More Gw2 Revelations...
Thread Starter
More Gw2 Revelations...
From today's Sunday Times:
June 12, 2005
Ministers were told of need for Gulf war ‘excuse’ - Michael Smith
MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.
The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.
The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.
This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.
“US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia,” the briefing paper warned. This meant that issues of legality “would arise virtually whatever option ministers choose with regard to UK participation”.
The paper was circulated to those present at the meeting, among whom were Blair, Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of MI6. The full minutes of the meeting were published last month in The Sunday Times.
The document said the only way the allies could justify military action was to place Saddam Hussein in a position where he ignored or rejected a United Nations ultimatum ordering him to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. But it warned this would be difficult.
“It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject,” the document says. But if he accepted it and did not attack the allies, they would be “most unlikely” to obtain the legal justification they needed.
The suggestions that the allies use the UN to justify war contradicts claims by Blair and Bush, repeated during their Washington summit last week, that they turned to the UN in order to avoid having to go to war. The attack on Iraq finally began in March 2003.
The briefing paper is certain to add to the pressure, particularly on the American president, because of the damaging revelation that Bush and Blair agreed on regime change in April 2002 and then looked for a way to justify it.
There has been a growing storm of protest in America, created by last month’s publication of the minutes in The Sunday Times. A host of citizens, including many internet bloggers, have demanded to know why the Downing Street memo (often shortened to “the DSM” on websites) has been largely ignored by the US mainstream media.
The White House has declined to respond to a letter from 89 Democratic congressmen asking if it was true — as Dearlove told the July meeting — that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” in Washington.
The Downing Street memo burst into the mainstream American media only last week after it was raised at a joint Bush-Blair press conference, forcing the prime minister to insist that “the facts were not fixed in any shape or form at all”.
John Conyers, the Democratic congressman who drafted the letter to Bush, has now written to Dearlove asking him to say whether or not it was accurate that he believed the intelligence was being “fixed” around the policy. He also asked the former MI6 chief precisely when Bush and Blair had agreed to invade Iraq and whether it is true they agreed to “manufacture” the UN ultimatum in order to justify the war.
He and other Democratic congressmen plan to hold their own inquiry this Thursday with witnesses including Joe Wilson, the American former ambassador who went to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium ore for its nuclear weapons programme.
Frustrated at the refusal by the White House to respond to their letter, the congressmen have set up a website — www.downingstreetmemo.com — to collect signatures on a petition demanding the same answers.
Conyers promised to deliver it to Bush once it reached 250,000 signatures. By Friday morning it already had more than 500,000 with as many as 1m expected to have been obtained when he delivers it to the White House on Thursday.
After DowningStreet.org , another website set up as a result of the memo, is calling for a congressional committee to consider whether Bush’s actions as depicted in the memo constitute grounds for impeachment.
It has been flooded with visits from people angry at what they see as media self-censorship in ignoring the memo. It claims to have attracted more than 1m hits a day.
Democrats.com, another website, even offered $1,000 (about £550) to any journalist who quizzed Bush about the memo’s contents, although the Reuters reporter who asked the question last Tuesday was not aware of the reward and has no intention of claiming it.
The complaints of media self-censorship have been backed up by the ombudsmen of The Washington Post, The New York Times and National Public Radio, who have questioned the lack of attention the minutes have received from their organisations.
It's clear that the Bush-bum licking poodle Bliar and his gang of slimy cronies may have a lot more to answer for - much as it might inconvenience them to have to, they might be obliged to tell the truth for once.
June 12, 2005
Ministers were told of need for Gulf war ‘excuse’ - Michael Smith
MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.
The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.
The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.
This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.
“US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia,” the briefing paper warned. This meant that issues of legality “would arise virtually whatever option ministers choose with regard to UK participation”.
The paper was circulated to those present at the meeting, among whom were Blair, Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of MI6. The full minutes of the meeting were published last month in The Sunday Times.
The document said the only way the allies could justify military action was to place Saddam Hussein in a position where he ignored or rejected a United Nations ultimatum ordering him to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. But it warned this would be difficult.
“It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject,” the document says. But if he accepted it and did not attack the allies, they would be “most unlikely” to obtain the legal justification they needed.
The suggestions that the allies use the UN to justify war contradicts claims by Blair and Bush, repeated during their Washington summit last week, that they turned to the UN in order to avoid having to go to war. The attack on Iraq finally began in March 2003.
The briefing paper is certain to add to the pressure, particularly on the American president, because of the damaging revelation that Bush and Blair agreed on regime change in April 2002 and then looked for a way to justify it.
There has been a growing storm of protest in America, created by last month’s publication of the minutes in The Sunday Times. A host of citizens, including many internet bloggers, have demanded to know why the Downing Street memo (often shortened to “the DSM” on websites) has been largely ignored by the US mainstream media.
The White House has declined to respond to a letter from 89 Democratic congressmen asking if it was true — as Dearlove told the July meeting — that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” in Washington.
The Downing Street memo burst into the mainstream American media only last week after it was raised at a joint Bush-Blair press conference, forcing the prime minister to insist that “the facts were not fixed in any shape or form at all”.
John Conyers, the Democratic congressman who drafted the letter to Bush, has now written to Dearlove asking him to say whether or not it was accurate that he believed the intelligence was being “fixed” around the policy. He also asked the former MI6 chief precisely when Bush and Blair had agreed to invade Iraq and whether it is true they agreed to “manufacture” the UN ultimatum in order to justify the war.
He and other Democratic congressmen plan to hold their own inquiry this Thursday with witnesses including Joe Wilson, the American former ambassador who went to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium ore for its nuclear weapons programme.
Frustrated at the refusal by the White House to respond to their letter, the congressmen have set up a website — www.downingstreetmemo.com — to collect signatures on a petition demanding the same answers.
Conyers promised to deliver it to Bush once it reached 250,000 signatures. By Friday morning it already had more than 500,000 with as many as 1m expected to have been obtained when he delivers it to the White House on Thursday.
After DowningStreet.org , another website set up as a result of the memo, is calling for a congressional committee to consider whether Bush’s actions as depicted in the memo constitute grounds for impeachment.
It has been flooded with visits from people angry at what they see as media self-censorship in ignoring the memo. It claims to have attracted more than 1m hits a day.
Democrats.com, another website, even offered $1,000 (about £550) to any journalist who quizzed Bush about the memo’s contents, although the Reuters reporter who asked the question last Tuesday was not aware of the reward and has no intention of claiming it.
The complaints of media self-censorship have been backed up by the ombudsmen of The Washington Post, The New York Times and National Public Radio, who have questioned the lack of attention the minutes have received from their organisations.
It's clear that the Bush-bum licking poodle Bliar and his gang of slimy cronies may have a lot more to answer for - much as it might inconvenience them to have to, they might be obliged to tell the truth for once.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another 'scoop' that turns out to be a 'ho-hum' story. The fact that the Democrat party crops up so frequently in the article should give some idea of it's impartiality. Face it, the war was legal - Saddam wasn't 'forced' to do anything, he chose to break UNSCR 678 and 687, if you don't like it challenge it through the courts - Seems like some posters will clutch at any straw to support their Anti-Labour views
What next? Britain 'forced' Germany to violate Belgium’s neutrality and thus are responsible for the First World War?
What next? Britain 'forced' Germany to violate Belgium’s neutrality and thus are responsible for the First World War?
Maple if for one second you think that invading Iraq was legal then the very best of luck to you mate. May you grow old at leisure, have a great many children and die in a comfortable warm bed, surrounded by your loved ones.
I just hope its before the biggest liar in British political history totally destroys the Country I have been proud to serve.
As for dragging up history, well where should we start......who was who said something about "those that forget history have a habit............." Perhaps the said liar should have listened first.
I just hope its before the biggest liar in British political history totally destroys the Country I have been proud to serve.
As for dragging up history, well where should we start......who was who said something about "those that forget history have a habit............." Perhaps the said liar should have listened first.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the very best to you too Mostafa,
I too have a few years working for HM in some odd locations, strangely I've always been able to cope with the innate conservativism and Conservativism of the UK armed forces and its inability to see further than "Socialists = Communists", "Tory party right or wrong" (sweeping gener
However,
It's rather bizarre - I remember Republicans failing to back Clinton over Kosovo because he was
1. A Democrat
2. Bill Clinton
The Democrats rightly pointed out this partisanship
But then protested GW2 on the grounds the George W was
1. A Republican
2. George W Bush
I remember Tony Blair getting a slating over Kosovo and GW2, whilst the same people thought GW1 was OK because it was a 'Conservative' war.
What has been even odder is the Tory supporters aligning themselves with anyone including CND and the usual leftie rent-a-mob
Now if you can point to the part in the UNSCRs that say Saddam didn't have to comply with the ceasefire terms you might have an argument
Tony Blair destroying the country? Were you asleep during the Thatcher years?
I too have a few years working for HM in some odd locations, strangely I've always been able to cope with the innate conservativism and Conservativism of the UK armed forces and its inability to see further than "Socialists = Communists", "Tory party right or wrong" (sweeping gener
However,
It's rather bizarre - I remember Republicans failing to back Clinton over Kosovo because he was
1. A Democrat
2. Bill Clinton
The Democrats rightly pointed out this partisanship
But then protested GW2 on the grounds the George W was
1. A Republican
2. George W Bush
I remember Tony Blair getting a slating over Kosovo and GW2, whilst the same people thought GW1 was OK because it was a 'Conservative' war.
What has been even odder is the Tory supporters aligning themselves with anyone including CND and the usual leftie rent-a-mob
Now if you can point to the part in the UNSCRs that say Saddam didn't have to comply with the ceasefire terms you might have an argument
Tony Blair destroying the country? Were you asleep during the Thatcher years?
Thread Starter
Whilst I don't give a stuff about which bunch of spams is driving the US, and agree that the Thatcher-greed era wasn't our finest, the spin and lies of the Bliar gang over Iraq is, quite simply, appalling.
I understood why we went in to GW1 to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, I even understood all those come-as-you-are-I'm-having-a-war times preventing murderous gangs of inbred Balkan thugs from killing eachother over claims to uninhabitable bits of goat crap bespattered mountains - but when it came to justification for GW2, I was at a loss to identify any clear and present danger, threat or anything other than the ambitions of a dimwitted Texan to "Finish wha' my pappy don' bin' startin'..."
Bliar might hope that people will stop questioning his eagerness to participate in GW2. But they won't....
I understood why we went in to GW1 to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, I even understood all those come-as-you-are-I'm-having-a-war times preventing murderous gangs of inbred Balkan thugs from killing eachother over claims to uninhabitable bits of goat crap bespattered mountains - but when it came to justification for GW2, I was at a loss to identify any clear and present danger, threat or anything other than the ambitions of a dimwitted Texan to "Finish wha' my pappy don' bin' startin'..."
Bliar might hope that people will stop questioning his eagerness to participate in GW2. But they won't....
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Agree with Beagle 100%, I never doubted the management throughout my career, but GW2 changed all that. If he had been honest and said 'we need regime change', I would have supported to the end, but mmmmmmmmmm......
Jay,
For some reason...I doubt that statement. The Boss blew the Bugle....the Troops rally forth. That is the way it is. We Americans have doubted our leadership since Vietnam....and rightfully so....it was a Democrat that got us into and kept us in that morass until a Republican got us out of it. Several million people died after we left.....there is a penalty to be paid for not finishing the job when you get into these things.
I love BEagle saying we had to throw him out of Kuwait.....let me get this straight....we restored democracy to a kingdom? I recall Bush the Daddy say that once and almost bugled myself....sans the horn.
We fought Gulf 1 because we feared the Iraqi's were going to go into Saudi and corner darn near one third of the world's oil.
We fought Gulf 2 for other reasons....to say it was illegal is wrong. The UN Resolutions were and are still in place until the new government is in charge of the affairs of Iraq and the UN removes those sanctions and ends the Resolutions.
We left Korea undone....see where that has gotten us.
Just like in the old days....wars need to be fought to a conclusion....one side wins...one side loses....and is destroyed utterly in its ability to resist.
Very few of us totally support the war....or agreed with all of the reasons given. The Truth is one of the first victims of war....nothing new there.
If you care to check it...this is not a war in reality. No rationing, no national mobilzations, no conscriptions, no conversion of national industries to war time production of weapons.....nasty scene but not a "WAR".
That is one of the mistakes we continue to make....we are at "war"...the one against Terrorism....but we have not mobilized our populations to support the war. That is a worrisome thing....we cannot afford to lose this fight....if the terrorists are ever successful in striking us with a weapon of WMD.....you will see mobilzation but it will be tragically late.
For some reason...I doubt that statement. The Boss blew the Bugle....the Troops rally forth. That is the way it is. We Americans have doubted our leadership since Vietnam....and rightfully so....it was a Democrat that got us into and kept us in that morass until a Republican got us out of it. Several million people died after we left.....there is a penalty to be paid for not finishing the job when you get into these things.
I love BEagle saying we had to throw him out of Kuwait.....let me get this straight....we restored democracy to a kingdom? I recall Bush the Daddy say that once and almost bugled myself....sans the horn.
We fought Gulf 1 because we feared the Iraqi's were going to go into Saudi and corner darn near one third of the world's oil.
We fought Gulf 2 for other reasons....to say it was illegal is wrong. The UN Resolutions were and are still in place until the new government is in charge of the affairs of Iraq and the UN removes those sanctions and ends the Resolutions.
We left Korea undone....see where that has gotten us.
Just like in the old days....wars need to be fought to a conclusion....one side wins...one side loses....and is destroyed utterly in its ability to resist.
Very few of us totally support the war....or agreed with all of the reasons given. The Truth is one of the first victims of war....nothing new there.
If you care to check it...this is not a war in reality. No rationing, no national mobilzations, no conscriptions, no conversion of national industries to war time production of weapons.....nasty scene but not a "WAR".
That is one of the mistakes we continue to make....we are at "war"...the one against Terrorism....but we have not mobilized our populations to support the war. That is a worrisome thing....we cannot afford to lose this fight....if the terrorists are ever successful in striking us with a weapon of WMD.....you will see mobilzation but it will be tragically late.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Please do not misunderstand how a lot of us feel. Ask me the question: Was it right to oust Saddam? My answer would be, Yes, absolutely the right thing, lets roll!
My gripe is that (in my opinion) we were given dubious information (lies?) by our leadership. This political integrity is not good enough for me.
I left last year, but my approach to military service is that you do as you are told, even if you dont like it. If not..... leave.
I (maybe foolishly) believe that people will respect politicians more if they told the truth, good and bad.
My gripe is that (in my opinion) we were given dubious information (lies?) by our leadership. This political integrity is not good enough for me.
I left last year, but my approach to military service is that you do as you are told, even if you dont like it. If not..... leave.
I (maybe foolishly) believe that people will respect politicians more if they told the truth, good and bad.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I handed my kit back in the wake of the Hutton Inquiry - it took me a year to get out!
I respect the "regime change" argument even though I disagree with it. What was unforgivable was the deceit employed to get Bliar and Dubya their war.
I would not support Bliar ever again, in any event. He lied over that most serious of ventures - going to war. Many people have died as a result. Bliar can never be forgiven, no matter what the outcome in Iraq - and it doesn't look particularly good.
I respect the "regime change" argument even though I disagree with it. What was unforgivable was the deceit employed to get Bliar and Dubya their war.
I would not support Bliar ever again, in any event. He lied over that most serious of ventures - going to war. Many people have died as a result. Bliar can never be forgiven, no matter what the outcome in Iraq - and it doesn't look particularly good.
SASLess,
"Bosses blowing bugles......" I remain unconvinced pal.
Absolutely nothing personal but I've spent a lifetime fighting terrorism. Please dont think I am some sort of defeatist, I am not but you cannot fight terrorism by going into a war on more than dodgy mandate. If you believe its right to support another Country then fine make your argument.
You cannot tell the people that you represent a downright lie because you know they will not support your actions if you tell the truth.
