Noted socialist columnist and all around buffoon Greg Palast was kind enough to make me aware of the revelation in the Times of London of the so-called 'smoking gun' memo from the British government's briefing by C (the head of MI6) about US plans for action against Iraq.
Leftist pundits are implying that this memo is of earth-shaking importance, because it shows that Bush was planning to attack Iraq earlier than anyone realized and they like to imply that this means he was planning the invasion before 9/11. But the truth of the memo - plain to read in black and white - is that the planning started well after 9/11, the administration genuinely believed there were WMDs in Iraq, and that the primary motivation for the invasion was regime change to stabilize the region from the very start. This memo doesn't discredit the Bush administration as Palast and others would suggest, but in fact definitively vindicates their intentions and actions before during and after the war.
One of the key sections in the memo explains the reason for the invasion:
- "The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change."
Clearly the intention was to effect regime change, but that wasn't seen as sufficient public justification for the invasion, desirable though it might be. So they went looking for transgressions which could be used as a just cause for invasion. The point is that in a situation like Saddam's Iraq regime change was enormously desirable and should have been sufficient justification, but the Attorney General argued that it wasn't a strong enough position to act on so they needed something more.
They looked at the options and came up with the conclusion that the best route was to goad Saddam into violating UN sanctions and resolutions. The memo says:
- 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 neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dodd
We Brits have never had the slightest interest in the ME or its oil. We've always prided ourselves in being totally self-sufficient as a nation, and anyone taking the time to learn a little bit about our history will see that we've always been completely respectful and altruistic toward foreign nations with whom we've interacted. Our politicians and other figures of authority come only from the best families to ensure that Britain will always be a shining example of nationhood for the rest of the world.
That terribly, terribly awful Greg Palast ruffian deserves to be flogged in public with a cat o' nine tails for the dreadful things he writes. On second thought make that a cat o' eighteen tails along with a jolly good punch on the nose.
2 - DrPat
figures of authority come only from the best families to ensure that Britain will always be a shining example of nationhood for the rest of the world...
And now I have to clean my keyboard and monitor, Dodd!
3 - Mark Saleski
actual "planning" vs. making to decision that the action was inevitiable are two different things.
let's face it. they were going to war no matter what 'proof' was uncovered.
nobody cares anymore.
4 - Dodd
Cleanliness is next to Doddlyness, DrPat, and that's very British come to think of it! We're such a well-groomed bunch, you know. Isn't it a pity everybody can't be British? Everything cricket and fair play, decorum and rule of law, tea and crumpets. Nothing like a bit of crumpet now and then, I always say. What ho!
5 - Mark Saleski
...mmm....with clotted cream.
6 - DrPat
Yes, from my personal experience, British crumpets are the best!
7 - Shark
[memo quote] "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
NALLE: "What this statement means exactly is not entirely clear."
...ONLY IF YER A FUCKING MORON.
8 - Shark
"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
POLICY: war with Iraq
FACTS: yellow cake from Niger; aluminum tubes, testimony of Chalabi
INTELLIGENCE: No evidence of WMDS.
RESULT: over 1600 dead Americans, $200 BILLION down the sand hole, a quagmire, and Iraq is currently hovering somewhere between anarchy and civil war.
THANKS, GEORGE!
9 - Dodd
And hip hip hoorah for Tony! Mustn't forget to thank George's lapdog.
10 - framer
The most interesting and insideous sentence in the story was the historical revisionism on display in the following: "Most of us realise he wanted to invade Iraq since before he was president."
This is preposterous, and shows the depths these Bush apologists will sink to. I wonder why he didn't run on that platform in the first place. If he didnt lie us into an unjust and illegal war after election, than he certainly lied to us as a candidate before the election. Either way , he is a liar.
11 - Joe London
The Downing Street Memo is only the culminating and clearest evidence that the Bush administration had a public face ("we have no timetable", "war only if diplomacy fails") and hidden plans that were not even based on the actual threat of Iraq, considered less dangerous that North Korea etc.
When public words do not correspond to actual intentions that remain hidden, you may turn it as you want, but that's deceit.
They fixed intelligence and facts to fit their plans. People who behave like that appear more like conspirators than reliable and ethical leaders.
Whatever the political orientation one may have, this is not acceptable, if ethics and democracy matter.
It is also quite worrying how the Downing Street memo is nearly ignored by TV news and papers. That's pretty sad for American journalism, which probably deems Janet Jackson's tits or similar topics of more fundamental importance.
P.S.: the explanation of "fixed" is surely not the one you suggest, there is nothing specifically British in the use of "fixed". The meaning of that sentence is exactly that which appears to any reader.
12 - Dave Nalle
>>NALLE: "What this statement means exactly is not entirely clear."
...ONLY IF YER A FUCKING MORON.
<<
Snark, perhaps rather than going nuts and slinging insults you should read my explanation of the possible alternative meaning of that sentence and respond to that. Or is that too much of a challenge?
