Bush, Blair memo

[Len Colby]

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?"

That's the theory I thought you meant. As I stated most "inside job" and LIHOP theories presume cooperation between the cited agencies. I agreewith you such theories are "ridiculous" and aren't credible.

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."

I'm not really into splitting hairs but I'll reword the sentence to meet your objections. "If as your speculative response 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."

You seem to believe that top brass at the Pentagon was involved in 9/11 or at least that there is a strong possibility they were involved. Do you suspect the CIA may have been involved too?

Len

[Michael Hogan]

Len,

You say that you are not into splitting hairs. Listen, its you that called it a theory and I told you okay, I'll accept that. So why are you beating a dead horse? And even though you amended your question, you still insist in putting your words in my mouth.

First, let me ask you a question. Do you think that when it came to WMDs and the need to justify the invasion of Iraq, there were major differences (rift) between the Pentagon and the CIA?

Now. What I still object to is your statement that I claimed the Pentagon didn't plant WMD's in Iraq because of a rift with the CIA. Since you failed to quote me accurately and put it into your own words, let me repeat:

"Planting WMDs by the Pentagon would be entirely too risky if there were even the smallest chance they would ever be exposed."

This means by the Iraqis, the United Nations inspectors, a whistleblower, and yes...someone inside the CIA, either administratively or operatively. My statement implied that if the CIA was aware of such a planting, they wouldn't necessarily expose same, but the threat would exist almost like a form of blackmail. The CIA and Pentagon have always vied for power. You should know that.

Finally Len, you write: "You seem to believe that top brass at the Pentagon was involved in 9/11 or at least that there is a strong possibility they were involved. Do you suspect the CIA may have been involved too?"

Of course my answer is yes. Just reading the 9/11 Commission Report will show that the highest ranking people in the Pentagon were involved in a multitude of ways. Hell, their headquarters were just hit and the entire armed forces was in emergency mode. And the Central Intelligence Agency immediately began furnishing reports to the White House and Joint Chiefs of Staff. So yes, they were involved also.

Were they conspiratorially involved? Damn, Len. Would you mind going back and grabbing a few quotes of mine on this or any thread that indicate that that I've ever said that?

I can go back and find you a multitude of my quotes that say I don't know what happened on 9/11.

Where do you get these ideas that I am an "inside jobber" as you call it or that our government was in anyway responsible for 9/11?. Len, I don't even know what a MIHOP or LIHOP is.

I have consistently maintained that the 9/11 Commission failed to live up to its responsibilities.

I've said that over and over.

I am not prone to making declarative statements without adding qualifiers like maybe, if, possibly, perhaps, in the event, etc. etc.

The two major issues where I have made declarative statements are in regards to the government's response to and investigation of 9/11 and your methods of research.

Len, on another thread you declared your intention to let me "bark alone." Yet it was you that brought my name up on this thread. I was responding to posts from Stephen Turner and Evan Burton, when I heard you barking my name again.

I have a proposition for you.

I won't mention your name and you don't mention mine. That will spare Forum members the tedium of seeing threads disrupted by the inevitable back and forth that we always seem to get into.

Let's do everyone a favor and give it a rest. What do you say?

Peace,

Mike

Edited June 26, 2006 by Michael Hogan

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I've just reread the entire memo, and Bush/Blair's discussions running up to the invasion. i thought you would enjoy this little snippet.

" Once the invasion was an accomplished fact, neither president Bush, Or P/M Blair expect there to be any infighting between the various religious groups, They believed troops would be welcomed as liberators."

HA-HA-HA. World wide, full of money and thick as xxxx.

HE WHO WILL NOT LEARN FROM HISTORY, IS DOOMED TO REPEAT IT.

Edited August 15, 2006 by Stephen Turner

[Michael Hogan]

I've just reread the entire memo, and Bush/Blair's discussions running up to the invasion. i thought you would enjoy this little snippet.

" Once the invasion was an accomplished fact, neither president Bush, Or P/M Blair expect there to be any infighting between the various religious groups, They believed troops would be welcomed as liberators."

HA-HA-HA. World wide, full of money and thick as xxxx.

HE WHO WILL NOT LEARN FROM HISTORY, IS DOOMED TO REPEAT IT.

Stephen,

In my opinion Blair and Bush were out of the loop. Things were happening on a need to know basis, and they didn't have a need to know at the highest levels. Their roles were to foist falsehoods on an unsuspecting public.

And it worked.

I don't know much about Tony Blair, but to me Bush is little more than a speech giver and a photo op specialist. He would never be trusted with top state secrets, nor would he be allowed to make any major military decisions on his own. That's just my opinion.

