A leaked British memo, and other documents, make it clear that Bush intended all along to invade Iraq — and lied about it to the American people.
The key line in the leaked memo, (as described by Getler from the Sunday Times Post), is the assessment by British intelligence, after a visit to Washington, that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." That kind of assertion has been made by critics and commentators, but it has not been included in official post-invasion assessments here about how the country went to war under what turned out to be false premises about weapons of mass destruction and other matters.
Why has this information not been discussed? My guess is that the people in power are just sitting on this information until after the midterm elections to see if democrats can get control and then the fireworks will begin.
The same critics have been unsuccessful in getting an investigation into the misuse of the intelligence and as long as they are in the minority they never will.
This isn't the last you'll hear of this is my guess...
Read more >
The Memo >
Letter to Bush >
Why we're not talking about this >
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Nancy
This is not news to most of us - including I suspect those conservatives who refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing whatsoever. The problem is, what can be done about it? 30 years ago, information like this coming to light in the media brought down the Nixon administration; today, however, it gets posted & publicized - and nothing whatsoever happens. Are we so inured to government mendacity these days that it no longer matters?
2 - Eric Olsen
this has been slapped around at least twice here: the bottom line is that the meaning of the words in the report is ambiguous, the gun is not smoking, AND why is it inherently wrong for the administration to have predisposed to enact regime change in Iraq? Latching on to this aspect assumes there was no other reason to do this other than WMD, when in fact there were numerous reasons to do so, the most salient being that the region needed a serious enema and Iraq was where this was most possible.
3 - Mark Saleski
why is it inherently wrong for the administration to have predisposed to enact regime change in Iraq?
if the administration had come right out and said that then it wouldn't have been a problem. instead it was sold as needed for solving the problem of weapons of mass destruction.
let's face it they were obviously looking for regime change all along...and nancy's point hits the mark: we're so used to political truth twistings that, as long as we agree with the ends, we don't give a shit about the means.
4 - Maurice
Yensid,
welcome to the party albeit quite late. As mentioned by the other commentators this non-issue has been hashed and rehashed.
Nancy, I think Eric answered your question very well but I would like to add that you may want to read 'All the Presidents Men' for an explanation of why Nixon resigned. There is no resemblence between this non-smoking gun and Nixon's last days in office.
5 - Matt
What was the lie? Everyone from Bill and Hillary Clinton to Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and Carl Levin supported the ouster of Saddam Hussein, at least until Bush was elected, and all of them said he had WMDs. In fact, getting rid of Hussein was the official policy of the US since 1998, so what's the surprise here?
6 - Dave Nalle
Two weeks behind the news a bit, Yensid?
I almost didn't post my article on this last week because it was already a week old and losing currency. By now it's ancient news.
What it comes down to ultimately is that the memo is third hand, ambiguous and nothing we didn't already know. There's enough there for those who want to use it to try to blow it up into something, but on examination it's a hollow bubble and pops pretty quickly.
Dave
7 - gonzo marx
lie to the Public...
umm..even without the WMD bit, how about the "clear and present danger to our national security" bit?
it was sold as if we were facing imminent attack by Iraq..in previous discussion all the proper quotes have been laid out...
my big problem has always been, pre-emptive?...why?
and then being misinformed or perhpas outright deceived about the answer
when mistakes or incorrect "intelligence" is alluded to for reasoning NO ONE HAS BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE!!!!
in fact, the man Responsible for all the Intelligence..ex-CIA chief , did retire, but then received the highest civilian Award the President could bestow...
does that sound like being held Accountable for a screw up that has cost well over $200 biliion so far, with no end in sight, over 1500 lives and more than 10,000 injured American soldiers?
whether i thik the "reasons" are "right" or "wrong" at this point is immaterial, we are there, and we have to deal with the situation...my problem here is with Accountability
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
8 - Eric Olsen
yes, it would have been far preferable for Bush to have totally leveled with the American public and the world, but would regime change have been accepted under those terms? Likely not. So the question is, was it preferable to shade the truth and do what they -- and I, by the way -- believe needed to be done, or explain it bluntly and be precluded from enacting the policy?
