Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - They wanted in no matter what

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - They wanted in no matter what (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/100712-they-wanted-no-matter-what.html)

They wanted in no matter what

It's now beyond conclusive that the Iraq war was going to happen no matter what public opinion was or if Saddam had WMD's or not.

Quote:

Blair-Bush deal before Iraq war revealed in secret memo

PM promised to be 'solidly behind' US invasion with or without UN backing

Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday February 3, 2006

Tony Blair told President George Bush that he was "solidly" behind US plans to invade Iraq before he sought advice about the invasion's legality and despite the absence of a second UN resolution, according to a new account of the build-up to the war published today.
A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that 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 president told Mr 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 disclosures come in a new edition of Lawless World, by Phillipe Sands, a QC and professor of international law at University College, London. Professor Sands last year exposed the doubts shared by Foreign Office lawyers about the legality of the invasion in disclosures which eventually forced the prime minister to publish the full legal advice given to him by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith.

The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:

· Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".

· Mr Bush even expressed the hope that a defector would be extracted from Iraq and give a "public presentation about Saddam's WMD". He is also said to have referred Mr Blair to a "small possibility" that Saddam would be "assassinated".

· Mr Blair told the US president that a second UN resolution would be an "insurance policy", providing "international cover, including with the Arabs" if anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning oil wells, killing children, or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq.

· Mr Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book.

The revelation that Mr Blair had supported the US president's plans to go to war with Iraq even in the absence of a second UN resolution contrasts with the assurances the prime minister gave parliament shortly after. On February 25 2003 - three weeks after his trip to Washington - Mr Blair told the Commons that the government was giving "Saddam one further, final chance to disarm voluntarily".

He added: "Even now, today, we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntary disarmament through the UN. I detest his regime - I hope most people do - but even now, he could save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully."

On March 18, before the crucial vote on the war, he told MPs: "The UN should be the focus both of diplomacy and of action... [and that not to take military action] would do more damage in the long term to the UN than any other single course that we could pursue."

The meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Blair, attended by six close aides, came at a time of growing concern about the failure of any hard intelligence to back up claims that Saddam was producing weapons of mass destruction in breach of UN disarmament obligations. It took place a few days before the then US secretary Colin Powell made claims - since discredited - in a dramatic presentation at the UN about Iraq's weapons programme.

Earlier in January 2003, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, expressed his private concerns about the absence of a smoking gun in a private note to Mr Blair, according to the book. He said he hoped that the UN's chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, would come up with enough evidence to report a breach by Iraq of is its UN obligations.

Downing Street did not deny the existence of the memo last night, but said: "The prime minister only committed UK forces to Iraq after securing the approval of the House of Commons in a vote on March 18, 2003." It added the decision to resort to military action to ensure Iraq fulfilled its obligations imposed by successive security council resolutions was taken only after attempts to disarm Iraq had failed. "Of course during this time there were frequent discussions between the UK and US governments about Iraq. We do not comment on the prime minister's conversations with other leaders."

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat acting leader, said last night: "The fact that consideration was apparently given to using American military aircraft in UN colours in the hope of provoking Saddam Hussein is a graphic illustration of the rush to war. It would also appear to be the case that the diplomatic efforts in New York after the meeting of January 31 were simply going through the motions.

"The prime minister's offer of February 25 to Saddam Hussein was about as empty as it could get. He has a lot of explaining to do."

Prof Sands says Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's UN ambassador at the time, told a foreign colleague he was "clearly uncomfortable" about the failure to get a second resolution. Foreign Office lawyers consistently warned that an invasion would be regarded as unlawful. The book reveals that Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the FO's deputy chief legal adviser who resigned over the war, told the Butler inquiry into the use of intelligence during the run-up to the war, of her belief that Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, shared the FO view. According to private evidence to the Butler inquiry, Lord Goldsmith told FO lawyers in early 2003: "The prime minister has told me that I cannot give advice, but you know what my views are".

