#British inquiry: Bush pushed for Iraq invasion before 9/11
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
Iraq war inquiry: Britain heard US drumbeat for invasion before 9/11
• UK dismissed idea in 2001 as having no basis in law
• Terror attacks ended US support for 'containment'
Tony Blair's government knew that prominent members of the Bush
administration wanted to topple Saddam Hussein years before the invasion
but initially distanced itself from the prospect knowing it would be
unlawful, it was disclosed at the Iraq inquiry today.
British intelligence also dismissed claims by elements in the US
administration that the Iraqi leader was linked to Osama bin Laden, it
heard.
Evidence given at the opening day of the inquiry, chaired by the former
top civil servant Sir John Chilcot, painted a picture of a Whitehall
slowly realising the significance of George Bush's election in November
2000 on US policy towards Iraq.
Even before the Bush administration came to power an article written by
his then national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, warned that
"nothing will change" in Iraq until Saddam was gone, Sir Peter Ricketts,
a former chairman of the joint intelligence committee (JIC) and now the
Foreign Office's top official, told the inquiry.
"We were aware of these drumbeats from Washington and internally we
discussed it. Our policy was to stay away from that part of the
spectrum," added Sir William Patey, then head of the Middle East
department at the Foreign Office.
He revealed that in late 2001 – following the 9/11 attacks on the US – he
asked officials at the ministry to draw up an Iraq "options" paper,
including regime change. "We dismissed it at the time because it had no
basis in law," Patey told the inquiry.
"We quite clearly distanced ourselves in Whitehall from talk about regime
change," said Ricketts. Up to March 2002 "there was no increased appetite
among UK ministers for military action in Iraq," he added.
Simon Webb, a former policy director at the Ministry of Defence, who also
gave evidence today, described the issue of regime change in Iraq during
the early days of the Bush administration as "the dog that did not bark.
It grizzled, but it did not bark".
The exchanges on opening day of the inquiry are significant in the light
of previously leaked documents which reveal that Blair told Bush in April
2002 – nearly a year before the invasion of Iraq – that he would in
principle support military action "to bring about regime change".
A month earlier, David Manning, Downing Street foreign policy adviser at
the time, told Blair that he had advised Rice: "You [Blair] would not
budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a
parliament, and a public opinion which is very different than anything in
the States."
Yet in July 2002, Lord Goldsmith, then attorney general, was still
warning the government that regime change was "not a legal basis for
military action", according to leaked documents.
Pressed today by Sir Roderic Lyne, a member of the inquiry panel and a
former UK ambassador to Moscow, to explain the JIC's assessment of the
threat posed by Iraq at the time, Ricketts replied that it was a "major
feature on the agenda but by no means dominant". The Balkans, Sierra
Leone – where British forces were facing down rebels – and Afghanistan,
were considered a higher priority, though attempts by Saddam to get his
hands on weapons of mass destruction was "a continuing threat", he added.
Patey said Iraq did not pose "an immediate threat".
The Iraq inquiry also heard that any lingering US sympathy for Britain's
policy of "containment" of Saddam through UN sanctions quickly evaporated
after 9/11. The Pentagon, rather than the US state department, became the
"dominant instrument" in American foreign policy.
Moreover, voices in Washington were starting to link the Iraqi leader to
al-Qaida. Ricketts said Britain had no evidence showing Iraq was "linked
in any way to 9/11". He added: "We didn't have any such evidence."
Neocons in the Bush administration and the CIA claimed in the run-up to
the invasion that Saddam was linked to al-Qaida, a claim dismissed at the
time by MI6.
According to previously leaked documents, Ricketts, political director at
the Foreign Office at the time, described the US in 2002 as "scrambling
to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida", a link that was "so far
frankly unconvincing". He told Jack Straw, then foreign secretary: "We
have to be convincing that the threat is so serious/imminent that it is
worth sending our troops to die for. Regime change does not stack up. It
sounds like a grudge match between Bush and Saddam."