It's an extremely thorny question because I DO NOT believe that the ends justify the means, but I also think regime change in Iraq was absolutely critical to breaking the atrophying logjam of the region
9 - Dave Nalle
Actually, the person who should have been held accountable for much of this is clearly Richard Perle, but he very cleverly got out of the administration and wrote a tell-all book, thereby making any attempt to punish him look like retaliation for his kissing and telling. But it seems as more and more information comes out that Perle was the main nexus through which information got fed and distorted.
Dave
10 - Richard
NO ONE HAS BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE!!
Reminds me of Iran Contra, except Ollie was the fall guy. Do you think W will pick a fall guy?
11 - Tan Hoang
In history, leaders have done worse actions for less reward. I think further down the line in time that historians/people can really look with better perspective on these events and give us a clearer understanding. If Iraq really is a better place without Saddam in power? If the Middle East is a better place without Saddam's Iraq? If terrorism has lost its grip on the world because of America/Britain's actions. That doesn't mean we shouldn't say our minds, but we all must make sure it is history that decides/judges right and wrong in the course of mankind.
12 - Eric Olsen
words of wisdom and perspective Tan, thanks
13 - gonzo marx
Eric O sez...
*It's an extremely thorny question because I DO NOT believe that the ends justify the means, but I also think regime change in Iraq was absolutely critical to breaking the atrophying logjam of the region*
well said...i am uncertain that it is the place of our Nation to "break the logjam", the only possible Reasoning would be for National Security...but i have yet to see the case made for such, and am uncertain as to the cost/effect ratio in terms of our National "Blood and Treasure"
Mr Nalle makes an excellent point about Richard Perle, but i do not think he is the only one involved...our current Attorney General wrote the legal briefs surrounding these matters(was a Counsel to the President, now A.G.), Wolfowitz was quite the hawkish advocate (Deputy Def Sec, now Pres of World Bank), Rumsfeld's thoughts were also well known as well as Cheney's and Rice's (the last was Security Advisor, now Sec of State)
so it appears not only were the thinkers/planners not held accountable..many got promoted
Tan makes some astute Observations, but all come from the "Ends justify the Means" model...i personally find that line ethically repugnant...
your milage may vary...
Excelsior!
14 - Dave Nalle
>>well said...i am uncertain that it is the place of our Nation to "break the logjam", the only possible Reasoning would be for National Security...but i have yet to see the case made for such, and am uncertain as to the cost/effect ratio in terms of our National "Blood and Treasure"<<
The problem here is that we were the only ones who could and would be willing to break the logjam. No one else had the resources and the resolve to do it. It's not the ideal foreign policy, but if it works then in retrospect it will have been worth it.
As for the National Security argument, it's pretty simple. Terrorism threatens everyone, at home and abroad. If we change the conditions which make terrorism so popular, then we're under less of a threat. The counter argument is that we may be breeding terrorists by our actions, but recent signs are that this argument isn't correct, as public sentiment in the middle east seems to be growing more and more anti-terrorist to the point where terrorists will be either ostracized or dead.
Dave
15 - gonzo marx
Mr Nalle, while i Respect your Opinion..i do have one Question as top your last Paragraph...
we are talking Iraq, yes?...what "terrorists" came from Iraq and attacked us?
last time i recall any Iraqi's attacking anyone, was Kuwait..and we went there and beat the shit out of them, sanctioned them hard enough to ruin their economy, and kept planes from flying over 2/3's of the country...
but no Iraqi terrorists..not on 9/11...not since...until we invaded and then allowed chaos/anarchy for a while , you remember all the fun looting and pillaging and neglecting to protect infrastructure...
after that, yes..there are a shitload of terrorists, and they need to be dealt with...
but before then?..not in Iraq...i know the whole "killing his own people" thing..most refer to the Kurds in the 80's when Rumsfeld brokered the deal to sell him the WMD's to use against Iran...or just after Gulf War 1 when we abandoned the Kurds and allowed Saddam to use the few bits of airpower he had to smack them around...
i'm not saying he was anythign but an evil fucker, but there are a lot of evil fuckers in the world...why not invade and annex Cuba? ...Castro is an evil fucker, communist to boot..and we could have a very nice new state to add to the union...
mass killings?..how about Sudan?
crazy dictators with WMD..real ones, nukes even..kooky Kim in north Korea and those wacky mullah's in Iran come to mind...
so , do forgive me if i am not buying into the bullshit rationale spewed forth by the Administration..they don't seem to have a good record in terms of truthfullness or competence when it comes to some of these things..
