Bush on the warpath

medicineman

New Member
Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says
by Don Van Natta Jr.

LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

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.

Those proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Mr. Bush's extemporaneous suggestions, or were elements of the government's plan.

 

mogie

Well-Known Member
All I can say in Bush's favor is that at least he found a path to follow. Maybe he would have been better off getting lost in the woods. LOL
 

hempie

New Member
it could of gone 1 of 2 ways. 1st. iraqis would be glad they were free of saddams chains and eagerly move towards their own government. or 2. exactly what happened. after 2 decades of being suppressed by a tyrant and unable to speak their minds and do as they please. the iraqis lashed out at one another. option 1 would of been the wise and sensible choice but they chose the 2nd. we are unable to deal with the civil unrest due to the ROE being too restricted and because apparently it isnt polite to carpet bomb cities anymore to eliminate threats.
 

medicineman

New Member
because apparently it isnt polite to carpet bomb cities anymore to eliminate threats......................................................................Where do you live? Maybe we should come and carpet bomb your city, Idiotic!
 

hempie

New Member
my city isnt killing american troops. plus its pretty fucking hard for terrorist to hide behind 2-3 feet of rubble. just ask the germans, they can tell you
 

medicineman

New Member
my city isnt killing american troops. plus its pretty fucking hard for terrorist to hide behind 2-3 feet of rubble. just ask the germans, they can tell you
Hey dorkwad, If Chinese troops were fucking over your country and patroling your streets, tell me you wouldn't feel like killing a few. You have to have a mind large enough to see the big picture, obviously you don't. We, the USA, are not God, we do not rule with divinity over the planet. We should not be starting wars in the wrong places and then wondering why the citizenry wants to kill our soldiers. Patriotism is a good thing, Jingoism is not!
 

hempie

New Member
the world will end before the china man leaves his all you can eat buffet restaurant and begins patroling my streets... mind large enough to see the big picture? i guess that would involve seeing iraq as a perfect staging ground for the war on terror. i guess that would involve facing the fact that saddam was our puppet, we gave him wmds. he did not use them all or destroy them all. his scientist also had the knowledge to make more and they did. so its safe to say that yes he still had them and the reports were not false. also saddams ppl had ties with al queda there were 800 pages documenting their visits with this this terror organization. last but not least. at the end of desert storm this country urged iraqis to stage a revolt so they did thinking that we would help. we did nothing to help their cause and as a result iraqis lost their lives to the chemical weapons that we gave saddam just 10 yrs earlier. think before you type. im tired of making you look like a fool.
 

krime13

Well-Known Member
Hempie if you dont know the facts, its probably best to keep silent. 1) There never was any weapons of mass destruction that could actually threaten US.2) AlQueada hated Saddam and had nothing to do with him, during an occupation of Kuvait Osama ofered to mouve the troops from Afganistan to fight Saddam. 3) The weapons used against the Curds were closer to WW1 weapons than the US arsenal. 4) I find the chineese buffet remark extremely offensive, not to mention the fact that China is one of the few nations that can win a war against US.
 

medicineman

New Member
Hempie if you dont know the facts, its probably best to keep silent. 1) There never was any weapons of mass destruction that could actually threaten US.2) AlQueada hated Saddam and had nothing to do with him, during an occupation of Kuvait Osama ofered to mouve the troops from Afganistan to fight Saddam. 3) The weapons used against the Curds were closer to WW1 weapons than the US arsenal. 4) I find the chineese buffet remark extremely offensive, not to mention the fact that China is one of the few nations that can win a war against US.
I know, the guys a real Idiot. He can look at the truth and is blind. He's a Bush clone all the way, a first class idiot. "He had WMDs, Ties to Al Queda" sounds like Dickhead Cheney. ~LOL~, idiotic!
 

hempie

New Member
Hempie if you dont know the facts, its probably best to keep silent. 1) There never was any weapons of mass destruction that could actually threaten US.2) AlQueada hated Saddam and had nothing to do with him, during an occupation of Kuvait Osama ofered to mouve the troops from Afganistan to fight Saddam. 3) The weapons used against the Curds were closer to WW1 weapons than the US arsenal. 4) I find the chineese buffet remark extremely offensive, not to mention the fact that China is one of the few nations that can win a war against US.
sadly for you everything i stated is fact. what was the bases of the war? oh, it was everything i mentioned and also the reason behind the iraqis anger toward us.
 

hempie

New Member
More smoke and mirrors. When you quote Iraqi dissadents, you lose credibility as they wanted to overthrow Sadam because of personal reasons.
personal reasons. saddam killed how many 100s of thousands of iraqis? they are still finding mass graves. saddam was a dictator and under him the iraqi people had no rights or freedoms. the truth is there when it slaps you in the face you turn the other cheek and keep walking because you would rather believe the lies and conspiracy theories of the left than face the truth. that video was not made by any american but by a frenchman.
 

medicineman

New Member
personal reasons. saddam killed how many 100s of thousands of iraqis? they are still finding mass graves. saddam was a dictator and under him the iraqi people had no rights or freedoms. the truth is there when it slaps you in the face you turn the other cheek and keep walking because you would rather believe the lies and conspiracy theories of the left than face the truth. that video was not made by any american but by a frenchman.
~LOL~ Fuckin idiot.
 

hempie

New Member
This is the same asshole that wanted to overthrow Sadam and be part of the new government. A lying scumbag that the idiotic Bush regime gave credence to and caused our involvement in Iraq. Idiotic to be sure. You are quoting Iraqi scumbags, go figure.
yes iraqis. not bush or any other american but iraqis. the truth is sometimes more fucked up than the lies you tell yourself. no american propaganda but the iraqi truth.
 
Top