DSM, parts 2-7 - Six new British Documents Reveal Much More!

[paineinthearse]

Rececived by email from afterdowningstreet

The Raw Story piece has been posted - see http://www.rawstory.com

Six new British documents reveal details on case for war quoted in the UK press but never printed raw; Longer narrative later today.

The Iraq options paper - After axis of evil, British foreign secretary says Iraq case weak - Condi committed to regime change in 2002 - The British legal background - Admission that Iraq WMD program hadn't changed - The 'need to wrongfoot' Saddam on inspectors

Thank you, John and lala! :yourock:

====================================================

BREAKING NEWS

Later today RawStory.com <1> will be posting an article that they have been researching for several days. Six new secret British documents have been leaked and made widely available on the internet, including via the links below. These were retyped from the originals to protect the source, but RawStory.com <2> has verified the authenticity and will be reporting on that research, on the significance of the documents, and on the timeline of the events illuminated by this information, known to the British media but new on this side of the pond.



• "Iraq Options Paper," UK Overseas and Defense Secretariat, March 8, 2002

The greater investment of Western forces, the greater our control over Iraq's future, but the greater the cost and the longer we would need to stay. The only certain means to remove Saddam and his elite is to invade and impose a new government, but this could involve nation building over many years. Even a representative government could seek to acquire WMD and build-up its conventional forces, so long as Iran and Israel retain their WMD and conventional armouries and there was no acceptable solution to the Palestinian grievances.

SIGNIFICANCE: UK government anticipated "nation building over many years," in contradiction to public case by Bush administration. British also believed Iraq might acquire WMD without Saddam Hussein in power.

We have looked at three options for regime change...

OPTION 3: A GROUND CAMPAIGN

The aim would be to launch a full-scale ground offensive... A pro-Western regime would be installed... The optimal times to start action are early spring.

SIGNIFICANCE: Timing of invasion already set in March 2002. Aim is not an Iraq which can democratically choose its policies, but a "pro-Western regime."

Most Iraqis see the INC/INA as Western stooges.

SIGNIFICANCE: The head of the INC (Iraqi National Congress) was Ahmed Chalabi; Chalabi is now acting Oil Minister of Iraq. The head of the INA (Iraqi National Accord) was Ayad Allawi; Allawi was Prime Minister of the Iraqi Interim government from June 1, 2004-April 7, 2005.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/ods020308.pdf <3>

• "Iraq: Legal Background," UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, March 8, 2002

The US... maintain that the assessment of breach is for individual member States. We are not aware of any other State which supports this view.

SIGNIFICANCE: Bush administration's interpretation of international law, which eventually invoked for the invasion, was so bizarre it was not shared by any other nation on earth (including UK).

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/fcolegal020308.pdf <4>

• Memo from David Manning (Foreign Policy Advisor to Blair) to Blair on Manning's Dinner with Condoleezza Rice, March 14, 2002

I said you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion... Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed.... Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions:... what happens on the morning after?

SIGNIFICANCE: Aim was always regime change. Bush had no plan for future of Iraq.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/manning020314.pdf <5>

• Memo from Christopher Meyer (UK Ambassador to US) to David Manning on Meyer's lunch with Wolfowitz, March 18, 2002

"On Iraq I opened by sticking very closely to the script that you used with Condi Rice last week. We backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option. It would be a tough sell for us domestically, and probably tougher elsewhere in Europe. The US could go it alone if it wanted to. But if it wanted to act with partners, there had to be a strategy for building support for military action against Saddam. I then went through the need to wrongfoot Saddam on the inspectors and the UN SCRs and the critical importance of the MEPP as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy. If all this could be accomplished skillfully, we were fairly confident that a number of countries would come on board."

SIGNIFICANCE: UN process was a sham for Blair's sake; aim was not disarmament but regime change, which had already been decided on.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/meyer020318.pdf <6>

• Memo from Peter Ricketts (Political Director, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office) to Jack Straw (UK Foreign Secretary), March 22, 2002

For Iraq, "regime change" does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam. Much better, as you have suggested, to make the objective ending the threat to the international community from Iraqi WMD...

SIGNIFICANCE: Aim was regime change, but that wouldn't sell; WMD issue was useful for PR reasons.

US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al aida is so far frankly unconvincing.

