WP: From Memos, Insights Into Ally's Doubts On Iraq War (DSM p. A1)

[Pirate Smile]

From Memos, Insights Into Ally's Doubts On Iraq War
Blair's Advisers Foresaw Variety of Risks, Problems

By Glenn Frankel
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, June 28, 2005; Page A01

LONDON -- In the spring of 2002, two weeks before British Prime Minister Tony Blair journeyed to Crawford, Tex., to meet with President Bush at his ranch about the escalating confrontation with Iraq, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw sounded a prescient warning.

-snip-
In public, British officials were declaring their solidarity with the Bush administration's calls for elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But Straw's memo and seven other secret documents disclosed in recent months by British journalist Michael Smith together reveal a much different picture. Behind the scenes, British officials believed the U.S. administration was already committed to a war that they feared was ill-conceived and illegal and could lead to disaster.

The documents indicate that the officials foresaw a host of problems that later would haunt both governments -- including thin intelligence about the nature of the Iraqi threat, weak public support for war and a lack of planning for the aftermath of military action. British cabinet ministers, Foreign Office diplomats, senior generals and intelligence service officials all weighed in with concerns and reservations. Yet they could not dissuade their counterparts in the Bush administration -- nor, indeed, their own leader -- from going forward.

-snip-
This article is based on those memos, supplemented by interviews with officials on both sides of the Atlantic -- none of whom was willing to be cited by name because of the sensitivity of the issue -- and written accounts. Spokesmen for the Foreign Office and the prime minister's office declined to comment but did not question the authenticity of the documents.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/27/AR2005062701584.html

[Pirate Smile]

1. Finally, this is it -

"Critics of the Bush administration contend the documents -- including the now-famous Downing Street Memo of July 23, 2002 -- constitute proof that Bush made the decision to go to war at least eight months before it began, and that the subsequent diplomatic campaign at the United Nations was a charade, designed to convince the public that war was necessary, rather than an attempt to resolve the crisis peacefully . They contend the documents have not received the attention they deserve.

-snip-
But beyond the question of whether they constitute a so-called smoking gun of evidence against the White House, the memos offer an intriguing look at what the top officials of the United States' chief ally were thinking, doing and fearing in the months before the war.

[BillZBubb]

2. Who is Ally? And why does she hate America?

She's obviously been trained to disassemble!

[Stand and Fight]

3. Could this be a true, "OH SHIT" moment?

I most certainly hope so... Maybe the Bush administration is in its "last throes"? Pray God...

Down, down, Downing Street Memo -- the Chimperor is going DOWN.

[calimary]

4. Pray God indeed...

Down you go, george. Down now, and even FARTHER down when you slough off this mortal coil...

[Pirate Smile]

5. I posted it in GD also and no one is responding. What happened to DU?

[Stand and Fight]

7. I'm asking the same thing down-thread.

Really, what the hell is going on here lately?

[stevedeshazer]

11. I'm with you now

THAT caught my attention!

[mom cat]

57. General discussion moves too fast, and Editorials don't get read.

I was just wondering if DU could be reformatted to utilize the mostly blank left-hand column for posting "Editorials and other articles". It could be put right under the Site Information section. I'm going to suggest this to the Administrators.

[NewJeffCT]

59. I'll believe it when it happens

I've been on DU for almost 21 months now and have gotten over my initial optimism that I saw with the almost daily, "this is the scandal that does in Bush..." threads. It hasn't happened yet.

[Stand and Fight]

75. I understand how you feel...

But we must continue forward and drive on no matter the odds. I've only recently come out of lurking, but I started reading the site in about mid- to late-2002. I couldn't handle being a part of the so-called "great silent majority" any longer after the bullshit general election we had last year. I know that there have been a lot of those moments where we thought that the time had come, but that is no reason to throw in the towel. I know you're not doing that and I do not blame you for your caution at getting your hopes up, friend. You are NOT alone. :grouphug:

[AuntiBush]

71. Luv that line: "Bush Adm in its last throes...?" Pray God.

It just says it all...

So does your little See/Hear/Speak no Evil Chimp!

[Stand and Fight]

74. Thank you!

:hug:

[Stand and Fight]

6. KICK

What the hell is up with this site lately? Important stories are ignored and people don't seem to post anymore!

:wtf:

[Pirate Smile]

8. I don't know. We need one more vote to get to GP. Maybe then

people will notice.

This is what is says on front of the WP web site:

Blair's Advisers Foresaw Risks, Problems on Iraq

Memos reveal that British officials believed the U.S. administration was committed to a war that they feared was ill-conceived and illegal.

[Frederik]

33. Smoking gun fatigue

[Stand and Fight]

53. You're right.

There has been a lot of this in the time I lurked and finally became a member. (I know I began lurking when I was still stationed at Fort Lewis, so that would have been mid- to late-2002...) I have seen a lot of smoking guns, but no bullets. I can understand why people feel this way, but still... This is in the Washington Post AND on the front-page no less!

[Just Me]

51. I seriously do not know how I missed this.

Was it "pushed" down or something? :shrug:

This is freakin' AWESOME!!!! :bounce:

[Stand and Fight]

54. Damn Straight!

Hopefully there is some traction gained from this along with Senator Kerry's most excellent piece in the New York Times. Shall we be able to toast to the Bush administration's downfall? I most certainly hope so, and if this momentum keeps up it shall become a reality. Buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy!

[seafan]

9. Sure am glad Milbank is scarce. This is critically important!

Nominated.

[Spazito]

10. It's good to finally see the WP do something on the DSM

better late than never.

[stevedeshazer]

12. The timing could not be better given Cmdr. Bunnypants scheduled speech.

Whoa!

[RamboLiberal]

13. Exactly - wonder if any of the MSM will pay attention to this

tomorrow after *'s speech or will they go in to their usual brown-nosing mode?

[Pirate Smile]

15. Well, CNN and MSNBC do stories all day long by saying "The WP is

reporting or The NYT is reporting today blah, blah, blah" so this is certainly more likely to get covered by the Corp. Media now that it is front page WP.

[Tommymac]

23. EXACTLY!!!! nt

[leftchick]

38. well this morning all I see on tv is....

and it sort of reminds me of four years ago... :hide:

[Corgigal]

14. Wonderful timing

Now some military families need to start asking some questions and damning answers. Enough of all this death.

[Pirate Smile]

16. I wish Kerry and Sen Tim Johnson would have a press conference

on Kerry's letter requesting an investigation by the Intelligence Committee AND have Sen. Johnson step up and say that as the father of a soldier in Iraq, along with being a Senator and American citizen, we deserve to know how and why we got into this War.

[oxbow]

26. email em

ask em to do the same thing as Conyers but better. I will too!

[Tommymac]

17. Article straddles the fence, but it opens the door...

At least the MSM is finally covering this. What is good about this article is what it is not saying...read between the lines. If that is the only way to get this on the front page, well, at least it's a start. And because it's the WP, it gives the other MSM outlets the opening to actually cover this story...if they want to.

Release the hounds....

[daleo]

18. The Downing Street Minutes and associated minutes have hurt Bush

That is why they plan to claim they have not misled the public. They are only telling that lie (a lie about a lie) because the truth is catching up with them.

[NightOwwl]

19. Check out the paragraph under the Headline link on WaPo main page:

"Memos reveal that British officials believed the U.S. administration was committed to a war that they feared was ill-conceived and illegal."

And the bomb drops.

:nuke: Bush :nuke: Cheney :nuke: Rumsfeld :nuke: Wolfowitz :nuke: Rice

http://www.washingtonpost.com/

[Straight Shooter]

20. I hope that our light at the end of the tunnel is bush's oncoming train.

The documents indicate that the officials foresaw a host of problems that later would haunt both governments -- including thin intelligence about the nature of the Iraqi threat ...

Right, intelligence so thin that when you looked at it sideways, it disappeared. Didn't bother bush, though. Who needs facts when you've got Halliburton? :(


edit: this thread caught my eye right away. Let's keep it kicked. This is major, a real crack in the dam *fingers crossed, praying fervently*

[bleever]

21. Our closest ally was dragged, kicking and screaming, into this?

There are too many jokes that could, and should, be made here.

Here's mine:


"If you didn't want to go to Cleveland, why did you get on this bus??"

[Pirate Smile]

24. Yes, they were and the article explains it - especially the last paragraph

"When Blair sat down with Bush at Camp David on Sept. 7, 2002, the president told him he had decided to seek a Security Council resolution demanding Iraqi compliance. Blair looked greatly relieved, according to Bob Woodward's book, "Plan of Attack," which was published last year. But then Bush looked Blair in the eye and warned that dealing with the Iraqi threat would still likely entail war.

"I'm with you," Blair replied, according to Woodward's book.

The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003. Many inside the British policy establishment still feel angry and bruised about the invasion and its aftermath. Analysts say the leak of the documents shows the depth of those feelings.

"No doubt from the British point of view Iraq has been a strategic blunder -- not just a mistake, but a mistake that we're still paying for," said Clarke, of King's College. "Still, while no one in government would ever say it, the rationale from the British point of view is that our strategic relationship with the U.S. is more important than any single campaign we fight on its behalf. The basic calculation was: Right or wrong, it is in our interest to stand with the United States."'

[lyonn]

22. Really good article, what's with the Post?

Our media continually respond to the memos issue like it is no real news "since we already reported prior to the war that Bush intended to attack Iraq." Well, that isn't what Our President told us, and his spokespeople. He stated many times he wanted to avoid war at any cost but that Saddam needs to comply with the UN Resolutions. When Mr. Kelly (British, committed suicide) told a British reporter prior to the war that the documents were "sexed up" there was a huge investigation into the matter. Then the news faded.

Bush pulled inspectors out of Iraq so he could attack. What does the media have to say about that little trick? Saddam allowed inspectors into palaces and anywhere the inspectors wanted to go. Didn't Rummy say in a major speech that he knew where the WMD's were and the inspectors asked Rummy for more help since they hadn't found anything. Give us a break, these were all lies and deceptions and the media and this administration act like this is no news. Gawd they are ballsy.

Tomorrow I expect Bush to repeat what Rummy said today, - - remember 9-ll; we are fighting over there so we don't fight them here; Saddam is an evil, dispicable person; the Iraqis have had an election and a new govt., - - all that stuff we heard prior to the election.

[Pachamama]

25. So where was this story on Friday June 17th after the DSM hearing & rally?

This would have been the appropriate story following those hearings and the rally with Conyers delivering the signed letter from over 560,000 citizens and 122 Members of Congress....instead of the Dana Milbank shill piece for the Neocons dissing Conyers and the topic.

Then again, this story appearing on the very same day as the little Emperor's speech to the Nation LIVE FROM FORT BRAGG isn't too bad either.

[oxbow]

27. I hope it isn't buried by the WH media blitz tho.

I know Bush's speech will be headline news, but this will be put on the backburner, if mentioned at all. Goddammit!

[enigmatic]

29. I like it coming out right now, frankly

This is perfect timing in my mind; the MSM are going to be talking about W's tap-dance tonight, and this story is a perfect yang to his ying to talk up.

I hope he wakes up in a few hours and relives his pants whwen he see this story plastered on page 1..

[Pachamama]

30. But, I thought he doesn't "read" the papers??

Will they tell the Emperor he has no clothes? :shrug:

[enigmatic]

31. I forgot about that!

:)

They'll sloooowlyyyyyyyy explain it to him...

[enigmatic]

28. Here we go....

Not only is the DSM not going away, it's getting front-page coverage now. Let's keep up the pressure..

[ngGale]

32. This is a good day for this to come out in MSM...

if anybody reads it before Bush's speech. Just keep the 'DSM' going.

[Frederik]

34. At last

some serious coverage.

[Lecky]

35. Weee!

Isn't there going to be another hearing type deal again today on C-SPAN?

[Lochloosa]

36. kick and recommended....good morning everyone

[bklyncowgirl]

37. Excellent artcle. Kudos to the Washington Post. nt

[Esse Quam Videri]

39. kick

kickity kick

[leftchick]

40. Not much on the illegal bombing raids...

I wish he had elaborated on this part. It was ILLEGAL!!!!

~snip~

Several senior officials were dispatched to the United States for consultations. When they returned to London, a meeting was scheduled that produced two more secret documents. The first was a Cabinet Office briefing paper dated July 21 that expressed concern that stepped-up U.S. air raids inside Iraq created "the risk that military action is precipitated in an unplanned way."

[althecat]

41. Fantastic stuff.... seems the truth oils its own rails(with help from DU)

everybody around here rocks...

:yourock:

[althecat]

42. Note how this is on the same day that the congress may finally debate this

[Lochloosa]

43. back to the top...kick

[frictionlessO]

44. oh boy oh boy oh boy.. WP finally says something relative w/out making

us out to be bunch off assholes!

