• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 49

Topic: I hate to bring up Iraq again, but...

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    I hate to bring up Iraq again, but...

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...593607,00.html

    Regardless of how you feel about the war - and I may have expressed my opinion a couple of times - I don't understand why this isn't a criminal case. It's illegal for the President to have the CIA manufacture evidence and lie to Congress and the American public.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Santa Cruz California
    Posts
    225

    Re: I hate to bring up Iraq again, but...

    It seems the American public is in a trance, and has been since he took office... I dunno if everyone just feels defeated, or Bush has damaged so many things that we are too busy to care anymore... GWB, is not president material, he is corporate figure(And a dam good one at that, if you praise dirty business dealings, which us americans do and thrive for)... We didn't have to have documents, we knew already it was wrong, and has been a catastrophe throughout the whole process, and we still don't care..Oopsy..
    Somehting a little side note about people here, Anyone remember Lee Iacoca, who took over Dodge and pulled them out of their financial hole? He made all those Aries K cars, and dirivitives that were complete shiit... He became a corporate role model, and the same people who bought those pieces of crap that fall apart soon after leaving the lot, praised him... "Good job Lee, you rooked the public and they love ya for it".. Alls you have to do is keep America numb and Stupid, and you can have a field day with us..

  3. #3

    Re: I hate to bring up Iraq again, but...

    You beat me to it, Nick:


    SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
    DAVID MANNING
    From: Matthew Rycroft
    Date: 23 July 2002
    S 195 /02

    cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

    IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

    Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

    This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

    John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

    C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

    CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

    The two broad US options were:

    (a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

    (b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

    The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

    (i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

    (ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

    (iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

    The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

    The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

    The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

    The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

    On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

    For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

    The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

    John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

    The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

    Conclusions:

    (a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

    (b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

    (c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

    (d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

    He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

    (e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

    (f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

    (I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

    MATTHEW RYCROFT

    (Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
    --
    Robert Gregory Browne
    KISS HER GOODBYE (now available)
    KILLER YEAR: Stories to Die For (Jan. 2008)
    WHISPER IN THE DARK (2008)
    St. Martin's Press
    http://www.robertgregorybrowne.com

  4. #4

    Re: I hate to bring up Iraq again, but...

    "...the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

    That pretty much sums it up, eh?

    -JF

  5. #5

    Re: I hate to bring up Iraq again, but...

    Quote Originally Posted by JonFairhurst
    "...the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

    That pretty much sums it up, eh?
    Yup.

    Uh, let's see.... Impeach a guy for staining a blue dress, but turn a blind eye to the guy who gets over a thousand American soldiers killed for no good reason.... What's wrong with this picture?
    --
    Robert Gregory Browne
    KISS HER GOODBYE (now available)
    KILLER YEAR: Stories to Die For (Jan. 2008)
    WHISPER IN THE DARK (2008)
    St. Martin's Press
    http://www.robertgregorybrowne.com

  6. #6

    Re: I hate to bring up Iraq again, but...

    Just to clarify, Clinton was impeached, not for staining a blue dress, but for committing perjury.

    Now back to our regularly scheduled program...

  7. #7

    Re: I hate to bring up Iraq again, but...

    Quote Originally Posted by Brady
    Just to clarify, Clinton was impeached, not for staining a blue dress, but for committing perjury.

    Now back to our regularly scheduled program...
    Uh-huh. He lied about . What a terrible, terrible crime.

    So let's see, lying about . Lying about WMDs. Staining a dress. Getting Americans killed.
    --
    Robert Gregory Browne
    KISS HER GOODBYE (now available)
    KILLER YEAR: Stories to Die For (Jan. 2008)
    WHISPER IN THE DARK (2008)
    St. Martin's Press
    http://www.robertgregorybrowne.com

  8. #8

    Re: I hate to bring up Iraq again, but...

    That's true, Brady, that was technically what he was impeached for.

    Does that make the whole thing any less of an disgraceful charade? The only person who took the cover story seriously was that jackass Lieberman.

    And Kenneth Starr, who should be pelted with rotten fruits.

  9. #9

    Re: I hate to bring up Iraq again, but...

    Perjury is a crime. Lying is not. (And, no, I am not defending the guy.)
    Get Bush to lie to a court and you have a case for impeachment.

    Rob

  10. #10

    Re: I hate to bring up Iraq again, but...

    Robh,

    Impeachment is a political, rather than a judicial, process. The House impeaches. The Senate tries the impeachments. If convicted, the only allowed punishment is removal from office, which is essentially a political punishment.

    The impeached person may still be tried in a court of law, and that court can order imprisonment, fines and the like, based on the limits of the law. This would be judicial punishment.

    The only statement that defines the conditions under which a person may be impeached is:

    "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

    For references: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

    One can quite easily argue that Bush
    1) Decided to go to war for personal reasons,
    2) Lied to Congress to gain political support for the war.
    3) Started the war without a formal Declaration of War by Congress.
    4) Initiated war without meeting the requirements of international law. (self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorization)

    In short, he is guilty of conspiracy.

    Conspiracy can be difficult to prove; however, recall that impeachment is a political, rather than judicial, process. A "shadow of a doubt" doesn't apply.

    Furthermore, his actions have resulted in the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of people, including well over one thousand Americans.

    That's conspiracy to commit mass murder.

    If this isn't a high crime, then what is?

    The good news is that after he leaves office, he can still be tried for his crimes in a court of law .

    -JF

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •