Can we finally put the lie to rest that the war was about "Democracy?" --------------------- Bush told Blair determined to invade Iraq without UN resolution or WMD US President George W. Bush made clear to British Prime Minister Tony Blair in January 2003 that he was determined to invade Iraq without a UN resolution and even if UN arms inspectors failed to find weapons of mass destruction in the country, The New York Times reported. Citing a confidential British memorandum, the newspaper said the president was certain that war was inevitable and made his view known during a private two-hour meeting with Blair in the Oval Office on January 31, 2003. Information about the meeting was contained in the memo written by Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The Times. "Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," the paper quotes David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, as noting in the memo. " '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'," the paper continued. The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment, the paper said. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, then US secretary of state Colin Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons. Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum had not been made public, according to the report. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by British lawyer and international law professor Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast excerpts from the memo. But since then, The New York Times has been able to review the five-page memo in its entirety. The document indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable, the paper said. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Blair agreed with that assessment. The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq, The Times noted. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a US surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2006032...QdY.GetOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE- The full Times article -- http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/i...&en=1a8220fd45b2aca0&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Can we finally put the lie to rest that the war was about "Democracy?" I think other quotes of Bush and Blair from the longer NYT story do so. Even Basso and Hayes will be challenged to parse the invasion was motivated by wmd or suggest it is compatible with the democracy ruse. Quote: The latest memo is striking in its characterization of frank, almost casual, conversation by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair about the most serious subjects. At one point, the leaders swapped ideas for a postwar Iraqi government. "As for the future government of Iraq, people would find it very odd if we handed it over to another dictator," the prime minister is quoted as saying. "Bush agreed," Mr. Manning wrote. This exchange, like most of the quotations in this article, have not been previously reported nyt.com
That quote makes it pretty apparent that they had democracy in mind, or am I missing something? And really, this is just silly sensationalism. All it 'confirms,' if anything, is that Bush felt war was inevitable. That doesn't change anything and isn't a revelation. Further, 'they were aware that no WMDs had been found...' Oooooooooo. No kidding. If they had FOUND Wmds then it wouldn't have been difficult to convince people Saddam was building them, lol.
Bush felt war was inevitable because he knew he wanted to invade them. So you acknowledge that Bush and everyone in the administration lied to the American people and the world about why we should invade Iraq.
Uh, no. Although I'm not an advocate for Bush so it wouldn't bother me at all, I don't see any evidence in this 'memo' that says he lied. It says he wanted to intervene in Iraq, that they knew WMDs had not yet been found, and that they wanted a democratic outcome. I don't think any of that is a new revelation.
That is some spin if I ever saw it. In the memo it said that he was discussing ways in which to provoke a war including painting a plane to look like a UN plane and assassination (which is illegal). This doesn't show you that he was going to go there under any pretense? No matter what? Doesn't that make you question a lot of the bull**** that is being fed to the American public from the White House? Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.
YOu are missing something. It implies that they were mainly concerned as to how it looked. If they could get a friendly dictator, that was fine, too. The origins and motivations of the war might be "silly sensationalism"for you, but not for most Americans, or troops in Iraq, ,or the Iraqi people Bush knew war was "inevitable" because he figured no one could stop him and he was determined to do so wmd or no wmd; demcoracy or no democracy. Hayes, it is tough, but you should just really accept that you were conned and your prior mindset and misconceptions about Vietnam and how all US wars are necessarily moral and or necessary for vital US self interests, were why you were so easily fooled on this war by an incompetent like Bush.
There is a great documentary called "Why We Fight" that is out right now. Everyone should see this. It's probably at your local art film theatre. Sorry if it's a bit off topic.
I think you're just seeing what you want to see. Yes, he was determined to remove Saddam. And? Is that a new revelation? No. BTW: assassination is banned by executive order, which Bush could change if he so chose. I never said we shouldn't question the White House. Not sure why you assume otherwise. In fact, I have said from the beginning that the war wasn't properly justified by the White House, despite my belief that the intervention was the right thing to do. That doesn't mean, however, that this is anything new. Er, no. If you read the part you put in BOLD, lol, it's pretty clear that they agreed another dictator would not be the desired outcome. I don't even know why you put that in bold - it simply denies your conclusion. Oops. Uh, ok. THIS report is nothing new. It's actually hilarious because you're taking a quote, declaring it says the opposite (from having another dictator would not be desirable to having a friendly dictator would be desirable), and then saying it supports your opinion. Your rhetoric. Nothing in sections that actually report what was said indicate this. Sigh. I have NEVER said all US wars are necessary or moral or vital to US interests. That's a strawman that you are your ilk like to parade out everytime someone disagrees with you. I certainly wasn't 'fooled' by the Administration into supporting the war as my opinion was not dependent on their justifications of the war. Of course you already know this as I've described in depth many times before. Ironically you and Cheney have a lot in common - keep repeating untruths and people might believe it, lol.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060321-4.html There are at least a half-dozen key examples that show the polar opposite. Bush was intent on an invasion, despite public comments about diplomacy.