SIGNIFICANCE: Even UK government at the highest levels believed the Bush administration claims of an Iraq-Al Qaida links were false.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/ricketts020322.pdf <7>

• Memo from Jack Straw to Blair, March 25, 2002

We have also to answer the big question—what will this action achieve?... has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured, and how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be better.

SIGNIFICANCE: UK government at its highest levels did not believe the US had any plan to be certain a new Iraqi government would be an improvement on Saddam and would not develop WMD.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/straw020325.pdf <8>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is from After Downing Street Dot Org
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/

The URL for this story is:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=205

Links in this article
<1> http://www.rawstory.com
<2> http://www.rawstory.com/
<3> http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/ods020308.pdf
<4> http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/fcolegal020308.pdf
<5> http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/manning020314.pdf
<6> http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/meyer020318.pdf
<7> http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/ricketts020322.pdf
<8> http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/straw020325.pdf

[KelleyKramer]

1. Wow!

There is a lot to go thru there.

In the meantime, keep this KICKED!!

Thanks for posting this.

[paineinthearse]

2. hello?

Cross-posted to GDP, as 1 reply in 2+ hours is not exactly earthshaking.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=132&topic_id=1851862&mesg_id=1851862

[Coexist]

3. it's been posted a couple of times already

that is what your lack of response is indicating, not complacency.

[evermind]

4. What is new, is that rawstory is now claiming they're authentic

See this GD dupe (sorry!) : http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3847277

[paineinthearse]

9. OK, thanks

I was away for 72 hours and lost the connectivity. Did a search and found nothing of this story. The Raw Story part in and of itself is new.

[autorank]

5. autorank says: paineinthearse is The Poster of Record for DSM

He bought me a bag of chips and a quart of reinforced White Port and I'll follow him anywhere.

This is amazing stuff. Why now? Well, who cares for the moment. It's time for the liars to face their lies and the product of their craven behavior..

"Abandon all hope, ye who enter here" is the Bush-bLiar motto.

Even Chiron has no healing powers for these sick puppies.

Keep it coming paineinthearse, the threads and the nourishment!

[dooner]

6. don't know about everyone else, but...

I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed by all the new info that is pouring out...

So far, everything seems to be consistently confirming the same things. Are these memos all coming from the same source? I'm getting confused in trying to keep up. Lack of real media coverage isn't helping sort it all out.

Thanks for posting this. Excited, but confused!

[evermind]

7. Probably the same source.

These 6 "new" papers were first aired in September last year in a story by Michael Smith, the same journalist who broke the Downing Street Memo story (May 1 2005) and its followup "DM2" briefing paper story Jun 12th 2005. His September 2004 story appeared in the UK Daily Telegraph, but same journalist must make it likely that it's the same source.

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. Let's all keep it up with the media--the dam might break soon(I hope)

:bounce:





Just a reminder of some very, very important links:



To sign Congressman Conyers’ letter



http://www.johnconyers.campaignoffice.com





To put and keep pressure on the Mainstream Media:



http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/takeaction.html#awaken





http://www.afterdowningstreet.org





C-SPAN Ask--them to cover the Hearing on Thursday, 16 June:



[e-mail]





Peace

O8)



Here is my standard letter to the Media:





Dear Sir/Madam:



As you know, on May 1 of this year a document now commonly referred to as “|The Downing Street Memo” was released into the British Press. This document raises serious question about how the administration was handling intelligence related to Iraq and appears to suggest that the Bush Administration had already decided on war when publicly it was claiming that no such decision had been made. Now further documents have been released in the British media which cast even further doubts.



These documents and other documents suggest that the Bush administration was determined to “fix intelligence” around a predetermined policy. Some of these documents make it clear that the administration had no credible plan for dealing with the post-war occupation.



It is most disturbing that there has been a virtual media blackout regarding “The Downing Street Minutes” and other disturbing documents.



Even more disturbing is the absence in the America media of any credible in-depth follow-up discussion or coverage regarding strong, credible and independent evidence that the Bush Administration intentionally mislead the U.S. Congress, the media and the American people.



I do hope you will accept the responsibility to address this issue and provide serious investigative journalism into this matter.



Furthermore, on Thursday June 16, 2005, Rep. John Conyers, Jr., ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee, and other House members will hold a hearing to consider testimony concerning the Downing Street minutes and questions of possible fixing of prewar intelligence. I do hope you will be giving full coverage to these events.



Sincerely,