Bush, Blair memo

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Forget about bombs hitting the Pentagon, or controlled demolitions, here's the real deal.

A secret memo of a meeting between G W Bush, and Tony Blair that took place on 31st Jan, 2003.

It reveals Bush floating the idea of painting a U2 spyplane in UN colours, and flying it low over Iraq hoping to provoke Saddam Hussein into shooting it down, (a good plan never dies, see operation Northwoods in JFK section) Thus providing a pretext for the subsequent invasion. It also shows the two making a secret deal to carry out the invasion regardless of whether or not WMDs were discovered by UN weapons inspectors, in direct contradiction with statements Blair made to Parliament afterwards, that Saddam would be given a final chance to disarm. The memo was obtained by the New York Times, and the London Guardian both of whom confirmed its authenticity. On the strength of this both Blair, and Bush should have been impeached, and faced war crime trials in the Haig.

[Len Colby]

Forget about bombs hitting the Pentagon, or controlled demolitions, here's the real deal.

A secret memo of a meeting between G W Bush, and Tony Blair that took place on 31st Jan, 2003.

It reveals Bush floating the idea of painting a U2 spyplane in UN colours, and flying it low over Iraq hoping to provoke Saddam Hussein into shooting it down, (a good plan never dies, see operation Northwoods in JFK section) Thus providing a pretext for the subsequent invasion. It also shows the two making a secret deal to carry out the invasion regardless of whether or not WMDs were discovered by UN weapons inspectors, in direct contradiction with statements Blair made to Parliament afterwards, that Saddam would be given a final chance to disarm. The memo was obtained by the New York Times, and the London Guardian both of whom confirmed its authenticity. On the strength of this both Blair, and Bush should have been impeached, and faced war crime trials in the Haig.

Thanks for that Steve. Very telling

The link for the NY Times article is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/internat...1115600&partner

Len

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Thanks for the link Len.here's a link to the Guardian story. It seems Blairs boys could not wait to do their masters biding. The deaths of over 1500 American soldiers, more than 100 British, and countless Iraqi citizens lay in this Document. Blair is not the first Prime minister to lie to Parliament, but he is the first to get caught at it whilst still holding tenure. So much for democratic accountability.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

GW Bush speech to the UN, Sept 2002

"The first time we may be certain he has a nuclear weapons (sic) is when, God forbid, he uses them."

Oct 7th Cincinnati

" Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof-the smoking gun-that would come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

Joseph Wilson, A senior American diplomat, sent to Niger on a CIA mission to investigate British claims that Saddam had tried to buy Yellow cake uranium from Niger.

"Based on my experience with the administrationin the months leading up to the war, I have little choise but to conclude that some of the intelligence was twisted to exagerate the threat....The Cia asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story, in early March (2002) I arived back in Washington, and submitted a detailed briefing to the CIA. There should be at least Four documents in US government archives confirmin my mission."...In July Wilson said.."It really comes down to the Administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war. It begs the question, WHAT ELSE ARE THEY LYING ABOUT?"

The Whitehouse ignored Wilsons report, much prefering Britains fictional account.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Is there a

[Guest]

Is there a

scandal?

certainly

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Is there a

scandal?

certainly

Your not kidding

"The Iraq regime continues to possess, and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." G Bush Jan 2002. No supporting evidence has ever been found.

Colin Powell claimed to the UN "Iraq has a long list of sites containing WMD." He sited the British dossier part of which had been plagiarized from a 10 year old graduate thesis. No evidence of these sites has ever been found.

The US claimed that Iraq was an important ally of Al Qaida, No evidence to support this claim has ever been found.

Powell also warned about mobile germ warfare trucks, these turned out to be food inspection labs, Bush warned about "drones of death"that could be launched from ships and "attack America with pestilence"these turned out to be two rickity model aeroplanes.

And so it went, a torrent of propaganda decieving Americans into believing Iraq was armed to the teeth with WMD's, somehow responsible for 911, and intending, as Bush endlessly claimed, to attack the US.

Inspectors have found no WMD's, neither have allied occupation forces, no nukes, no nerve gas, no dispersal systems, and no Al Qaida camps, just a nation ruined by Saddam's greed, and brutality, and over 10years of UN, Uk, and US lead sanctions. As I said in my first post, never mind the B/S about missiles, and false planes, here's your conspiracy.

[Michael Hogan]

Referring to a memo that described a meeting between Blair and Bush in January of 2003, Stephen

Turner wrote: "As I said in my first post, never mind the B/S about missiles, and false planes, here's your conspiracy."

This week Public Broadcasting System (PBS) aired a documentary entitled The Dark Side. Here is how they describe it:

In "The Dark Side," FRONTLINE tells the story of the vice president's role as the chief architect of the war on terror, and his battle with Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet for control of the "dark side." Drawing on more than 40 interviews and thousands of documents, the film provides a step-by-step examination of what happened inside the councils of war.