>>FACTS: yellow cake from Niger; aluminum tubes, testimony of Chalabi<<
Ah, Snark. So you now admit that the yellow cake found in Iraq is a sign they had a nuclear program going?
Dave
13 - Temple Stark
Try to respond to the other more substantial points, not pick the easiest target.
Revisionism by a former history teacher somehow is even more sickening than anything else here. "Apologist" is the right word. You can think the war is the right thing to do without bending down and taking it all deep.
14 - Dave Nalle
Temp, which more substantial points were those? I addressed what needed to be addressed in the article. We all already know that I don't feel the same way about political duplicitousness that the rest of you do. Not much point in hashing over that again. I'm not going to respond to posts that just call Bush a liar again. What's the point in that?
What being a history teacher has done to me is make me look at even contemporary events from a bit of a distance. I don't take politics as personally as some people do.
In the best of all possible worlds I would never have supported going to war in Iraq. I'm not sure I even would have supported the war in Afghanistan. But given what we have been through and what the administration has done, I understand their actions and - sorry guys - I don't revile them for taking the course they did.
It's not that I'm an apologist, it's just that I've got different priorities. Check my articles. It's the rights issues inside the US that have me worried enormously more than the war in Iraq.
Oh, I suppose you could mean the argument over the meaning of the word 'fixed'. That's addressed in the article. What fixing the facts means is certainoy debatable, even if people don't agree with me. It could certainly mean finding facts to back up the position the administration was taking just as viably as it could mean creating bogus data.
Dave
15 - BillB
Dave
You've got me curious as to why someone(you) who, if I'm correctly reading you from your posts, could pretty much care less about the distortions and deceits used to justify war by Bush & Co., would even feel a need to address this issue.
To delve into idiom contortions to explain away something that, truth be told, you likely wouldn't have a problem with anyway.
>"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."<
To me this is what it is. I'll need some more convincing evidence of idiom interpretaions to be swayed otherwise. From what source did you draw this notion of the Queens English?
Besides, it just does seem to make sense as you explain it.
"But the intelligence and facts were being ATTACHED TO (around) the policy."
This statement is meaningless if the policy was the natural extention of the intelligence and facts. No statement of attachment would be needed. They would already fit.
It only makes sense when drawing attention to the notion that the one, intelligence and facts, which by it's nature did not conform to the other, the policy, necessitated "massaging" or "fixing" to create cohesion.
Bill
16 - Dave Nalle
>>You've got me curious as to why someone(you) who, if I'm correctly reading you from your posts, could pretty much care less about the distortions and deceits used to justify war by Bush & Co., would even feel a need to address this issue. <<
I feel a need to address it because while Bush's behavior doesn't bother me that much, I am bothered by the relentless nonsensical attacks on him based on the claim that he 'lied', which just isn't supported by the facts, and the general demonization of the president based on pure speculation, paranoia and resentment. I dislike it when people form their opinions and start shouting them in public, based entirely on emotion and irrational fear.
>>To delve into idiom contortions to explain away something that, truth be told, you likely wouldn't have a problem with anyway.<<
Well, it would all be a lot easier if I only had to explain things to myself.
>"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."<
To me this is what it is. I'll need some more convincing evidence of idiom interpretaions to be swayed otherwise. From what source did you draw this notion of the Queens English?
Mmmm a dictionary?
www.dictionary.com
Fixed:
1. To place securely; make stable or firm
2. To secure to another; attach
3. To set or place definitely; establish
4. To determine with accuracy; ascertain
5. To assign; attribute: fixing the blame.
6. To correct or set right; adjust
7. To influence the outcome or actions of by improper or unlawful means
See all these uses for the word 'fixed'? It seems to me that most people are going with either 6 or 7 here, when the use could easily be any of the others and which one you choose really makes a big difference in the meaning of the sentence. What if it was meaning #4? That sounds pretty damned appropriate and innocuous to me.
>"But the intelligence and facts were being ATTACHED TO (around) the policy." <<
What if you replace 'attached to' with 'assembled to support' or 'ascertained'?
>>This statement is meaningless if the policy was the natural extention of the intelligence and facts. No statement of attachment would be needed. They would already fit.<<
But they have lots and lots of facts to work with. My honest belief is that what the sentence means is that they were going to sort out the facts that supported their objective and assemble a good case to support what they wanted to do. This doesn't mean lying or making things up, it means organizing information to support a position. That's perfectly reasonable.
>>It only makes sense when drawing attention to the notion that the one, intelligence and facts, which by it's nature did not conform to the other, the policy, necessitated "massaging" or "fixing" to create cohesion.<<
But as you can see that's only one of many definitions, and most of the other ones make more sense in context and are far less inflamatory.
Dave
17 - BillB
>If you understand British idiom,<
I thought you had some incite into this. Maybe a British government official providing some context. I suppose there aren't many of them around willing to provide cover for Bush.
While #'s 6 & 7 are, well 6 & 7, that doesn't detract from them making the most sense in the context of the statement.
