posted on May 19, 2005 12:55:25 PM new
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
posted on May 19, 2005 12:57:15 PM new
The Downing Street Memo, recently leaked, reveals that President George W. Bush decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in summer 2002 and—determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policies—"fixed" the intelligence and facts relevent to WMD.
What has come to be known as the Downing Street "Memo" is actually a document containing meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002. This meeting was held a full 8 months PRIOR to the invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003. The Times of London printed the text of this document on Sunday, May 1, 2005. When asked about the document's validity, "British officials did not dispute the document's authenticity."
The contents of the memo are shocking. The minutes detail how our government did not believe Iraq was a greater threat than other nations; how intelligence was manipulated to sell the case for war to the American public; and how all the talk of "war as a last resort" was mere hollow pretense.
Regardless of politics, all Americans should ask themselves: Was I misled? Did President Bush tell me the truth when he said he would not take us to war unless absolutely necessary?
posted on May 19, 2005 03:33:21 PM new
Please pass on your sentiments to the parents who have lost children in this phony war ....all too real for the dead and maimed.
Your heartfelt support of the troops is greatly appreciated.
posted on May 19, 2005 05:38:35 PM new
simply amazing.....how DOES she do it??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Baseball season has started,but they have it all wrong.3 strikes and you're out,4 balls you walk.I can tell you right now a man with 4 balls could not possibly walk
[ edited by classicrock000 on May 19, 2005 05:38 PM ]
posted on May 19, 2005 06:07:03 PM new
Ya know, I expected barbarism from the neonazicons as per usual but you guys have outdone yourselves. But you're sticking to the cookie cutter....if it doesn't affect you personally so who cares...it's not you with your arms and legs shot off or your own daughter dead in Iraq so you just make fun of the whole thing.....And it's then so odd that you neonazicons start screaming when you even SUSPECT someone isn't supporting the troops.
But I can also understand how people say and do funny things when they are highly embarrassed....and Americans ARE embarrassed by this.
posted on May 20, 2005 03:26:15 AM new
yea shes gotten lame since Vendio spanked her fanny.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Baseball season has started,but they have it all wrong.3 strikes and you're out,4 balls you walk.I can tell you right now a man with 4 balls could not possibly walk
posted on May 20, 2005 08:39:32 AM new
bear, why would you call me by my first name(even if it's naturally spelled incorrectly)?
Is that supposed to be intimidating ...or just proving you're too stupid to spell anything right.
Or just one more boring way for you repugs to avoid answering a question or admitting that you're wrong ?
Well, at least, you don't rant and snivel about being stalked to avoid answering questions....that is really "the mother of all smokescreens". And the real coward's way out
posted on May 20, 2005 08:55:28 AM new
What's a matter , linduh, no C&P's today so you have to copy somebody else's post?
Well, we all know original thinking is not your strong point.
Are you the "none"-stalker who was so obssessed with me you had to find out my first name ???
posted on May 20, 2005 06:29:15 PM new
Remember Paul O'Neill and Richard Clark. They both said Bush had the Iraq war planned in the summer of 2002. Bush lied about what O'Neil and Clark said.
Remember how they both said Bush was ignoring Intel reports.
Remember how we were told the reason we were going to war was terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
Now we can all see that Bush had all his lies about the Iraq war planned. I am glad O'Neil and Clark can finally say see American people we told you so. We were telling you the truth about Bush.
posted on May 20, 2005 06:43:43 PM newWell, at least, you don't rant and snivel about being stalked to avoid answering questions....that is really "the mother of all smokescreens". And the real coward's way out
Like you do????????
A word to the wise ain't necessary, it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
- Bill Cosby
posted on May 21, 2005 10:27:19 AM new
Hey Bear, No answer about O'Neil and Clark just another attack on Crow. Yes, O'Neil and Clark told the American people the truth while your failed leader Bush lied.
No wonder your side has nothing left but attacks all your side has left is bull roar and attacks. Bear I understand its become very hard for you to make a true statement out of the bunch of lies and disappointments from Bush.
posted on May 21, 2005 10:53:51 AM new
What Linda learned. LOL!
What Did You Learn In School Today
(Tom Paxton)
Chorus:
What did you learn in school today
Dear little boy of mine
What did you learn in school today
Dear little boy of mine
I learned that Washington never told a lie
I learned that soldiers seldom die
I learned that everybody's free
And that's what the teacher said to me
That's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school
I learned that policemen are my friends
I learned that justice never ends
I learned that murderers die for their crimes
Even if we make a mistake sometimes
That's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school
I learned our government must be strong
It's always right and never wrong
Our leaders are the finest men
And we elect them again and again
That's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school
I learned that war is not so bad
I learned about the great ones we have had
We fought in Germany and in France
And some day I might get my chance
That's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school
posted on May 21, 2005 11:00:21 AM new
Another post that's no where near the reality of what our children ARE being taught in our liberal 'government' schools.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on May 21, 2005 11:37:42 AM new
Wheeee? You're sounding more and more like a two year old helen.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
That's what I have to do in order to communicate with you. Whenever you are babbling to yourself...which is so often now, keep singing Kumbaya...it's easier for you to comprehend while at the same time less offensive than your words.
posted on May 21, 2005 02:24:56 PM new
linduh finds the sacrifices of our soldiers and veterans something to make fun of with her lovely singing.....she thinks it's funny that so many Americans have died or been maimed for life over political machinations.
Why does she get so upset when I say I would like to see her reaction if her alleged son was killed or maimed......maybe he has a cushy, wimpy desk job and she knows he'll never pay the price......or maybe he doesn't exist at all.
I hope she keeps on singing and laughing when the biggest sacrifice comes knocking at her door.
AND, actually the Downing St. memo isn't that much of a shocker.....we already knew what it contained and the war with Iraq was planned long before 9/11....they just needed an excuse.
