1

I know I'm whoring up the board with posts but I found this article rather suprising and important..I know ninty has brought up some of the material in his post. The U.N painted airplane plan shocked me the most out of everything in the article and also that Bush was willing to go to war even if the U.N inspectors found no WMD's.

Also if you can't read the article tell me, I have a account at nytimes.com so I'm not sure what you guys can/can't see.

this is in reference to the DSM right?

The downing street memos are brought up but certain things in the article are brought from other secret memos which are surfacing currently.

it makes me log in when I go to the link.

[quote:f407a]"Bush agreed. He commented that he was not itching to go to war, [/quote:f407a]

Doesn't that kind of contradict the title of the article?

How did c312 read it then? eek: Here's the article anyways.

By DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: March 27, 2006

LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.

Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.

Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

Those proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Mr. Bush's extemporaneous suggestions, or were elements of the government's plan.

Consistent Remarks

Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain's Official Secrets Act, which made it illegal to divulge classified information. But one of them said, "In all of this discussion during the run-up to the Iraq war, it is obvious that viewing a snapshot at a certain point in time gives only a partial view of the decision-making process."

On Sunday, Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said the president's public comments were consistent with his private remarks made to Mr. Blair. "While the use of force was a last option, we recognized that it might be necessary and were planning accordingly," Mr. Jones said.

"The public record at the time, including numerous statements by the President, makes clear that the administration was continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution into 2003," he said. "Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply, but he chose continued defiance, even after being given one final opportunity to comply or face serious consequences. Our public and private comments are fully consistent."

The January 2003 memo is the latest in a series of secret memos produced by top aides to Mr. Blair that summarize private discussions between the president and the prime minister. Another group of British memos, including the so-called Downing Street memo written in July 2002, showed that some senior British officials had been concerned that the United States was determined to invade Iraq, and that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.

The latest memo is striking in its characterization of frank, almost casual, conversation by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair about the most serious subjects. At one point, the leaders swapped ideas for a postwar Iraqi government. "As for the future government of Iraq, people would find it very odd if we handed it over to another dictator," the prime minister is quoted as saying.

"Bush agreed," Mr. Manning wrote. This exchange, like most of the quotations in this article, have not been previously reported.

Mr. Bush was accompanied at the meeting by Condoleezza Rice, who was then the national security adviser; Dan Fried, a senior aide to Ms. Rice; and Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff. Along with Mr. Manning, Mr. Blair was joined by two other senior aides: Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, and Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide and the author of the Downing Street memo.

By late January 2003, United Nations inspectors had spent six weeks in Iraq hunting for weapons under the auspices of Security Council Resolution 1441, which authorized "serious consequences" if Iraq voluntarily failed to disarm. Led by Hans Blix, the inspectors had reported little cooperation from Mr. Hussein, and no success finding any unconventional weapons.

At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. The president spoke as if an invasion was unavoidable. The two leaders discussed a timetable for the war, details of the military campaign and plans for the aftermath of the war.

Discussing Provocation

Without much elaboration, the memo also says the president raised three possible ways of provoking a confrontation. Since they were first reported last month, neither the White House nor the British government has discussed them.

"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

It also described the president as saying, "The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam's W.M.D," referring to weapons of mass destruction.

A brief clause in the memo refers to a third possibility, mentioned by Mr. Bush, a proposal to assassinate Saddam Hussein. The memo does not indicate how Mr. Blair responded to the idea.

Mr. Sands first reported the proposals in his book, although he did not use any direct quotations from the memo. He is a professor of international law at University College of London and the founding member of the Matrix law office in London, where the prime minister's wife, Cherie Blair, is a partner.

Mr. Jones, the National Security Council spokesman, declined to discuss the proposals, saying, "We are not going to get into discussing private discussions of the two leaders."

At several points during the meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, there was palpable tension over finding a legitimate legal trigger for going to war that would be acceptable to other nations, the memo said. The prime minister was quoted as saying it was essential for both countries to lobby for a second United Nations resolution against Iraq, because it would serve as "an insurance policy against the unexpected."

The memo said Mr. Blair told Mr. Bush, "If anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning the oil wells, killing children or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq, a second resolution would give us international cover, especially with the Arabs."

