88 Congressmen Seek Answers to Secret US-UK Agreement To Attack Iraq

[Nbadan]

Eighty-eight members of Congress have signed a letter authored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) calling on President Bush to answer questions about a secret U.S.-UK agreement to attack Iraq, RAW STORY has learned.

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

- snip -

"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."

The members say they are seeking an inquiry.

- snip -

Members who have already signed letter:

Listed at link: Rawstory (http://www.rawstory.com/aexternal/conyers_iraq_letter_502)

Conyers, as some of you may recall, has also been a vocal leader in the call for e-voting reform

Here is a copy of the letter sent to W...


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

[Nbadan]

WASHINGTON - 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.

The document, which summarizes a July 23, 2002, meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair with his top security advisers, reports on a visit to Washington by the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service.

The visit took place while the Bush administration was still declaring to the American public that no decision had been made to go to war.

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable," the MI-6 chief said at the meeting, according to the memo. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," weapons of mass destruction.

The memo said "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Charlotte.com (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/11574258.htm)

Here is the link to the original Times Online article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html) that broke the allegations.

[The Ressurrected One]

Actually, it wasn't a meeting, it was a memo purportedly counseling Blair over the legality of the Iraqi war. And, that has been reported to be a Dan Rather fraud.

Forged Iraq 'memo to Blair' exposed (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050429/wl_uk_afp/britainvoteiraq_050429175651)

[Nbadan]

Actually, it wasn't a meeting, it was a memo purportedly counseling Blair over the legality of the Iraqi war. And, that has been reported to be a Dan Rather fraud.

Dan Rather had nothing to do with this memo. Big surprise that Goldsmith would claim the memo was fraudulant, but where is the proof?


A secret memo publicized in Britain confirms the lies on which Bush based his Iraq policy. Why has it received so little notice in the U.S. press?

Are Americans so jaded about the deceptions perpetrated by our own government to lead us into war in Iraq that we are no longer interested in fresh and damning evidence of those lies? Or are the editors and producers who oversee the American news industry simply too timid to report that proof on the evening broadcasts and front pages?

There is a "smoking memo" that confirms the worst assumptions about the Bush administration's Iraq policy, but although that memo generated huge pre-election headlines in Britain, its existence has hardly been mentioned here.

(snip)

What the minutes clearly show is that Bush and Blair secretly agreed to wage war for "regime change" nearly a year before the invasion -- and months before they asked the United Nations Security Council to support renewed weapons inspections as an alternative to armed conflict. The minutes also reveal the lingering doubts over the legal and moral justifications for war within the Blair government.

But for Americans, the most important lines in the July 23 minutes are those attributed to Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service, or MI6, who in spy jargon is to be referred to only as "C." The minutes indicate that Sir Richard had discovered certain harsh realities during a visit to the United States that summer:

"C 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. The NSC had no patience with the U.N. route ... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

more…

Conason, Salon (http://salon.com/opinion/conason/2005/05/06/bush_blair_iraq/index.html)

[The Ressurrected One]

Dan Rather had nothing to do with this memo. Big surprise that Goldsmith would claim the memo was fraudulant, but where is the proof?
Okay, I was being facetious about DR. Where's the proof it's real? The person who is purported to have written it denies he did. Gonna have to provide some supporting evidence Nbadan.

[Nbadan]

Sunday, May 01, 2005

The B-liar timeline is fairly simple:

1. From a letter <1> from Gordon Logan to Reg Keys (the guy who's running <2>against Blair!; see also here<3>) dated April 29, 2005:

"All the discussion on the Iraq war is essentially a diversion. There is a secret clause in the Trident submarine treaty that was signed by Mrs Thatcher in 1983. The secret clause states that the British Prime Minister is required to go to war if he/she gets the order from the President of the United States. You will appreciate that this information explains a lot, notably why Blair has repeatedly gone to war, but only when required to by the Americans. It also explains why Blair is so different from his Labour predecessors, such as Harold Wilson, who refused to send our troops to Vietnam in 1968. The secret agreement was designed by Thatcher to secretly tie the hands of British Prime Ministers for many years to come. Without naming sources, I received this information from a British Army officer a couple of years ago."