Thats friggin' progress!

Hopefully they'll have more to come.

[Beetwasher]

45. Huzzah! What's This? Actual News in the WP???

What's up, doc?

[Just Me]

52. Dunno.

Hope this represents foreshadowing,...I do.

[DemsUnited]

46. EXCELLENT front page, above the fold article by the WP

Picked the paper up this morning and said whoa, what have we here on the morning of Shrub's "big" address to the nation? Then I read every word of the article and was quite proud of the tone, depth and quality of reporting.

No, the article does not come out and scream gotcha. Rather, it is a well-researched & balanced timetable of how Blair & Co. handled the runup to the war. And yes, there are several quotes from the Downing Street memos.

A very pleasant surprise and a nice way to start the day...

[90-percent]

47. "I hope that our light at the end of the tunnel is bush's oncoming train"

"I hope that our light at the end of the tunnel is bush's oncoming train."

well written phrase there. good potential bumper sticker!

-85%

[90-percent]

48. "I hope that our light at the end of the tunnel is bush's oncoming train"

"I hope that our light at the end of the tunnel is bush's oncoming train."

well written phrase there. good potential bumper sticker!

-85%

[hedda_foil]

49. This is a real kick in the gut to bushco on the day of the big speech!

The WaPo choosing to print this great article on page one of the WaPo the morning of the "big speech" isn't a coincidence. This is HUGE!

[Roland99]

50. But, damnit! Why won't people go on the record!

The truth will eventually out so why not come clean?

Damn these people!

[Lilith Velkor]

58. They don't want to get killed like David Kelly?

That's my thought.

[Roland99]

62. They can't kill them all....or can they?

:scared:

[Lilith Velkor]

66. No, but they don't get prosecuted for the ones they do kill

Mafia types like to do that: commit an obvious murder, get away with it, and hold that as an example to all who dare cross them. Ya gotta admit, it works.

Remember when Al Gore gave an interview a couple years ago? (I think it was on Hardball but I dunno) When he was asked why he conceded in 2000, he obliquely mentioned concern for the safety of his family. :scared:

Aaron McGruder (Boondocks) told the truth: This admin are a bunch of gangsters. Once you understand that, they seem much less mysterious.

[Supersedeas]

55. declined to comment -- sensitivity of the issue, you know: yep the US

Corporate Media knows...and they are steering clear.

[the phantom shouting]

56. 2nd Letter to the Charlie Rose Show regarding Rep. John Conyers

Letter to Charlie Rose (6-28-05):

Dear Mr. Rose,

First, let me get one thing straight. I like puff pieces as much as the next guy. A good puff piece can be thoroughly enjoyable, like a two scoop ice cream sundae on a sweltering summer day. Back in college my friends even began calling me ‘Puffy’, so enamored was I of Tim Russert and his softball interrogation techniques.

That being said, your interview on Monday with Alberto Gonzales was puffery beyond even my capacity to enjoy it, and, rather than relaxing me and making me feel comfortable, your Q and A session with the U.S. Attorney General had me shaking my head in wonder and disgust.

You asked him questions about Guantanamo and torture, yes, but you neglected to mention the fact that on Aug. 1, 2002, Mr. Gonzales signed off on a memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel that said that torturing suspected al Qaeda members abroad "may be justified" and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogation" conducted against suspected terrorists. This important memorandum was instrumental in guiding our nation’s conduct during the War on Terror, and led directly to the abuses at the Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib detention facilities.

Without questioning Mr. Gonzales on this important issue, you moved swiftly to an giddy appreciation of the Attorney General’s chances to be named to the Supreme Court. Watching this loving exchange, I almost expected you to get up, move around the table, and give the man a back rub, all the more to relax him and let him know that no questions of significance would be forthcoming.

In the spirit of forgiveness and fair play, and speaking as a puff piece afficionado, I call on you to invite Rep. John Conyers on your program, and once he is there I ask you to offer him the same ego-stroking that you provided to the Attorney General. Mr. Conyers, I’m sure, would be happy to answer the toughest, most invasive questions that you could throw at him, but in the interest of balance I suggest that your approach to the interview be more of a loving tribute than an interrogation; in much the same way you treated Mr. Gonzales.

