Memos Show British Fretting Over Iraq War~~Just in Time for the Sunday Talk shows

When Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn't want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about "regime change" in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.

President Bush wanted Blair's support, but British officials worried the White House was rushing to war, according to a series of leaked secret Downing Street memos that have renewed questions and debate about Washington's motives for ousting Saddam Hussein.

In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war.

"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts says in the memo. "For Iraq, `regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."

The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.

"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002 memo obtained Thursday by The Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

"But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."

Details from Rice's dinner conversation also are included in one of the secret memos from 2002, which reveal British concerns about both the invasion and poor postwar planning by the Bush administration, which critics say has allowed the Iraqi insurgency to rage.

The eight memos - all labeled "secret" or "confidential" - were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.

Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.

The Sunday Times this week reported that lawyers told the British government that U.S. and British bombing of Iraq in the months before the war was illegal under international law. That report, also by Smith, noted that almost a year before the war started, they began to strike more frequently.

The newspaper quoted Lord Goodhart, vice president of the International Commission of Jurists, as backing the Foreign Office lawyers' view that aircraft could only patrol the no-fly zones to deter attacks by Saddam's forces.

Goodhart said that if "the purpose was to soften up Iraq for a future invasion or even to intimidate Iraq, the coalition forces were acting without lawful authority," the Sunday Times reported.

The eight documents reported earlier total 36 pages and range from 10-page and eight-page studies on military and legal options in Iraq, to brief memorandums from British officials and the minutes of a private meeting held by Blair and his top advisers.

Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert who teaches at Queen Mary College, University of London, said the documents confirmed what post-invasion investigations have found.

"The documents show what official inquiries in Britain already have, that the case of weapons of mass destruction was based on thin intelligence and was used to inflate the evidence to the level of mendacity," Dodge said. "In going to war with Bush, Blair defended the special relationship between the two countries, like other British leaders have. But he knew he was taking a huge political risk at home. He knew the war's legality was questionable and its unpopularity was never in doubt."

Dodge said the memos also show Blair was aware of the postwar instability that was likely among Iraq's complex mix of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds once Saddam was defeated.

The British documents confirm, as well, that "soon after 9/11 happened, the starting gun was fired for the invasion of Iraq," Dodge said.

On Jan. 29, Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea "an axis of evil." U.S. newspapers began reporting soon afterward that a U.S.-led war with Iraq was possible.

On Oct. 16, the U.S. Congress voted to authorize Bush to go to war against Iraq. On Feb. 5, 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented the Bush administration's case about Iraq's weapons to the U.N. Security Council. On March 19-20, the U.S.-led invasion began.

Bush and Blair both have been criticized at home since their WMD claims about Iraq proved false. But both have been re-elected, defending the conflict for removing a brutal dictator and promoting democracy in Iraq. Both administrations have dismissed the memos as old news.

Details of the memos appeared in papers early last month but the news in Britain quickly turned to the election that returned Blair to power. In the United States, however, details of the memos' contents reignited a firestorm, especially among Democratic critics of Bush.

It was in a March 14, 2002, memo that Blair's chief foreign policy adviser, David Manning, told the prime minister about the dinner he had just had with Rice in Washington.

"We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq," wrote Manning, who's now British ambassador to the United States. Rice is now Bush's secretary of state.

"It is clear that Bush is grateful for your (Blair's) support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option."

Manning said, "Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed." But he also said there were signs of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks.

Blair was to meet with Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, on April 8, and Manning told his boss: "No doubt we need to keep a sense of perspective. But my talks with Condi convinced me that Bush wants to hear your views on Iraq before taking decisions. He also wants your support. He is still smarting from the comments by other European leaders on his Iraq policy."

A July 21 briefing paper given to officials preparing for a July 23 meeting with Blair says officials must "ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks."

"In particular we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective... A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point."

The British worried that, "Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired end state would be created, in particular what form of government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the time scale within which it would be possible to identify a successor."

In the March 22 memo from Foreign Office political director Ricketts to Foreign Secretary Straw, Ricketts outlined how to win public and parliamentary support for a war in Britain: "We have to be convincing that: the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for; it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran)."

Blair's government has been criticized for releasing an intelligence dossier on Iraq before the war that warned Saddam could launch chemical or biological weapons on 45 minutes' notice.

On March 25 Straw wrote a memo to Blair, saying he would have a tough time convincing the governing Labour Party that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq was legal under international law.

"If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the U.S. would now be considering military action against Iraq," Straw wrote. "In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with OBL (Osama bin Laden) and al-Qaida."

He also questioned stability in a post-Saddam Iraq: "We have also to answer the big question - what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything."

"These so-called "memos" were created by British reporter Michael Smith"

Err, do you have any proof of that? I mean you only have to look at the BBC/David Kelly affair to see the reaction of the Blair government if a journalist reports something that isn't actually fact. In the absence of any such outcry, I would assume that these documents are reported accurately, as were the previous memos.

The proof that they are forgeries is right there in the article.

The eight memos - all labeled "secret" or "confidential" - were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret nature of the material.

The author of the memos admits the originals don't exist. The phony anonymous source is the same thing CBS did with the TANG memos. Trust us, there really is a source. Never mind the fact that for the past several years we've been looking for a story to bring Blair down. Honest, there is a source. Its just anonymous. But there is a source. Honest.

Err, do you have any proof of that? I mean you only have to look at the BBC/David Kelly affair to see the reaction of the Blair government if a journalist reports something that isn't actually fact. In the absence of any such outcry, I would assume that these documents are reported accurately, as were the previous memos.

