British Intelligence Warned of Iraq War

jesse2005

New member
This verifies something that I suspected to be true all along, but I am curious as to the lack of public outcry (and the lack of media coverage) at its discovery.

I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this.

---
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051201857.html
---
British Intelligence Warned of Iraq War
Blair Was Told of White House's Determination to Use Military Against Hussein

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 13, 2005; Page A18

Seven months before the invasion of Iraq, the head of British foreign intelligence reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that President Bush wanted to topple Saddam Hussein by military action and warned that in Washington intelligence was "being fixed around the policy," according to notes of a July 23, 2002, meeting with Blair at No. 10 Downing Street.

"Military action was now seen as inevitable," said the notes, summarizing a report by Richard Dearlove, then head of MI6, British intelligence, who had just returned from consultations in Washington along with other senior British officials. Dearlove went on, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke with his country's intelligence chief about seven months before the Iraq invasion. Blair was advised that the threat from Saddam Hussein might have been overstated. (Pool Photo By Adrian Dennis)

"The case was thin," summarized the notes taken by a British national security aide at the meeting. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

The notes were first disclosed last week by the Sunday Times of London, triggering criticism of Blair on the eve of the May 5 British parliamentary elections that he had decided to support an invasion of Iraq well before informing the public of his views.

The notes of the Blair meeting, attended by the prime minister's senior national security team, also disclose for the first time that Britain's intelligence boss believed that Bush had decided to go to war in mid-2002, and that he believed U.S. policymakers were trying to use the limited intelligence they had to make the Iraqi leader appear to be a bigger threat than was supported by known facts.

Although critics of the Iraq war have accused Bush and his top aides of misusing what has since been shown as limited intelligence in the prewar period, Bush's critics have been unsuccessful in getting an investigation of that matter.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has dropped its previous plan to review how U.S. policymakers used Iraq intelligence, and the president's commission on intelligence did not look into the subject because it was not authorized to do so by its charter, Laurence H. Silberman, the co-chairman, told reporters last month.

The British Butler Commission, which last year reviewed that country's intelligence performance on Iraq, also studied how that material was used by the Blair government. The panel concluded that Blair's speeches and a published dossier on Iraq used language that left "the impression that there was fuller and firmer intelligence than was the case," according to the Butler report.

It described the July 23 meeting as coming at a "key stage" in preparation for taking action against Iraq but described it primarily as a session at which Blair favored reengagement of U.N. inspectors against a background of intelligence that Hussein would not accept them unless "the threat of military action were real."

During the July 2002 time frame, Bush was working to build support in the United States for a war against Hussein, while a U.S. base in Qatar was being expanded and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz was trying to get Turkey to assist in potential military action against the Iraqi leader.

A spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington said he would not comment on the substance of the document.

Blair's senior advisers at the July 2002 session decided they would prepare an "ultimatum" for Iraq to permit U.N. inspectors to return, despite being told that Bush's National Security Council, then headed by Condoleezza Rice, "had no patience with the U.N. route," according to the notes. "The prime minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors."

Although Dearlove reported that the NSC had "no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record," the Blair team soon set in motion preparation of the public dossier on Iraq, which was published in late September 2002.

Another piece of the British memo has relevance now, as the United States battles an insurgency that some say was exacerbated by faulty planning for the post-invasion period. "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action," the notes say, without attributing that directly to Dearlove.

The "U.S. has already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime," the British defense secretary reported, according to the notes. Although no final decision had been made, "he thought the most likely timing in U.S. minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the U.S. congressional elections."

As it finally worked out, the Bush administration's public campaign for supporting a possible invasion of Iraq began the next month, in late August, with speeches by Vice President Cheney, followed by a late October vote in Congress to grant the president authority to use force if necessary. Later in October, the British and the Americans introduced their resolution on Iraq in the U.N. Security Council and it passed in early November, shortly after the Nov. 2 elections.
 
jesse, I think that's because everyone (well, nearly all) understand that kindly Uncle Saddam was on probation after GW1. When on probation the burden is on you to prove that you do not possess any deadly weapons.

