The Blair Memo Project
(via Salon.com)
This has been big news in the UK. It's not clear to me if this is being ignored here or just not picked up yet. I fear it's the former; I'm hoping for the latter. Or is it that everyone realized the WMD excuse for the war was and remains ridiculous so that there's no need to discuss it any more?
Anyway, this is a memo about a meeting on July 23, 2002 - well before the war started. Among the government official present were Prime Minister Tony Blair and his foreign minister Jack Straw as well as intelligence and military chiefs.
From the memo:
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.
If this memo is correct, it contradicts subsequent claims by the Bush administration that no decision had been made about the war. There have been many reports that the Bush administration had decided on war in advance. This seems to me to be the most damning (and the highest level) report so far.
Then there's this:
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.
It seems clear to me that they're talking about manufacturing a reason to go to war.
The Sunday Times article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592904,00.html
The memo:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
Will there be claims of liberal bias against the Times? It's a Murdoch newspaper, so the right wing ought be believe the Times is "fair and balanced".
This has been big news in the UK. It's not clear to me if this is being ignored here or just not picked up yet. I fear it's the former; I'm hoping for the latter. Or is it that everyone realized the WMD excuse for the war was and remains ridiculous so that there's no need to discuss it any more?
Anyway, this is a memo about a meeting on July 23, 2002 - well before the war started. Among the government official present were Prime Minister Tony Blair and his foreign minister Jack Straw as well as intelligence and military chiefs.
From the memo:
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.
If this memo is correct, it contradicts subsequent claims by the Bush administration that no decision had been made about the war. There have been many reports that the Bush administration had decided on war in advance. This seems to me to be the most damning (and the highest level) report so far.
Then there's this:
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.
It seems clear to me that they're talking about manufacturing a reason to go to war.
The Sunday Times article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1592904,00.html
The memo:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html
Will there be claims of liberal bias against the Times? It's a Murdoch newspaper, so the right wing ought be believe the Times is "fair and balanced".
