Posted on 10/14/2005 7:19:22 PM PDT by Pokey78
George Bush told Tony Blair shortly before the invasion of Iraq that he intended to target other countries, including Saudi Arabia, which, he implied, planned to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Mr Bush said he "wanted to go beyond Iraq in dealing with WMD proliferation, mentioning in particular Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan," according to a note of a telephone conversation between the two men on January 30 2003.
The note is quoted in the US edition, published next week, of Lawless World, America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules, by the British international lawyer Philippe Sands. The memo was drawn up by one of the prime minister's foreign policy advisers in Downing Street and passed to the Foreign Office, according to Mr Sands.
It is not surprising that Mr Bush referred to Iran and North Korea, or even Pakistan - at the time suspected of spreading nuclear know-how, but now one of America's closest allies in the "war on terror". What is significant is the mention of Saudi Arabia. In Washington, the neo-cons in particular were hostile to the Saudi royal family and did not think they were doing enough to quell Islamist extremists - 15 of the 19 September 11 attackers were Saudis. But the Bush administration did not in public express concern about any Saudi nuclear ambitions.
In September 2003, the Guardian reported that Saudi Arabia had embarked on a strategic review that included acquiring nuclear weapons. Until then, the assumption in Washington was that Saudi Arabia was content to remain under the US nuclear umbrella despite the worsening relationship between Riyadh and Washington.
It is not clear how Mr Blair responded to Mr Bush's remarks during the telephone conversation, which took place on the eve of a trip to Washington for talks with the US president.
In his book, Blair's Wars, John Kampfner says that at the meeting the two leaders "agreed to concentrate not just on Iraq ... but also the Middle East". But that was taken to be a reference to Palestine. Mr Blair wanted Mr Bush to express concern about the plight of the Palestinians to appease the Labour party.
Mr Blair at the time was careful to avoid any suggestion that the Bush administration intended to target other countries after the invasion of Iraq. However, for the first time he suggested there were links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.
After the invasion, Washington adopted a calmer approach towards Iran, leaving it to Britain, France, and Germany to pursue a diplomatic course.
Despite hard evidence that Pakistan was deeply involved in exporting nuclear technology, the Bush administration embraced President Pervez Musharraf as an ally against al-Qaida. Washington's relations with Saudi Arabia remain cool. Mr Sands does not shed further light on the issue.
Did the Guardian bring Rod Serling back to life to write this crap?
I wish we would go further. I figure the Sauds owe us a few million barrels for letting them live!!
And this clown got ahold of this not HOW?
Well, let's see, Mr. Blair didn't tell this author that he agreed to invasions of nations such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and I'd suspect Pres. Bush did not do so either...so just where did he get his facts?...or is it that as a leftist he doesn't really need facts to back up his kool aid induced ramblings?
So Bush "wanted to go beyond Iraq in dealing with WMD proliferation". And the problem with this...?
The coming of the cruise missile has forced us into a technological shift where ground based forces are the only certain way to maintain our interests in the region.
Are we supposed to be surprised that we have a multitude of contingency plans for this area?
Sounds like a good idead to me...
Don't ya just love the Guardian?
"Did the Guardian bring Rod Serling back to life to write this crap?"
heh heh heh. Aaaaah. What's the use. heh heh heh. I bet I know how Tony responded. Damn right yank, when do we start buddy. My boys need some TA practice on live ones. The butcher aint going to last very long, buddy.
The same delusional British media that recently mis-reported Pres. Bush as having told the Palestinian leader that God made him do 'it'...
Tick tick tick...
5.56mm
Most people have picked up on the strange love-hate relationship that exists between the Saudi royal family, and Al Qaeda. The royals, the government, and other elite in the country fund them and encourage them, except when they attack the royal family itself, which is considered bad.
No solution to Al Qaeda could ever be workable without addressing Saudi Arabia itself. And no solution to Saudi Arabia was possible while Saddam sat in Baghdad. We were in the also strange situation of having to get Riyadh's permission to use its territory to defend it, and that gave the Saudis veto control over our foreign policy.
No Saddam, no need for Saudi permission, and suddenly the dynamic has changed. The royals have understood that we no longer need them to be our "ambassador" to the muslim world, and we will not be there automatically to defend them against anyone. So suddenly you have the Saudis falling over themselves swearing their friendship, and promising democracy, something that has never happened.
I said immediately after 911 that the road to Riyadh lay right through Baghdad, and I still believe it. The only problem is that, if Saddam's files were full of incriminating information on half the heads of state in the known world, just think what the Saudis have in theirs. Since no one wants to see aging politicians clapped into handcuffs in the twilight of their years, we'll have to go very carefully.
Well, I might like to see some of them in handcuffs, but you get the point. If we ever decide to drop the hammer, we'd better move quick. The first troops in will have to make seizing harddrives a top priority.
i assume the guardian thinks this is a negative article... on the contrary, i'm quite glad that bush and blair discuss such options. they would be negligent if they didn't.
We are in complete agreement. I've no doubt that the policy is accurately described, though the story told here may be a fabrication.
We are in a much better position to pressure the Saudis from Iraq than we were in-country. And they know it. The invasion of Iraq was a smoke signal to Riyadh to "reform or else."
Another fake document, I noticed they didn't post a copy of it for us.
Looks like it is from Texas as well.
Whether the document is fake or not is less important than a discussion of US policy towards Saudi Arabia and neighbors (Yemen).
If the story stimulates a discussion, then we are better served.
Wrong verb...
Our media seems to have been able to get a ready supply of real documents from inside the Foreign Office concerning things like this, they don't really have the need to fake them.
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.