Running Out of Time

Mr. Bush agreed that the two countries should attempt to get a second resolution, but he added that time was running out. "The U.S. would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would twist arms and even threaten," Mr. Bush was paraphrased in the memo as saying.

The document added, "But he had to say that if we ultimately failed, military action would follow anyway."

The leaders agreed that three weeks remained to obtain a second United Nations Security Council resolution before military commanders would need to begin preparing for an invasion.

Summarizing statements by the president, the memo says: "The air campaign would probably last four days, during which some 1,500 targets would be hit. Great care would be taken to avoid hitting innocent civilians. Bush thought the impact of the air onslaught would ensure the early collapse of Saddam's regime. Given this military timetable, we needed to go for a second resolution as soon as possible. This probably meant after Blix's next report to the Security Council in mid-February."

Mr. Blair was described as responding that both countries would make clear that a second resolution amounted to "Saddam's final opportunity." The memo described Mr. Blair as saying: "We had been very patient. Now we should be saying that the crisis must be resolved in weeks, not months."

It reported: "Bush agreed. He commented that he was not itching to go to war, but we could not allow Saddam to go on playing with us. At some point, probably when we had passed the second resolutions — assuming we did — we should warn Saddam that he had a week to leave. We should notify the media too. We would then have a clear field if Saddam refused to go."

Mr. Bush devoted much of the meeting to outlining the military strategy. The president, the memo says, said the planned air campaign "would destroy Saddam's command and control quickly." It also said that he expected Iraq's army to "fold very quickly." He also is reported as telling the prime minister that the Republican Guard would be "decimated by the bombing."

Despite his optimism, Mr. Bush said he was aware that "there were uncertainties and risks," the memo says, and it goes on, "As far as destroying the oil wells were concerned, the U.S. was well equipped to repair them quickly, although this would be easier in the south of Iraq than in the north."

The two men briefly discussed plans for a post-Hussein Iraqi government. "The prime minister asked about aftermath planning," the memo says. "Condi Rice said that a great deal of work was now in hand.

Referring to the Defense Department, it said: "A planning cell in D.O.D. was looking at all aspects and would deploy to Iraq to direct operations as soon as the military action was over. Bush said that a great deal of detailed planning had been done on supplying the Iraqi people with food and medicine."

Planning for After the War

The leaders then looked beyond the war, imagining the transition from Mr. Hussein's rule to a new government. Immediately after the war, a military occupation would be put in place for an unknown period of time, the president was described as saying. He spoke of the "dilemma of managing the transition to the civil administration," the memo says.

The document concludes with Mr. Manning still holding out a last-minute hope of inspectors finding weapons in Iraq, or even Mr. Hussein voluntarily leaving Iraq. But Mr. Manning wrote that he was concerned this could not be accomplished by Mr. Bush's timeline for war.

"This makes the timing very tight," he wrote. "We therefore need to stay closely alongside Blix, do all we can to help the inspectors make a significant find, and work hard on the other members of the Security Council to accept the noncooperation case so that we can secure the minimum nine votes when we need them, probably the end of February."

At a White House news conference following the closed-door session, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair said "the crisis" had to be resolved in a timely manner. "Saddam Hussein is not disarming," the president told reporters. "He is a danger to the world. He must disarm. And that's why I have constantly said — and the prime minister has constantly said — this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months."

Despite intense lobbying by the United States and Britain, a second United Nations resolution was not obtained. The American-led military coalition invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, nine days after the target date set by the president on that late January day at the White House.

Doesn't that kind of contradict the title of the article?[/quote:7e9e8]You forgot to add the rest of the quote.."but we could not allow Saddam to go on playing with us. At some point, probably when we had passed the second resolutions — assuming we did — we should warn Saddam that he had a week to leave. We should notify the media too. We would then have a clear field if Saddam refused to go."

A controversial article none the less, wouldn't mind seeing someone try to rebuttal the argument presented in this article.

I think you can just copy and paste everything that was said from the thread were we discussed the DSM...

How many times are you going to say that? "We already talked about that, no need to talk more about it" That's esentially what you are saying..