If you fail to account for your deadly weapons or do not cooperate with Probation or House Arrest, your probation will be violated. Kindly Uncle Saddam refused to cooperate and wanted to play games, he had his probation violated.
 
"Blair was advised that the threat from Saddam Hussein might have been overstated."

Might have been? Hard to get upset over a might have been. How many wars did the guy have to start before he ran out of time? I think there were still a few neighboring countries he hadn't attacked, but why wait for him to do it again.

John
 
I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this.
I'm curious to see if liberals can get more shrill, desperate and pathetic.

In some ways the histrionics and the pouting and the squealing like a squished cat is deeply satisfying, but then again liberals are (most of them at least) human beings, and watching them lose every last shred of dignity is kind of embarassing.

When one then considers that the America hating left has lost every vestige of its former power one realizes that this hissy fit is going to last a really long time. If I have to be embarassed for liberals for the next few decades I guess I can get through it. I know that I somehow managed to get through years of their America hating crap, so I guess that feeling sorry for them won't be as hard as I may have first thought.

I'll give you a quick example. A couple of weeks ago I saw a cartoon in a major (leftist pig) newspaper. The picture was that of Senator Bill Frist handling snakes as though he was some sort of appalachian banjo-banging inbreed. Down in the corner was some sort of little bird (duck maybe?) character with a little thought balloon that contained the letters and punctuation (M.D.???) I found it absolutely amazing that a grown man who draws pencil sketches for a living would think that his making fun of a heart surgeon would be taken seriously. How braindead would his intended audience have to be to find that cartoon funny or thoughtful? Has the left no shame?
 
Why is it that everyone in the Media overlooks the simple fact that Saddam was in violation of a Treaty of Surrender for about a decade? American kids lost their lives in securing that Treaty of Surrender and the Media expected us to simply ignore that loss.

Saddam was acting EXACTLY as North Korea and Iran are today and we see what "diplomacy" is accomplishing there. Difference: neither Iran nor Korea are operating under a Treaty of Surrender. Had Japan immediately begun to re-arm after WWII, we would have immediately resumed hostilities and the American public would have understood. Times have certainly changed.
Rich
 
What I have a problem with, is that they don't have a problem with us putting Saddam in office (or at least helping him along), but do have a problem with us taking him out.

What I have a real problem with, is the people saying the war should have never happened, because there would be civilian casualities, while we continue to unearth the mass graves, and graves of political opposition.

What I really, really have a problem with, is people that expect us to win a war and not have a single person killed. I can't imagine how WWII would have turned out, when losses on one day topped two years worth of fighting, had they complained the way they do now. Not saying that I like our soldiers dying, but I don't have a miscontrued conception of reality that thinks no one can die. Death is a part of war.

The only oputcry I have, is that Bush I didn't finish the war when he had the chance. And that I can come up with numerous Democratic politicians (Kerry and Clinton included) that said Iraq needed dealt with, but as soon as someone dealt with them, come out and demand heads to roll.
 
So, mass murderers and proven users of weapons so horrible should be left alone and allowed to continue just because.

You know, the absolute distaste by some for other people's lives is disgusting to me.

Oh, he didn't have weapons of mass destruction and we, the bad USA, attacked this person for no reason.

Tell that to the thousands of people that he murdered. Hell, why don't everyone that believes that saddem is so innocent go over and kiss his feet, you deserve him to be your leader.

People that say that we are in the wrong totally angers me, and they say they believe in human rights. Yet will say that we are wrong when millions that have lived in fear of their government now have a say in what their government does.

If you love saddam so damn much, why don't you break him out of jail, buy an island (I'm sure the UN owes him some cash since they took cash from him) and then live with this great leader :barf: .

And yes, I believe that we need to kick the asses of any other country that kills their own people, as well as the UN for allowing countries to kill people and just sit back and watch, or rape the little girls when they get bored watching.

Wayne
 
Perspective. I see the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and the pacification of Liberia as dress rehearsals. We have proven our miltary prowess and multiple response capability. Our ONLY issue is attrition.
 