Lyne questioned why Britain and the US came to such different conclusions
from other countries about the dangers Iraq posed. He asked: "With the
exception of Kuwait, were the countries in the region banging on doors in
London and Washington saying 'We're very worried about Saddam Hussein,
please can you do something about him?'"
Patey replied: "I can't say my door was being knocked on very regularly."
One of the panel members, Lady Usha Prashar, later questioned whether
official policy towards Iraq was about disarmament or regime change. "It
seems a deliberate policy of ambiguity," she said. "I don't think that's
true," replied Ricketts.
The inquiry also questioned officials about the legality and effect of no-
fly zones imposed by the US and UK over northern and southern Iraq.
Gordon Brown's spokesman said the prime minister would "of course" appear
before the inquiry if he was asked, but so far he had not been.
--
Slavery: The belief that people can be property
Corporatism: The belief that property can be people.
bvallely
everyone, let's all hate Bush together. Hey, man, if we all thought
together, I'll bet that we could give Bush a heart attack from here.
Come one everyone, let's all think together about ....
Hey, where is everyone going?
Come back...... come back......come back......
We can't let the spirit of Nov 3, 2008 die, man.
Dr. Barry Worthington
Bush effectively destroyed Tony Blair's reputation. Bush may be gone,
but the trail of slime that he left behind him will still claim
political victims.....as this enquiry demonstrates....
Dr. Barry Worthington
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
Fake Bill knows he has to sweep all that -- and the hundreds of thousands
of deaths it caused -- under the carpet if the GOP is to have a chance at
coming back. We must never think about why all those people got
slaughtered.
He'll be back in a few hours to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of
supporting Stalin.
bvallely
> Bush effectively destroyed Tony Blair's reputation. Bush may be gone,
> but the trail of slime that he left behind him will still claim
> political victims.....as this enquiry demonstrates....
Winston Churchill had a similarly "ruined" reputation. So did Harry
Truman.
Dr. Barry Worthington
Tony Blair isn't in the same league (though he thought that he was).
The fact that you would compare him (and probably Bush the idiot) with
these personages says a great deal about your political judgement.
Dr. Barry Worthington
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
I'm hoping the inquiry will tell us why Blair, even though he knew the
attack on Iraq was immoral and based on lies, went along with it, and how
he managed to convince himself, despite warnings from the military, that
this would not be a case of going in, looking for WMDs, and getting right
back out.
Was he amoral? Or just a coward?
Dr. Barry Worthington
wrote:
Not amoral. He thinks that he has a fine moral sense (his nickname in
some political circles was 'the holy fool'.) He has a sufficient ego
to know that this is the 'right' decision that he has made. It doesn't
matter what anyone else thinks, because he knows best.
He clearly thought that it was necessary to attack Iraq because
Hussein had to be eliminated. I can only compare it to Anthony Eden
wanting to be rid of Nasser.
He just auto-destructed. The sad thing is that he was sincere in his
own way. George Bush is the exact opposite. He clearly was amoral.....
>Or just a coward?
Not a coward......maybe a dissembler, perhaps a liar, but cowardice
doesn't come into it. Otherwise he would have tried to save his
political hide. The comparison with Wilson and Vietnam is instructive.
It's very like a Greek tragedy. Hubris was Tony Blair's chief
fault....
Dr. Barry worthington
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
You may be describing sanctimony rather than morality, but that does fit
what I've read of the man.
>
> He clearly thought that it was necessary to attack Iraq because Hussein
> had to be eliminated. I can only compare it to Anthony Eden wanting to
> be rid of Nasser.
>
> He just auto-destructed. The sad thing is that he was sincere in his own
> way. George Bush is the exact opposite. He clearly was amoral.....
>
>
>>Or just a coward?
>
> Not a coward......maybe a dissembler, perhaps a liar, but cowardice
> doesn't come into it. Otherwise he would have tried to save his
> political hide. The comparison with Wilson and Vietnam is instructive.
