{"id":4631,"date":"2011-01-24T11:30:06","date_gmt":"2011-01-24T16:30:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=4631"},"modified":"2011-01-24T13:21:30","modified_gmt":"2011-01-24T18:21:30","slug":"what-a-mess","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2011\/01\/24\/what-a-mess\/","title":{"rendered":"guilty as charged&#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p align=\"justify\">I haven&#8217;t yet fully watched Tony Blair&#8217;s second round of Testimony before the Chilcot Inquiry at the end of last week, but I wanted to comment on the 03\/17\/2002 Memo released right before this testimony.<\/p>\n<table width=\"90%\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"2\" border=\"0\" align=\"center\">\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"center\" colspan=\"2\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\">THE EARLY ROAD TO IRAQ<\/font><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"center\" colspan=\"2\">\n<hr size=\"1\" \/><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"left\">03\/17\/2002<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"center\">BLAIR&#8217;S MEMO TO JOHNATHAN POWELL<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"justify\">[see below]. Blair&#8217;s reflections on how to sell the invasion of Iraq.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"left\">04\/06\/2002<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"center\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.dailymail.co.uk\/news\/article-1231346\/Blair-Bush-agreed-Iraq-regime-change-private-2002-Crawford-Ranch-meeting.html\" target=\"_blank\">BUSH AND BLAIR MEET AT THE CRAWFORD RANCH<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"justify\">Bush and Blair agree on Regime Change as the strategy for Iraq.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"left\">06\/30\/2002<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"center\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.iraqinquiry.org.uk\/media\/46499\/Goldsmith-note-to-PM-30July2002.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">MEMO FROM LORD GOLDSMITH TO BLAIR<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"justify\">&#8230; in the absence of a fresh resolution by the Security Council which would at least involve a new determination of a material and flagrant breach, military action would be unlawful. Even if there were such a resolution, but one that did not explicitly authorise the use of force, it would remain highly debatable whether it legitimized military action &#8211; but without it the position is, in my view, clear.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"left\">07\/23\/2002<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"center\"><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/downingstreetmemo.com\/memos.html\">DOWNING STREET MEMO<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"justify\">&quot;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&#8217;s record. There was little discussion in  Washington of the aftermath after military action.&quot;<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"left\">09\/08\/2002<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"center\">BUSH AND BLAIR MEET AT CAMP DAVID<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"justify\">Bush agrees to work through the UN. Blair agrees to stick with the US no matter what.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"left\">09\/08\/2002<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"center\">THE US MEDIA BLITZ FOR WAR BEGINS<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"justify\">Members of the Bush Administration appear on all the networks talking about the dangers of Saddam Hussein&#8217;s Iraq &#8211; WMD &amp; al Qaeda connections.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"left\">09\/14\/2002<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"center\">BUSH&#8217;s SPEECH AT THE UN<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"justify\">President Bush accuses Iraq of ignoring the previous 16 UN Resolutions of the UN requiring inspections of his weapons programs and says that Saddam Hussein has begun producing weapons of mass destruction again.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"left\">09\/24\/2002<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"center\">THE SEPTEMBER DOSSIER<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"justify\">Blair presents a White Paper with accusations against Hussein [all of them wrong].<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"center\"><strong><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.telegraph.co.uk\/news\/newstopics\/politics\/tony-blair\/8235214\/Tony-Blair-at-the-Iraq-inquiry-day-of-regret-day-of-reckoning.html\">Tony Blair at the Iraq inquiry: day of regret, day of reckoning<\/a><br \/>              The Telegraph<\/strong><br \/>              By Andrew Gilligan<br \/>              January 23, 2011 <\/div>\n<p>              <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup>&#8230; For this committee of mandarins, the paperwork is the real evidence. Unlike    politicians, memoranda cannot change their stories &ndash; and a small mountain of    fundamentally damaging papers has now piled up. To Chilcot&rsquo;s obvious anger,    he cannot publish some of the most important ones, but other, enormously    telling documents were fully released on Friday. Exhibit A is a personal minute written by Blair to his chief of staff on March    17, 2002. In it, the Prime Minister wrote that &ldquo;the immediate WMD problems    [posed by Iraq] don&rsquo;t seem obviously worse than three years ago. So we have    to re-order our story and message.&rdquo;<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"center\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"418\" height=\"548\" border=\"0\" src=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/images\/blair-17-mar-2002.gif\" \/><\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup>Only a few months later, at the launch of the famous dossier, Blair told    Parliament that Iraq&rsquo;s WMD programme was &ldquo;growing&rdquo;. He claimed in the    dossier&rsquo;s foreword that he was &ldquo;increasingly alarmed&rdquo; by the &ldquo;progress&rdquo; that    Saddam Hussein had made on &ldquo;building up&rdquo; his WMD capability. The secret    minute flatly contradicts that, going to the heart of the &ldquo;sexing-up&rdquo; charge    against Mr Blair. It is quite true, as his supporters often protest, that most people in    intelligence believed before the war that Iraq had some form of WMD. Even if    there was relatively little evidence, it was a fair inference to draw from    Saddam&rsquo;s evasions of UN weapons inspectors.