NYT: Bush was set on Iraq war

[Balta1701]

Well, here's another one.

 

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

 

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

 

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

 

The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.

 

Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.

 

Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.

 

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

 

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

 

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

[Flash Tizzle]

Well, here's another one.

Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

These are perhaps the most explosive accusations. Provoking confrontation with assassinations? Not the sort of information you hope is released--especially from the leader of a nation promoting Democracy across the world.

 

Regardless of this report filtering through Liberal headquarters in the New York Times, I believe it. Difficult to allege conspiracy or suggest typical Democratic posturing when report after report after report questions our reasons for entering an Iraqi conflict.

 

Military families--especially those who've lost loved ones--have to be growing VERY fed up. I, for one, am a Republican anticipating the departure of Bush from office. Every day it's something: if not a new report concerning pre-war intelligence, it's another White House scandal.

[whitesoxfan101]

This isn't exactly breaking news. The only way the U.S. could be dumb enough to go to Iraq was the obvious fact that Bush wanted to finish what daddy started.

Edited March 27, 2006 by whitesoxfan101

[Controlled Chaos]

These are perhaps the most explosive accusations. Provoking confrontation with assassinations? Not the sort of information you hope is released--especially from the leader of a nation promoting Democracy across the world.

 

Regardless of this report filtering through Liberal headquarters in the New York Times, I believe it. Difficult to allege conspiracy or suggest typical Democratic posturing when report after report after report questions our reasons for entering an Iraqi conflict.

 

Military families--especially those who've lost loved ones--have to be growing VERY fed up. I, for one, am a Republican anticipating the departure of Bush from office. Every day it's something: if not a new report concerning pre-war intelligence, it's another White House scandal.

 

If the next president is Republican, it will be the same thing.

[WCSox]

Well, here's another one.

 

This was only about a month and half before the invasion and it seemed obvious at that point that the UN was not on board. So no big news there.

 

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq.

 

And because Saddam had been stone-walling the weapons inspectors, this isn't surprising. If he was innocent, he was certainly going out of his way to portray otherwise.

 

Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire,

 

I don't support the White House "baiting" other nations into a military conflict, but keep in mind that Saddam had been baiting the international community for years.

 

So, what the NYT has uncovered is that the Bush administration was dead-set on invading Iraq a month and a half before they did so. Again, no big news.

 

or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

 

We should've taken out this clown years ago.

Edited March 27, 2006 by WCSox

[WCSox]

If the next president is Republican, it will be the same thing.

 

Yeah, because the last Democratic administration was scandal-free!

 

:rolly

[bmags]

Yeah, because the last Democratic administration was scandal-free! 

 

:rolly

 

yes you've managed to find the most liberal poster here in controlled chaos

 

as much as i disagree with what CCs reasons are for what he said...you completely misinterpreted him.

[WCSox]

yes you've managed to find the most liberal poster here in controlled chaos

 

as much as i disagree with what CCs reasons are for what he said...you completely misinterpreted him.

 

Um, who said that I was disagreeing with CC? Did it ever occur to you that my comments were directed towards the liberal press?

[vandy125]

If the next president is Republican, it will be the same thing.

 

Because of all of the information that is now available, I have a feeling that we will never see a presidency in which there is not a White House "scandal" of some sort. Democrat, Republican, Independent, etc. It does not matter. As long as someone has a motive to find something to cause a scandal they will be able to do it even when it is not completely true.

[WCSox]

Because of all of the information that is now available, I have a feeling that we will never see a presidency in which there is not a White House "scandal" of some sort.  Democrat, Republican, Independent, etc.  It does not matter.  As long as someone has a motive to find something to cause a scandal they will be able to do it even when it is not completely true.

 

Unfortunately, you're probably right. We seem to have regressed back to classical "muck-raking" journalism. However, I doubt that the media would fabriate a Rathergate-esque story against a Democratic president.

[Rex Kickass]

As long as one party consistently questions the legitimacy of the other Presidency, you'll see things like this.

 

You saw it with Bill Clinton, and you see it with George Bush.

 

These are extremely serious allegations though. And at first glance appear to be legit.

[kapkomet]

This story is not new. It's been out there for years. But now that the NYTimes published it, it's "real". Ahem.

 

(I'm not saying whether it's true or not, just pointing this out is all)

[bmags]

This story is not new.  It's been out there for years.  But now that the NYTimes published it, it's "real".  Ahem.

 

(I'm not saying whether it's true or not, just pointing this out is all)

 

i don't think this should be a criticism...i think a newspaper taking a memo thats been out for years and explaining it in a way the average citizen can understand is operating under its duty.

 

and WC, muckraking journalism was great for the country come turn of the 20th century. It was the yellow journalism that was the problem.

[WCSox]

i don't think this should be a criticism...i think a newspaper taking a memo thats been out for years and explaining it in a way the average citizen can understand is operating under its duty.

 

If the memo's been out for years, why are they re-releasing the information? Which journalistic obligation does that fulfill?

 

and WC, muckraking journalism was great for the country come turn of the 20th century. It was the yellow journalism that was the problem.

 

Not always. And yellow journalism is still a problem, as evidenced by the Rathergate scandal.

Edited March 27, 2006 by WCSox

[whitesoxfan101]

As long as one party consistently questions the legitimacy of the other Presidency, you'll see things like this.

 

You saw it with Bill Clinton, and you see it with George Bush.

 

These are extremely serious allegations though. And at first glance appear to be legit.

 

Correct on all counts. Bush's biggest issue is he has a lot of members of his own party (like myself) questioning his legitimacy on a lot of issues. And rightly so.

[Rex Kickass]

If the memo's been out for years, why are they re-releasing the information?  Which journalistic obligation does that fulfill?

Not always.  And yellow journalism is still a problem, as evidenced by the Rathergate scandal.

Sort of like Fox News running with a rumor from a blog about Air America Radio losing its New York affiliate. That turned out to be false.

 

The "Rathergate" scandal is a pretty piss-poor example of yellow journalism, because although those memos were false, CBS stood by and still stands by the main crux of the story. The allegations were never actually denied and those documents were just one piece of a lot of other verified evidence.

[WCSox]

Sort of like Fox News running with a rumor from a blog about Air America Radio losing its New York affiliate. That turned out to be false.

 

IIRC, the affiliate was being sold to another company. Before the new ownership picked up AAR, its future was certainly up in the air.

 

The "Rathergate" scandal is a pretty piss-poor example of yellow journalism, because although those memos were false, CBS stood by and still stands by the main crux of the story. The allegations were never actually denied and those documents were just one piece of a lot of other verified evidence.

 

No, it's actually a pretty good example. CBS didn't bother to authenticate the documents, which certainly falls into the "poor journalistic practices" category. Mary Mapes was also talking to Joe Lockhart about this behind the scenes, showing the obvious political bias in her story. The fact that CBS still stands by the independently-confirmed fraudulent documents means nothing. How many convicted murderers in Rikers still stand by their innocent plea?

Edited March 27, 2006 by WCSox

[Rex Kickass]

IIRC, the affiliate was being sold to another company.  Before the new ownership picked up AAR, its future was certainly up in the air.

No, it's actually a pretty good example.  CBS didn't bother to authenticate the documents, which certainly falls into the "poor journalistic practices" category.  Mary Mapes was also talking to Joe Lockhart about this behind the scenes, showing the obvious political bias in her story.  The fact that CBS still stands by the independently-confirmed fraudulent documents means nothing.  How many convicted murderers in Rikers still stand by their innocent plea?

 

Actually the story was completely false regarding AAR. ICBC - the NY station's owner is partially owned by the same person that the blog alleged was purchasing the station - Randy Michaels. There was no impending sale.

[Balta1701]

If this memo has been out for "Years", then you guys have a source the NYT isn't citing, and I'd like to know what it is. This quote is from the same block @ the top.

 

Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.

 

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

In other words, this particular memo has been available only for 2 months, and vastly less time than that for the NYT, so yeah, they just got their hands on the thing.

[kapkomet]

I don't feel like looking it up, to be honest. I have seen, repeatedly, of the "alleged meeting" days prior to Powell's UN speech about it didn't matter and Saddam was going down.

[KipWellsFan]

I don't feel like looking it up, to be honest.  I have seen, repeatedly, of the "alleged meeting" days prior to Powell's UN speech about it didn't matter and Saddam was going down.

 

Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.

 

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

 

Downing Street memo was similar.