The more memos that are released...

[RightIsWrong]

The Bush administration didn't care before and doesn't care now about defeating the terrorists. Well, unless they are in Iraq of course. Let the diverting and the "ends justify the means" crowd start their engines.

Full Story

Memos Show British Concern Over Iraq Plans

LONDON - When Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn't want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about "regime change" in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.

President Bush wanted Blair's support, but British officials worried the White House was rushing to war, according to a series of leaked secret Downing Street memos that have renewed questions and debate about Washington's motives for ousting Saddam Hussein.

In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war.

"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts says in the memo. "For Iraq, `regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."

The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.

"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

"But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."

Details from Rice's dinner conversation also are included in one of the secret memos from 2002, which reveal British concerns about both the invasion and poor postwar planning by the Bush administration, which critics say has allowed the Iraqi insurgency to rage.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
The Bush administration didn't care before and doesn't care now about defeating the terrorists. Well, unless they are in Iraq of course. Let the diverting and the "ends justify the means" crowd start their engines.

Full Story

Memos Show British Concern Over Iraq Plans

LONDON - When Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn't want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about "regime change" in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.

President Bush wanted Blair's support, but British officials worried the White House was rushing to war, according to a series of leaked secret Downing Street memos that have renewed questions and debate about Washington's motives for ousting Saddam Hussein.

In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war.

"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts says in the memo. "For Iraq, `regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."

The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.

"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

"But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."

Details from Rice's dinner conversation also are included in one of the secret memos from 2002, which reveal British concerns about both the invasion and poor postwar planning by the Bush administration, which critics say has allowed the Iraqi insurgency to rage.

"Let the diverting and the "ends justify the means" crowd start their engines." Looks like the diverting and "bush lied" crowd has already started...


Wow, so Rice actually wanted to talk about Iraq in 2002? Well, there goes the "rush to war" accusation...
Anyway, I see no problem with the vision change that occurred after 9/11. We can't allow people like Saddam to play games especially when they've shown they will act(remember that Saddam took over Kuwait which is why there were sanction on him due to the CEASE FIRE agreement).
Preparing by talking about the future instead of the just dwelling on OBL when action was already being taken) seems like the prudent thing to do... but I guess some people like myopia...

CsG

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
The Bush administration didn't care before and doesn't care now about defeating the terrorists. Well, unless they are in Iraq of course. Let the diverting and the "ends justify the means" crowd start their engines.

Full Story

Memos Show British Concern Over Iraq Plans

LONDON - When Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn't want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about "regime change" in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.

President Bush wanted Blair's support, but British officials worried the White House was rushing to war, according to a series of leaked secret Downing Street memos that have renewed questions and debate about Washington's motives for ousting Saddam Hussein.

In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war.

"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts says in the memo. "For Iraq, `regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."

The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.

"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

"But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."

Details from Rice's dinner conversation also are included in one of the secret memos from 2002, which reveal British concerns about both the invasion and poor postwar planning by the Bush administration, which critics say has allowed the Iraqi insurgency to rage.

"Let the diverting and the "ends justify the means" crowd start their engines." Looks like the diverting and "bush lied" crowd has already started...


Wow, so Rice actually wanted to talk about Iraq in 2002? Well, there goes the "rush to war" accusation...
Anyway, I see no problem with the vision change that occurred after 9/11. We can't allow people like Saddam to play games especially when they've shown they will act(remember that Saddam took over Kuwait which is why there were sanction on him due to the CEASE FIRE agreement).
Preparing by talking about the future instead of the just dwelling on OBL when action was already being taken) seems like the prudent thing to do... but I guess some people like myopia...

CsG

Oh, I completely agree. September 11 showed us that we can't remain passive in the face of terrorist threats to our well-being. We needed to be proactive and go after terrorism root and branch which is why...

We should have gone after any country that finances terror, which is why we invaded Saudi Arabia. And then we should have gone after any country that fosters rabid anti-American Muslim fundamentalism and has or is seeking a nuclear weapon, which is why we invaded Iran and Pakistan. And then we should have gone after people who train and equip terrorists and have blown up American installations, which is why we invaded Syria.

And lastly we should have fixed the WMD intelligence to settle a grudge.

Oops, we did it backwards, silly us.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
The Bush administration didn't care before and doesn't care now about defeating the terrorists. Well, unless they are in Iraq of course. Let the diverting and the "ends justify the means" crowd start their engines.

Full Story

Memos Show British Concern Over Iraq Plans

LONDON - When Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn't want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about "regime change" in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.

