Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Leaked document: Paul O'neil and Dick Clarke right after all about Bush and Iraq War?

  1. #1
    Mad Professor Senior Member Hurin_Rules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Alberta and Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,433

    Default Leaked document: Paul O'neil and Dick Clarke right after all about Bush and Iraq War?

    Leaked document says U.S. set up conditions for Iraq invasion

    Sunday, May 15, 2005 Posted: 12:54 PM EDT (1654 GMT)

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. John McCain said Sunday he doesn't "agree with" the secret minutes of a high-level British meeting in 2002 saying "intelligence and facts were being fixed" to support a U.S.-led war in Iraq -- well before the president sought approval on the war from Congress.

    The memo was made public earlier this month by the Times of London newspaper. British officials did not dispute its authenticity.

    McCain, speaking on ABC's "This Week," said he has not seen any evidence that the Bush administration manipulated evidence, but admitted that "certain serious mistakes [were] made."

    "But I do not believe that the Bush administration decided that they would set up a scenario that gave us the rationale for going into Iraq," the Arizona Republican said.

    The Bush administration still has not commented on the memo. On May 6, 89 Democratic members of Congress sent President Bush a letter asking for an explanation of the memo. (Full story)

    The meeting described in the memo took place in London on July 23, 2002.

    British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon, Attorney General Peter Goldsmith, MI6 chief Richard Dearlove and others attended the meeting.

    According to the minutes, a British official identified as "C" said that he had returned from a meeting in Washington and that "military action was now seen as inevitable" by U.S. officials.

    "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," the memo said "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the U.N. 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."

    The memo further discussed the military options under consideration by the United States along with Britain's possible role and quoted Hoon as saying that the United States had not finalized a timeline, but that it would likely begin "30 days before the U.S. congressional elections," culminating with the actual attack in January 2003.

    The congressional letter, initiated by Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the memo "raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own administration."

    "While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. treasury secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your administration," the letter said.

    But, the letter said, when the document was leaked, Blair's spokesman called it "nothing new."

    "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," the memo said, quoting the British attorney general. "But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

    The British officials determined to push for an ultimatum for Saddam to allow U.N. weapons inspectors back into Iraq to "help with the legal justification for the use of force ... despite U.S. resistance."

    Britain's attorney general, Peter Goldsmith, advised the group that "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action" and two of three possible legal bases -- self-defense and humanitarian intervention -- could not be used.

    The third was a U.N. Security Council resolution, which Goldsmith said "would be difficult."

    Blair thought that "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors."

    "If the political context were right, people would support regime change," the memo said. Later, the memo said, Blair would work to convince Bush that they should pursue the ultimatum with Saddam even though "many in the U.S. did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route."

    McCain seemed to follow Blair's reasoning, avoiding the question of the memo's contents except to say he didn't believe it was accurate.

    "I think the important aspect of the opening of this conflict was that it's clear the status quo was not prevailing, that the sanctions were eroding, American pilots were being shot at every day, there was a clear intent on the part of Saddam Hussein that he'd shown throughout his entire regime, that he'd like to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction. He'd used them before.

    "Was there a massive intelligence failure? Absolutely. But to somehow suppose that if we had not attacked Saddam Hussein, that everything would have been fine in Iraq, I think defies the history of Saddam Hussein and his attempts to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction. Even his own generals thought that he had weapons of mass destruction.

    "Again, was it a massive intelligence failure? Should people be held responsible? Yes."
    http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/...emo/index.html
    "I love this fellow God. He's so deliciously evil." --Stuart Griffin

  2. #2
    A very, very Senior Member Adrian II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    9,748

    Default Re: Leaked document: Paul O'neil and Dick Clarke right after all about Bush and Iraq War?

    Like many revelations I fear this one will go nowhere within the U.S. itself at the moment, but it registers in London. The Brits, Blair included, are slowly finding out how they've been had over the months leading up to 'Iraq' and they are letting the world in on their discoveries. Every 'leak' of this sort (and this one looks to be orchestrated in London) is a push in the direction of a British reevaluation of their trans-Atlantic ties. That seems to be the real news here.
    The bloody trouble is we are only alive when we’re half dead trying to get a paragraph right. - Paul Scott

  3. #3

    Default Re: Leaked document: Paul O'neil and Dick Clarke right after all about Bush and Iraq War?

    "I think the important aspect of the opening of this conflict was that it's clear the status quo was not prevailing, that the sanctions were eroding, American pilots were being shot at every day, there was a clear intent on the part of Saddam Hussein that he'd shown throughout his entire regime, that he'd like to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction. He'd used them before.