>
> It's very like a Greek tragedy. Hubris was Tony Blair's chief fault....
>
Except in the plays, when the protagonist has been defeated by the gods,
the chorus usually exits.
bvallely
wrote:
> On 26 Nov, 07:41, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > .> Bush effectively destroyed Tony Blair's reputation. Bush may be gone,
> > > but the trail of slime that he left behind him will still claim
> > > political victims.....as this enquiry demonstrates....
.
> > Winston Churchill had a similarly "ruined" reputation. So did Harry
> > Truman.
.
> Tony Blair isn't in the same league (though he thought that he was).
The British people didn't think that highly of him when they kicked
Winston to the curb after saving their island. Socialists have long
destested Churchill - and the feeling
> The fact that you would compare him (and probably Bush the idiot) with
> these personages says a great deal about your political judgement.
.
Let's talk about political judgment, shall we? My guess is that you
support the idiot Obama, or the idiobama. One of his first actions
was to send a bust of Winston Churchill George W. Bush kept int he
Oval office packing. Obama insulted Gordon Brown, the Queen of
England, the British people. And you keep kissing his ass. Excuse
me, kissing His ass.
Dr. Barry Worthington
> On Nov 26, 2:49 am, "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk>
> wrote:> On 26 Nov, 07:41, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > .> Bush effectively destroyed Tony Blair's reputation. Bush may be gone,
> > > > but the trail of slime that he left behind him will still claim
> > > > political victims.....as this enquiry demonstrates....
> .
> > > Winston Churchill had a similarly "ruined" reputation. So did Harry
> > > Truman.
> .
> > Tony Blair isn't in the same league (though he thought that he was).
>
> .
> The British people didn't think that highly of him when they kicked
> Winston to the curb after saving their island.
You want to talk about 1945? They were voting against the Conservative
Party, not Churchill. If you knew anything about British political
history, you would know that Churchill was a political maverick....he
was never really identified with the Conservatives.
> Socialists have long
> destested Churchill
The Churchill who was a social reformer before 1914? Who was in favour
of redistributive taxation, wage boards and minimum wages, old age
pensions, and a national insurance system? That Churchill?
- and the feeling
>
> > The fact that you would compare him (and probably Bush the idiot) with
> > these personages says a great deal about your political judgement.
>
> .
> Let's talk about political judgment, shall we? My guess is that you
> support the idiot Obama, or the idiobama.
He's an improvement on what went before, but he's to cautious. He
should have made a clean sweep of the augean stables.
> One of his first actions
> was to send a bust of Winston Churchill George W. Bush kept int he
> Oval office packing. Obama insulted Gordon Brown, the Queen of
> England, the British people. And you keep kissing his ass. Excuse
> me, kissing His ass.
You are a nutter.....
Dr. Barry Worthington
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
> On 26 Nov, 19:08, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 2:49 am, "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk>
>> wrote:> On 26 Nov, 07:41, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > .> Bush effectively destroyed Tony Blair's reputation. Bush may be
>> > > gone,
>> > > > but the trail of slime that he left behind him will still claim
>> > > > political victims.....as this enquiry demonstrates....
>> .
>> > > Winston Churchill had a similarly "ruined" reputation. So did
>> > > Harry Truman.
>> .
>> > Tony Blair isn't in the same league (though he thought that he was).
>>
>> .
>> The British people didn't think that highly of him when they kicked
>> Winston to the curb after saving their island.
>
> You want to talk about 1945? They were voting against the Conservative
> Party, not Churchill. If you knew anything about British political
> history, you would know that Churchill was a political maverick....he
> was never really identified with the Conservatives.
During the war, he wasn't considered a particular party at all.
Parliament was a coalition.
And I'm betting our anonymous right wing friend doesn't even know that a
few years later, Churchill was brought back to 10, as a Conservative. In
peacetime, he wasn't very impressive, but he wasn't a catastrophe, either.