I guess we have to laugh to keep from crying.

Mike Hogan

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Hi Mike, in my opinion, your opinion is just about spot on. I use the "dynamic duo" as their names are attached to the various docs, along with others, trapped forever like bugs in amber, talking heads for the military/industrial complex. And for the politico who refuses to dance? A nice trip in an open topped Limo. I will, when I have time, post the document in its entirity, knowing what we now know it reads like a bad pot boiler, this isn't conspiracy theory, its conspiracy FACT.

regards, Steve.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

From the meeting, july 27 2002, a full eight months before the invasion, the secret papers reveal.

* Blair was, right from the outset committed to supporting US plans for regime change in Iraq. * War was already seen as inevitable. * The att general, Lord Goldsmith, was already warning of grave doubts about its legality.

Foreign sec Jack straw went as far as to describe the case for war as "Paper thin". So Blair, and his inner circle, at least half of whom held unelected positions set about devising a plan to justify invasion. " If the political context were right, Said Blair, the public would support regime change." Straightfoward regime change though was illegal, they needed another reason. By the end of the meeting a possible path to invasion was agreed, and Chief of defence, Sir Micheal Doyle would send the P/M full details of the proposed military campaign by the end of the week.

The following day, in Parliament Blair told M/Ps "We have not got to the stage of military action, We have not yet reached the point of decision(weasely ex lawyers words) Blair already knew Hussien was going to be removed, sooner or later, plans were in motion even as he lied to the house, the justification would come later, Blair had made his funamental decision when he met with Bush in Crawford Tx, in April 2002. This however presented a problem, because as the secret papers made clear there where no legal grounds for war. "US views of international law vary from that of the UK, said the paper, "regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law."

Military plans were forging ahead in the US, but the British, despite Blairs commitment to Bush, played down all talk of war.

June 10th "No decisions about military action are likely to be made for some time" Foreign Sec Jack Straw.

July 17th" We will ensure the house is properly consulted, as I say constantly, no decisions cocernig Iraq have yet been taken." Prime Minister Anthony Blair.

Six days after this statement, enter John Scarlett, high ranked MI6 officer, and a key member of Blairs unelected, and unaccountable, "Sofa Cabinet"

Scarlett, Chairman of the joint intelligence committee came straight to the point.----" Saddams regime was based on extreme fear, the only way to overthrow it was by massive military action"---His assessment also reveals that the primary impetus to action over Iraq was not the threat posed by WMDs--as Blair later claimed in an TV adress to the country--But the Neo-Con desire to overthrow Saddam, and it is support of this desire that has driven British foreign policy to this day.There was no discussion of WMDs at all, according to the minutes.

The next contributor was "C" as the head of MI6 is traditionally known. Sir Richard Dearlove added nothing to what Scarlett had said, his intelligence concerned his recent trip to Washington where he had held talks with George Tenet, director of the CIA "military action was now seen as inevitable He said, "Bush wants to remove Saddam through military action, To be justified by the conjuction of terrorism, and WMDs" The Americans had been trying to link Saddam to 911, but the British knew the evidence for this was non-existant. Dearlove warned the meeting that "The intelligence, and facts are being fixed around the policy."

Edited August 16, 2006 by Stephen Turner

[Guest John Gillespie]

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

_____________________

Len,

Thanks for those points and others. I'm attaching an article by the respected Roger Morris, formerly of the U.S. National Security Council and author of the Forward to the book by Colodny/Gettlin - "Silent Coup."

That forward is a superb essay, as he refers to "a national security party" that "governs when it chooses, whenever it believes it must." He goes on about how "it is in the process once again in the wake of the persion Gulf War - incredibly with some of the same techniques and mouthpieces - of foisting off a fresh mythology of power and personality." That, of course, was written about fifteen years ago. Sound familiar?

But the attached article concerns the WMD and Connie Rice; it was written in 2003, which provides interesting perspective as we read it three years later. He gets into the Wilson-Plame affair as well. Hope you find it as interesting and informative as I. Bon appetit.

Yours Truly,

JohnG

Edited August 16, 2006 by John Gillespie

[Michael Hogan]

From the meeting, july 27 2002, a full eight months before the invasion, the secret papers reveal.

* Blair was, right from the outset committed to supporting US plans for regime change in Iraq. * War was already seen as inevitable. * The att general, Lord Goldsmith, was already warning of grave doubts about its legality.

Stephen,

This video might explain it all. You have to watch a 15 second ad first.

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2460075

Mike