Bush Insists ‘I Didn’t Want War,’ Overwhelming Evidence Suggests Otherwise In his press conference this morning, President Bush claimed he had not made up his mind to go to war before the start of the military invasion: On Iraq, Bush bristled at a suggestion that he had wanted to wage war against that country since early in his presidency. “I didn’t want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong … with all due respect,” he told a reporter. “No president wants war.” To those who say otherwise, “it’s simply not true,” Bush said. Bush appears to be the only person left who believes his own myth that he went to war with Iraq as a last resort. The evidence is overwhelming to the contrary: British Memo — Bush, Blair Agreed to Invade In Late Jan. 2003: A memo of a two-hour meeting between [Bush and Blair] 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. [Guardian, 2/3/06] British Memo — Bush Had Made Up His In July 2002: It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. [Downing Street Minutes, 7/23/02] Bush Suggested War Against Iraq Nine Days After 9/11: 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. [The Observer, 4/4/04] Richard Clarke Said Bush Pushed Him To Make Case for Iraq War: Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism director: “Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq. And we all said … no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. … The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, ‘I want you to find whether Iraq did this.’ Now he never said, ‘Make it up.’ But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this. [CBS 60 Minutes, 3/21/04] Rumsfeld Suggested War Against Iraq on 9/11: Rumsfeld’s instruction to General Myers on 9/11: Find the “est info fast …judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time - not only UBL [Usama Bin Laden]” [Rumsfeld’s notes, 9/11/01] Former Bush Treasury Secretary Said Bush Wanted To Go To War: In a CBS “60 Minutes” interview, former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill said, “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.” O’Neill says in The Price of Loyalty: “It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying, ‘Go find me a way to do this.’” [CBS, 1/11/04] Gen. Tommy Franks — Military and Equipment Moved to Iraq In Feb. 2002: Former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham related a conversation he had with General Tommy Franks in February 2002, 14 months before the initiation of the Iraq war. Franks said, “Senator, we are not engaged in a war in Afghanistan… Military and intelligence personnel are being redeployed to prepare for an action in Iraq… We can finish this job in Afghanistan if we are allowed to do so.” [Bob Graham, Intelligence Matters, p. 125-126] http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/21/made-up-his-mind/
I don't understand what this has to do with your original assertion (that started the thread) that there was no concern with democracy re: the intervention in Iraq. Doesn't glynch's bolded section disprove this? How does the conclusion that Bush was intent on intervention affect this at all? Further, the administration flat out declared that if Saddam went into exile there would be no intervention. That goes a long way to disproving other motivations for the intervention (oil, bases etc), doesn't it?
Hmmm, this presents an interesting dilemma for you. You present this quote from O'Neill. You find it credible obviously or you wouldn't have posted it. You want us to be swayed by its credibility. So...doesn't this disprove all of the assertions of oil grab, base expansion, etc? “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.” Not there was a conviction to expand bases or seize Iraqi oil - "that Saddam Hussein was a bad person." Interesting. Do I believe that the administration said there would be no intervention if Saddam went into exile? Well, yes. I saw it reported when it happened. Did you miss it? Or did you mean 'do I believe the administration wouldn't have intervened if Saddam had gone into exile?' Of course I do. What option would they have had? Besides, as I point out above, YOUR position is that the main "conviction" was to remove Saddam, no? Oops.
And if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell in New York! Cheap! Hayes there was nothing that was going to stop this war.
That just cheap rhetoric. Why do you believe so? What was the motivation, in your opinion, to go to war? Just because Bush likes war in general? That's silly. Further, please address the contradiction from above instead of just declaring that you are right and I am wrong, lol.
LOL, hayes, you are at your usual self again. Finding some "sensible" excuses to go to a war doesn't exclude profiteering for a selected few and controlling strategically important locations to satisfy our quest for global hegemony. The fundamental difference between your view and mine (and that of many others) is that I consider the benefit of these excuses is merely a feel-good, unguaranteed by-product -- aka "democracy" in your belief -- of wars unnecessarily intended by the war planners, while you see it as an unshakable principle yet at the same time do not shun the more sinister fruits of wars.