>
>> Socialists have long
>> destested Churchill
>
> The Churchill who was a social reformer before 1914? Who was in favour
> of redistributive taxation, wage boards and minimum wages, old age
> pensions, and a national insurance system? That Churchill?
>
This guy likes to conflate socialists and communists. He'll explain that
anyone who was for progressive taxes or a decent minimum wage must hate
Churchill because Churchill took a hard line against Stalin. And no, it
doesn't make any sense to me, either.
>
> - and the feeling
>>
>> > The fact that you would compare him (and probably Bush the idiot)
>> > with these personages says a great deal about your political
>> > judgement.
>>
>> .
>> Let's talk about political judgment, shall we? My guess is that you
>> support the idiot Obama, or the idiobama.
>
> He's an improvement on what went before, but he's to cautious. He should
> have made a clean sweep of the augean stables.
>
>
Hear, hear.
>> One of his first actions
>> was to send a bust of Winston Churchill George W. Bush kept int he Oval
>> office packing. Obama insulted Gordon Brown, the Queen of England, the
>> British people. And you keep kissing his ass. Excuse me, kissing His
>> ass.
>
> You are a nutter.....
>
I would assume that George took it with him, since it was his property.
Barry, did you know that back in 2001, after 9/11, Bush addressed a Joint
Session of Congress, and these goombahs on the right actually called the
speech "Churchillian"? Now, America has a history of great oratory.
Both the Roosevelts and all three Kennedys, at their finest moments,
could be compared to Churchill without embarrassment.
But right wingers will say ANYTHING to try and puff their movement up
into legitimacy, and so to this day, they try to compare that vacuous and
inchoate fool to Winston Churchill.
>
> Dr. Barry Worthington
bvallely
wrote:
> On 26 Nov, 19:08, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 26, 2:49 am, "Dr. Barry Worthington" <sh...@abertay.ac.uk>
> > wrote:> On 26 Nov, 07:41, bvallely <bvall...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > .> Bush effectively destroyed Tony Blair's reputation. Bush may be gone,
> > > > > but the trail of slime that he left behind him will still claim
> > > > > political victims.....as this enquiry demonstrates....
> > .
> > > > Winston Churchill had a similarly "ruined" reputation. So did Harry
> > > > Truman.
> > .
> > > Tony Blair isn't in the same league (though he thought that he was).
>
> > .
> > The British people didn't think that highly of him when they kicked
> > Winston to the curb after saving their island.
>
> You want to talk about 1945? They were voting against the Conservative
> Party, not Churchill. If you knew anything about British political
> history, you would know that Churchill was a political maverick....he
> was never really identified with the Conservatives.
Churchill most certainly identified himself as a conservative. This
is the man who coined the phrase "The Iron Curtain". You're allowed
you own opinion, but not your own set of facts.
> > Socialists have long
> > destested Churchill
.
> The Churchill who was a social reformer before 1914? Who was in favour
> of redistributive taxation, wage boards and minimum wages, old age
> pensions, and a national insurance system? That Churchill?
.
"If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a
conservative at forty you have no brain.”
Winston Churchill
> - and the feeling
.
?
.
> > > The fact that you would compare him (and probably Bush the idiot) with
> > > these personages says a great deal about your political judgement.
.
> > Let's talk about political judgment, shall we? My guess is that you
> > support the idiot Obama, or the idiobama.
.
> He's an improvement on what went before,>
.
He's gone out of his way to insult the British People, the Queen and
the PM. He's also allowed the Russians to rearm their borders,
putting your country at risk. He's groveled to tyrants, bowed before
Emperors, while attacking democracies. That's your idea of an
"improvement"?
.
>.... but he's to cautious.>
.