2. In March 2002, Blair received <4> legal advice from the Foreign Office that an attack on Iraq was illegal under international law. The advice was drafted by the Foreign Office's deputy legal adviser, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who resigned on the eve of war in protest at what she called a 'crime of aggression'.

3. Blair met with Bush in Crawford <5> April 2002 and received his marching orders - literally! - that Britain must support the American attack on Iraq.

4. Blair chaired a war meeting <6> with his inner circle in July 2002, in which it was planned to arrange a reason for war. From The Independent:

". . . the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, had warned that the case against Saddam was 'thin'. He suggested that the Iraqi dictator should be forced into a corner by demanding the return of the UN weapons inspectors: if he refused, or the inspectors found WMD, there would be good cause for war."

Link (http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m11448&l=i&size=1&hd=0)

Whether this clause exists or not, evidence exists that the British desperately wanted Tomahawk cruise missiles for some time and then magically, finally got them. New software was introduced to improve interoperability between the US and Royal Navies, and the royal Tomahawks made their operational debut against the people of Serbia in 1999. The British military is increasingly becoming a branch of the US military, and the Brits do get some nice US military hardware that no other countries gets, which of course comes with a price that isn't neccessarily monetary.

So I guess old Tony isn't so much a "poodle" for W as a much as a "whore".

[Nbadan]

Okay, I was being facetious about DR. Where's the proof it's real? The person who is purported to have written it denies he did. Gonna have to provide some supporting evidence Nbadan.

Here is the memo in question for everyone to read. Judge for yourself.

Is it Real or Memorex?


Sunday Times

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C 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. The NSC had no patience with the UN 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.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.


The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.


(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)


MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)


I'm sure we will be hearing much from Matthew Rycroft soon.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Okay, I was being facetious about DR. Where's the proof it's real? The person who is purported to have written it denies he did. Gonna have to provide some supporting evidence Nbadan.

Do you remember the months prior to the invasion?

Do you remember Hans Blix & Scott Ritter documenting at length that there were no WMD's?

Do you remember 15 million people around the world protesting that Iraq was innocent of the charges? That Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

Do you remember the lies told by Bush & Blair, claiming secret evidence?

Do you remember ''45 minutes'' for a nuclear or bio-weapon strike?

Do you remember Colin Powell lying to the United Nations, using false, fabricated, and deliberatly incomplete ''evidence?''?

This memo is the ''secret'' evidence: The US and the UK knew 8 months before the invasion that there were no WMD's. They then staged an illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation to steal their resources.

It was/is premeditated, knowing deception in the first degree.

The question now is should Dubya be impeached?

What little evidence exists does not support the rational or the actuality of the invasion/occupation. The vast majority of the so-called ''evidence'' was fabricated and presented as facts.

At minimum, Bush and Cheney are in direct violation of their sworn oath of office.

[Clandestino]

yes, saddam should be made a saint. he was a model leader. he never defied the un for over 10 years. he didn't gas people, he never tortured thousands, etc...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Do you remember Hans Blix & Scott Ritter documenting at length that there were no WMD's?

Hans Blix is a rep. from the same agency who was bilking billions from Oil for Food. I bet he's got deeper pockets from that one too.

As for Scott Ritter, he hates Bush and writes for Al Jazeera. Excuse me for being a skeptic.

[The Ressurrected One]

Kofi Annan will be gone and the U.N. in serious danger of being disbanded for all but humanitarian work, Jacques Chirac will be exposed as the corrupt profiteer he is, and Gerhard Schroeder and possibly Vladimar Putin will be embarrassed by the outfall of the oil for food scandal long before George W. Bush ever faces a serious allegation of wrongdoing.