You most certainly cannot expect the Armed Forces of the country that you represent to support your actions knowing your motivation to be a downright lie. If you do, you do not deserve their support.
A Tom, (Private Soldier) could tell you that you only make more terrorists by doing it that way! Sadly, the old adage "fighting for freedom" and "virginity" springs to mind.
Its pointless to try and compare Iraq with anything else thats gone before and even more pointless to try and condone it by saying it should have been sorted out then.
Sorry pal patriotism will never justify it to me.
I remain convinced that if Mr Blair "blew his bugle" and said follow me he would be a lonely chap, as he seems today.
"Bosses blowing bugles......" I remain unconvinced pal.
Absolutely nothing personal but I've spent a lifetime fighting terrorism. Please dont think I am some sort of defeatist, I am not but you cannot fight terrorism by going into a war on more than dodgy mandate. If you believe its right to support another Country then fine make your argument.
You cannot tell the people that you represent a downright lie because you know they will not support your actions if you tell the truth.
You most certainly cannot expect the Armed Forces of the country that you represent to support your actions knowing your motivation to be a downright lie. If you do, you do not deserve their support.
A Tom, (Private Soldier) could tell you that you only make more terrorists by doing it that way! Sadly, the old adage "fighting for freedom" and "virginity" springs to mind.
Its pointless to try and compare Iraq with anything else thats gone before and even more pointless to try and condone it by saying it should have been sorted out then.
Sorry pal patriotism will never justify it to me.
I remain convinced that if Mr Blair "blew his bugle" and said follow me he would be a lonely chap, as he seems today.
How does Blair stay in office? Under your system it is a lot easier to shift the boss than in our system where shy of an assasination or impeachment....we have the guy for a period of four years.
If he is all that bad....how does he stay in office....someone must think something of him. Winston got the heave-ho quickly enough after WWII as i recall and he was a Hero.
If he is all that bad....how does he stay in office....someone must think something of him. Winston got the heave-ho quickly enough after WWII as i recall and he was a Hero.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again for those that still don't get it.
With the opening up of three party politics in the UK there is very little chance of any political party getting 50% of the popular vote. Also let's examine your statement
67% didn't vote for Howard
78% didn't vote for Kennedy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...es/default.stm
So what does your figure prove other than the majority of those who voted voted for Blair?
I know die-hard Conservatives have little else to beat him with but siding with the loony left over that war Howard supported?
With the opening up of three party politics in the UK there is very little chance of any political party getting 50% of the popular vote. Also let's examine your statement
64% of the vote wasn't for him
67% didn't vote for Howard
78% didn't vote for Kennedy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...es/default.stm
So what does your figure prove other than the majority of those who voted voted for Blair?
I know die-hard Conservatives have little else to beat him with but siding with the loony left over that war Howard supported?
You been waiting for that maple! Promise I wont use statistics again and I cant be bothered with the politcs of it all.
Blair is still a downright liar and he can take me to court if he wants.
Blair is still a downright liar and he can take me to court if he wants.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So another thread descends into an 'I don't like Tony Blair fest' by frustrated Tories - all well and good if you like that sort of thing - but the nation needs a genuinely electable and effective opposition - perhaps they could get their house in order first before their supporters go into 'rotweiler' mode
But how impartial does that make your complaints about GWII?
BTW I didn't vote for him- still think he was right though
But how impartial does that make your complaints about GWII?
BTW I didn't vote for him- still think he was right though
Go back to the 3rd post and see which pompous ar*e started it. I have never claimed to be impartial. I called Tony Blair a downright LIAR and stand by it. Cant see how you can misconstrue that as impartial.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to correct one misrepresentation of Ms Booth QC. She is a human rights lawyer. She is not particularly 'for' any minorities.
She appears for both sides of the argument, minorities or establishment, depending on who is paying her.
She appears for both sides of the argument, minorities or establishment, depending on who is paying her.
TAC Int Bloke
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pompous ar*e
Sorry, I thought you'd weighed up the evidence and come to your conclusion of the war's legality based of the facts, and were prepared to defend you position. I now realise that you are working on a ‘gut instinct' and hatred of Tony Blair, and are reduced to name calling when your views are challenged