Leaked memo details Iraq war talks

[Chris the Chees]

http://www.itv.com/news/index_1353957.html

George Bush and Tony Blair planned to lure Saddam into war, according to a leaked memo which reveals their talks on military action in Iraq. The details from the meeting at the White House on 31 January 2003 are contained in a new version of the book Lawless World by international lawyer Philipe Sands QC. In the White House Meeting memo revealed to Channel 4 news, the President and the Prime Minister allegedly discussed plans to begin military action on March 10th 2003, even if the UN refused to pass a new resolution allowing the use of force. "The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'," said the President in the memo.

[Abdullah]

Thats really a big secret, isnt it?

[rmnunez]

It would be nice to see the leaked memo, what does it actually say, the only cited bit in quotes reads "The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten',"

That last bit (the closed single quote, a comma and then a closing double quote) leaves me wondering how this was edited from the original text. To suggest arm twisting and even threats doesn't seem that odd given the circumstances.

Trying to "lure" Saddam into a confrontation is also something that ought to be placed in a contextual framework. January 31st, 2003 was a couple of months after deployments had started building-up and a few weeks before intervention. With about 50 thousand soldiers already in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, dozens of warships in the area and combat jets routinely in Iraqi airspace, a provocative act would be very easy.

[Boetie]

rmnunez posts: Trying to "lure" Saddam into a confrontation

Same as they did in the first gulf war. In case anyone didn't know, the United States already started moving their military into the region before diplomacy even began. This was pointed out in many of the hearings in the United Nations.

There was a lot of arm twisting and rubbing knuckles very hard into skulls at the United Nations. Guess who was Secretary of Defense back then? If you answered Dick Cheney then you are correct. Here's a harder question, Guess where he is at today?

The no diplomacy dick, war is the hardon, ask dick he'll put you in the cowboy suit, comes without courage, but don't worry it's not even necessary for the look.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Boetie Same as they did in the first gulf war. In case anyone didn't know, the United States already started moving their military into the region before diplomacy even began. This was pointed out in many of the hearings in the United Nations. There was a lot of arm twisting and rubbing knuckles very hard into skulls at the United Nations. Guess who was Secretary of Defense back then? If you answered Dick Cheney then you are correct. Here's a harder question, Guess where he is at today? The no diplomacy dick, war is the hardon, ask dick he'll put you in the cowboy suit, comes without courage, but don't worry it's not even necessary for the look.

...and why did this occur?


Because the U.S. government encouraged Kuwait to cross drill into Iraq's oil wells to extract oil for compensation because of Saddam's previous wrongdoings to the Kuwaiti's.


This whole war, and the reasons for it have been manufactured by our own State Department for a reason to interfere into the affairs of others.

[RickSp]

And there are those who still argue that Bush didn't lie us into war. Amazing.

[Boetie]

The following question was an actual question raised at the United Nations prior to the first gulf war. Cheney was Secretary of Defense, troops were being deployed long before diplomacy even gotten underway, in fact diplomacy didn't even have a chance. Here is the question:

Is it really respect for independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity that motivates the United States?

Remember when Saddam proved to the world that he did tell the United States his intentions prior to going to Kuwait and Bush Sr played the Raygun excuse, "duh, duh I can't hear you Sam".

[Logjam]

Bush and Blaire lured Saddam in the war!? This is impossible. If anyone out there believes this (and apparently some do) you don't understand the nature of Bush, Blaire and Saddam.

Saddam was a mass murderer. Given the chance he would have destroyed much of the United States and Great Britain. The reason that we went to war was to remove that chance. We did.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Abdullah Thats really a big secret, isnt it?

Say, Abdul: Glad that you are posting here. Are you a tried and true Arab, or just a white guy pretending? I'd, sincerely, like to talk to a real Arab.

Anyway, I'd like to know what you think should happen to Saddam in this trial.

[Boetie]

Logjam posts: Given the chance he would have destroyed much of the United States and Great Britain

According to the bogus story peddled by Bush Jr and Blair.

The reality is, after the first gulf war Saddam lost all interest in being a player in world events. Saddam settled on wasting time writing poetry and was quite happy doing just that until he died. He didn't care much for governing either.

This boogeyman story Bush Jr peddled is Jr's story and that is what it is: a story.

[Logjam]

Quote by: RickSp And there are those who still argue that Bush didn't lie us into war. Amazing.

Hey, Rick do you know the difference between a lie and a misconception? :confused: The difference isn't subtle, but apparently you have missed it. If you are having trouble with it look the words up in a dictonary. If you don't have one borrow one. They aren't hard to find.

If Bush lied I'd support his impeachment too. Trouble is, he didn't. He believed what he said about WMD. Blaire believed it too, So did Putin and Mabarek (sp?) and Clinton.

If all of these people had been right and Bush had done nothing, and we would have been struck by Al Qaeda again, Bush would have been impeached, and for good reason.

[Logjam]

[quote=Boetie]According to the bogus story peddled by Bush Jr and Blair.

