[Changleen]

Huh, so on the day of the general election in the UK, the London Times gets it's hands on this document which essentially shows the war in Iraq was a foregone conclusion. All the WMD crap was known to be lies from day one. Bush "had made up his mind to take military action" eight months prior to the invasion despite knowing "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

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)

Any last shred of credibility of both Bush and Blair is now gone. They are both warmongering, murdering liars of the highest order. 160,000 deaths can be laid unequivocally at their feet. Certain commentators in the UK are predicting this will be the end of Blair, but I have seen commentry in the US press that suggests it may not even be covered. If this is the case it will simply go to confirm the extent to which the US press in in the pocket of vested interests. This is proof of what many have suspected for a long time. Bush and Blair both deserve to be removed from power as soon as possible.

 

[gschuette]

The end of Blair eh? Did you happen to see who won the election?

 

[fluff]

The end of Blair eh? Did you happen to see who won the election?

By default and with a much reduced majority - the clearest realistic message the British electorate could send.

PS. Did you see what happened to Oona King?

 

[N8 v2.0]

By default and with a much reduced majority - the clearest realistic message the British electorate could send.

PS. Did you see what happened to Oona King?

What message is that? The "we're gonna re-elect you but with a much reduced majority message?"

Sounds effective.

 

[fluff]

What message is that? The "we're gonna re-elect you but with a much reduced majority message?"

Sounds effective.

Subtitles for the hard-of-thinking:

'We despise you, you lying bastard - but not as much as the other option, plus we like your expected successor so please resign asap.'

It's really not that hard N8, please try and keep up.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Subtitles for the hard-of-thinking:

'We despise you, you lying bastard - but not as much as the other option, plus we like your expected successor so please resign asap.'

It's really not that hard N8, please try and keep up.

That'll show 'em!

 

[fluff]

That'll show 'em!

Unlike the US we vote for a party, not the PM. Had it been a PM election only I doubt Tony would have won.

Oddly enough the Labour party is spiritually closer to your beloved 'Dims' than to the Republican party. Still, so long as you're happy.

 

[ohio]

Unlike the US we vote for a party, not the PM. Had it been a PM election only I doubt Tony would have won.

Oddly enough the Labour party is spiritually closer to your beloved 'Dims' than to the Republican party. Still, so long as you're happy.

You lost him at "Unlike the US..."

Give the man a break, he can't even understand OUR electoral processes, let alone those of some nation he's only heard about in Austin Powers films.

 

[blue]

You lost him at "Unlike the US..."

Give the man a break, he can't even understand OUR electoral processes, let alone those of some nation he's only heard about in Austin Powers films.

Effective election process? Why would we have one of those?

 

[Changleen]

$tinkle, N8? Any comment on this? The actual article I mean, and the actions of your beloved leader?

 

[steelewheels]

How is this news? Just the fact that the paper trail has finally cought up with with these war mongers... Is there anyway that W can be elected a thrid term? maybe fly some more planes in to a football game or some shlt and then cancel elections till further notice.
wow im sick of this shlt

we need a revolution! amoung other things...

 

[Changleen]

How is this news? Just the fact that the paper trail has finally cought up with with these war mongers... Is there anyway that W can be elected a thrid term? maybe fly some more planes in to a football game or some shlt and then cancel elections till further notice.
wow im sick of this shlt

we need a revolution! amoung other things...

Yes, Exactly. The paper trail has couaght up, and proved beyond resonable doubt that all the horse **** we were fed before the war was just that. GW or Bliar didn't give a **** about WMD or the Iraqi people or anything. They went in based on their own agenda of dominace and oil. They are revealed as worse than those they purport to be saving us from.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Yes, Exactly. The paper trail has couaght up, and proved beyond resonable doubt that all the horse **** we were fed before the war was just that. GW or Bliar didn't give a **** about WMD or the Iraqi people or anything. They went in based on their own agenda of dominace and oil. They are revealed as worse than those they purport to be saving us from.

