You are herecontent / Libertarians Everywhere, Join Us!

Libertarians Everywhere, Join Us!


Deceits enervate an Iraq exit
By DOUG BANDOW, CATO Institute

WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush's latest attempt to justify his Iraq policy with a televised address to America comes as more evidence emerges that the invasion of Iraq was a war of choice. In arguing that the United States must persevere because Iraq has become "a central front in the war on terror," he sounds like the man who kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court for being an orphan.
It has long been evident that leading administration officials desired war against Iraq long before Sept. 11, 2001. A series of leaked British government documents demonstrate that the lengthy "debate" over Iraq was Kabuki theater, irrelevant to the preordained result.

On July 23, 2002, British foreign policy aide Matthew Rycroft wrote the "Downing Street" memo summarizing a briefing by Richard Dearlove, then head of MI-6, Britain's CIA. Rycroft observed that "it seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided." Moreover, "military action was now seen as inevitable."

The debate before the United Nations was a farce. Rycroft said: "The NSC (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route." Indeed, he added, Geoff Hoon, Britain's defense secretary, reported "that the U.S. had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime."

One problem loomed: A Cabinet Office paper entitled "Conditions for Military Action," prepared on July 21, 2002, acknowledged that "regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law."

A separate options paper developed by the Overseas and Defense Secretariat on March 8, 2002, noted that no legal justification for war "currently exists. This makes moving quickly to invade legally very difficult."

Put bluntly, observed Peter Ricketts, then political director of the Foreign Office, in a memo dated March 22, 2002, "It sounds like a grudge match between Bush and Saddam (Hussein)."

Rycroft reported that the U.S. believed the goal of removing Saddam from power was "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD (weapons of mass destruction)." But, he added, "the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." Further, noted the options paper, "there is no recent evidence of Iraq complicity with international terrorism."

Ricketts made similar points: that America's scramble to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda "is so far frankly unconvincing"; that "the pace of Hussein's WMD programs" had not changed since 9/11; and that, according to the options paper, there was not a greater threat that "(Hussein) will use WMD now."

Still, observed Ricketts, it was "necessary to create the conditions" that would make an invasion legal. Therefore, Rycroft said, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Several strategies were invoked. The Cabinet Office paper observed that "an ultimatum for the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq" might help create "the conditions necessary to justify government military action."

The paper later noted that "it is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject." British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw noted in a memo dated March 25, 2002: "I believe that a demand for the unfettered readmission of weapons inspectors is essential, in terms of public explanation, and in terms of legal sanction for any subsequent military action."

The significance of the Rycroft memo has been dismissed by some. Taken together, though, the memos discredit Bush's disingenuous claim that military action would be a last resort.

Indeed, in his speech before invading, the president said, "We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq," which was a blatant falsehood. The administration's elaborate show alleging Baghdad's terrorist connections and WMD programs was only for show.

Perhaps most tragically, the memos foretold the catastrophic mismanagement of the so-called peace. Rycroft noted that "there was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

David Manning, then Blair's chief foreign policy aide, wrote the prime minister on March 14, 2002, advocating that the latter should "not budge either in your insistence that if we pursued regime change it must be very carefully done and produce the right result."

Foreign Secretary Straw worried that the U.S. had not answered "how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be better." After all, he added, "Iraq has had no history of democracy so no one has this habit or experience."

Regarding President Bill Clinton's war in Kosovo, then-candidate Bush observed that "victory means exit strategy." Finding an acceptable exit from Iraq will be difficult, especially since the administration's prior deceits will undermine public support for whatever policy he chooses.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

The Japan Times: July 8, 2005
LINK TO ORIGINAL

Tags

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Didn't the Cato Institute or some of its staff come up with the plan to privatize social security?

So watch your back when it comes to Cato and Social Security...don't want to be snared in by forked tongue. Looks like they want the Troops to come home> to Bush's privatized plans.

Like hell. I paid INTO that plan. If it hadn't been being used as a slush fund, i wouldn't be worried about getting money that I earned back. But then, we're talking about friends of the Enron pirates, aren't we?

the cia controls al qaeda, the state is the only terrorist. This has all the signature markings of an inside job like the 1980 bombing at bologna carried out by right wing fascists/neocons. 2 days after a story breaks linking the cia to al qaeda in italy... im moving to montana

I have always held a limit by which I would allow myself to take on the notion that are Gov. would set its own people up to prove a point. There was nothing more dishearten to think of our president killing 3 thousand Americans to prove we need to attack Iraq. However, the Downing Street Memo has put a growing concern that creeps into my thoughts no matter how much I try to keep the "Even Bush would not do something of this nature" out of my head. If the Memo are for real, the Bush and Blair coalition are responible for killing hundreds of thousands Iraq’s and nearly 1800 Americans . How is that for extremes?

Today being July 7, 2005, and there has been bombings in London killing 37 and wounding 700. I was almost in shock to see how the reaction by Bush and Tony Blair seemed to be planed and timed. Keep in mind, I know this kind of thinking is unpopular at a time like this but I just don't see a truthful and honest response to the bombings coming from the two leaders; instead, I see both of them going through a ritual like procedure to maximize every ounce of political capital they can spend from this event. At one point, I watched them taking pictures with the others G-8 leaders as to indicate they were on the ball and the leaders of the world agrees with them.

I also feel Bush and Blair are feeling an hidden pressure, and have put into play a means to down play the negative results of this hidden entity.

Joseph

I began thinking , maybe those 9/11 conspiracy theorists , well maybe there comes a time when perhaps I should not blame the messenger... and maybe the Rovian band of spinners made them out to be X-filists, than the town-criers they are trying to be?

