Janauary 31st 2003 WH memo leaked

toontra

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 6, 2003
261
0
London UK
Channel 4 is reporting the contents of a leaked memo of the 31.1.03 meeting between Bush and Blair.

They both say war will go ahead despite any UN vote to the contrary. Bush suggests flying a US spy plane disguised in UN colours over Iraq, precipitating war.

So, once again, what most of us suspected all along turns out to be the truth.

Edit - link: http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,995
Republic of Ukistan
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661
The White House memo

Published: 2 Feb 2006
By: Gary Gibbon

Revealed: Bush and Blair discussed using American Spyplane in UN colours to lure Saddam into war.

Channel 4 News tonight reveals extraordinary details of George Bush and Tony Blair's pre-war meeting in January 2003 at which they discussed plans to begin military action on March 10th 2003, irrespective of whether the United Nations had passed a new resolution authorising the use of force.

Channel 4 News has seen minutes from that meeting, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. The two leaders discussed the possibility of securing further UN support, but President Bush made it clear that he had already decided to go to war. The details are contained in a new version of the book 'Lawless World' written by a leading British human rights lawyer, Philippe Sands QC.



President Bush said that:

"The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway.''

Prime Minister Blair responded that he was: "solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam."

But Mr Blair said that: "a second Security Council resolution would provide an insurance policy against the unexpected, and international cover, including with the Arabs."

Mr Sands' book says that the meeting focused on the need to identify evidence that Saddam had committed a material breach of his obligations under the existing UN Resolution 1441. There was concern that insufficient evidence had been unearthed by the UN inspection team, led by Dr Hans Blix. Other options were considered.

President Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

He went on: "It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddams WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated."

Speaking to Channel 4 News, Mr Sands said:

"I think no one would be surprised at the idea that the use of spy-planes to review what is going on would be considered. What is surprising is the idea that they would be used painted in the colours of the United Nations in order to provoke an attack which could then be used to justify material breach. Now that plainly looks as if it is deception, and it raises some fundamental questions of legality, both in terms of domestic law and international law."

Also present at the meeting were President Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice and her deputy Dan Fried, and the Presidents Chief of Staff, Andrew Card. The Prime Minister took with him his then security adviser Sir David Manning, his Foreign Policy aide Matthew Rycroft, and and his chief of staff, Jonathan Powell.

Those present, as documented in Mr Sands' book, also discussed what might happen in Iraq after liberation.

President Bush said that he: "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups."

Mr Blair did not respond.​
Nice touch, painting a U2 in UN colours. "Mr Blair did not respond", indeed! What a bunch of corrupt imbeciles these men are!
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
this painting of the plane thing has me pretty shocked. it seems like an idea some high schoolers would come up with in a brainstorming session but would have been crossed off upon the first review.

and there it was being bandied about by world leaders.

goddamn it i wanna see bush on trial in the hague.
 

Thanatoast

macrumors 65816
Dec 3, 2002
1,005
134
Denver
I give up. If they're not gonna impeach him for this, then there's just no hope. A pre-meditated war waged by incompetent, hubris-filled jackasses drunk on their own power.

Where's my pitchfork?
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
Thanatoast said:
I give up. If they're not gonna impeach him for this, then there's just no hope. A pre-meditated war waged by incompetent, hubris-filled jackasses drunk on their own power.

Where's my pitchfork?
Exactly, this MF needs to be impeached badly. This is unbelievable.
 

Ugg

macrumors 68000
Apr 7, 2003
1,985
15
Penryn
President Bush said that he: "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups."
I'd be curious to know if he was just talking out of his ass or if this was something given him by the Pentagon. Anyone who could ignore something so basic and so real certainly has no right to the presidency.
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,995
Republic of Ukistan
At what point exactly do our bodies politic tip over into condemnation of this skulduggery being practised in their names? They are all accessories after the fact if not before.

Anyway, where the hell is this story in your "liberalmedia"? It's nowhere, that's where it is. Why aren't they doing their bloody jobs?
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
skunk said:
At what point exactly do our bodies politic tip over into condemnation of this skulduggery being practised in their names? They are all accessories after the fact if not before.

Anyway, where the hell is this story in your "liberalmedia"? It's nowhere, that's where it is. Why aren't they doing their bloody jobs?
Because they are bought and paid for. I have a friend who works for one of the major Chicago papers. Trust me, there is no such thing as the "liberal" media. It's all owned by conservatives.
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
This is like some sort of bad conspiracy movie and it's just getting worse every day. I'd say I was shocked, but at this point, not much shocks me coming from them. They could say this was all some sort of plan to bring about the Apocalypse and I wouldn't be surprised at all. And he'd still have ~30% approval ratings. :rolleyes:
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
zimv20 said:
this painting of the plane thing has me pretty shocked. it seems like an idea some high schoolers would come up with in a brainstorming session but would have been crossed off upon the first review.
It would make the final cut in a Jerry Bruckheimer action film. And then stuff would blow up.
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
Sedulous said:
Is there not enough evidence to impeach?
If someone was looking hard enough, they could probably have him jailed (or worse) as a traitor. But who's going to bring up the charges, let alone convict. Of course, if he really does try to go too far... well, we all know what happened to Caesar.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0


The publicity pictures of politicians gazing adoringly at each other while they present the absolute ******** they have cooked up behind the scenes persistently offends me.