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. 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 UN 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 explanation makes even less sense to me when looked at with the surrounding sentences. Alas, we agree to disagree.
Bill
18 - Dave Nalle
>>I thought you had some incite into this. <<
You're the second person today I've seen make this same error - weird. The word is 'insight', not 'incite'. 'Incite' means to provoke someone to do something - like start a riot.
Anyway, I do have some insight having lived in England for 3 years, but the word can be used in the ways I laid out here in the US as well.
>>Maybe a British government official providing some context. I suppose there aren't many of them around willing to provide cover for Bush.<<
From what I can tell they've been pretty quiet about it. No one seems to think it's really all that much of a smoking gun.
>>While #'s 6 & 7 are, well 6 & 7, that doesn't detract from them making the most sense in the context of the statement.<<
My position would be that they make the most sense to a) Americans and b) people predisposed to be suspicious of Bush. I think it's perfectly believable that the author of the memo intended one of the other uses of the word.
Dave
19 - BillB
Yea, I've got cite on the brain. Cite this cite that.
20 - Phrank in Foenix
Under "Just War" doctrine (a Christian approach to war that hearkens all the way back to St. Augustine), there was no justification -- none, zero, zip, nada -- for President Bush to invade and occupy Iraq. Bush knew it. Blair (or would that be "Bliar"?) knew it. (As the British AG was cited in the Downing Street Memo, "A desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.") And they both knew that they could NEVER convince Americans and Brits to send their sons and daughters into harm's way in order to accomplish mere "regime change."
So they cherry-picked, stove-piped, shoe-horned intelligence to try and make the case to their nations that Iraq had to be invaded for the security of England and the US. But as the memo says, "The case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours [so tell me someone, how the hell could he even HOPE to threaten us?], and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
And none of this even deals with another crucial observation of Sir Richard's (which you've evidently seen fit to not to deal with): "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
George W. Bully was just a-gonna sweep into a soveriegn nation that was militarily weak, was no threat to us and played no part in 9/11, in order to chalk up a quick, decisive "shock-and-awe" win (and presumably teach the rest of them "dirty little rag-heads" a lesson). And, contrary to the considered expert opinion of generals who said we'd need 200,000 to 250,000 troops to secure the peace after the invasion, Rumsnamara and Co. tried to do it on the cheap: "Pish and tosh! Why, we'll invade and secure Iraq with 130,00 to 150,000 troops! (And, ahem, general? Please kindly tender your resgination on the way out ...)"
Now we're stuck in the bottomless sandbox that is the Middle East, with no end in sight, all because "there was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
(And BTW, Moms and Dads, are your kids' draft registrations up to date? It's right around the corner...)
Phrank in Foenix,
An anti-this-war evangelical Christian conservative
Cursed are the proud, for they shall inherit the quagmire. Cursed are the warmongers, for they shall be called sons-of-bitches.
21 - Phrank in Foenix
Saith Framer:
Hey, Bush apologists: What of his "promise" during the debates in 2000 not to use the US military for "nation building"? Were his fingers crossed behind his back, or what?Phrank in Foenix,
An anti-this-war evangelical Christian conservative
Cursed are the proud, for they shall inherit the quagmire. Cursed are the warmongers, for they shall be called sons-of-bitches.
22 - Phrank in Foenix
And lastly (for now!), Joe London says:
Hear hear! If there really were some monolithic "liberal media bias," they'd have been on this story like white on rice from the get-go. (Where's that "liberal media bias" when you need it?) Well, at least we finally know where the finger in the Wendy's chili came from ... Welcome to the freak-show portion of the American Empire's "bread-and-circuses" ... [sigh]23 - Dave Nalle
Wow, Phrank - good thing we don't have St. Augustine running our foreign policy.
Though come to think of it the parallels between Bush and Augustine are remarkable...
Dave
24 - Maurice
I am surprised at the level of hatred for this president. Is everyone cool with Buchanan? He could have prevented the civil war (most american deaths in any war) if he had had Bush's backbone. Was Truman a hero or a murderer? He made the decision to drop the bomb and crush the Japanese spirit. Would you have been one of the many protesters against these presidents? Were they more or less evil than the hated George Bush?
25 - Erasmo Rodriguez
There is no one more blind than he who would not see.
The decision to go to war was made by the president first.
All the rest was just propaganda to get the thing started.
The administration lied and misled the American people.
The connection between Iraq, Terror and WMD was designed and manufactured by the administration to achieve its political goals.
Now thousands are still dying, and the American people prefer to remain oblivious to the fact that they were manipulated by fear into an illegal war.
The whole world can see this clearly, why cant the American public wake up to the obvious?
This war is the greatest fiasco in recent American history, and no 'success story' will change the facts at the end.
Bush manipulated the country to justify and unjust war in the name of Democracy and freedom for the good "american people" and the "people of Iraq".
If you think that in the real world the truth will have no consequences; you better think twice.