The reality is, after the first gulf war Saddam lost all interest in being a player in world events. Saddam settled on wasting time writing poetry and was quite happy doing just that until he died. He didn't care much for governing either.

QUOTE]

Heh? Saddam is very much alive. He thinks that he's going to go free after this wacko trial and be put back into power in Iraq. He ain't dead yet, and he's loaded for bear.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Boetie The following question was an actual question raised at the United Nations prior to the first gulf war. Cheney was Secretary of Defense, troops were being deployed long before diplomacy even gotten underway, in fact diplomacy didn't even have a chance.

Say, Boetie; what does the United Nations actually do anyway? I mean what have they done constructively in say, 40 years? I know that their "excellencies" run up huge parked fines, but for the life of me, I can't think of a single other thing that they do. :confused:

Can you?

[Boetie]

Logjam posts: Say, Boetie; what does the United Nations actually do anyway? I mean what have they done constructively in say, 40 years? I know that their "excellencies" run up huge parked fines, but for the life of me, I can't think of a single other thing that they do

It was a response to World War One. It was called "league of Nations" back then, I could be wrong. The Republican Party was dead set against joining it. Tens years passed and the United States finally did join.

The purpose of creating the United Nation was to prevent wars.

The United States on the other hand tries very hard to undermine the United Nations goals of a world resolving issues via diplomacy. Diplomacy doesn't fatten the coffers of the war profiteers, many of them being United States businesses.

United States is the biggest seller of weapons in the world, for that reason alone you can see why we do not seek peace.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Boetie It was a response to World War One. It was called "league of Nations" back then, I could be wrong. The Republican Party was dead set against joining it. Tens years passed and the United States finally did join. The purpose of creating the United Nation was to prevent wars. The United States on the other hand tries very hard to undermine the United Nations goals of a world resolving issues via diplomacy. Diplomacy doesn't fatten the coffers of the war profiteers, many of them being United States businesses. United States is the biggest seller of weapons in the world, for that reason alone you can see why we do not seek peace.

The irony being that the US writes the bulk of the policy that the UN enforces ( via the CFR ) on the world. One really has to wonder how so many of the UN's policies conflict with US government policy unless it was intended to.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Boetie It was a response to World War One. It was called "league of Nations" back then, I could be wrong. The Republican Party was dead set against joining it. Tens years passed and the United States finally did join. The purpose of creating the United Nation was to prevent wars. The United States on the other hand tries very hard to undermine the United Nations goals of a world resolving issues via diplomacy. Diplomacy doesn't fatten the coffers of the war profiteers, many of them being United States businesses. United States is the biggest seller of weapons in the world, for that reason alone you can see why we do not seek peace.

I know the history of the UN. But, Boetie, you didn't answer my question. It was, "What has the UN done constructively in the last 40 years". I can make it even harder by asking, "What have then done constructively in the last ten?"

[Logjam]

Quote by: Boetie According to the bogus story peddled by Bush Jr and Blair. .

Boetie, do you have faith in the goodness of Saddam the Ach? You don't want me to list his terrors do you? Just count the dead in the mass graves in Iraq. Ignor the burning of the oil wells, the pouring of oil into the Red Sea, the torture of prisoners, the people ur throught the garbage chippers.

Do you really think that Saddam's a kind and thoughtful dictator?

Just tell me how many innocent Iraqi citizens were murdered under his rule?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Logjam Hey, Rick do you know the difference between a lie and a misconception? :confused: The difference isn't subtle, but apparently you have missed it. If you are having trouble with it look the words up in a dictonary. If you don't have one borrow one. They aren't hard to find. If Bush lied I'd support his impeachment too. Trouble is, he didn't. He believed what he said about WMD. Blaire believed it too, So did Putin and Mabarek (sp?) and Clinton. If all of these people had been right and Bush had done nothing, and we would have been struck by Al Qaeda again, Bush would have been impeached, and for good reason.

He lied. It is well documented that he lied. All the Bush claims about Iraq's nuclear program were known to be untrue before the Bush cabal used them to justify the war. If you continue to belive the lies that is your problem.

[Logjam]

Quote by: RickSp He lied. It is well documented that he lied. All the Bush claims about Iraq's nuclear program were known to be untrue before the Bush cabal used them to justify the war. If you continue to belive the lies that is your problem.

Rick, It sure is frustrating talking with you. You and I end up doing a "yes it is; no it isn't" routine.

Nor did you answer my initial question, which is: Do you know the difference between a lie and a misconception?

If it was well documented that Bush lied about WMD he would have been impeached years ago. If he would have knowingly decieved the public I would have supported his impeachment. He did not offer his message about WMD to deceive. He genuinely believed it. Which is why he's still in office.

The fact that you say Bush's so called lying is well documented just isn't so. You guys on the left think it is, but it juz ain't so. :)

[RickSp]

Quote by: Logjam Nor did you answer my initial question, which is: Do you know the difference between a lie and a misconception?

Do you know the meaning of the phrase "rhetorical question"?