Before Iraq and the whole war on terror, I had a lot more respect for Blair. I really thought that he was doing a good job.

The media has plenty of its own photographers, using pictures released by political PR companies in support of a particular statement being released by those same politicians really brings into question the objectivity of the MSM.

That and the MSMs lack of willingness to investigate the actual claims being made at the time.

The MSM seems to think that running a story like this, long after the events have happened, seems to somehow construe good investigative reporting on their part.

It's not like there were not a lot of people who thought this was happening at the time Bush and Blair were making their case for war, based on information that was available. Where was the media then?

The media is failing the public in too many ways to mention lately.
 

toontra

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 6, 2003
261
0
London UK
skunk said:
At what point exactly do our bodies politic tip over into condemnation of this skulduggery being practiced in their names? They are all accessories after the fact if not before.

Anyway, where the hell is this story in your "liberalmedia"? It's nowhere, that's where it is. Why aren't they doing their bloody jobs?
I think "attention fatigue" has set in with the media. Either they are bored with Iraq or they think their readers/viewers will be (the BBC has hardy covered this story - probably also because CH 4 scooped them!).

I think that the bastards who schemed so long and hard for this illegal war factored this into their equations, relying on the fact that after the first couple of years people would be so goddamn bored with continued press coverage (not to mention the press for having to cover it) that interest would wane.

As things stand, the most damning evidence could now emerge and, what would have caused uproar 2 or 3 years ago, would barely bat an eyelid.
 

wordmunger

macrumors 603
Sep 3, 2003
5,125
2
North Carolina
Sedulous said:
Is there not enough evidence to impeach?
Well, this memo isn't enough evidence. He was just brainstorming -- he didn't actually do it. But there's plenty of other evidence, it's just that the Congress is Republican, and they're the ones that have to impeach him.

Besides, if Bush is impeached, the line of succession goes like this: Cheney, Hastert, Condeleeza Rice. I don't think any of those would be any better.
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,516
OBJECTIVE reality
Well, this story apparently just broke across the pond, so let's see if the American media pick it up.

You know...............I work in a local cable studio. Someone came in recently with a pre-produced show, a conspiracy/paranoia documentary really, which not only pilloried Bush for his lies about the war, but also made claims about a bigger conspiracy involving John Kerry (via he and Bush's joint membership in Yale's Skull and Bones fraternity), the Trilateral Commission, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Karl Rove and their alleged association to neo-Nazi organizations, and more.

A colleague and I took a look at the show, and while we aired it, we laughed off much of it as being wildly implausible.

But...every time another crazy detail like this spy plane story comes out, it chips away at my disbelief and makes me wonder a little more.

Oh, and wordmunger: I've thought about that myself, but in another thread many of us came to the conclusion that it needs to be done anyway, to serve as a warning to all the neocons that we will not tolerate this bull****.
 

toontra

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 6, 2003
261
0
London UK
BakedBeans said:
Can I just say...

I'm fully behind what they have done

.... OK, I'll duck about now
Thanks for the analysis. An informed and well-argued contribution to the forum.

Sure you can say it, but what's the point.
 

BakedBeans

macrumors 68040
May 6, 2004
3,054
0
What's Your Favorite Posish
toontra said:
Thanks for the analysis. An informed and well-argued contribution to the forum.

Sure you can say it, but what's the point.
Because I wanted to share it. I didn't (and don't) have a lot of time to discuss it with members that are SO OBVIOUSLY against it.

But thanks for the cheesy sarcasm.

I hate Brits (its OK i am one :rolleyes: ) The sarcasm sucks :)
 

BakedBeans

macrumors 68040
May 6, 2004
3,054
0
What's Your Favorite Posish
skunk said:
Can I just ask...

Why? What good has it done?
I've not got a huge amount of time right at the moment but I think the benefits will be seen in years to come, getting Saddam out of power - and using any means necessary is good for (in the immediate future) for the country or Iraq and (in the distance) the rest of the world security.
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,995
Republic of Ukistan
BakedBeans said:
I think the benefits will be seen in years to come, getting Saddam out of power - and using any means necessary is good for (in the immediate future) for the country or Iraq and (in the distance) the rest of the world security.
Presumably you mean "the country of Iraq". In what sense do you think that by deceiving the people of their own countries in order to launch a disastrously inept war and occupation and by illegally deposing a foreign leader installed by their own countries' earlier geopolitical machinations, and at the same time stirring up a hornets' nest they are ill-equipped to deal with, at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of dollars, George Bush and Tony Blair have done "good"?
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
BakedBeans said:
using any means necessary is good for (in the immediate future) for the country or Iraq and (in the distance) the rest of the world security.
And seeing as how things are going so swimmingly now (the immediate future), I'm sure that's a fantastic indicator that a secular, peaceful, functioning and world-friendly democratic society will sprout up (in the distance). Just like in Palestine.
 

bbyrdhouse

macrumors 6502
Oct 2, 2002
300
0
Elm Grove, LA
toontra said:
Channel 4 is reporting the contents of a leaked memo of the 31.1.03 meeting between Bush and Blair.

They both say war will go ahead despite any UN vote to the contrary. Bush suggests flying a US spy plane disguised in UN colours over Iraq, precipitating war.

So, once again, what most of us suspected all along turns out to be the truth.

Edit - link: http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1661
Hey! If channel 4 said it it haaaas to be true.