On March 7 2003 he advised the prime minister that the Bush administration believed that a case could be made for an invasion without a second UN resolution. But he warned that Britain could be challenged in the international criminal court. Ten days later, he said a second resolution was not necessary.

Not only did they want in, they were willing to provoke an attack by painting US planes as UN planes and fly them over Iraq in hopes that Saddam would shoot them down. Sounds similar to the Operation Northwoods plan where the government planned to paint US fighter jets like Cuban planes and use them shoot down civilian aircraft to provoke a war with Cuba. Total crimminals.

Hahahaha thats rich, painting planes to look like UN planes?

While I'm not an offical pilot, both of my parents are, I've soloed, and I've spent FAR FAR more time in a small aircraft than anyone should be subjected to.

No one identifies planes with paint, and the UN isn't going to be flying U2's in UN colors over a country like that. So Saddam would shoot down a U2 aircraft in UN paint and then the US would claim somehow it was a UN flight, despite the fact that the head of the UN is corrupt and was in Iraq's pocket, and get away with is somehow?

Its the most assinine thing I've ever read in the world of wacky conspiracy theroies. Ok no its not but still come on.

Iraq had been shooting at our planes in the no fly zones for years, and was in violation of resolutions already. Thats just wacky.

Yes I agree, it's part of the straussian ideological background of the neo-conservatives to want to bring democracy to undemocratic countries. I think it's clear that they always wanted to go into Iraq. There have been plenty of indications such as things Bush said in meetings after 9/11 and in private before he became President. Even if the U2 flight information in the article is incorrect, I still think that the US administration wanted to go into Iraq.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aKula

I have NO doubt that Iraq was on the menu for a long time and it is something I agree with, but that doesn't mean we need to embrace every wacky theory out there.

I wouldn't be so Quick to write off Philippe Sands as some
Alex Jones type conspiracy theroist.
He is a highly regarded, powerful lawyer, and professor.
"wacky" doesn't even begin to describe todays world events.

http://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/WhoWeAre_...peSandsQC.aspx

Quote:

Philippe is Professor of Law and Director of the Centre of International Courts and Tribunals at University College London. He has been a member of the Irish bar since January 2003. His practice includes advice and litigation in public international law, arbitration, EU, and natural resources and environmental law, advising or acting for governments, international organisations, the private sector and NGOs.

Over recent years, Philippe has developed a practice in general international law, covering a wide range of subjects.
Areas in which he currently advises and litigates include:
- foreign investment disputes under bilateral investment treaties and NAFTA, acting for claimants and respondents;
- maritime boundary disputes in the Caribbean, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans;
- international claims relating to natural resources, pollution and environmental assessment;
- international trade disputes, including agricultural preferences and genetically modified organisms;
- issues relating to the immunity of serving and former heads of state from the jurisdiction of national and international courts;
- international claims relating to the use of force and allegations of torture and genocide and other violations of fundamental human rights;
- cases relating to individual violations of international criminal laws.

He has appeared before many international courts, including the European Court of Justice; the International Court of Justice; the World Trade Organisation dispute settlement organs; the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea; and the Special Court for Sierra Leone. He has appeared in arbitrations under the rules of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, the Permanent Court of Arbitration and the International Chamber of Commerce; the World Bank Inspection Panel; and the Special Court for Sierra Leone). Philippe also appears regularly before the English courts.

You might not be so quick to write off Philippe, but based on all that you've shared, I will! ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by zz0011

You might not be so quick to write off Philippe, but based on all that you've shared, I will! ;)

His biography? :hmm:
Or was that supposed to be an insult that I don't quite get :confused:

The UN does have access to U2's after all

Quote:

While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we planned to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety, unless a number of conditions are fulfilled. As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in resolution 1441 (2002) and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our request. I hope this attitude will change.

THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003:
AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION
Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

His biography? :hmm:
Or was that supposed to be an insult that I don't quite get :confused:

...rrrrrrrrrrrrr-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-gh-ttttttttttttttt.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I have NO doubt that Iraq was on the menu for a long time and it is something I agree with, but that doesn't mean we need to embrace every wacky theory out there.