/end twaddle
Excelsior!
16 - Dave Nalle
>>we are talking Iraq, yes?...what "terrorists" came from Iraq and attacked us?<<
Gonzo, you can't take Iraq and separate it from the rest of the middle east. There may be separate countries, but it's all one culture and one religion, with very open borders. Attacking Iraq, which was one of the main pillars in the support structure of terrorism has weakened the entire terrorist hierarchy, and the ongoing conflict there is forcing the terrorists into a showdown which will leave them marginalized, decimated and delegitimized if they lose.
Dave
17 - gonzo marx
Mr Nalle sez..
*but it's all one culture and one religion*
one religion..nope..not really, big difference between sunni and shi'a
one culture..>falls over laughing<
i know you lived there for a while..how can you say that an Assyrian,Persian,Turk,Jew,Bedoin, Egyptian,Lebanese or Saudi are "culturally" the same?
is a Dutchman the same as a Frenchman as a German as a Spainaird, etc?
Mr Nalle sez..
* Attacking Iraq, which was one of the main pillars in the support structure of terrorism*
again..the only instance of "support" i am aware of was Saddam's giving money to the parents of Palestinian bombers...that would make sense for Israel to invade perhaps..but a "pillar"?
when Saudi Arabian royalty spends millions each year financing whabist schools that actively preach against the US...
one other word on that....Iran
nuff said?
Excelsior!
18 - Bennett
"which will leave them marginalized, decimated and delegitimized if they lose."
Hmmmm... Should I?
Nah, I have better things to do, and only time will tell if this is one huge "if".
19 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, like any stucture, terrorism is supported by more than one pillar.
As for Iraq's support of terrorism. the payments to suicide bombers was the tip of the iceberg. No one is doing much to pursue it because events have passed it by, but there's lots of evidence of monetary support for Al Quaeda and other groups either direct or channelled through Syria and the Palestinians. Plus, of course, Saddam's reign was a reign of terror in and of itself.
Oh, and Bennett. The big 'if' DID originate in my comment, eh.
Dave
20 - Bennett
Dave, It did, and I was surprised to see it there. Perhaps I really shouldn't have.
Keep on.
21 - Patriot
We don't need a leaked British memo to make it clear that Bush intended all along to invade Iraq -- and lied about it to the American people.
22 - Dave Nalle
Actually, Patriot. I challenge you to point to one time that Bush said explicitly that he wasn't going to invade Iraq from the start of the campaign to the time he did it.
Dave
23 - Patriot
Dave
In the months leading up to the attack, President Bush and other high-ranking US officials repeatedly warned that the threat posed to the US and world by the Baghdad regime was so grave and imminent that the United States had to act quickly to bomb, invade and occupy Iraq.
On September 28, 2002, for example, he said: "The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given... This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year."
On March 6, 2003, President Bush declared: "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people... I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he’s a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I’ve got good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction... The American people know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."
These claims were untrue. As the world now knows, Iraq had no dangerous "weapons of mass destruction," and posed no threat to the US. Moreover, alarmist suggestions that the Baghdad regime was working with the al-Qaeda terror network likewise proved to be without foundation.
So if the official reasons given for the war were untrue, why did the United States attack?
Whatever the secondary reasons for the Iraq war, the crucial factor in President Bush’s decision to attack was to help Israel. With support from Israel and America’s Jewish-Zionist lobby, and prodded by Jewish "neo-conservatives" holding high-level positions in his administration, President Bush â€" who was already fervently committed to Israel â€" resolved to invade and subdue one of Israel’s chief regional enemies.
24 - Dave Nalle
So the answer to my question would then be a definitive 'no', you can't demonstrate any instance in which Bush lied about his intentions to go to war in Iraq.
Dave
25 - gonzo marx
heh..nope..he always said he wanted to go..
it's the Why he was deceptive about , Mr Nalle
but you knew that
Excelsior!