General discussion

First, you determine your objective

Mar 27, 2006 7:36PM 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

Follow
Reply to: First, you determine your objective
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: 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.
Comments
- Collapse -
Nothing new and revealing at all
Mar 27, 2006 8:08PM 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
Mar 27, 2006 9:19PM 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
Mar 27, 2006 9:27PM PST
"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
Mar 27, 2006 9:43PM 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
Mar 27, 2006 10:32PM PST

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 ...
Mar 27, 2006 9:32PM PST

... 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?
Mar 27, 2006 9:55PM 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
Mar 27, 2006 10:25PM PST
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
Mar 27, 2006 10:37PM 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
Mar 27, 2006 10:41PM PST
- Collapse -
Two points
Mar 27, 2006 9:46PM PST

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
Mar 27, 2006 10:00PM PST

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

WHEN did President Bush ever say that?

- Collapse -
Reading impaired again?
Mar 27, 2006 10:04PM PST

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

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Carry On.
Mar 27, 2006 10:22PM PST
- Collapse -
I can't help but wonder...
Mar 28, 2006 1:38AM PST

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
Mar 28, 2006 1:54AM PST
- Collapse -
Surprise !!! You're wrong again
Mar 27, 2006 9:37PM 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
Mar 27, 2006 9:45PM 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...
Mar 27, 2006 10:01PM PST

I won't shed a tear.

CNET Forums

Forum Info