Create your own new arguments and expand your views..the article says bush was planning to fly a plane painted in U.N colors over Iraq and wanted to tempt Hussein into launching a rocket at it..try to find something that goes against that..there is so much in that article that has not been discussed on this board, the DSM is only a small part we have actually discussed. Try making a claim WMD's were there. Political debates never get old, something always new is added to the debate.

only if new information is added, I don't think this article adds anything of worth to the argument, at least nothing that would make me change my mind. And I'm certainly not going to retype everything I've said before...

as for the plane, sure, that's kinda sketchy, but it's just part of all the other stuff that the DSM said, it doesn't show that Bush actually was fabricating anything, it just shows that he wanted the public to get behind the effort that he did or did not honestly feel was right. Of course, using a plane would have been a deceitful way to instigate public approval, but then again, he didn't actually do it, did he?

But it surely was a plan he may have used...and thinking of an idea such as that is very unethical, by my standards..Also he insisted he was going to invade Iraq even if the U.N inspectors found no nuclear weapons...and they didn't so he ended up invading Iraq with no serious justification, even though he inisited to the public that WMD's where actually there. But you see this one case of this Iraq general who wrote that controversial book stating that the weapons were moved to syria..however in a interview the general said he didn't see them being moved but rather talked to one of the pilots who flew them out..the general also said he had not seen the WMD'S during most of the 90's when he was in office. Also if everyone is to believe this case of moving WMD's why doesn't president bush use this as a example? Their must obviously be serious flaws in this mans case.

I find myself questioning why on earth Bush led his country into a war which day by day is media outlets find new evidence that his administration deceitfully led the public to a war which they said would last only a short while and there would be no insurgency among other things..I know a good cause comes along with this war, but good causes can from other ways rather than war. Bush's ultimate goal in this war was to democratize the middle east. In 2005 there were incidents in the middle east that made it seem as if his plan was working - the whole Cedar Revolution in beirut, and the elections in egypt. But now that people are loosing faith and Bush is blaming the media for their coverage one must ask himself what causes come out of this disaster?

I can see what you mean, but saying that he would invade even if the UN didn't find weapons doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't care if they were there or not. We all know that the UN has weaknesses, and their investigatory skills aren't exactly superb. Saying he would invade despite the UN not finding anything only means that he had more faith in the intelligence gathered independently from the UN than what the evidence that the UN could give him. Whether or not that intelligence was reliable is an issue that needs to be solved with our intelligence agencies, but I beleive he made that decision based on what he thought was accurate, and he isn't the only president that has done so, JFK was close to destroying the world based on innaccurate information, but luckily, he had someone in his cabinet that had accurate information.

However, I will admit, the painting the plane and trying to get it shot at is something I would never support and it makes me angry to know it was even thought of.

rock:

why do you make such a big deal over the plane incident. Nothing was done. I do no support that decision though. But I dont see how you can be all uptight over something that hasn't happened. Things are said and conversed between groups. During the process you have information being traded and that weighs out the ideas of the situation for the good.

It shows the extremes he MAY have gone to.

what about the amount of Iraqis that also made it seem Bushs plan was working by voting?
Are you saying that it's only a "good cause" if achieving it is all plain sailing, but now a largely non-iraqi
insurgency disagrees, and starts blowing up market places and mosques then it's a bad cause?

[quote="Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Jordanian head of al-Qaida in Iraq":fa56d]"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology.
Anyone who tries to help set up this system is part of it". He also made it clear that al-Qaida opposes elections
in Iraq because they will result in a Shi'a-dominated government.
He alleged that "the Shiites aim to begin spreading their evil faith among people through money and fear."[/quote:fa56d]

but then why didn't you care so much about what Saddam MAY have done by not letting UN inspectors in?

Inspectors did go..

Also eight ace the Iraqis love their freedom I'm sure they do..but how many can enjoy it on a day to day basis when shit is blowing up all over the country and death squads are kidnapping people, cutting off their heads and dumping on the side of the highway..not to mention barely any electricity and water.

Here is the author who uncovered the whole DSM thing in his book last year..

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hardball-Sands3.wmv

This just in from Washington DC:
Breaking news. . .