President Bush wanted Blair's support, but British officials worried the White House was rushing to war, according to a series of leaked secret Downing Street memos that have renewed questions and debate about Washington's motives for ousting Saddam Hussein.

In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war.

"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts says in the memo. "For Iraq, `regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."

The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.

"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

"But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."

Details from Rice's dinner conversation also are included in one of the secret memos from 2002, which reveal British concerns about both the invasion and poor postwar planning by the Bush administration, which critics say has allowed the Iraqi insurgency to rage.

"Let the diverting and the "ends justify the means" crowd start their engines." Looks like the diverting and "bush lied" crowd has already started...


Wow, so Rice actually wanted to talk about Iraq in 2002? Well, there goes the "rush to war" accusation...
Anyway, I see no problem with the vision change that occurred after 9/11. We can't allow people like Saddam to play games especially when they've shown they will act(remember that Saddam took over Kuwait which is why there were sanction on him due to the CEASE FIRE agreement).
Preparing by talking about the future instead of the just dwelling on OBL when action was already being taken) seems like the prudent thing to do... but I guess some people like myopia...

CsG

Oh, I completely agree. September 11 showed us that we can't remain passive in the face of terrorist threats to our well-being. We needed to be proactive and go after terrorism root and branch which is why...

We should have gone after any country that finances terror, which is why we invaded Saudi Arabia. And then we should have gone after any country that fosters rabid anti-American Muslim fundamentalism and has or is seeking a nuclear weapon, which is why we invaded Iran and Pakistan. And then we should have gone after people who train and equip terrorists and have blown up American installations, which is why we invaded Syria.

And lastly we should have fixed the WMD intelligence to settle a grudge.

Oops, we did it backwards, silly us.

Well, it may be your opinion that we didn't choose the best target or do them in the right order but that doesn't mean it wasn't a valid target - especially since Saddam supported terrorists and terrorism. I would have preferred Syria before Iraq but that doesn't mean Iraq wasn't a target.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The eight memos ? all labeled "secret" or "confidential" ? were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.

Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.

How nice. I almost missed this part when first reading the link. So let me get this straight. The supposed originals were destroyed after a reporter typed a copy of them. These typed copies were then reviewed by an anonymous "official" which somehow earns them the appearance of authentic.

Yep, I guess these really are the smoking guns the left is claiming they are. I suppose it's only a matter of time for the "fake but accurate" apologists to chime in...

CsG

 

[Engineer]

....

The more it proves Bush is a warmongering ass.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Wow, so Rice actually wanted to talk about Iraq in 2002? Well, there goes the "rush to war" accusation...

Jeebus, you really are dense, eh? The DumbYa administration IGNORED their National Coordinator of counter-terrorism from day one. Why do you so readily ignore Richard Clark or what he had to say about the DumbYa Administration? Then al-Queda attacked and they looked in the right place (Afghanistan), but then diverted to Iraq BEFORE doing anything about OBL. Since day ONE, DumbYa wanted to invade Iraq, this is documented. Rice didnt just want to "talk" about Iraq, she ignored all talk of OBL/al-queda. Do you see this as acceptable?

 

[arsbanned]

The notion that the U.S. should or can attack numerous countries shows incredible hubris. OBL and his organization were long known to be be set up in Afghanistan and it was certainly a valid target following 9/11 (if not before). Yet the job was left unfinished and OBL roams freely.
Essentially, every action the Bush administration has taken has served only to further damage the U.S., IMO. He lied to get us into Iraq and these memos further support that fact.

 

[Malfeas]

Saddam supported terrorists?HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Thats news to me. I was always under the impression that other than Israel, Iraq was the least likely country in the middle east to support terrorists. Why? Well Saddam may have been cruel and inhumane dictator, but his government was secular and opposed to islamic fundamentalism. Yes he did pay lip service to islam, but what politician doesn't do that with the dominant regional religion?

 

[CaptnKirk]

Should Bush - and his good old buddy boy Cheney, actually be forced to resign in disgrace,
the Congress could rush through a refferendum to appoint Jeb to be the Acting President until the smoke clears away from the mirrors.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Malfeas
Saddam supported terrorists?HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Thats news to me. I was always under the impression that other than Israel, Iraq was the least likely country in the middle east to support terrorists. Why? Well Saddam may have been cruel and inhumane dictator, but his government was secular and opposed to islamic fundamentalism. Yes he did pay lip service to islam, but what politician doesn't do that with the dominant regional religion?

And what are paymentsto the PLO mayters (suicide bombers) considered.

What about support for the World Trader Center #1.

There are many other examples also.

He was not as openly active as other Arab nations, however, he belived in terror/assination/genocide as well as another other egomaniac in that area.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
The Bush administration didn't care before and doesn't care now about defeating the terrorists. Well, unless they are in Iraq of course. Let the diverting and the "ends justify the means" crowd start their engines.

Full Story

Memos Show British Concern Over Iraq Plans

LONDON - When Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn't want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about "regime change" in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.

President Bush wanted Blair's support, but British officials worried the White House was rushing to war, according to a series of leaked secret Downing Street memos that have renewed questions and debate about Washington's motives for ousting Saddam Hussein.

In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war.

"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts says in the memo. "For Iraq, `regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."

The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.

"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

"But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."

Details from Rice's dinner conversation also are included in one of the secret memos from 2002, which reveal British concerns about both the invasion and poor postwar planning by the Bush administration, which critics say has allowed the Iraqi insurgency to rage.

"Let the diverting and the "ends justify the means" crowd start their engines." Looks like the diverting and "bush lied" crowd has already started...


Wow, so Rice actually wanted to talk about Iraq in 2002? Well, there goes the "rush to war" accusation...
Anyway, I see no problem with the vision change that occurred after 9/11. We can't allow people like Saddam to play games especially when they've shown they will act(remember that Saddam took over Kuwait which is why there were sanction on him due to the CEASE FIRE agreement).
Preparing by talking about the future instead of the just dwelling on OBL when action was already being taken) seems like the prudent thing to do... but I guess some people like myopia...

CsG

Oh, I completely agree. September 11 showed us that we can't remain passive in the face of terrorist threats to our well-being. We needed to be proactive and go after terrorism root and branch which is why...

We should have gone after any country that finances terror, which is why we invaded Saudi Arabia. And then we should have gone after any country that fosters rabid anti-American Muslim fundamentalism and has or is seeking a nuclear weapon, which is why we invaded Iran and Pakistan. And then we should have gone after people who train and equip terrorists and have blown up American installations, which is why we invaded Syria.

And lastly we should have fixed the WMD intelligence to settle a grudge.

Oops, we did it backwards, silly us.

Well, it may be your opinion that we didn't choose the best target or do them in the right order but that doesn't mean it wasn't a valid target - especially since Saddam supported terrorists and terrorism. I would have preferred Syria before Iraq but that doesn't mean Iraq wasn't a target.

CsG

any idiot knows that we should have started with Saudi Arabia

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Malfeas
Saddam supported terrorists?HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Thats news to me. I was always under the impression that other than Israel, Iraq was the least likely country in the middle east to support terrorists. Why? Well Saddam may have been cruel and inhumane dictator, but his government was secular and opposed to islamic fundamentalism. Yes he did pay lip service to islam, but what politician doesn't do that with the dominant regional religion?

And what are paymentsto the PLO mayters (suicide bombers) considered.

What about support for the World Trader Center #1.

There are many other examples also.

He was not as openly active as other Arab nations, however, he belived in terror/assination/genocide as well as another other egomaniac in that area.

Wait a minute. So when "intelligence" supports your perspective its rock solid, but when it doesnt its horrbily flawed? Sound logic you have working in that little head of yours.

BTW, you may want to work on your grammar/spelling skills and loosen your tinfoil hat in future posts. Thanks for playing.

 

[NeenerNeener]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Malfeas
Saddam supported terrorists?HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Thats news to me. I was always under the impression that other than Israel, Iraq was the least likely country in the middle east to support terrorists. Why? Well Saddam may have been cruel and inhumane dictator, but his government was secular and opposed to islamic fundamentalism. Yes he did pay lip service to islam, but what politician doesn't do that with the dominant regional religion?

And what are paymentsto the PLO mayters (suicide bombers) considered.

What about support for the World Trader Center #1.

There are many other examples also.

He was not as openly active as other Arab nations, however, he belived in terror/assination/genocide as well as another other egomaniac in that area.

All lies. Read the 911 commission report. Or do you not believe that one either?

 

[MadRat]

Even John "the butcher" Kerry couldn't confirm those statements about Saddam supporting terrorist families, any indirect or direct support for terrorism, etc. He was on a mission to confirm Saddam was a terrorist and became disappointed the more it was not confirmed. He lost his patience when administration official one after the other confirmed that all of the rhetoric was built from hearsay within circulated statements from the top built on intelligence conjecture.