    I think its been well established he broke the treaty that ended the first Gulf War...

    As Adrian said this will go no where in the US because the majority of Americans realize unfinished business should be finished.

  4. #4
    Mad Professor Senior Member Hurin_Rules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Alberta and Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,433

    Default Re: Leaked document: Paul O'neil and Dick Clarke right after all about Bush and Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by PanzerJager
    I think its been well established he broke the treaty that ended the first Gulf War...
    I believe Britain's attorney general disagreed.
    "I love this fellow God. He's so deliciously evil." --Stuart Griffin

  5. #5

    Default Re: Leaked document: Paul O'neil and Dick Clarke right after all about Bush and Iraq War?

    So Saddam was legally allowed to shoot at Americans and British patrolling the no fly zone?

  6. #6
    Mad Professor Senior Member Hurin_Rules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Alberta and Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    2,433

    Default Re: Leaked document: Paul O'neil and Dick Clarke right after all about Bush and Iraq

    This is my understanding (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong-- I'm really busy today and don't have time to provide links for everything):

    I believe the British Attorney general advised getting a new security council resolution because a case could be made that the first Gulf War was over; a new resolution would be needed to authorize a war. The no-fly zone is a bit of a non-starter in this context: I do not believe it had security council support-- it was imposed by Britain and the US, without reference to the council. Moreover, it is unclear whether a nation can take steps to enforce security council resolutions if the security council itself will not authorize them. If someone claimed that a breach of the terms of surrender serious enough to justify a war had been made, some would argue that the council itself should be the body to decide the merits of such a claim.
    Last edited by Hurin_Rules; 05-15-2005 at 22:54.
    "I love this fellow God. He's so deliciously evil." --Stuart Griffin

  7. #7
    A Veteran Wargamer Member kiwitt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    915

    Default Re: Leaked document: Paul O'neil and Dick Clarke right after all about Bush and Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by AdrianII
    ... is a push in the direction of a British reevaluation of their trans-Atlantic ties. ..
    And possibly an attempt to rejoin Europe in International Affairs, in preparation of the "EURO" referendum.
    We work to live, and to live is to, play "Total War" or drive a VR-4

  8. #8
    A very, very Senior Member Adrian II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    9,748

    Default Re: Leaked document: Paul O'neil and Dick Clarke right after all about Bush and Iraq War?

    Quote Originally Posted by PanzerJager
    So Saddam was legally allowed to shoot at Americans and British patrolling the no fly zone?
    Yup, it's called self-defense. The no-fly zones were illegal from the word go. They were unilaterally established by the U.S. after Gulf War I, supposedly to enforce the UN Security Council resolutions, but the Council never authorized them. Washington used to claim that as a UN member state it had the right to enforce resolutions in any way it saw fit, but that's nonsense. Enforcement of an organization's rules is a task that belongs to the organization, not to individual member states.
    The bloody trouble is we are only alive when we’re half dead trying to get a paragraph right. - Paul Scott

  9. #9

    Default Re: Leaked document: Paul O'neil and Dick Clarke right after all about Bush and Iraq War?

    The United Nations has no army right? How are they supposed to enforce their resolutions Adrian if individual member nations do not?

    Who liberated Kuwait? Was it the army of the UN or the armies of individual member nations.

  10. #10
    A very, very Senior Member Adrian II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    9,748

    Default Re: Leaked document: Paul O'neil and Dick Clarke right after all about Bush and Iraq War?

    Quote Originally Posted by PanzerJager
    The United Nations has no army right? How are they supposed to enforce their resolutions Adrian if individual member nations do not?
    Good point. Ask Tel Aviv.
    The bloody trouble is we are only alive when we’re half dead trying to get a paragraph right. - Paul Scott

  11. #11
    A very, very Senior Member Adrian II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    9,748

    Default Re: Leaked document: Paul O'neil and Dick Clarke right after all about Bush and Iraq War?

    Quote Originally Posted by PanzerJager
    Who liberated Kuwait?
    Japan, Germany and Saudi Arabia. They paid for the whole show!

    EDIT
    I'm sorry, I'm not a worthy opponent right now. Time for some shut-eye.
    Last edited by Adrian II; 05-16-2005 at 02:36.
    The bloody trouble is we are only alive when we’re half dead trying to get a paragraph right. - Paul Scott

  12. #12

    Default Re: Leaked document: Paul O'neil and Dick Clarke right after all about Bush and Iraq War?

    Ill look forward to continuing the conversation tommorow.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO