SECRET MEMO REVEALS BUSH & BLAIR AGREED TO ATTACK IRAQ W/O-U.N. APPROVAL!

NY Times to report on secret memo of Bush, Blair meeting before Iraq war

RAW STORY
Published: Sunday March 26, 2006

The New York Times is planning an article on a secret memo that has been reported to reveal that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair agreed to invade Iraq even without U.N. backing months before the war, RAW STORY has learned.

The article written by Don Van Natta Jr. addresses the January 2003 meeting with the purpose of "shedding light on the buildup and decision-making process before the invasion of Iraq."

According to an article published by the Guardian in February on the memo, "Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme."

"The diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning", The Guardian reported that Bush told Blair. The prime minister is said to have raised no objection. He is quoted as saying he was "solidly with the president and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam".

The memo is also said to reveal that President Bush suggested "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours," in order to provoke Saddam to shoot on it, putting him in breach of United Nations resolutions.

MORE AT:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/NY_Times_to_report_on_secret_0326.html

:popcorn::beer:

:hi:

If so, that's the time for :popcorn:

:hi:

Sunday, March 26, 2006

New memo shows Bush planned to invade Iraq anyway, discussed faking evidence to provoke a war
by John in DC - 3/26/2006 10:55:00 PM


The British press reported on this a few months ago, now the NY Times has the entire memo. It's real.




http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?hp&ex=1143435600&en=b6593aee0e01d384&ei=5094&partner=homepage

via:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/03/new-memo-shows-bush-planned-to-invade.html

When can we start the trial?

@ the 'bad news/good news' stuff - finally! NY Times has some catchin' up to do on the DSM though, don't they!? Hopefully it's not a short term wake-up & they'll get up to speed. They need to come read DU & get a crash course.

(we could give them the short Cliff Notes version, make it easy for 'em!)

Keep the focus on what was done and said to get us in this quagmire in the first place. That topic is the most damaging to BushCo. They are always desperate to change the issue when the focus is on that.

the NYT's is always a day late and dollar short.

But then, bush is a serial liar.

Most of us here have known this for a long time.

Question is: Do the American people and Congress give a DAMN?

Feel like we're waiting for the other boot to drop? Nothing good is ever gonna come out of this shit.

news is.

Like, who CARES at this point? Who's gonna do anything about it?

How low will a US president go?

He said he had no WMD; he told the truth.

Some of what he's said I have huge doubts about, but he's not been proved a liar yet, AFAIK.

bush has.

How low will a US pReisdent go? Well, "supreme crime" wars of aggression are as low as it gets, I think.

Q: I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?

THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --

Q: Everything --

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a second, please.

Q: -- everything I've heard --

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.

Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq -- hold on for a second --

Q: They didn't do anything to you, or to our country.

THE PRESIDENT: Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where al Qaeda trained --

Q: I'm talking about Iraq --

THE PRESIDENT: Helen, excuse me. That's where -- Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where they trained. That's where they plotted. That's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.

I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences --

Q: -- go to war --

THE PRESIDENT: -- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.

it's so hard to keep track of all those incriminating memos.

Does the UN have U2 planes? Wouldn't the folks at the UN know if they did and if their planes were shot at?

I know the Chimp is dumb enough not to realize this but I think its more likely this story isn't true.

Why not try it again?

or is the record stuck?

Perhaps it's just a second PUSH to get it back out there on the table?

must be laughing tonight. Pass her the popcorn.

her questions at that press conference last week. I noticed what I thought was more than a 'yeah, right' look on her face... seemed like maybe she thought there was more coming. So cool to nail the conniving jerk.

Surely we knew about this awhile ago.

from the memo:



And this debunks the newest lie about "spreading democracy":

NY Times confirms secret January 2003
memo shows Bush, Blair agreed to invade
Iraq even without UN backing

UPDATE AT RAW STORY

NY Times obtains secret memo of Bush, Blair meeting before Iraq war

RAW STORY
Published: Sunday March 26, 2006


(Updated after full article was obtained)

The New York Times reports that a secret memo from January 2003 reveals that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair agreed to invade Iraq even without U.N. backing, RAW STORY has learned.

The article, written by Don Van Natta Jr., addresses the Jan. 31, 2003 memorandum which was leaked to a British author and referenced in February of this year. The New York Times was able to obtain a copy of the secret memo, and confirms most of the reports.
more at:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/NY_Times_to_report_on_secret_0326.html

Wasn't this new memo released months ago? It sounds exactly like the one from a while back, the U2 plane with the UN colors etc...

What's new about this that Raw Story chose to report on today? Just the fact that the NYT is gonna do a story on it, or is this actually a new memo that has even more stuff in it?

one!

I didn't see one yet but I think now that the article is up you should go ahead and post away! :)

were never privy to the contents. I think a quash was put on it by Blair.

From Feb. 18, 2003

Saying he "respectfully disagreed" with the millions who protested a possible war this weekend, President Bush Tuesday said military action against Iraq is a "last choice," but one he still might make.

http://election.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/18/iraq/main541082.shtml

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?hp&ex=1143435600&en=b6593aee0e01d384&ei=5094&partner=homepage

was ever presented. It wasn't covered much when it first became known. Perhaps now that an official document has been obtained, and the NY Times is covering it, other media will also pick it up.

This, coupled with the no-bid communist China cargo inspections deal should drop Bush down in the polls again. I wonder how low he will go before he's booted out?

This could be a good news week for true Americans. Not so hot for the Republicans, who of course, aren't true Americans.

I know plenty of repubs who want bush out as much as we do.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr.

Hussein.http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/NY_Times_to_report_on...

How much more proof does there need to be we've got a crazy man in the WH?

BTW, your link isn't working.

Discussing Provocation

Without much elaboration, the memo also says the president raised three possible ways of provoking a confrontation. Since they were first reported last month, neither the White House nor the British government has discussed them.

"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

It also described the president as saying, "The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam's W.M.D," referring to weapons of mass destruction.

A brief clause in the memo refers to a third possibility, mentioned by Mr. Bush, a proposal to assassinate Saddam Hussein. The memo does not indicate how Mr. Blair responded to the idea.

MORE AT:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/NY_Times_to_report_on...

Didn't Helen Thomas just ask about this at the press conference this past week?
What was his answer?

from the transcript at whitehouse.gov

Q I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?

THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --

Both have mangled tongues////

Referring to the Defense Department, it said: "A planning cell in D.O.D. was looking at all aspects and would deploy to Iraq to direct operations as soon as the military action was over. Bush said that a great deal of detailed planning had been done on supplying the Iraqi people with food and medicine."

Lies and more lies.

Derivative perhaps?

And he sure lied to his good buddy Tony about the food and medicine didn't he?
Tony Tony Tony, lie with a bush, wake up with chiggers.

As much as I blame Blair for actually sending troops and going along with this whole debacle, I can't help but imagine he was in a tough place.

I hear him asking himself, "Why would the US president steer me wrong?"

Then I see this meeting going something like this:

W: "Fuck this waiting, I'm goin' in!"
TB: "But we asked for a new resolution. Can't you wait a second?"
W: "No! Screw 'em! Besides, Tony, this won't take but a month and I've got people planning the humanitarian side."
TB: "Well, as long as you plan to take care of the people, and since I can't stop you..."

Oy.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/whitehousememo

and the NYT article

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/9779

According to an article published by the Guardian in February on the memo, "Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme."

Wow. Finally the truth is coming out!

Helen Thomas is vindicated for her question regarding Bush's intentions to go to war.

I am glad that this is coming out as I have been against the war from the beginning but I dont see the fundies ever giving up on the man monkey. Unless he starts the draft.