I’m sure you will find Mr. Conyers to be a fascinating and knowledgeable guest, and he has a thing or two to say about the ‘Downing Street’ minutes and problems with the 2004 election in Ohio that you and your audience would undoubtedly find quite remarkable. I urge you to invite Mr. Conyers on your program as soon as possible.

Thank you for a great show and continued success,
J. Riley

[mdelaguna2000]

65. excellent piece of writing. n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

60. Kick and recommend - only saw this now and I was at DU a long time

after it was posted. I'm guessing part of the reason is the way stories move so fast down the "latest" page and the Forum listing. Glad to see it now.

How did we function before we had the Greatest Page? I do wish the highest-rated stories stayed on the papge for more than 24 hours - they often disappear just when they are most valuable, then people re-invent the wheel, stariting all over again with a new post that is ignorant of everything covered and linked to in the older one.

In any case, it sure got read once it was found!

[Nothing Without Hope]

61. Blair really thought he could be the tail wagging the dog:

"I tell you that we must steer close to America," Blair said, according to Cook. "If we don't, we lose our influence to shape what they do."

For such a famously smart man, Blair sure misread Bush. Perhaps in some twisted sense, he was too idealistic to comprehend the depth of insanity, stubbornness, chidishness, utter selfishness, and destructive malice behind that bland, stupid-looking face. Or perhaps it was more that he considered himself so much cagier and versed in the arts of political persuasion, he was sure that the obviously less intelligent, less adept Bush could be brought around. Plenty of hubris - and plenty of blame - to go around.

Can't reason with a madman, Tony.

[lyonn]

72. I also thought that remark was interesting

Tony: "If we don't, we lose our influence to shape what they do." Remember, Blair was the one who insisted that we go to the U.N. He should later have insisted that we wait for the inspectors to do their job before blasting in there. Course we know Bushco had no intention of waiting another day, hell, summer was almost on them and it is harder to fight in 120 degree temp. Like it was going to be overwith in a few months. McNeil and Clark's books should be re-read along with the minutes of the British hearings concerning the intelligence, reasoning and consequences of the Iraq war. Whew, just venting again!

[The Night Owl]

63. Blair thinks he can influence Bush?

Blair defended his approach, Cook reported, by saying Britain's national interest lay in staying closely allied with the United States. "I tell you that we must steer close to America," Blair said, according to Cook. "If we don't, we lose our influence to shape what they do."

:rofl:

Wake up, Tony Blair. The Bushies do whatever they want to do.

You stick close to your allies when your allies act wisely, not when they act stupidly. Idiots.

[moondust]

67. Tony Blair: Sucker.

His abiding mistake is believing that Bushco is a legitimate gov't of, by, and for the people of the U.S. Poor judgment, Tony.

[Griffy]

64. OUTSTANDING plz everyone. write thank you emails! .. or more

call or even send a small gift! Let them know that we dont just harp on the bad.. but support the good.. the truth! That way he can show milbanks that its facts that count!

This is the best story I've seen yet, and FRONT PAGE WP... I'm going to buy this edition, and I wrote in my letter that I cc the editor and such, that if they can actually start reporting the facts like this, AND putting them front page were such important things belong..I'll subscribe.

go go Emailers.. let him know your happy!

print copies and pass them out, or leave a few in your lunchroom or waiting rooms.. wherever.. BE the media!

[lyonn]

73. Have you seen today's WSJ article?

I believe poster "dogday" posted it. Very interesting.

[Lochloosa]

68. kick...

[jurassicpork]

69. Dang, yet another smokin' gun!

For any remaining naysayers who still think the Downing Street memos are bullshit, <a href=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1669640,00.html> here’s another smoking gun.</a> Only goes to prove once again: For the most accurate news reporting in our nation, one need only go to The Daily Show, liberal blogs such as <a href=http://ang6666.blogspot.com>Ang’s</a> and the British press. The only thing I wonder about is why the Iraqi people and its press didn’t even give us a hint that this was going on. I mean, almost 22,000 sorties? You’d think <i>someone</i> would’ve heard the loud booms.

JP

http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

[Media_Lies_Daily]

70. That article has a little "Watergate" in it, mixed with a little....

..."Iran-Contra", and a boat-load of lying NeoCons.

This is starting to get more than a little interesting! :-)

[psychopomp]

76. Like I said, the speech today was "famous last words"

PUSH