20 total posts
Nothing new and revealing at all
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.
One does not threaten military action and then figure out how to accomplish it.
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''
Again....the article says the memo was
"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.
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.
You are perfectly free to make your judgement of
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?
The Iraqis had been shooting at ...
... 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.
Re: Two months?
The secret Downing Street memo
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
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
From your ORIGINAL link
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 your first response to me
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.
(NT) Just BS
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!
Re: Doesn't this contradict
the claim that they KNEW Saddam didn't have WMD!
WHEN did President Bush ever say that?
Reading impaired again?
That's what the LIBERALS claim. Remember, Bush lied,blah blah blah...
(NT) Carry On.
I can't help but wonder...
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".
(NT) The U2 flys high, not so fast
Surprise !!! You're wrong again
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.
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.
Boo Hoo. Cry for poor Saddam...