I give this newz a "wow factor" of 0... and I think its time you changleened the tin-foil on your hat.

 

[Changleen]

I give this newz a "wow factor" of 0... and I think its time you changleened the tin-foil on your hat.

And yet still you support these c**ts. Ever thought what that says about you?

(Can't believe that c**t isn't on the auto-censor list!)

 

[fluff]

Oh, and btw, Labour (Blair's party) polled the lowest proportion of the popular vote for 100 years. The only reason that he remains in power is that we have a truly crap electoral system.

 

[Changleen]

Oh, and btw, Labour (Blair's party) polled the lowest proportion of the popular vote for 100 years. The only reason that he remains in power is that we have a truly crap electoral system.

And that the Torys are truly useless bastards, so much so that even the dregs of our population can recognise it.

 

[manimal]

just an honest question here.....

can anyone vouch for the validity of this document?

 

[Silver]

It's at least as valid as the stuff that led up to the Iraq invasion. That's my new standard of proof...

 

[manimal]

It's at least as valid as the stuff that led up to the Iraq invasion. That's my new standard of proof...

good point. it seems that both the anti and pro war folks will find some little factoid, or supposed factoid, and run with it to prove or disprove a point. i was just wondering how factual this document is. in this Tom Clancy world of government, it's nearly impossible to decipher the validity of anything that comes from the top.

 

[Silver]

I said it's AT LEAST as credible.

 

[Changleen]

just an honest question here.....

can anyone vouch for the validity of this document?

Yes. See the London Times. "..the memo has not been disavowed by the British government."

 

[manimal]

Yes. See the London Times. "..the memo has not been disavowed by the British government."

sorry, i can't read that paper w/out a translator. they use all those funny words like "tyre" and "colour" and "shoppe". friggin weirdos!

 

[$tinkle]

to be x-posted everywhere it's mentioned:

from the hard right wing news epicenter:

June 13, 2005
Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn't Made

WASHINGTON, June 12 - A memorandum written by Prime Minister Tony Blair's cabinet office in late July 2002 explicitly states that the Bush administration had made "no political decisions" to invade Iraq, but that American military planning for the possibility was advanced. The memo also said American planning, in the eyes of Mr. Blair's aides, was "virtually silent" on the problems of a postwar occupation.
.
.
.
Still, it is revealing about what was known - and assumed - at that time. After noting the risks of a lengthy postwar occupation, the memorandum says that "U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired endstate would be created, in particular what form of government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor."

</yawn>

 

[Changleen]

to be x-posted everywhere it's mentioned:

from the hard right wing news epicenter:</yawn>

Not that is some crappy spin. ink:

"How can we spin this so it doesn't look quite as bad as it obviously is?"

You repubs are so good at ignoring truth and facts it's not even funny. Hell, why don't you just get god to tell you it was OK to invade a sovereign nation and kill 100,000s based on a lie? I'm sure he or one of his earth-bound representatives will be more than up for it.

 

[Damn True]

Yes. See the London Times. "..the memo has not been disavowed by the British government."

Not exactly an unbiased source.

It is my understanding (if someone can show proof otherwise Id appreciate it) that the document was a secondhand account of the opinions of a mid-level staffer. There seems to be a lot of wiggle room in there.

 

[Changleen]

Not exactly an unbiased source.

It is my understanding (if someone can show proof otherwise Id appreciate it) that the document was a secondhand account of the opinions of a mid-level staffer. There seems to be a lot of wiggle room in there.

Private Secretary to the PM (Defence Issues) is slightly more than a mid-level staffer:
http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1106661056058

The memo is effectivly the minutes of the meeting.

 

[Damn True]

Thanks for the clarification, the press that I have seen/heard has been very vauge on the source of the memo.

 

[Changleen]

Thanks for the clarification, the press that I have seen/heard has been very vauge on the source of the memo.

No probs