I remember how shocked, I mean completely dumbfounded our nation was to think that a President would cover-up a burglary by foreign nationals(Cuban exiles) connected to the CIA:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?
pagename=article&contentId=A42006-2002May31&notFound=true

I've been reticent about such thoughts till yesterday, I'm holding back on wild un-proven mis-connection of theories, but I'm getting suspicious...

First two paragraphs of the following linK (just in case it does not link or "cut & paste" properly):

"5 Held in Plot to Bug Democrats' Office Here

By Alfred E. Lewis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 18, 1972; Page A01

Five men, one of whom said he is a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, were arrested at 2:30 a.m. yesterday in what authorities described as an elaborate plot to bug the offices of the Democratic National Committee here.

Three of the men were native-born Cubans and another was said to have trained Cuban exiles for guerrilla activity after the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion...."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A420...

...kids that just wanted money to go to college, so they volunteered for the service so they could earn their keep and go to school...good kids earning their dreams. And then Bush used them as pawns for his chess game in imperialism intead. Bush/Blair ARE responsible , right this very minute they ARE RESPONSIBLE, for the deaths of our American and British kids, their futures, and their families dreams for them.

SHAM indeed.. Timed reactions as if they knew....g8/ hunger in the world/Downing Street Minutes are all totally forgotten..... Blair is the hero of the day on so many networks....... Bush is talking "'bout them terrorists" 24/7 .......and agit.prop broadcast Fox: "You know terrorism was actually not on the agenda of this summit" "Well, it certainly is now"

Keep your people scared is what this is about. It could happen anywhere, terrorists are among us, so invading Iraq is ok.

and IMPEACH BUSH !

> Keep your people scared is what this is about. It could happen anywhere, terrorists are among us, so invading Iraq is ok.

Dead on. Divert and distract from the issue using fear. It's the 3rd characteristic of fascism as Dr. Lawrence Britt described: "3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The
people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to
eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or
religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists,
etc."

http://www.whoseflorida.com/misc_pages/14_characteristifascism.htm

U.S. Army Officers Say: 'Mossad May Blame Arabs'

Sometimes "the most likely suspect" in an act of terrorism is actually a "false flag" working for-or otherwise "framed" by- those who are responsible.

Exclusive To American Free Press

By Michael Collins Piper

Top U.S. Army analysts believe Israel's intelligence agency, the Mossad, is "ruthless and cunning," "a wildcard" that "has [the] capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."

This eye-opening assertion about America's supposed closest ally was reported in a front page story in The Washington Times on September 10-just one day before the terrorist attacks in America that are being blamed on "Arabs."

The Times reported that this serious charge by U.S. Army officers against the Israelis appeared in a 68-page paper prepared by 60 officers at the U.S. Army's School for Advanced Military Studies, a training ground for up-and-coming Army officers.

Then, just hours after the terrorist tra gedies, a well-known pro-Israel analyst, George Friedman, proclaimed Israel as the primary beneficiary.

"The big winner today, intended or not, is the state of Israel," wrote Fried man, who said on his Internet website at stratfor.com that "There is no question … that the Israeli leadership is feeling relief" in the wake of the terrorist attack on America as a result of the benefits that Israel will glean.

Considering the U.S. Army's questions about possible provocations by Israel, coupled with this noted intelligence analyst's suggestion that Israel was indeed "the big winner" on Sept. 11, a previous report in the Aug. 3, 1993 issue of The Village Voice that Israel's Mossad was perhaps involved in (or had foreknowledge of) the previous "Arab terrorist" attack on the World Trade Center, takes on new dimensions.

The events of Sept. 11 do require careful attention in light of the fact that Israel has had a long and proven record in planting "false flags"-orchestrated assassinations and acts of terrorism for its own purposes and pinning those atrocities on innocent parties.

Perhaps the best-known instance in which Israel used a "false flag" to cover its own trail was in the infamous Lavon Affair.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_26_01/U_S__Army_Officers_Say___Mossa...

Given how desparate the criminals have become,
what lengths might they go to in order to save their own skins?

AIPAC under the gun for Spying.
Rove under the gun for Treason.
Bush on the verge of Impeachment.
9/11 truths on the verge of being told.
Time for a crisis...time for fear...time for martial law to be imposed...time to shut down the internet.

All of the New World Order's best laid plans are under threat of being exposed. Time for terror:

THE LAVON AFFAIR
IS HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF?

In 1954, Israeli agents working in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including a United States diplomatic facility, and left evidence behind implicating Arabs as the culprits. The ruse would have worked, had not one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to capture and identify one of the bombers, which in turn led to the round up of an Israeli spy ring.

Some of the spies were from Israel, while others were recruited from the local Jewish population. Israel responded to the scandal with claims in the media that there was no spy ring, that it was all a hoax perpetrated by "anti-Semites". But as the public trial progressed, it was evident that Israel had indeed been behind the bombing. Eventually, Israeli's Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon was brought down by the scandal, although it appears that he was himself the victim of a frame-up by the real authors of the bombing project, code named "Operation Susannah."

It is therefore a fact that Israel has a prior history of setting off bombs with the intent to blame Arabs for them.

This is not the only example of a "False Flag" operation designed to trick the United States into attacking Israel's enemies.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lavon.html

Thursday 7th July 2005 (21h17) :

Stratfor Consulting Intelligence Agency:
’Israel Warned United Kingdom About Possible Attacks’

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6862

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Informed Activist

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.