Early in the Bush administration, Cheney placed a group of allies throughout the government who advocated a robust and pre-emptive foreign policy, especially regarding Iraq. But a potential obstacle was Tenet, a holdover from the Clinton administration who had survived the transition by bypassing Cheney and creating a personal bond with the president.

After the attacks on 9/11, Cheney seized the initiative and pushed for expanding presidential power, transforming America's intelligence agencies and bringing the war on terror to Iraq. Cheney's primary ally in this effort was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The program can be viewed in its entirety at: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/

Here in the States we call it "must see TV."

I believe that one reason why there was so little Forum response to the memo on the Blair-Bush meeting is that Americans now know that by the time of that meeting Bush's war cabinet had long since made the commitment to invade Iraq.

Edited June 24, 2006 by Michael Hogan

[Evan Burton]

I have questions about this situation. Now, I should say that I have little real understanding of political intrigue so I'd ask if people disagree with what I have to say, please try and explain why you believe my assumptions / conclusions to be wrong rather than a straight out attack.

The first that comes to mind is talk of a U-2 being "...in the colours of the UN in the hopes of drawing fire".

To my knowledge, the U-2s - or other surveillance assets - never "fly a UN flag". Fighters, for example, patrolling over the "no fly" zone wore national colours, not UN markings. Even when more mundane aircraft are involved in UN tasks, they don't normally have UN painted on them. The exceptions are cargo or passenger aircraft which do sometimes fly the UN colours.

To me, this immediately casts doubt on the authenticity of the document - though I do note that other intelligence sources confirm it as being genuine.

The remainder of the document/s seems to be believable. There was a "defector" who said that Iraq had a WMD programme, and there well may have been assasination attempts. I also have no doubts that they wanted a military confrontation with Iraq.

I suppose my big questions has to be - why didn't they fake WMDs? After the initial military action, it would have been a simple matter to "plant" evidence of WMD construction at locations. Chemical weapons, bio-weapons, even evidence of nuclear weapons research could be manufactured. This would have provided justification for the military action - but they had to admit that no evidence was found, or at least that evidence was subject to interpretation.

If you painted a U-2 in UN colours in the hope of drawing fire, well, even a U-2 not painted in UN colours would achieve the same effect. The UN itself would know if a mission had been authorised, so they would be able to confirm if a flight took place (remembering my previous statements about surveillance aircraft in UN colours). If the Iraqies fired upon it, then it WOULD be a genuine aggressive act - not a setup per se.

[Michael Hogan]

Evan,

You asked: "Why didn't they fake WMDs? After the initial military action, it would have been a simple matter to "plant" evidence of WMD construction at locations."

I've often wondered the same thing. I think that watching the PBS documentary The Dark Side referenced in my previous post may offer clues. There was (and is) a large rift between the CIA and the Pentagon. Planting WMDs by the Pentagon would be entirely too risky if there were even the smallest chance they would ever be exposed. And if the CIA had knowledge of such a planting of evidence, it would give them enormous leverage over the Pentagon in the constant struggle for power in Washington.

All the above is of course extremely speculative on my part. I also have little undertanding of political intrigue. I urge you to watch the PBS documentary. I have no way of knowing how much is true, and how much is disinformation, but it is fascinating to see what some of the CIA people say about Rumsfeld and Cheney. It is also compelling to watch the news clips of Bush, Cheney and other members of the administration during the times leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

If anyone has seen The Dark Side, I would be interested in their comments.

Your post was thoughtful Evan, and your questions are logical ones to ask.

Mike Hogan

[Len Colby]

I have questions about this situation. Now, I should say that I have little real understanding of political intrigue so I'd ask if people disagree with what I have to say, please try and explain why you believe my assumptions / conclusions to be wrong rather than a straight out attack.

The first that comes to mind is talk of a U-2 being "...in the colours of the UN in the hopes of drawing fire".

To my knowledge, the U-2s - or other surveillance assets - never "fly a UN flag". Fighters, for example, patrolling over the "no fly" zone wore national colours, not UN markings. Even when more mundane aircraft are involved in UN tasks, they don't normally have UN painted on them. The exceptions are cargo or passenger aircraft which do sometimes fly the UN colours.

To me, this immediately casts doubt on the authenticity of the document - though I do note that other intelligence sources confirm it as being genuine.

The remainder of the document/s seems to be believable. There was a "defector" who said that Iraq had a WMD programme, and there well may have been assasination attempts. I also have no doubts that they wanted a military confrontation with Iraq.

I suppose my big questions has to be - why didn't they fake WMDs? After the initial military action, it would have been a simple matter to "plant" evidence of WMD construction at locations. Chemical weapons, bio-weapons, even evidence of nuclear weapons research could be manufactured. This would have provided justification for the military action - but they had to admit that no evidence was found, or at least that evidence was subject to interpretation.

If you painted a U-2 in UN colours in the hope of drawing fire, well, even a U-2 not painted in UN colours would achieve the same effect. The UN itself would know if a mission had been authorised, so they would be able to confirm if a flight took place (remembering my previous statements about surveillance aircraft in UN colours). If the Iraqies fired upon it, then it WOULD be a genuine aggressive act - not a setup per se.