"To (sic) cautious," say you? He squandered a trillion dollars his
first month in office on a Stimulus bill that destroyed almost as many
jobs as it promised to create. He spent more money last month than
Bush did the last year he had Republican majorities writing the
budget. He tried to take over one sixth of the US economy with 2000
page bills written in secret which where barely passed in the middle
of the night without debate. His
Ass. Attorney General argued to the Supreme Court that all political
discussion should be banned three months before a national election.
His Attorney General pardoned two Black Pathered who were videotaped
threatening old white people with clubs when they tried to vote.
.
> He should have made a clean sweep of the augean stables.>
.
Let's take a look the Obmaean Stables, shall we?
His "Safe School Czar" is an Atheist who wrote the forward to the book
"The Queering of Elementary Education". His hero is the "man" who
founded the North American Man Boy Love Association. In his
autobiography, Jennings bragged about braking the law to protect a
pedophile. ACORN, the organization that gave Obama his start, was
videotaped giving advice to a pimp and a prostitute on how smuggled
kidnapped 13 year old girls into the country to be used as sex
slaves. As of this writing, seven difference branches are involved.
Want more? I gots lots.
.
> > One of his first actions
> > was to send a bust of Winston Churchill George W. Bush kept int he
> > Oval office packing. Obama insulted Gordon Brown, the Queen of
> > England, the British people. And you keep kissing his ass. Excuse
> > me, kissing His ass.
.
> You are a nutter.....
.
Has that ever worked?
Dr. Barry Worthington
But he wasn't really. He started off as a Conservative M.P. since his
father (who he was determined to avange against Lord Salisbury) had
been a Conservative statesman (and social radical, coining the phrase
'tory democracy'). He soon crossed the floor and became a Liberal. He
was a minister in one of the most reforming (Liberal) administrations
in British history. Yes, he became a Conservative in the 1920s, but
was still a maverick, constantly attacking Baldwin and Chamberlain.
His greatest contribution to British history was as head of a
coalition government. Thereafter, the Conservatives wanted to use him
as an electoral asset, but he was 'past it' and only accomplished one
mediocre term.
These are 'facts' by the way....
>
> > > Socialists have long
> > > destested Churchill
> .
> > The Churchill who was a social reformer before 1914? Who was in favour
> > of redistributive taxation, wage boards and minimum wages, old age
> > pensions, and a national insurance system? That Churchill?
>
> .
> "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a
> conservative at forty you have no brain.”
>
> Winston Churchill> - and the feeling
Date? He accomplished more as a Liberal, by the way.......
>
> .
> ?
> .> > > The fact that you would compare him (and probably Bush the idiot) with
> > > > these personages says a great deal about your political judgement.
> .
> > > Let's talk about political judgment, shall we? My guess is that you
> > > support the idiot Obama, or the idiobama.
> .
> > He's an improvement on what went before,>
>
> .
> He's gone out of his way to insult the British People, the Queen and
> the PM. He's also allowed the Russians to rearm their borders,
> putting your country at risk. He's groveled to tyrants, bowed before
> Emperors, while attacking democracies. That's your idea of an
> "improvement"?
> .>.... but he's to cautious.>
>
> .
> "To (sic) cautious," say you?
Yes, we all make typos now and again.....
> He squandered a trillion dollars his
> first month in office on a Stimulus bill that destroyed almost as many
> jobs as it promised to create.
You can cite that assertion, I hope. (And please, no ideological
assertions from airheads!)
>He spent more money last month than
> Bush did the last year he had Republican majorities writing the
> budget.
But then.....he had to.....
(Rambling crap snipped....)
> .
> Let's take a look the Obmaean Stables, shall we?
(More irrelevant crap.)
Does someone push a button for all this stuff to tumble out?
> .> > One of his first actions
> > > was to send a bust of Winston Churchill George W. Bush kept int he
> > > Oval office packing. Obama insulted Gordon Brown, the Queen of
> > > England, the British people. And you keep kissing his ass. Excuse
> > > me, kissing His ass.
> .
> > You are a nutter.....
>
> .
> Has that ever worked?
????????????????
Dr. Barry Worthington