To hear some people talk you'd never guess that a sophisticated, wealthy area like Washington D.C. was THE venue for Bluegrass for almost 4 decades from the mid 50's to the mid 90's. :(
 
I suppose that if I had said anything about bluegrass (or any other style of music for that matter) that your comment would then have meaning to someone other than yourself.
 
I suppose that if I had said anything about bluegrass (or any other style of music for that matter) that your comment would then have meaning to someone other than yourself.

You lost me here. Here's your comment:

I'll give you a quick example. A couple of weeks ago I saw a cartoon in a major (leftist pig) newspaper. The picture was that of Senator Bill Frist handling snakes as though he was some sort of appalachian banjo-banging inbreed
.

Well, it's kind of hard to separate Appalachian-style banjo picking from Bluegrass Music since that, in essence, is Bluegrass music. Off the top of my head, I can only think of a very few Bluegrass songs that don't have banjo playing in them. "Rank Stranger" or a few other vocal pieces maybe.

Anyway, it's off the topic.
 
Well, it's kind of hard to separate Appalachian-style banjo picking from Bluegrass Music since that, in essence, is Bluegrass music.
:confused:

What I posted was written in English. Try reading it again, but this time leave out your obsession with Bluegrass music since that has not a thing to do with what I was talking about. For God's sake! :rolleyes:
 
McCain: I don't agree with British war memo

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/15/mccain.memo/index.html

McCain: I don't agree with British war memo
Leaked document says U.S. set up conditions for Iraq invasion
Sunday, May 15, 2005 Posted: 12:54 PM EDT (1654 GMT)

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, appears at a news conference on Capitol Hill on Thursday.

Sen. John McCain said Sunday he doesn't "agree with" the secret minutes of a high-level British meeting in 2002 saying "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support a U.S.-led war in Iraq -- well before the president sought approval on the war from Congress.

The memo was made public earlier this month by the Times of London newspaper. British officials did not dispute its authenticity.

McCain, speaking on ABC's "This Week," said he has not seen any evidence that the Bush administration manipulated evidence, but admitted that "certain serious mistakes [were] made."

"But I do not believe that the Bush administration decided that they would set up a scenario that gave us the rationale for going into Iraq," the Arizona Republican said.

The Bush administration still has not commented on the memo. On May 6, 89 Democratic members of Congress sent President Bush a letter asking for an explanation of the memo. (Full story)

The meeting described in the memo took place in London on July 23, 2002.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon, Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, MI6 chief Richard Dearlove and others attended the meeting.

According to the minutes, a British official identified as "C" said that he had returned from a meeting in Washington and that "military action was now seen as inevitable" by U.S. officials.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," the memo said "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the U.N. 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."

The memo further discussed the military options under consideration by the United States along with Britain's possible role and quoted Hoon as saying that the United States had not finalized a timeline, but that it would likely begin "30 days before the U.S. congressional elections," culminating with the actual attack in January 2003.

The congressional letter, initiated by Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the memo "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration."

"While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. treasury secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your administration," the letter said.

But, the letter said, when the document was leaked, Blair's spokesman called it "nothing new."

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said, quoting the British attorney general. "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 British officials determined to push for an ultimatum for Saddam to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq to "help with the legal justification for the use of force ... despite U.S. resistance."

Britain's attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, advised the group that "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action" and two of three possible legal bases -- self-defense and humanitarian intervention -- could not be used.

The third was a U.N. Security Council resolution, which Goldsmith said "would be difficult."

Blair thought that "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors."

"If the political context were right, people would support regime change," the memo said. Later, the memo said, Blair would work to convince Bush that they should pursue the ultimatum with Saddam even though "many in the U.S. did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route."

McCain seemed to follow Blair's reasoning, avoiding the question of the memo's contents except to say he didn't believe it was accurate.

"I think the important aspect of the opening of this conflict was that it's clear the status quo was not prevailing, that the sanctions were eroding, American pilots were being shot at every day, there was a clear intent on the part of Saddam Hussein that he'd shown throughout his entire regime, that he'd like to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction. He'd used them before.

"Was there a massive intelligence failure? Absolutely. But to somehow suppose that if we had not attacked Saddam Hussein, that everything would have been fine in Iraq, I think defies the history of Saddam Hussein and his attempts to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction. Even his own generals thought that he had weapons of mass destruction.

"Again, was it a massive intelligence failure? Should people be held responsible? Yes."
 
Bush asked to explain UK war memo

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/

Bush asked to explain UK war memo
Thursday, May 12, 2005 Posted: 2:49 AM EDT (0649 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Eighty-nine Democratic members of the U.S. Congress last week sent President George W. Bush a letter asking for explanation of a secret British memo that said "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support the Iraq war in mid-2002.

The timing of the memo was well before the president brought the issue to Congress for approval.

The Times of London newspaper published the memo -- actually minutes of a high-level meeting on Iraq held July 23, 2002 -- on May 1.

British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity, and Michael Boyce, then Britain's Chief of Defense Staff, told the paper that Britain had not then made a decision to follow the United States to war, but it would have been "irresponsible" not to prepare for the possibility.

The White House has not yet responded to queries about the congressional letter, which was released on May 6.

The letter, initiated by Rep. John Conyers, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the memo "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration..."

"While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your administration," the letter said.

But, the letter said, when the document was leaked Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman called it "nothing new."

In addition to Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon, Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, MI6 chief Richard Dearlove and others attended the meeting.

A British official identified as "C" said that he had returned from a meeting in Washington and that "military action was now seen as inevitable" by U.S. officials.

"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 U.N. 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."

The memo further discussed the military options under consideration by the United States, along with Britain's possible role.

It quoted Hoon as saying the United States had not finalized a timeline, but that it would likely begin "30 days before the U.S. congressional elections," culminating with the actual attack in January 2003.

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said.

"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 British officials determined to push for an ultimatum for Saddam to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq to "help with the legal justification for the use of force ... despite U.S. resistance."

Britain's attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, advised the group that "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action" and two of three possible legal bases -- self-defense and humanitarian intervention -- could not be used.

The third was a U.N. Security Council resolution, which Goldsmith said "would be difficult."

Blair thought that "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors."

"If the political context were right, people would support regime change," the memo said.

Later, the memo said, Blair would work to convince Bush that they should pursue the ultimatum with Saddam even though "many in the U.S. did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route."
 
CNN just misses the good ol' days when Eason Jordan & Co. agreed to tell the news about Iraq the way Uncle Sadam wanted it told. [sigh]What wouldn't CNN do to get back to the good old days?[/sigh] :rolleyes:


The Freedom of Information Center


The News We Kept to Ourselves


By Eason Jordan
The New York Times
April 11, 2003
ATLANTA — Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard — awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff.

For example, in the mid-1990's one of our Iraqi cameramen was abducted. For weeks he was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a secret police headquarters because he refused to confirm the government's ludicrous suspicion that I was the Central Intelligence Agency's Iraq station chief. CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk.

Working for a foreign news organization provided Iraqi citizens no protection. The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international press services who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate reporting. Some vanished, never to be heard from again. Others disappeared and then surfaced later with whispered tales of being hauled off and tortured in unimaginable ways. Obviously, other news organizations were in the same bind we were when it came to reporting on their own workers.

We also had to worry that our reporting might endanger Iraqis not on our payroll. I knew that CNN could not report that Saddam Hussein's eldest son, Uday, told me in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two of his brothers-in-law who had defected and also the man giving them asylum, King Hussein of Jordan. If we had gone with the story, I was sure he would have responded by killing the Iraqi translator who was the only other participant in the meeting. After all, secret police thugs brutalized even senior officials of the Information Ministry, just to keep them in line (one such official has long been missing all his fingernails).

Still, I felt I had a moral obligation to warn Jordan's monarch, and I did so the next day. King Hussein dismissed the threat as a madman's rant. A few months later Uday lured the brothers-in-law back to Baghdad; they were soon killed.

I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed. One Foreign Ministry officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been executed by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter of congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein. An aide to Uday once told me why he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and told him never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be paid for upsetting his boss. Again, we could not broadcast anything these men said to us.

Last December, when I told Information Minister Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf that we intended to send reporters to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, he warned me they would "suffer the severest possible consequences." CNN went ahead, and in March, Kurdish officials presented us with evidence that they had thwarted an armed attack on our quarters in Erbil. This included videotaped confessions of two men identifying themselves as Iraqi intelligence agents who said their bosses in Baghdad told them the hotel actually housed C.I.A. and Israeli agents. The Kurds offered to let us interview the suspects on camera, but we refused, for fear of endangering our staff in Baghdad.

Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home.

I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely.

Eason Jordan is chief news executive at CNN.

© 2003 The New York Times Company
 
I don't mind invading Iraq to oust Saddam... after we've leveled the place, which the US didn't do. We have B-52s for a reason.
 
Let's see, Washington Post, CNN... why don't you post something by your leftist buddies over at Newsweek? Of course their credibility is in the same shape as the Washington Post, CNN, New York Times, etc... seems like Newsweek just announced an apology for some BS they printed last week that got a bunch of folks killed. Gee, imagine that, taking the side of the enemy getting people on your own side killed. Who'd a thunk it? :rolleyes: :barf:


May 16, 2005, 12:43AM



Newsweek apologizes for story that led to deadly riots
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
New York Times

Newsweek apologized Sunday for printing a small item May 9 about reported desecration of the Quran by American guards at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The item has been linked to riots in Pakistan and Afghanistan that led to the deaths of at least 17 people.

ADVERTISEMENT

But the magazine, while acknowledging unspecified errors in the article, stopped short of retracting it.

The report that a Quran, the sacred Muslim text, had been flushed down a toilet sparked the most virulent, widespread anti-American protests in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban government more than three years ago.

"We regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst," Mark Whitaker, Newsweek's editor, wrote in the issue of the magazine that goes on sale at newsstands today.

In an accompanying article, the magazine wrote that its reporters had relied on a U.S. government official, whom it has not named, who had incomplete knowledge of the situation.

But, Whitaker said in an interview later: "We're not retracting anything. We don't know what the ultimate facts are."

The information at issue is a sentence in a short May 9 "Periscope" item about an upcoming U.S. Southern Command investigation into the abuse of prisoners at the detention facility at Guantanamo.

It said U.S. military investigators had found evidence in an internal report that during the interrogation of detainees, American guards had flushed a Quran down a toilet to provoke the detainees into talking.

Pentagon officials said that no such information was included in the internal report and responded to Newsweek's apology with unusual anger.

"Newsweek hid behind anonymous sources, which by their own admission do not withstand scrutiny. Unfortunately, they cannot retract the damage they have done to this nation or those that were viciously attacked by those false allegations," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.

The top spokesman for the Pentagon, Lawrence Di Rita, called the editor's note "very tepid and qualified." He added: "They owe us all a lot more accountability than they took."

Whitaker said the source had been reliable in the past and was in a position to know about the report he was describing.

In addition, the reporters, Michael Isikoff, a veteran investigative reporter, and John Barry, a national security correspondent, showed a draft of the article to the source and to a senior Pentagon official asking if it was correct.

The source corrected one unrelated aspect of the article. "But he was silent about the rest of the item," Newsweek reported. "The official had not meant to mislead, but lacked detailed knowledge of the SouthCom report."

By last week, the military had completed its internal inquiry and was convinced that the allegation as reported by Newsweek never happened. Di Rita informed Newsweek that its report was wrong. Newsweek said this prompted Isikoff to go back to his source to try to confirm the original account.

"But the official, still speaking anonymously, could no longer be sure that these concerns had surfaced in the SouthCom report," Newsweek wrote, suggesting that it had perhaps been in other reports.




Instead of pussyfooting around with a bunch of pikers like the WP and CNN why not go for the gold with The Nation, or the Guardian? :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top