I think it's slowly being discovered that all the opposition to the war was because of all the pockets involved across Europe and at the U.N. that were afraid of losing a steady stream of income if the U.S. invaded.

I also believe the story of the WMD's will be resolved in Bush's favor.

It's also apparent the Democratic Party is falling to pieces before our eyes...

There is a God.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Kofi Annan will be gone and the U.N. in serious danger of being disbanded for all but humanitarian work, Jacques Chirac will be exposed as the corrupt profiteer he is, and Gerhard Schroeder and possibly Vladimar Putin will be embarrassed by the outfall of the oil for food scandal long before George W. Bush ever faces a serious allegation of wrongdoing.

I think it's slowly being discovered that all the opposition to the war was because of all the pockets involved across Europe and at the U.N. that were afraid of losing a steady stream of income if the U.S. invaded.

I also believe the story of the WMD's will be resolved in Bush's favor.

It's also apparent the Democratic Party is falling to pieces before our eyes...

There is a God.

Too bad you all think Dubya is God. :rolleyes

[The Ressurrected One]

Too bad you all think Dubya is God. :rolleyes
Not at all...

I just think those people are at the bottom of the oil for food scandal and probably why they were so opposed to a U.S. Invasion.

Frankly, It's the entire Bush Administration that has my admiration...not just the President.

As every day goes by, the truth is closer to being known...

[NameDropper]

Not at all...

I just think those people are at the bottom of the oil for food scandal and probably why they were so opposed to a U.S. Invasion.

Frankly, It's the entire Bush Administration that has my admiration...not just the President.

As every day goes by, the truth is closer to being known...

Rumor has it if Bush and Cheney would have listened to the truth we wouldn't be at war.

[The Ressurrected One]

Rumor has it if Bush and Cheney would have listened to the truth we wouldn't be at war.
Rumor is wrong...

[Nbadan]

Hey TRO, It looks like even Yahoo News is making a 180 about the authenticity of the British memo..


NEW YORK For much of the week, much of the U.S. press paid little attention to the highly classified British memo, leaked to a British newspaper, which seems to reveal that President Bush decided by summer 2002 to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.

That changed on Friday, when Knight Ridder circulated a lengthy report on the memo by Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott.

The memo was first disclosed earlier this week by the Sunday Times of London. It has not been disavowed by the British government. A White House official told Knight Ridder that the administration wouldn't comment on the leaked document.

Meanwhile, Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has gained 88 signatures on a letter among fellow Democrats asking the White House for an explanation of the memo. Among other things, the letter asks: Did the Administration lie to the American people about its intentions with respect to Iraq? Did the Administration deliberately manipulate intelligence to deceive the American people about the strength of its case for war?

The memo reports on a U.S. visit by Richard Dearlove, then head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service. The visit took place while the Bush administration was declaring to Americans that no decision had been made to go to war, Knight Ridder observed today.

The MI-6 chief's account of his U.S. visit was paraphrased this way: "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 [weapons of mass destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. ... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Strobel and Wolcott noted that the White House has repeatedly denied accusations by top foreign officials that intelligence estimates were manipulated.

But they report that a former senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, called it "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during Dearlove's visit to Washington.

Yahoo News (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/s/ep/20050506/en_bpiep/anewmemogateknightriddercoversleakedbritishdocumen tthatdisputesbushclaimsoniraq)

Ouch!


:hat

[Ocotillo]

The memo in the Dan Rather story was never proven to be a fake, only it was not able to be proven to be authentic.

The Republican talking points memo in the Schiavo case turned out to be real even after many of the wingnuts proclaimed it a Democratic fraud.

Why would a media with a liberal bias be barely reporting this story if at all?

I'll answer that. There is no liberal bias in today's media, only corporate interests being served and White House stenography being performed.

[Clandestino]

Rumor has it if Bush and Cheney would have listened to the truth we wouldn't be at war.

right, we should have believed saddam! :rolleyes