1
   

Proof Bush Fixed the Facts...

 
 
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 09:54 am
The secret Downing Street memo



SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY



DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

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.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. 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.

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.


The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.


(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)


MATTHEW RYCROFT


The Sunday Times - Britain
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,628 • Replies: 119
No top replies

 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 10:11 am
The usuals will be along in a minute...
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 10:36 am
<peeks in ... looks around for "the usuals" ... doesn't see them ... sees tinfoil hat on the ground ... leaves>












<crickets>
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 10:41 am
<peeks in ... looks around for "the usuals" ... notices that they have already left ... leaves>
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 10:43 am
"This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents. "

Shh!!!!! This is sensitive stuff..
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 10:59 am
Am I a "usual"? I must not be since my wife is always telling me I am unusual. But if I see any of them usuals hanging around, I will send them this way.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 11:04 am
So does this mean that Bush lied? Of course not. There were no blowjobs from interns involved.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 11:08 am
Ticomaya wrote:
<peeks in ... looks around for "the usuals" ... doesn't see them ... sees tinfoil hat on the ground ... leaves>












<crickets>


that was actually a tinfoil condum...naturally however the usuals would use them for hats...being as most of them are....oh nevermind. Razz
0 Replies
 
not2know
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 11:38 am
Just a reminder -

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

United Nations Address, Sept. 12, 2002:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

Radio Address, Oct. 5, 2002:

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, Oct. 7, 2002:

"The Iraqi regime... possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003:

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003:

WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA's top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has "gone as far as feasible" and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.

Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 11:48 am
Not only was the decision to invade Iraq correct, but we will have to do the same thing again with increasing frequency in the future.

As technology brings WMDs within the hands of less sophisticated and wealthy entities, we will surely be in the position many times that some particularly odious dictator has a WMD program. Sometimes the facts may be known absolutely. Other times some facts may be known but our knowledge may be incomplete.

Sure, we should always try negotiation first, but at some point, we will need to stop them, or investigate by force if we want to stay alive.

Far from being some turn of the century news event associated with Bush, this was just the tip of the iceberg.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 11:55 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
As technology brings WMDs within the hands of less sophisticated and wealthy entities, ...associated with Bush, this was just the tip of the iceberg.


<SNORT>

Laughing
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 12:05 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Not only was the decision to invade Iraq correct, but we will have to do the same thing again with increasing frequency in the future.

As technology brings WMDs within the hands of less sophisticated and wealthy entities, we will surely be in the position many times that some particularly odious dictator has a WMD program. Sometimes the facts may be known absolutely. Other times some facts may be known but our knowledge may be incomplete.

Sure, we should always try negotiation first, but at some point, we will need to stop them, or investigate by force if we want to stay alive.

Far from being some turn of the century news event associated with Bush, this was just the tip of the iceberg.


So, you are obviously advocating a 3rd world war. The U.S. against the world!

SHeesh
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 12:06 pm
squinney wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
As technology brings WMDs within the hands of less sophisticated and wealthy entities, ...associated with Bush, this was just the tip of the iceberg.


<SNORT>

Laughing


You never fail to amuse yourself, do you?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 12:08 pm
Intrepid wrote:
SHeesh


Is this code for something? It seems like it's been used a lot today.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 12:10 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
SHeesh
Rolling Eyes


Is this code for something? It seems like it's been used a lot today.


Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to break the code without asking for proof of the finidings from anyone that has not heard the tape which will self destruct in 2 seconds

Laughing
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 12:17 pm
Intrepid wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
SHeesh
Rolling Eyes


Is this code for something? It seems like it's been used a lot today.


Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to break the code without asking for proof of the finidings from anyone that has not heard the tape which will self destruct in 2 seconds

Laughing


The "SH" is a sign of solidarity with Saddam Hussein?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 12:18 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
SHeesh
Rolling Eyes


Is this code for something? It seems like it's been used a lot today.


Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to break the code without asking for proof of the finidings from anyone that has not heard the tape which will self destruct in 2 seconds

Laughing


The "SH" is a sign of solidarity with Saddam Hussein?


NOW YOU ARE MAKING ME MAD!
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 12:20 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
squinney wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
As technology brings WMDs within the hands of less sophisticated and wealthy entities, ...associated with Bush, this was just the tip of the iceberg.


<SNORT>

Laughing


You never fail to amuse yourself, do you?


Hint: My Super Secret Code Name is Squinney All Happy With Herself.


SHhhhhhh!
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 12:32 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
SHeesh


Is this code for something? It seems like it's been used a lot today.


So Help Everyone, Even **** Heads
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 May, 2005 12:38 pm
And the winner is............... FreeDuck :-o
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Proof Bush Fixed the Facts...
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/13/2025 at 10:18:49