Speakeasy forum

General discussion

First, you determine your objective

by JP Bill / March 27, 2006 7:36 PM PST

Then you make a plan how to get there.

Bush-Blair Iraq war memo revealed

The New York Times says it has seen a memo which shows that the US president was firmly set on the path to war two months before the 2003 Iraq invasion.

From private talks between George Bush and UK PM Tony Blair, the memo makes it clear the US was determined to go to war whether or not he had UN backing.

He is quoted discussing ways to provoke Saddam Hussein into a confrontation.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: First, you determine your objective
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: First, you determine your objective
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Nothing new and revealing at all
by Steven Haninger / March 27, 2006 8:08 PM PST

It would be a mistake to have given Saddam a deadline without already having a full attack plan at the ready...even well in advance...and have practiced it to the extent that it could be done so without revealing details. One does not threaten military action and then figure out how to accomplish it. GW had also made it known that full UN cooperation was desired but not an imperative in his decision making. Nothing is new in a story claiming that a memo was seen. Such reduces the piece to the credibility of the tabloids, IMO.

Collapse -
Response
by JP Bill / March 27, 2006 9:19 PM PST
One does not threaten military action and then figure out how to accomplish it.

You're correct.

Does one?

The US ''was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours'', Mr Bush said.

If Saddam fired on them, the Iraqis would be in breach of UN resolutions, he suggested


Do something, then say

''hey, he (Saddam) started it''
Collapse -
Again....the article says the memo was
by Steven Haninger / March 27, 2006 9:27 PM PST
In reply to: Response
"seen". It is not quoted or presented in it's entirety for individual interpretation. Thus, I will draw no conclusions as to whether or not the author is accurate. A mention of "thoughts" is not evidence of anything concrete. Of course GWB was "thinking". One should consider a number of options and determine which are viable. The article says nothing one can take to the bank...again, IMO.
Collapse -
Response
by JP Bill / March 27, 2006 9:43 PM PST
Why has 'Downing Street memo' story been a 'dud' in US?

Among other things, the memo said:

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 [National Security Council] had no patience with the UN route .... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. ...

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 neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

The memo's authenticity was not disputed by Blair's office.


He didn't say it was true, but he also didn't say it was false.
Collapse -
You are perfectly free to make your judgement of
by Steven Haninger / March 27, 2006 10:32 PM PST
In reply to: Response

the "accused" (GWB) without his testimony on the piece. Of course, we are expected to treat the worst of criminals better than that..are we not? Wink

Collapse -
The Iraqis had been shooting at ...
by Evie / March 27, 2006 9:32 PM PST
In reply to: Response

... US and British planes for years. I see nothing wrong with this tactic, if indeed discussed. It MIGHT have served to get the UN on board in earnest, but given how the French, Germans and Russians were in cahootz in one way or another with Saddam (Oil for Food, and now the new revelations about the Russians), it is doubtful.

Bush's biggest mistake in retrospect was bothering with the useless UN at all.

Two months? Sounds like ANYONE considering war should have had a plan in place well before that if anything! And I'm sure they did. Just wait until that memo comes out! LOL.

Collapse -
Re: Two months?
by JP Bill / March 27, 2006 9:55 PM 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.


Note date when meeting took place
Collapse -
From your ORIGINAL link
by Evie / March 27, 2006 10:25 PM PST
In reply to: Re: Two months?
The New York Times says it has seen a memo which shows that the US president was firmly set on the path to war two months before the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Collapse -
From your first response to me
by JP Bill / March 27, 2006 10:37 PM PST
Sounds like ANYONE considering war should have had a plan in place well before that if anything! And I'm sure they did.


So, President Bush used the time (from July 02 to March 03) to achieve his objective of removing Saddam.

His fate was sealed (in July 02). No matter what he did or didn't do.
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Just BS
by Evie / March 27, 2006 10:41 PM PST
Collapse -
Two points
by EdH / March 27, 2006 9:46 PM PST
In reply to: Response

Several times in the 90s Iraq fired missiles at or sent planes up to confront US and British planes patrolling the ''no fly'' zone. So there's no doubt who ''started it''. He was warned that these actions themselves constituted an act of war. What they were talking about was getting the UN to wake up.

By December 2002 there was hardly any doubt that we would be invading Iraq, in fact one of the debates was whether we should wait too long because the hot weather would set in and impede our troops. Is anyone surprised Bush and Blair were plotting their strategy?


NOTE: The memo indicates both leaders acknowledged it was possible no unconventional weapons would be found in Iraq before the invasion, the New York Times says.

Doesn't this contradict the claim that they KNEW Saddam didn't have WMD!

Collapse -
Re: Doesn't this contradict
by JP Bill / March 27, 2006 10:00 PM PST
In reply to: Two points

the claim that they KNEW Saddam didn't have WMD!

WHEN did President Bush ever say that?

Collapse -
Reading impaired again?
by EdH / March 27, 2006 10:04 PM PST

That's what the LIBERALS claim. Remember, Bush lied,blah blah blah...

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Carry On.
by JP Bill / March 27, 2006 10:22 PM PST
Collapse -
I can't help but wonder...
by J. Vega / March 28, 2006 1:38 AM PST
In reply to: Response

I can't help but wonder about 2 things. First, how many U-2s does the U.N. have? Second, considering its normal operating altitude, what type of fighter would be capable of tagging along to provide "cover".

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) The U2 flys high, not so fast
by duckman / March 28, 2006 1:54 AM PST
Collapse -
Surprise !!! You're wrong again
by duckman / March 27, 2006 9:37 PM PST

The decision to go to war was most likely made at least 6 months out because of logistics. What you always seem to overlook is NOTHING changed (based on the reasons for going in) in 2 months, 6 months or from 1998. The only thing that would have stopped us was Saddam opening up the gates and showing us what he had.

Collapse -
Reponse
by JP Bill / March 27, 2006 9:45 PM PST
The only thing that would have stopped us was Saddam opening up the gates and showing us what he had.

He could have opened up all the gates and jumped through all the hoops.

His fate was sealed.
Collapse -
Boo Hoo. Cry for poor Saddam...
by EdH / March 27, 2006 10:01 PM PST
In reply to: Reponse

I won't shed a tear.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

CNET FORUMS TOP DISCUSSION

Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?