So you think it's OK that they were willing to propagandize and/or provoke a war in order to sell it to the US and UN? Then in hindsight we find out that that's exactly what they did. Is that really acceptable?

Of course it is Samcol... Neocons like Ustwo are confident in their positions...

Ends always justify the means.

My question is, why Iraq? There are dozens of dictatorships around the world that were as bad or worse than Saddam's regime. There are easier ways to free up oil reserves. Is it just because the job didn't get finished under Bush Pere's administration?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

It was the oil. It is what it is always about in the middle east.

If the middle east didn't have oil, it would just be another africa, barely on the US radar. Nearly all the extremists that have any power in the middle east have that power because of the west's desire for oil and the popping up of regimes like the Shah in Iran and the Sauds in Saudia Arabia...

Iraq is just another link in a chain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Yes, though there really wasn't much we needed to sell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Give the man a cigar! Of course oil was the root of it all, because oil is what has given these nutballs the money to become dangerous to the West. This stage of our development REQUIRES vast amounts of oil, and through some cosmic comic slip up, mother nature happened to put much of it in that part of the world.

So we have the beautiful mix of a clash of cultures which has been around since the Arabs started to invade the West, something which we barely escaped the first few times. Constantinople may have fallen, but we all owe them a debt of gratitude. And now the same mind set which hasn't changed in 1500 years happens to control a large portion of a vital resource.

The only issue is how long the left is going to deny the inevitable that we are in fact at war with radical islam, because the longer we twiddle our thumbs and blame ourselves for the problems, the worse that war is going to be in costs for both sides.

So we can stick our thumbs up our ass, ignore the signs of the future (such as the reaction to a editoral cartoon), and pretend nothing bad is going to happen, or we strike now when we have all the advantages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

The UN does have access to U2's after all

THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003:
AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION
Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

Umm alpha phi you are totally missing the point. Yes the UN may have access to U2's, but painting it in UN colors (eh?) giving it a fighter escort (huh?!) and letting it get shot down (wha?) in order to create an incident which the UN powers that be would KNOW was false since it WAS NOT a UN mission is the most assinine thing I've ever read .... well in the last few days a least.

But ustwo, how in the world do you propose we actually win a war against radical islam? We can't even change the mind of creationists in America. Is your hope to just subdue the Middle East while we can, take the oil and run? You said

Quote:

So we can stick our thumbs up our ass, ignore the signs of the future (such as the reaction to a editoral cartoon), and pretend nothing bad is going to happen, or we strike now when we have all the advantages.

I just don't get it. In my mind, the Middle East is a lost cause. Call me callous, but as long as they're idea of a "good idea" when it comes to government involves anything that remotely looks like a theocracy, there is no point in pretending our cultures will ever get along.

I always thought the only way to win the endgame when it came to oil was getting off oil in the first place. I realize there is no miracle panacea that we can pull out of our ass and be oil-free by Thanksgiving, but it does not seem like the U.S. government is really giving an honest effort to weaning us off oil before it is absolutely necessary to do so. It has to be possible. If we can pull an atomic bomb out of our ass in the 40s, we're inventive enough to prop up some serious alternative energy solutions.

Continuing to play fire with religious zealots is not going to do anybody any good, no matter what side of the political spectrum you find yourself. This uproar over the cartoons is just laughably pathetic.

I had some other stuff to say but I decided I was just reeling off into a digression about backwards religious states...

The real answer is to work as hard as possible and to spend treasure on making the west less dependent on oil. Get rid of this dependence and there is no need to be involved in the Middle East.

The problem is, the oil lobby is strong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Well that could by why bush suggested it to blair,
and then it never played out.
Blair probobly had the same look on his face
when it was suggested, as you did when you read it.
That WTF, That's the dumbest thing I've heard look.

It could also be a
"I don't care what we have to do to get to Iraq" type statement
more of an exaggeration.

