Iraq WMD, Case for War
What was the case for war? How was it justified?
Sunday, February 27, 2005
evidence suggesting that Tony Blair committed himself to war in Iraq in April 2002 at meeting with Buish in Crawford, TX ... ONE YEAR before war
News: "New charge undermines Blair claims on Iraq war | By Raymond Whitaker and Severin Carrell | 27 February 2005
Fresh evidence has come to light suggesting that Tony Blair committed himself to war in Iraq nearly a year before the American and British assault in March 2003.
...
Downing Street has consistently refused to disclose the date on which Mr Blair promised George Bush that Britain would join the US in an invasion of Iraq. But evidence obtained by the IoS suggests that it was as early as April 2002, when the Prime Minister met President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
A ruling by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, seen by the IoS, says the Government sought advice about the legality of a possible invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2002 as the result of "statements made in a particular press release".
The press release is understood to have been in the name of the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, who condemned Israel for failing to comply fully with United Nations resolutions calling for it to withdraw after an armed incursion into Palestinian areas. As well as demanding that Israel "respect international law", the press release quoted Britain's then ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who said the "political and moral authority of the UN is not to be cast aside lightly".
The date of the release was 9 April 2002, the day after Mr Blair completed his two-day summit with Mr Bush in Texas. The implication is that immediately after the Downing Street official spokesman had denied that the meeting was a "council of war", the Government was investigating the legality of such a war. ...
...
It also emerged this weekend that Special Branch police questioned opposition parties in December about leaked documents on the war. The move to crack down on leaks is thought to be an attempt to prevent the full text of the Attorney General's advice from emerging, as well as further documents relating to the period nearly a year earlier, when Britain and the US were discussing "regime change" in Iraq.
News: "New charge undermines Blair claims on Iraq war | By Raymond Whitaker and Severin Carrell | 27 February 2005
Fresh evidence has come to light suggesting that Tony Blair committed himself to war in Iraq nearly a year before the American and British assault in March 2003.
...
Downing Street has consistently refused to disclose the date on which Mr Blair promised George Bush that Britain would join the US in an invasion of Iraq. But evidence obtained by the IoS suggests that it was as early as April 2002, when the Prime Minister met President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
A ruling by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, seen by the IoS, says the Government sought advice about the legality of a possible invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2002 as the result of "statements made in a particular press release".
The press release is understood to have been in the name of the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, who condemned Israel for failing to comply fully with United Nations resolutions calling for it to withdraw after an armed incursion into Palestinian areas. As well as demanding that Israel "respect international law", the press release quoted Britain's then ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who said the "political and moral authority of the UN is not to be cast aside lightly".
The date of the release was 9 April 2002, the day after Mr Blair completed his two-day summit with Mr Bush in Texas. The implication is that immediately after the Downing Street official spokesman had denied that the meeting was a "council of war", the Government was investigating the legality of such a war. ...
...
It also emerged this weekend that Special Branch police questioned opposition parties in December about leaked documents on the war. The move to crack down on leaks is thought to be an attempt to prevent the full text of the Attorney General's advice from emerging, as well as further documents relating to the period nearly a year earlier, when Britain and the US were discussing "regime change" in Iraq.
Monday, February 21, 2005
"Our policies in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment. … Overwhelming majorities ... believe the U.S. has a negative policy toward Arab world"
Baiting a Trap for Bush? - by Pat Buchanan: "February 21, 2005
Baiting a Trap for Bush? | by Patrick J. Buchanan
If the testimony of CIA chief Porter Goss and the director of defense intelligence, Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, is accurate, we are less secure today than before we invaded Iraq. "Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists," Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee last week.
"These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism. … They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries."
Jacoby echoed Goss: "Our policies in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment. … Overwhelming majorities in Morocco, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia believe the U.S. has a negative policy toward the Arab world."
Here, then, is the abbreviated balance sheet on Bush's war.
On the profit side, Saddam is gone and we shall soon have a Shia-dominated regime in Baghdad with strong ties to Iran, which will invite us to go home. The future of Iraq is, at this point, unknowable.
But the losses are known. Two years after invading, we have 1,500 dead, 10,000 wounded, and no end in sight to the fighting and dying. We have killed scores of thousands of Iraqis, crippled our alliances, and bred hatred of America across the Islamic world. We are $300 billion deeper in debt. And the War Party, which was 100 percent wrong about Iraq, is telling Bush the right thing to do is to attack Syria and Iran.
To double one's energy when one has lost sight of his goal is a definition of fanaticism.
Baiting a Trap for Bush? - by Pat Buchanan: "February 21, 2005
Baiting a Trap for Bush? | by Patrick J. Buchanan
If the testimony of CIA chief Porter Goss and the director of defense intelligence, Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, is accurate, we are less secure today than before we invaded Iraq. "Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists," Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee last week.
"These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism. … They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries."
Jacoby echoed Goss: "Our policies in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment. … Overwhelming majorities in Morocco, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia believe the U.S. has a negative policy toward the Arab world."
Here, then, is the abbreviated balance sheet on Bush's war.
On the profit side, Saddam is gone and we shall soon have a Shia-dominated regime in Baghdad with strong ties to Iran, which will invite us to go home. The future of Iraq is, at this point, unknowable.
But the losses are known. Two years after invading, we have 1,500 dead, 10,000 wounded, and no end in sight to the fighting and dying. We have killed scores of thousands of Iraqis, crippled our alliances, and bred hatred of America across the Islamic world. We are $300 billion deeper in debt. And the War Party, which was 100 percent wrong about Iraq, is telling Bush the right thing to do is to attack Syria and Iran.
To double one's energy when one has lost sight of his goal is a definition of fanaticism.
