NY Times: British Memo on U.S. Plans for Iraq War Fuels Critics

[althecat]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/politics/20weapons.html

British Memo on U.S. Plans for Iraq War Fuels Critics
By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: May 20, 2005

WASHINGTON, May 19 - More than two weeks after its publication in London, a previously secret British government memorandum that reported in July 2002 that President Bush had decided to "remove Saddam, through military action" is still creating a stir among administration critics. They are portraying it as evidence that Mr. Bush was intent on war with Iraq earlier than the White House has acknowledged.

Eighty-nine House Democrats wrote to the White House to ask whether the memorandum, first disclosed by The Sunday Times on May 1, accurately reported the administration's thinking at the time, eight months before the American-led invasion. The letter, drafted by Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the British memorandum of July 23, 2002, if accurate, "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration."

It has long been known that American military planning for the Iraq war began as early as Nov. 21, 2001, after President Bush directed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to begin a review of what would be required to oust Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader. By July 2002, the war planning was sufficiently advanced that newspaper accounts that month reported details of some of what was being considered.

***

Snap... (hope is not a dupe)

[punpirate]

1. Still sounds like they're giving Bush a pass...

... there's little accentuation of the actual language of the minutes of the meeting in question, and how Goldsmith had to be talked into accepting the legal sophistry offered by the Bushies as justification for war.

Ah, well, better that there's mention of it than none at all.

[JDPriestly]

2. What has Bush done to these "journalists"?

Did he put something in the Times water cooler? That article is awful -- mentions the memo just enough to give cover to the Times without stirring up and pesky questions or doubts. What a waste of newspaper. And to think some poor tree had to die so that mealy-mouthed article could be published. It's pretty sad.

Come on, Times. Bush repeatedly said he hadn't decided. His best friends said he had decided. That's not just second hand information. That is an admission by a co-conspirator, and it would constitute good evidence of a conspiracy if one existed. Call a spade a spade for once please.

[bunny planet]

5. What a disgrace the NYTimes has turned out to be.

It was once a great paper, an institution that people could rely on to really inform. No more. Shameful, just shameful.

BTW, I heard there are other documents, some of them minutes of actual meetings that are to come in the British press exposing the lies of the lead up to this war.

Maybe the Times will give a better report about them. I won't hold my breath.

[Robbien]

3. Why is the NYT writing about the memo at all?

Weren't they already getting away with ignoring the subject like a good little GOP/Dobson lapdog?

Are they hoping this wimpy little say nothing piece absolves them of the responsibility of printing nothing during the last two weeks?

[UpInArms]

4. reading just the snippet, here is what I got:

WASHINGTON, May 19 - We have postponed writing a word for more than two weeks since some liberal publication in London (that hotbed of communistic journalism) attempted to smear our beloved patriotic godfearing administration by printing what should have remained a secret (because it might reflect poorly on our country (and you know we would never print a word that would do that (other than our nominal op-ed columnists - and remember they are not journalists- a previously secret British government memorandum that reported in July 2002 that President Bush had decided to "remove Saddam, through military action". This is still creating a stir among administration critics (those commie bastards). Those radical antiwar leftwingers are portraying it as evidence that Mr. Bush was intent on war with Iraq earlier than the White House has acknowledged.

Eighty-nine House Democrats (and they are on our list) wrote to the White House to ask whether the memorandum, first disclosed by The Sunday Times on May 1, accurately reported the administration's thinking at the time, eight months before the American-led invasion. The letter, drafted by Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan (we will be working to assure that his term is short), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the British memorandum of July 23, 2002, if accurate, "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration."

This is old news. Not only is it old, it is irrelevant and we are only bringing it up now in the most dismissive way possible. It has long been known that American military planning for the Iraq war began as early as Nov. 21, 2001, after President Bush directed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to begin a review of what would be required to oust Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader. By July 2002, the war planning was sufficiently advanced that newspaper accounts that month reported details of some of what was being considered.

All these nattering naybobs of negativism just need to shut up and remember that this is not September 10, 2001.

[Robbien]

6. UpInArms, you must be the speechwriter of the little voice in my head?

That's exactly what the voice in my head was saying as I read the piece!

[althecat]

7. Very good...

[JDPriestly]

10. Love your post.

[leftchick]

13. UIAs.....

I think you should send this to the NYTs. It is too good of an opportunity to let pass. Throw their words back in their faces!
You may want to include this quote from the chimperor...

"Yes, I told the Prime Minister there are no war plans on my desk. I haven't changed my opinion about Saddam Hussein, however. He is -- this is a person who gassed his own people, and possesses weapons of mass destruction. And so as I told the American people, and I told John, we'll use all tools at our disposal to deal with him. And, of course, before there is any action -- military action, I would closely consult with our close friend. There are no plans on my desk right now." GWBush June 12, 2002

http://www.australianpolitics.com/news/2002/06/02-06-13.shtml

Just another of the continuous lies that have spewed from his pie hole since day one.

[UpInArms]

14. thanks for the suggestion leftchick

I did that - but I expect nothing from them in the way of acknowledgement or in print -

from their website:

We regret we cannot return or acknowledge unpublished letters. Writers of those letters selected for publication will be notified within a week. Letters may be shortened for space requirements.