In an attempt to thwart the spread of bird flu,

George W. Bush has bombed the Canary Islands.

biggrin: omfg...I can only wonder how this is being recieved in Turkey... loney:

oOo:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/ ... 7749.shtml

Rather than making a new thread.

I agree with all of your views Machette...we seem to have alot of Bush lovers here; makes no sense.

Well its the internet the majority of bush lovers here doesnt display the overall opinion of the people, Bush is at a all time low in his approval rating..33% last I checked. Presidential historians are labelling him as the worst president ever, a fully deserved label. Can't see why anyone sees a shed of intelligence in the man.

Glad you hold him in high regard, seems you are a part of the minority.

[quote="TGB!":4b3cc][quote:4b3cc]Inspectors did go.. [/quote:4b3cc]

And were kicked out, and not allowed to interview Iraqi scientists without the aid of a finder.

[quote:4b3cc]but how many can enjoy it on a day to day basis when shit is blowing up all over the country and death squads are kidnapping people[/quote:4b3cc]

Sans the "blowing up" - sounds alot like what Blacks had to go through post-Civil War. Somehow - we survived.

[quote:4b3cc] Presidential historians are labelling him as the worst president ever[/quote:4b3cc]

Worse than dumping the country into civil war?

Worse than attempting to supercede congress and the supreme court with Presidential powers?

Worse than "allowing" Pearl Habor to happen, and presiding over the worst economic depression in American history?

Worse than bombing hundreds of THOUSANDS of japanese civilians because you dont want to deal with the possibility of more American casualties?

Worse than allowing a covert military operation to take place in Cuba - and then not providing enough military support?

Worse than allowing Vietnam to happen? (that would be three presidents in there).

Worse than breaking into private property and attempting to smear your political enemies?

Worse than presiding over a gas SHORTAGE?

Worse than selling weapons to rebel Iranian fighters?

Worse than lying to a federal grand jury?

Worse than dismissing an entire agency of the WH and allowing your wife to staff it with friends?

Worse than selling off positions in the Commerce dept. to Chinese spies?

Oh yea, presiding over 9/11 and the resulting economic downturn AND upturn, as well as two successful military campaigns in the middle east as well as forcing pressure on Iran and the UN - sure sounds to me like a great and collosal fuck up.[/quote:4b3cc]


+1


GWB for the win!!!

Also are you saying that it's a long standing tradition that american presidents do something illegal? So it's generally okay for GWB to do the things he has done because of historic precedent ..eek:

Sounds like the argument Alberto Gonzales used to justify the NSA wiretapping program which goes against the constitution..

Oh I forgot about being in a state of war, Bush has the authorization to do just about anything..You forgot to tell me. oOo:

I'm sorry I don't share the view you entail. And saying I follow the public opinion is wrong. I opposed Bush long before public opinion was changing.

Also the reason the NSA case isn't brought in congress (it has, briefly) is because the government won't release anything about the program. And as the whistle blower who broke spoke to the NYT said the program is widespread..who is to say someone calling from Dubai to call his family in America isn't being wire tapped? How does the NSA know who is and who isn't a terrorist..

Experts like John Yoo? rolleyes:

The State Department's chief legal adviser at the time called his analysis of the Geneva Conventions "seriously flawed." Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote, in a critique of administration views espoused by Yoo, "a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens."

"The idea that . . . Congress has no authority to impose limits on torture has little support in constitutional texts or history, or legal precedent," said University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein.

From washingtonpost.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=32668

Best line "Yet by all accounts, Yoo had a hand in virtually every major legal decision involving the U.S. response to the attacks of September 11, and at every point, so far as we know, his advice was virtually always the same -- the president can do whatever the president wants."

"According to this view, Congress's foreign affairs authority is largely limited to enacting domestic legislation and appropriating money. In other words, when it comes to foreign affairs, the president exercises unilateral authority largely unchecked by law -- constitutional or international."

It's not a issue of illegality it is a issue of CHANGING the law to further justfiy actions.

Also a lenghty piece by the Nation.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060501/holmes/6

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... G01E31.DTL
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/anal ... 18memo.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6732484/site/newsweek/