Tuesday, June 07, 2005
The Downing St. minutes
In July of 2002, to keep the executive branch up to date, intelligence officers met with Tony Blair and others about the possibility of a US-led invasion of Iraq.One of the key parts of this meeting was John Scarlett, Chair of the Intelligence Committee, describing his recent visit to the United States. He summarized his meetings 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.
...
To read the entire memo, go to the Times of London.This document is a memo written by Matthew Raycroft, an aide to the British foreign Policy Advisor. It is nothing more than a written report on a meeting of top government officials, including Prime Minister Tony Blair. For more info on the players involved and who they are, check out downingstreetmemo.com.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.
What does it mean?
Most importantly it means that we have proof. Our intelligence agencies told the British that we were invading Iraq and need their help. Our government laid out false reasons for war, when the only real reason was 'regime change.' We assured them that we would present evidence to justify our invasion, regardless of the facts. The administration told the British that they would "make the intelligence fit the policy" and then they lied to the United Nations and lied to the United States.We know for sure that there were no WMD, and the administration knew it in 2002.
The other reason they gave was that Iraq was part of the "War on Terror." The evidence they gave for this was:
1- An alleged meeting between an Al Qaeda loyalist and Saddam's Intelligence force. This was never proven, it is only known that an al Qaeda operative went to Baghdad for medical treatment. If he did meet with Saddam's people, it may mean something, but not much. Many people have met with Saddam, including our allies and Donald Rumsfeld himself.
2- A group called "Ansar Al Islam" that operated near the western border in Iraq. Ansar al Islam, up until a few months before the US occupation, was an enemy of the Saddam government. They fought against the Iraqi regime. They were a convenient group to paint as Qaeda loyalists because "Ansar al Islam" sounds, especially to the general public, like a group that hates America. The truth is, they were a group that hated Saddam, until they were destroyed by US war planes. Saddam certainly didn't "harbor" them or assist them in any way.
Take action with Representative John Conyers: Sign the petition that demands answers from the Administration and the president.