Your post is a crock of pig dung, The fact is Michael Smith is a far leftwing journalist for a communist leaning newspaper. He has not shown anything which is original he states he copied original them retyped them and destroyed the copies.

Well I don't trust journalists in this country much less journalist from the commie/euro mold. In addition to that it is the accuser my friend who BY LAW should be supplying the proof. Your post along with this so called journalists "fake but accurate" smear are what is out of line here.

By the way Tony Blair when confronted with this lie pre election denied and condemned it as did President Bush who said and I quote "nothing could be farther from the truth". I guess you also assume that the National Enquirer has actual photos of a alien autopsy. By the way I have a little bridge in New York I'd like to sell you and I do accept PayPal.

"Your post is a crock of pig dung"

Why thank you. I thought it was quite coherently argued. What would be your explanation for a government allowing slanderous and potentially damaging false allegations to appear in the press unchecked, if that in fact is the case as you say?

"The fact is Michael Smith is a far leftwing journalist for a communist leaning newspaper"

Err, is the The Times or The Telegraph that you're referring to now?

"In addition to that it is the accuser my friend who BY LAW should be supplying the proof"

Which law? But, anyway, you seem to be agreeing with my opinion here. If he has in fact invented these new documents, no doubt he will be sued by the British government.

We know that the original Downing Street Memo was authentic, so clearly the potential for things being leaked is there. If the British government come out and say that these new documents are false, then that would be a different matter. But if even the government don't say that the reporting is false, I see no reason to suspect that it is.

"The proof that they are forgeries is right there in the article."

You can't really say that and then follow it with a quote from the author saying that they aren't forgeries. That's not really 'proof'.

"The phony anonymous source is the same thing CBS did with the TANG memos. Trust us, there really is a source. Never mind the fact that for the past several years we've been looking for a story to bring Blair down. Honest, there is a source. Its just anonymous. But there is a source. Honest."

I'd ask the same of you as the other guy. The White House attacked the CBS story and said that the 'evidence' was fake. Why isn't the British Government saying that these alleged documents are fake? Any possible explanation at all?

We know that the original Downing Street Memo was authentic

You can't show one bit of legitimate evidence other than Anonymous sources and a leftwing journalists "trust me on this" which will prove they are real. There exists no proof that any of this crap is "authentic" you can't show it because it doesn't exist.

I stand by my original post. Yes The Sunday Times is the paper I'm talking about, it is the spiritually and idealogical twin to The New York Times. It is even farther left on the political spectrum, The reporter in question has been a anti-war, anti- Blair and anti-Bush idealogue from the beginning.

Do I believe he would fabricate fake documents to smear anyone who doesn't agree with his leftwing drivel? Yes as a matter of fact I do all comrades from the Soviet school of journalism are trained in those tactics.

You can't show a original document, you can't show a single person from any goverment which will go on the record and say that these memos are 100% acurate and authentic, Just as I said Tony Blair did deny and condemn them as has President Bush, Condeleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld.

As to which law states the proof is on the accuser try the Law of the Land, "The Constitution of the United States of America".

"You can't show one bit of legitimate evidence other than Anonymous sources and a leftwing journalists "trust me on this" which will prove they are real. There exists no proof that any of this crap is "authentic" you can't show it because it doesn't exist."

I was referring to the original document that was labelled the 'Downing Street Memo' and which a Downing Street spokesman said contained 'nothing new' (ie nothing that wasn't already in the public domain). I presume even you wouldn't claim that the government would officially comment on a document that had actually been fabricated by a journalist.

"Yes The Sunday Times is the paper I'm talking about, it is the spiritually and idealogical twin to The New York Times. It is even farther left on the political spectrum"

Sunday Times is a commie paper? You're making yourself look a bit silly now.

"Just as I said Tony Blair did deny and condemn them"

He may deny conclusions that have been taken from them, but at no point has he said that they are not authentic.

"As to which law states the proof is on the accuser try the Law of the Land, "The Constitution of the United States of America"."

You know, I don't actually think that applies to us. The clue's kinda in the name...

The laws of common sense and actually orginal British law upon which many of our laws are based require that when some random crap off the street comes up with an accusation, the burden of proof is on HIM.

To accuse someone without proof and then regard them as guilty until they prove otherwise is ridiculous. As Mark Twain said about something long ago, "It is not American. It is not even British.... It is French!"

I thought that was quite funny when I heard it years ago, but it applies directly to this situation IMO.

In your opinion this has some validity in mine its political propaganda. I personally don't care what your OPINIONS are.

The fact remains you cannot show 1 as in ONE small bit of legitimate evidence that show these alleged documents are authentic. That may wash in your country but not in this one.

And answer me this is Michael Smith a anti-war Bush hater?
Is he?

"And answer me this is Michael Smith a anti-war Bush hater?
Is he?"

I've no idea. I don't personally know him you understand. I don't habitually read his writing. I'm really not contesting his personal character or opinions.

"The fact remains you cannot show 1 as in ONE small bit of legitimate evidence that show these alleged documents are authentic"

What evidence would convince you? I've told you what convinces me, the point that you have not addressed in any way or offered any kind of alternative explanation. If the documents were fabricated, Tony Blair and the rest of the government would be shouting their outrage from every rooftop and demanding resignations at the Times (owned by the renowned Communist Rupert Murdoch of course...). They are not doing this, I infer that the documents are genuine.

"The laws of common sense and actually orginal British law upon which many of our laws are based require that when some random crap off the street comes up with an accusation, the burden of proof is on HIM."

Yes that is the case and obviously, if someone does do such a thing the wronged party has the right to legal action. I take it you confidently expect the British government to prosecute the journalist in this case? How long a timescale would you like to put on your prediction?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.