A resonable explaination is that you are smarter and know more about the subject than Bush. It was perhaps an idea he tossed out we have no way of knowing if he had run the idea by any of his advisors before the meeting.

Bush's people didn't claim the memo was a fake which I imagine they would have done if it was. They even tactly seemed to admit it was authentic, a spokeman said that nothing in the memo contradicted his public pronouncements.

Len

EDIT - typo

There was (and is) a large rift between the CIA and the Pentagon. Planting WMDs by the Pentagon would be entirely too risky if there were even the smallest chance they would ever be exposed. And if the CIA had knowledge of such a planting of evidence, it would give them enormous leverage over the Pentagon in the constant struggle for power in Washington.

Doesn't this cast doubt on the theory that various elements of the US government: The Pentagon, USAF, NORAD, FBI, INS, State Dept., CIA, FAA etc closely cooperated to pull off 9/11?

Edited June 24, 2006 by Len Colby

[Guest Stephen Turner]

" straw just dropped out, which seems amazing to me since he seemed to toady so much in support of Blairs/Bush's war"

Daniel, The reason may well be that Straw has publicly spoken opposing an attack on Iran, If you recall the fate of Robin Cook just before our little Iraq'i adventure, you may not require a crystal ball to see the future.

[Michael Hogan]

Len,

You wrote:

"Doesn't this* cast doubt on the theory that various elements of the US government: The Pentagon, USAF, NORAD, FBI, INS, State Dept., CIA, FAA etc closely cooperated to pull off 9/11?"

(*The rift between the CIA and the Pentagon concerning WMDs in Iraq as reported by PBS Frontline's documentary The Dark Side.)

Speaking only for myself, I'm not aware of anyone espousing such a theory with even a small degree of credibility. I would have to believe that such a ridiculous theory would be beyond any additional casting of doubt.

Have you had an opportunity to see The Dark Side?

Mike Hogan

[Len Colby]

Len,

You wrote:

"Doesn't this* cast doubt on the theory that various elements of the US government: The Pentagon, USAF, NORAD, FBI, INS, State Dept., CIA, FAA etc closely cooperated to pull off 9/11?"

(*The rift between the CIA and the Pentagon concerning WMDs in Iraq as reported by PBS Frontline's documentary The Dark Side.)

Speaking only for myself, I'm not aware of anyone espousing such a theory with even a small degree of credibility. I would have to believe that such a ridiculous theory would be beyond any additional casting of doubt.

I'm not sure which theory you don't think anyone is expounding. 9/11 MIHOP/LIHOP theories are like Baskin-Robbins, they come in over 31 flavors but most varieties include collusion between at least some the agencies above (esp. NORAD, the CIA and FBI) or atleast high level rouge elements with in them.

If as your theory goes the Pentagon didn't plant WMD's in Iraq because of a rift with the CIA it's hard to believe they would or even could cooperate on an operation like 9/11. Rivalry is not limited to the CIA and the Pentagon. There are FBI - CIA, CIA -State Dept, Pentagon - State Dept turf battles also.

Have you had an opportunity to see The Dark Side?

Unfortunately not, I have satellite TV but it doesn't carry PBS. I've been told it can be download or watched online but my sound card ain't working

I might be contradicted by the documentary but I always associated the idea of WMD's in Iraq more with "the Agency" than the Pentagon. After the quick capture of Baghdad and the failure to find WMD's the military were looking pretty good and the CIA had "egg on its face". Could it perhaps have been the other way round? "The Company" wanting to plant evidence of WMD's but were blocked by their rivals in uniform.

Len

[Michael Hogan]

Len,

You wrote: "I'm not sure which theory you don't think anyone is expounding."

Uh Len, this theory.....a direct quote from you:

"Doesn't this cast doubt on the theory that various elements of the US government: The Pentagon, USAF, NORAD, FBI, INS, State Dept., CIA, FAA etc closely cooperated to pull off 9/11?"

And while we're on the subject of theories, you wrote:

If as your theory goes the Pentagon didn't plant WMD's in Iraq because of a rift with the CIA it's hard to believe they would or even could cooperate on an operation like 9/11."

Len, just to set the record straight, it wasn't intended to be a theory of mine, more of just a speculative response to a question raised by another poster. But if you want to label it a theory, okay. But would it be to much to ask for you to quote me accurately, rather than just paraphrasing what you think I said? If I'm gonna debate my "theory" with you I'd at least like it couched in my original words rather than yours.

Remember, this is what I also wrote about my "theory"

".....And if the CIA had knowledge of such a planting of evidence, it would give them enormous leverage over the Pentagon in the constant struggle for power in Washington.

All the above is of course extremely speculative on my part. I also have little undertanding of political intrigue. I urge you to watch the PBS documentary. I have no way of knowing how much is true, and how much is disinformation, but it is fascinating to see what some of the CIA people say about Rumsfeld and Cheney."

Peace,

Mike