Bush & Blair Memo - Secret plan to invade Iraq

I heard Stephanie Miller interview Rep. John Conyers on Air America this morning about a letter he sent to Bush that was signed by eighty-eight members of Congress. Kevin Drum reports that the memo has been reported by Knight Ridder:

FOR THE RECORD....I see that good 'ol Knight Ridder has finally picked up on the July 2002 British memo that the Sunday Times published last Sunday. They also got some U.S. confirmation that it was accurate:

A highly classified British memo, leaked in the midst of Britain's just-concluded election campaign, indicates that President Bush decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by summer 2002 and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.

.... A former senior U.S. official called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington. He spoke on condition of anonymity.

Look, I know this isn't going to change anything at this point. We've already spent months on the issue of intelligence manipulation and nobody really seems to care all that much. But it would still be nice for the American media to report this stuff just for the record.

During his interview Rep. Conyers stated that many journalists don't even bother writing up stories critical of Bush, because they know their editor will just spike the story. Why bother?

[Update: Rep. Conyers has a diary posted at dkos, 88 Representatives Want Answers on Leaked Memo

More from Raw Story, Eighty-eight members of Congress call on Bush for answers on secret Iraq plan:

In a letter, Conyers and other members say they are disappointed the mainstream media has not touched the revelations.

"Unfortunately, the mainstream media in the United States was too busy with wall-to-wall coverage of a "runaway bride" to cover a bombshell report out of the British newspapers," Conyers writes. "The London Times reports that the British government and the United States government had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in 2002, before authorization was sought for such an attack in Congress, and had discussed creating pretextual justifications for doing so."

"The Times reports, based on a newly discovered document, that in 2002 British Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a meeting in which he expressed his support for "regime change" through the use of force in Iraq and was warned by the nation's top lawyer that such an action would be illegal," he adds. "Blair also discussed the need for America to "create" conditions to justify the war."

Here's the letter I lifted from Raw Story, where Conyers asks a few simple questions:

May 5, 2005

The Honorable George W. Bush President of the United States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write because of troubling revelations in the Sunday London Times apparently confirming that the United States and Great Britain had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action. 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. However, when this story was divulged last weekend, Prime Minister Blair's representative claimed the document contained "nothing new." If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own Administration.

The Sunday Times obtained a leaked document with the minutes of a secret meeting from highly placed sources inside the British Government. Among other things, the document revealed:

  • Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a July 2002 meeting, at which he discussed military options, having already committed himself to supporting President Bush's plans for invading Iraq.

  • British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the case for war was "thin" as "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran."

  • A separate secret briefing for the meeting said that Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war.

  • A British official "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."

As a result of this recent disclosure, we would like to know the following:

  1. Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?

  2. Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?

  3. Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?

  4. At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?

  5. Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?

We have of course known for some time that subsequent to the invasion there have been a variety of varying reasons proffered to justify the invasion, particularly since the time it became evident that weapons of mass destruction would not be found. This leaked document - essentially acknowledged by the Blair government - is the first confirmation that the rationales were shifting well before the invasion as well.

Given the importance of this matter, we would ask that you respond to this inquiry as promptly as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Members who have already signed letter:
Neil Abercrombie
Brian Baird
Tammy Baldwin
Xavier Becerra
Shelley Berkley
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Sanford Bishop
Earl Blumenauer
Corrine Brown
Sherrod Brown
G.K. Butterfield
Emanuel Cleaver
James Clyburn
John Conyers
Jim Cooper
Elijah Cummings
Danny Davis
Peter DeFazio
Diana DeGette
Bill Delahunt
Rosa DeLauro
Lloyd Doggett
Sam Farr
Bob Filner
Harold Ford, Jr.
Barney Frank
Al Green
Raul Grijalva
Louis Gutierrez
Alcee Hastings
Maurice Hinchey
Rush Holt
Jay Inslee
Sheila Jackson Lee
Jessie Jackson Jr.
Marcy Kaptur
Patrick Kennedy
Dale Kildee
Carolyn Kilpatrick
Dennis Kucinich
William Lacy Clay
Barbara Lee
John Lewis
Zoe Lofgren
Donna M. Christensen
Carolyn Maloney
Ed Markey
Carolyn McCarthy
Jim McDermott
James McGovern
Cynthia McKinney
Martin Meehan
Kendrick Meek
Gregory Meeks
Michael Michaud
George Miller
Gwen S. Moore
James Moran
Jerrold Nadler
Grace Napolitano
James Oberstar
John Olver
Major Owens
Frank Pallone
Donald Payne
Charles Rangel
Bobby Rush
Bernie Sanders
Linda Sanchez
Jan Schakowsky
Jose Serrano
Ike Skelton
Louise Slaughter
Hilda Solis
Pete Stark
Ellen Tauscher
Bennie Thompson
Edolphus Towns
Stephanie Tubbs Jones
Chris Van Hollen
Nydia Velazquez
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Maxine Waters
Diane Watson
Melvin Watt
Robert Wexler
Lynn Woolsey
David Wu
Albert R. Wynn

By some strange coincidence, Democratic Senators and the media are both silent on the issue. Will Harry Reid give Barbara Boxer permission to make a statement? Will Joe Lieberman come to Bush's rescue? Whose side are Biden and Feinstein on? Will Hillary make a statement today or wait to see which way the wind blows? Can't get too far ahead of the polls when you're triangulating.

Will Tweety think this is a bigger story than Michael Jackson? Will the Sunday Funny Shows cover the memo and Conyers' letter to Bush? Stay tuned.


Display:


This is dynamite! (none / 0)

From the London Times story, Blair hit by new leak of secret war plan:  

A SECRET document from the heart of government reveals today that Tony Blair privately committed Britain to war with Iraq and then set out to lure Saddam Hussein into providing the legal justification.

The Downing Street minutes, headed "Secret and strictly personal -- UK eyes only", detail one of the most important meetings ahead of the invasion.

It was chaired by the prime minister and attended by his inner circle. The document reveals Blair backed "regime change" by force from the outset, despite warnings from Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, that such action could be illegal.

The minutes, published by The Sunday Times today, begins with the warning: "This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. The paper should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know." It records a meeting in July 2002, attended by military and intelligence chiefs, at which Blair discussed military options having already committed himself to supporting President George Bush's plans for ousting Saddam.

This story just might be big enough that the MSM sockpuppets will have to report it in spite of themselves.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri May 06, 2005 at 12:30:40 PM EST

Don't count on it... (none / 0)

But we can rub their face in it.. Its important that people assert their rights to the truth and not allow themselves to be intimidated. the issue here isn't about whether it was good or not good to invade Iraq, the issue is that the government should not lie to the American public about the reasons to go to war..

war is such an immensely profitable for war contractors and such a destructive force on people's lives and futures that we cannot allow the old pattern of rulers using their people's lives like chess pieces in their 'Great Game' (as Rudyard Kipling called it) to continue..
Thats how SO many wars have started.. because one country or another felt 'boxed in' and made up some pretext to whip the nation into a frenzy and kill a few million young men...

People with terminal grandiosity and narcissistic personality disorder are a blight upon this planet..

I know that they crave attention and power, but we cannot allow these tiny percentage of people to kill as many hundreds of millions (or perhaps even billions) of people in the 21st century, as they did in the 20th...

The list of grandiose and consciousless leaders who have brought their nations to the abyss and pushed is long...

They all had the same symptoms.. When will we see?

by ultraworld on Sat May 07, 2005 at 03:22:37 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.