<\/sup><\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\"><sup>But the mere fact of Iraq&rsquo;s WMD had been known, or assumed, for the previous    15 years. It had never been seen as reason to go to war. Blair&rsquo;s deceit was    not the statement that Saddam had WMD, but the claim that those weapons were    becoming a &ldquo;growing&rdquo; threat, a threat so &ldquo;current and serious&rdquo; as to need    military action. The &ldquo;re-ordering our story and message&rdquo; that Blair suggested in the March 17    memo was talking more about Saddam&rsquo;s despotic nature. But the document is    among the clearest proof yet that he also &ldquo;re-ordered&rdquo; the story and message    given by the intelligence on WMD.<\/sup><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><sup>The inquiry did not press this issue on Friday. They were much more interested    in what the memo told them about Blair&rsquo;s intent. The central charge Chilcot    has brought into focus is that the decision on war was the beginning, not    the end, of the process; that an agreement on &ldquo;regime change&rdquo; was made early    and secretly with President Bush; and that it was done without factual    justification, legal advice or proper military planning &ndash; all three of which    were later twisted to fit. In the March 17 memo &ndash; written more than a year before the war, and around the    time the secret agreement was allegedly made &ndash; Blair writes: &ldquo;A political    philosophy that does care about other nations &ndash; eg Kosovo, Afghanistan,    Sierra Leone &ndash; and is prepared to change regimes on the merits should be    gung-ho about Saddam.&rdquo; <\/sup><\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup>He had begun the memo by saying: &ldquo;I do not have a proper worked-out strategy    on how we would do it&hellip; I will need a meeting on this with military folk.&rdquo; In his evidence on Friday, Blair claimed that the &ldquo;it&rdquo; in that sentence could    have meant &ldquo;getting Saddam to cease being a threat peacefully&rdquo;. But it    clearly couldn&rsquo;t have. The references to military folk, being gung-ho and    regime change, citing three previous military campaigns, are new and    valuable evidence that he was committed to war from the start. No wonder Sir    Martin Gilbert, one of the inquiry panel, described this memo as &ldquo;very    important&rdquo;&#8230; <\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">       It&#8217;s hard these days to get much interest in the lead-up to the Invasion of Iraq. Maybe our national attention span has gone ADHD, or we just don&#8217;t want to think about it anymore. I marvel that the Republicans\/Tea Party spend all their time trying to undo the consequences of the Bush Administration, without ever acknowledging that it existed. But in the UK, they&#8217;re still at it &#8211; trying to learn how they got pulled in to a war that now looks like such a horrible idea.  <\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\">This Memo is anything but benign. It essentially confirms what Tony Blair has denied forever. He was a &quot;regime changer&quot; even before he met with Bush at Crawford. Like Bush, and was already looking for a way to rationalize\/justify the Invasion in March 2002. I wonder if it really ever occurred to either Bush or Blair how badly it could go. In the little bit of his testimony I did see, he was claiming that everything would&#8217;ve been just fine if there hadn&#8217;t been that pesky insurgency [which he blames on Al Qaeda].  <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">In his speech to Parliament in March 2003, Blair used an analogy to Hitler&#8217;s invasion of Czechoslovakia the 1930s as the time the US and UK should&#8217;ve gone to war with Nazi Germany to sell invading Iraq. As it has turned out, the US\/UK Invasion of Iraq was more like the German Invasion itself &#8211; an act of aggression. In this March 2002 Memo, he plants the roots of a strategy:<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">So we&#8217;re going to have to reorder our story and message. Increasingly, I think it should be about the nature of the regime. We do intervene &#8211; as per the Chicago speech. We have no inhibitions &#8211; where we reasonably can &#8211; about nation building ie we must come to our own conclusion about Saddam from our own position, not the US position.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">That then lead to the September Dossier, Blair&#8217;s indictment of Hussein which talked about Iraq&#8217;s &quot;45 minutes&quot; to mobilize WMD against England and the Niger Yellowcake Uranium purchase [now known as the Niger Uranium Forgeries]. Bush, in turn, used Blair&#8217;s Dossier for the &quot;sixteen words&quot; in his SOTUS in January 2003:<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">Like Sir Martin Gilbert said, this Memo was indeed &quot;very important&quot;. Blair was not a lackey to Bush and Cheney, he was a full fledged co-conspirator&#8230; <\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I haven&#8217;t yet fully watched Tony Blair&#8217;s second round of Testimony before the Chilcot Inquiry at the end of last week, but I wanted to comment on the 03\/17\/2002 Memo released right before this testimony. THE EARLY ROAD TO IRAQ 03\/17\/2002 BLAIR&#8217;S MEMO TO JOHNATHAN POWELL &nbsp; [see below]. Blair&#8217;s reflections on how to sell [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4631","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4631","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4631"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4631\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4631"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4631"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4631"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}