------ Forwarded Message > From: "dasg...@aol.com" <dasg...@aol.com> > Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 06:02:02 EST > To: Robert Millegan <ramille...@aol.com> > Cc: <ema...@aol.com>, <j...@aol.com>, <jim6...@cwnet.com>, > <christian.r...@daegis.com> > Subject: Chilcot Inquiry's Can of Worms: Bush's Wars Planned BEFORE 9/11 <and > 9/11 TOO?> >
> Blair warned in 2000 Iraq war was illegal > Secret papers withheld by Chilcot inquiry reveal Foreign Office fears over > invasion > > "The Iraq strategy paper was commissioned by Sir William Patey, head of Middle > East policy at the Foreign Office, in advance of the November 2000 > presidential election that brought George W. Bush into the White House" > > By Michael Savage, Political Correspondent > > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-warned-in-2000-iraq-war-wa > s-illegal-1914293.html > Tuesday, 2 March 2010 > > An invasion of Iraq was discussed within the Government > <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-warned-in-2000-iraq-war-w > as-illegal-1914293.html#> more than two years before military action was > taken with Foreign Office mandarins warning that such an invasion would be > illegal, that it would claim "considerable casualties" and could lead to the > breakdown of Iraq, The Independent can reveal. > The extent of Whitehall opposition to the policy eventually backed by Tony > Blair emerges just three days before Gordon Brown will appear at the Iraq > Inquiry, where he will be asked to explain his role in the Government's > decision to invade. > > Secret Foreign Office strategy papers drawn up by senior civil servants at the > end of 2000 have been obtained by this newspaper and are published for the > first time today. The Iraq: future strategy document considers options for > dealing with the belligerent Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. It is one of the key > documents that Sir John Chilcot's Iraq Inquiry has declined to release. > > A policy of "regime overthrow" is proposed, but roundly condemned. In an > eerily portentous assessment of the consequences of taking military > <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-warned-in-2000-iraq-war-w > as-illegal-1914293.html#> action, it states: "Such a policy would command no > useful international support. An overt attempt to be successful would require > a massive military effort, probably including a land invasion: this would risk > considerable casualties and, possibly, extreme last-ditch acts of deterrence > or defiance by Saddam." > > The mandarins add: "It would also be illegal. Covert attempts, on the other > hand, seem very unlikely to succeed and run the risk of fragmenting Iraq, > which runs clearly contrary to our wider interests in the region." Iraq > descended into violence in the wake of the March 2003 invasion. Hundreds of > thousands of Iraqis were killed in the aftermath, as well as more than 100 > British troops. > > The document also calls into question Mr Blair's claim that using troops to > bring down Saddam Hussein was only discussed after the 9/11 terror attacks on > New York > <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-warned-in-2000-iraq-war-w > as-illegal-1914293.html#> and will increase pressure on the inquiry to call > Mr Blair back to give further public evidence this summer. > > Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats' leader, said it was "yet more damning > evidence" against Mr Blair's decision to take Britain > <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-warned-in-2000-iraq-war-w > as-illegal-1914293.html#> to war in Iraq. He also warned that the fact that > the document had not been published by the Chilcot inquiry raised "serious > questions" about its powers to reveal sensitive material. The Government has > retained the power to veto publication of classified documents. Protocols > agreed between the Chilcot team and Whitehall hand the final say on > publication of disputed documents to the head of the Civil Service, Sir Gus > O'Donnell. > > Requests to secure the document using the Freedom of Information Act were > initially refused. However, the Foreign Office eventually agreed to release a > redacted version with the views of the United States blacked out after The > Independent demanded an internal review. "Releasing the paper would make > Government more accountable and increase trust," the Foreign Office conceded. > "There is public interest in being able to assess the quality of advice being > given to ministers and subsequent decision-making." > > Critics of the decision to go to war pounced on the document. "Days before > Gordon Brown will try to defend his role at the heart of the Government that > took us to war, this is yet more damning evidence against the attempt to > justify the invasion of Iraq," Mr Clegg said. "The Foreign Office was clearly > advising against regime change as illegal and counter to our national > interest." > > The strategy paper was commissioned by Sir William Patey, then head of Middle > East policy at the Foreign Office, ahead of the November 2000 presidential > election which brought George Bush to the White House. > > It states that a 1999 United Nations resolution, demanding that weapons > inspectors be given access to Iraq, was "beginning to fray at the edges", and > would soon "lose credibility" should Saddam fail to co-operate with > inspectors. However, it recommends that the policy of "containing" Saddam, > and perhaps loosening the sanctions imposed on the Baghdad regime, remained > "the best option for achieving our policy objectives towards Iraq". It > concludes: "Other alternatives remain unattractive at this stage." > > ----------------- > > Iraq inquiry: British officials heard 'drum beats' of war from U.S. before > 9/11 > By James Kirkup and Gordon Rayner > 24 Nov 2009 > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6643302/Iraq-inquiry-Briti > sh-officials-heard-drum-beats-of-war-from-US-before-911.html > > British officials heard the "drum beats" of war with Iraq emanating from the > US government more than two years before the 2003 invasion and several months > before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Sir John Chilcot's Iraq inquiry has heard. > But the UK in 2001 refused to back a policy of regime change because the > British view was that toppling Saddam Hussein would have been illegal under > international law. > > The first session of Sir John's public inquiry into the events before, during > and after the war is hearing evidence from senior civil servants about British > policy and plans for Iraq in 2001. > > The British policy on Iraq was put under formal review at the start of 2001, > when George W Bush arrived in the White House as US president. > > Sir William Patey, then head of Middle East policy at Foreign Office, said > that in February 2001, the UK knew that some in the new US administration > wanted to topple Saddam. He said: "We were aware of the drum beats from > Washington.