At the least, they will know what I think of them :evilgrin:

:hi:

[0007]

19. Excellent. Now smack down the Times George Galloway style

on why this wishy washy attitude will bring down this country to the level of a Banana Republic.

[sam sarrha]

8. hand him over to the Iraqi's for trial, and put him in with Saddams double

or did saddham fall off the earth.. like Noriaga.. what ever happened to him?? after we removed the despotic noriaga Cocaine shiptments out of Panama increased by 600%

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

9. 'Bout fuckin' time...NY Times! Move article to A1 and we have something.

Why is story isn't emblazoned on page one with big bold lettering, "BUSH COMMITS HIGH CRIME & MISDEMEANOR," I will never know.

JB

[Democat]

11. Who are these "critics"? During the Clinton years, the Times were them!

The Times were Bill Clinton's biggest critic and now their one of Bush's biggest supporters.

And they've announced their going to move even further to the right in the future.

Neet the new Fox News of print media.

[leveymg]

12. Good job of hiding the article, Ed. Had to really look to find it.

Gotta hand it to the Times editors. They are so good at burying a story they don't like that they should take over the job of running the city morgue in Baghdad.

The memo piece is placed in the Interational (Print Only) section, so casual on-line browsers won't see it, near the bottom of the list of articles. See, below. At least they thought it was more important than the New Species of Monkey Found story!

All the News that Fits.:bounce:

May 20, 2005

International

Iraqi Government, in Statement With Iran, Admits Fault for 1980's War

Uzbek Government Restores Authority in Area of Revolt

A Tie-Breaking Vote Saves Liberal Leader in Canada

End to Boycott of Israeli Universities Is Urged

In Rare Talks, the 2 Koreas Agree to Talk Again Next Month

Israel Vows Tough Stance, With Restraint, in Gaza

Red Cross Reported Koran Abuses

More European Air Data Sought by Security Chief

Cuban Exile Is Charged With Illegal Entry

Rafiah Yam Journal: Soon to Be Uprooted, Gaza Settlers Plant for Final Season

British Memo on U.S. Plans for Iraq War Fuels Critics

A New Species of Monkey Found in Africa

World Briefings

Names of the Dead

End of the Line for Families of Baghdad's Missing: The City Morgue

In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths:bounce:

[chlamor]

15. British Memo on Iraq Continues to Vex U.S.

British memo on Iraq continues to vex U.S.


By Douglas Jehl The New York Times

FRIDAY, MAY 20, 2005


WASHINGTON More than two weeks after its publication in London, a previously secret British government memo that reported two years ago that President George W. Bush had decided to "remove Saddam, through military action" is still creating a stir among critics, who are portraying it as evidence that Bush was intent on war with Iraq earlier than the White House has acknowledged.
 
<snip>
 
The letter, drafted by Representative John Conyers of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said the British memo, if accurate, "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration."
 
It has long been known that American military planning for the Iraq war began as early as Nov. 21, 2001, after Bush directed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to begin a review of what would be required to oust the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein. By July 2002, the war planning was sufficiently advanced that newspaper accounts that month reported details about some of what was being considered.
 
<snip>
 
The British government has not disputed the authenticity of the British memo, written by Matthew Rycroft, a top foreign policy aide to Blair. A spokesman for Blair has said that the memo does not add significantly to previous accounts of decision-making before the war began.
 
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/20/news/weapons.php

[underpants]

16. "It has long been known..."

Oh go blow it out your a**

It has ALSO long been known that that memo is no great surprise. Ask Paul O'Neill AND Richard Clark.

[Zorra]

17. "the White House saw "no need" to respond to the Democratic letter."

Dictators see no need to respond to democratic actions of any kind.

[Generator]

21. You beat me to it!!! /nt

[central scrutinizer]

18. what page was it on this time - A23?

Oh well, over 100,000 dead because of LIES isn't as important as a new Star Wars movie opening.

[Generator]

20. Oh this quote by lapdog fascist enabler McClellan has me LIVID

"The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, told reporters on Tuesday that the White House saw "no need" to respond to the Democratic letter."

That sums up EVERYTHING. One word. Dismissive. Irrelevant. Can't be bothered with Democracy. I will never as long as I'm breathing-forgive or forget these lying scum. I will never ever respect anyone that ever votes Republican again.

They can't even pretend to care. Everyday I get more convinced they DO own the voting machines-they don't need the people anymore. Coup by deceit and technology-a little fear thrown in-but no tanks in the streets needed. Welcome to the future.

[Roland99]

22. I'd forgotten about this Guardian article: Bush and Blair made secret pact

Bush and Blair made secret pact for Iraq war

· Decision came nine days after 9/11
· Ex-ambassador reveals discussion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1185438,00.html

President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001.

According to Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to Washington, who was at the dinner, Blair told Bush he should not get distracted from the war on terror's initial goal - dealing with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Bush, claims Meyer, replied by saying: 'I agree with you, Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.' Regime change was already US policy.

It was clear, Meyer says, 'that when we did come back to Iraq it wouldn't be to discuss smarter sanctions'. Elsewhere in his interview, Meyer says Blair always believed it was unlikely that Saddam would be removed from power or give up his weapons of mass destruction without a war.

Faced with this prospect of a further war, he adds, Blair 'said nothing to demur'.