I assume The UK has libel laws
Would a lawyer of the caliber of Philippe Sands
risk writeing all this in a book without evidence?
If it is not true, Blair could and should sue him for libel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

Yes we are back to Bush, the trained fighter pilot, is stupid :lol:

That or the memo this guy saw was fake or never exsisted in the first place. I mean he has no reason to lie or anything. its not like it gets him publicity for his books or higher speakers fees. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

But if he has lied in a book, he has commited libel
That's a crime
Blair could take this guy to the cleaners,
and remove a major thorn from his side in the process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

As opposed to Bush/Blair who are already lieing/misleading until the WMDs prove otherwise.

No WMD's found and *GASP* a memo comes out that says they were willing to mislead people to go to war and all the evidence thus far shows that's what happened. This guy is promoting an outrageous conspiracy theory :rolleyes:

Ustwo

Quote:

At last. A neocon willing to admit that it wasn't about WMD's, an evil dictator, or the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the world. I and others have said from the beginning that it was always about the oil.

Securing oil may have played a part but it was not all about the oil (or even the majority). If the war was about oil then the administration would be risking quite a lot for small gains in the change of energy prices and having iraqi oil traded in US dollars. I don't believe that such a risk would be worth the possible benifits. This is not to say that the US does not use its military as an instrument to secure oil supply particularly in west africa.

When you start examining the neo-conservative view that the US government should play the role of world democratic enforcer you discover more reasons behind the war. What this (the role of world democratic enforcer) allows for is twofold. Firstly it strengthens the US position on the world stage and provides increased security (the contention that the current war provided much or any of this is doubtful). Secondly it could be seen as intended, in part, for a domestic US audience. Remember that Paul Wolfowitz was a student of Leo Strauss.

Quote:

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss

Strauss noted that thinkers of the first rank, going back to Plato, had raised the problem of whether good and effective politicians could be completely truthful and still achieve the necessary ends of their society. By implication, Strauss asks his readers to consider whether "noble lies" (Plato) have any role at all to play in uniting and guiding the cities of man. Are certain, unprovable "myths" taught by wise leaders needed to give most people meaning and purpose and to ensure a stable society? Or can society flourish on a foundation of those "deadly truths" (Nietzsche) limited to what we can know absolutely?

So using methods that mislead as to the truth are maybe not incompatible with neo-conservative policy? Maybe through their methods (if such a thing was undertaken) they managed to decieve themselves and the rest of the administration. They were sure that they were right so obtaining inaccurate information from people with an inherent interest in Saddam being toppled (I also remember reading something about the translation from arabic made being exagerated by some neo-conservative group).
Other members of the administration were perhaps purely interested in extending the hegemonic position of the USA. It would also correct the mistake Bush senior had made 10 years earlier.

Edited for clarification.

Quote:

Powell's Former Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson Calls Pre-War Intelligence a 'Hoax on the American People' Tonight on PBS Program 'NOW'
Friday February 3, 12:19 pm ET

NEW YORK, Feb. 3 /PRNewswire/ -- In an interview airing tonight on the PBS weekly newsmagazine NOW, Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson makes the startling claim that much of Powell's landmark speech to the United Nations laying out the Bush Administration's case for the Iraq war was false.
"I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community, and the United Nations Security Council," says Wilkerson, who helped prepare the address.

The NOW report, which airs days before the third anniversary of Powell's speech, examines the serious doubts that existed about the key evidence being used by the American government at the very time Powell's speech was being planned and delivered.

"I recall vividly the Secretary of State walking into my office," Wilkerson tells NOW. "He said: 'I wonder what will happen if we put half a million troops on the ground in Iraq and comb the country from one end to the other and don't find a single weapon of mass destruction?'" In fact, no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.

NOW, hosted by David Brancaccio, airs Friday nights at 8:30 on PBS (check local listings).

More "tinfoil" information about total fabrication of pre-war intelligence. It's all coming out now about what we suspected all along, it was never about WMDs.