² > > Sir Peter Ricketts, then the political director at the FCO, recalled that in > the summer of 2000, Condoleeza Rice, Mr Bush¹s national security adviser, had > written an academic article suggesting Saddam should be removed. > > ---------------- > > Read the preceding item carefully, because what it implies is that the Powers > That Be in the UK were viewing Bush as president months before American voters > were permitted to "choose" him. > > Bush's "War on Terror" began not only BEFORE 9/11 but BEFORE the November 2000 > ELECTION. > > The British Foreign Office already knew that Bush was making plans to invade > Iraq months before 9/11 occurred, providing him with an all-too-convenient > "reason" to. They ALSO "knew," as early as summer 2000, months before the > presidential election --and despite polls showing Democrat Al Gore in the > lead-- that (1) BUSH would become US President <one helluva good "guess," > since it took a Supreme Court decision to make it happen!> and (2) he would > use CONDI RICE**--a second-rate "Soviet Bloc expert," totally clueless about > the Middle East-- to justify his "pre-emptive war." >> >>> >>> >>> How long ago did Bush decide to invade Iraq (& Afghanistan)? >>> >>> >>> **"[Condi] Rice and George W. Bush <who had first met only a month >>> earlier> 'bonded at Kennebunkport' in August 1998. The several days of >>> discussions that followed resulted in Rice agreeing to take charge of >>> foreign policy for George W. Bush¹s future presidential campaign." >>> --James Mann, "Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet," p. >>> 250 >>> >>> >>> The goal of regime change in Iraq remained the consistent position of [the >>> Neocons' "Project for the New American Century"] throughout the 1997-2000 >>> Iraq disarmament crisis. ... On January 16, 1998*, members of the PNAC, >>> including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Zoellick drafted an >>> open letter to President Bill Clinton, urging President Clinton to remove >>> Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. military power. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Neocons would have assumed they had Bill Clinton at their mercy, >>>>> because *in January 1998, when Clinton publicly announced "I did not >>>>> have sex with that woman," GOP witch-hunter Kenneth Starr had already >>>>> begun "a wide ranging investigation" into Clinton's "abuses of power," >>>>> including the firing of White House travel agents, the alleged misuse of >>>>> FBI files, and Clinton's conduct during the sexual harassment lawsuit >>>>> filed by Paula Jones. In the course of Starr's investigation, Linda >>>>> Tripp armed him with taped phone conversations in which Monica Lewinsky, >>>>> a former Intern, discussed having oral sex with Clinton inside the White >>>>> House. The Starr Report was released in September 1998 (timed to >>>>> influence the midterm elections in November), but instead of forcing >>>>> "regime change" via the Senate and House, it had the opposite effect: >>>>> Perceiving the GOP's witch-hunt as petty and mean-spirited, the public >>>>> struck back by electing even more Democrats! Even after resorting to >>>>> the "nuclear option" of impeachment, the Neocons failed to make Clinton >>>>> submit to their will. >>> >>> >>> The signers argued that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, >>> its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region, if he <had >>> acquired> what they asserted was a "stockpile of Weapons of Mass >>> Destruction." >>> >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> MEANWHILE, IN 1998 --WHILE RIGHT-WING REPUBLICANS ATTEMPT A BLOODLESS COUP >>> AGAINST BILL CLINTON, AND THE NEOCONS BEGIN BRIEFING GEORGE BUSH (NOT EVEN >>> PRESIDENT YET, FOR 3 YEARS!) ON "HIS" PLAN TO INVADE IRAQ, LACKING ONLY A >>> GOOD EXCUSE FOR IT-- OSAMA BIN LADEN IS WORKING WITH THE CIA, HELPING THE >>> NEOCONS. >>> >>> >>> WAS "9/11" ALSO PLOTTED IN 1998, AS PART OF THE SAME STRATEGY? >>> >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Liberation_Army >>> >>> >>> The KLA was regarded by the US as a terrorist group >>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_organization> until 1998 when it >>> was de-listed, and then the UK and the US lobbied France to do the same. >>> The US then cultivated diplomatic relationships with the KLA leaders. >>> James Bissett <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bissett> , former >>> Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania, writes that "as >>> early as 1998, the Central Intelligence Agency, assisted by the British >>> Special Air Service, were arming and training Kosovo Liberation Army >>> members in Albania to foment armed rebellion in Kosovo. ... The hope was >>> that, with Kosovo in flames, NATO could intervene ..." >>> >>> >>> President Clinton's special envoy to the Balkans, Robert Gelbard, described >>> the KLA as "without question a terrorist group." The State Department >>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._State_Department> indicated that the KLA >>> was financing its operations with money from the international heroin >>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin> trade and loans from Islamic >>> countries and individuals, among them OSAMA BIN LADEN >>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden> ...* >>> >>>> >>>> *Sources cited: >>>> >>>> "War on terrorism skipped the KLA," National Post, 13 November 2001, >>>> Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) >>>> http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BIS111A.html >>>> <http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BIS111A.html> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Flashpoints in the war on terrorism," Derek S. Reveron and Jeffrey >>>> Stevenson Murer, pages 69-70 >>>> >>>> http://books.google.com/books?id=OjvdsfiWwJcC&pg=PT105&lpg=PP1&ie=ISO-8859- >>>> 1&output=html >>>> <http://books.google.com/books?id=OjvdsfiWwJcC&pg=PT105&lpg=PP1&ie=ISO-8859 >>>> -1&output=html> > > ------ End of Forwarded Message
