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.
"quoted in the US edition, published next week, of Lawless World, America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules"
Sounds like a credible publication.
What was fraudulent about the Downing Street Memos story?
We need to go into Syria and Iran.
And the Guardian can kiss it. I don't believe a word they print anyway.
Just because they come from a geographical location doesn't make them real.
Errr, ok. In what sense do you consider them 'not real'?!
Ok. But the Downing Street Memo was minutes of a meeting. We know who took the minutes and we know who the people expressing opinions are.
The minutes were taken by the same person who the memo discussed above is said to have been written by, incidentally.
"Or is the note a memo by another name?"
Yes, the two are synonyms in this context.
"...the only source for the memo is Mr Sands and it can't be confirmed."
This is true and should be treated with some degree of caution as a result. However, as I said, the Foreign Office leaks like a sieve at the moment. The one thing that I will say is that Blair's government will always come out strongly against anything published that they consider 'inaccurate' (see David Kelly affair). So, in the abscence of an outcry in the next couple of days, you can consider it 'not denied' and that's as close to a confirmation as makes no difference.
This article is blogged in The Guardian's "News blog" which features open comments (no registration required). I have already freeped it, and I suggest everyone else do the same:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/02/02/the_white_house_meeting_that_took_us_to_war.html
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.