'Devastating' Secret Papers Reveal Pre-War Iraq Warnings

The Government came under renewed fire tonight after claims that Prime Minister Tony Blair was warned before the war in Iraq of the scale of the task that would face British and other coalition troops after Saddam Hussein was toppled.

Papers marked “Secret and Personal” detailing warnings from the Foreign Office to the premier were leaked to The Daily Telegraph.
No 10 had no immediate comment on the claims that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw had written to Mr Blair a year before the conflict saying post-war Iraq would pose major problems.“There seems to be a larger hole in this than anything,” said Mr Straw, according to the Telegraph.

Other papers warned of the dangers of successive military coups in Iraq after Saddam was toppled and said ousting Saddam was seen as “unfinished business” from the Gulf War of 1991.Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said: “If these documents are accurate they provide a devastating insight into the political run up to war in Iraq.

“They demonstrate that the Government agreed with the Bush administration on regime change in Iraq more than a year before military action was taken. “The justifications offered on many occasions to Parliament and the public that the issue was one of WMD are shown to be a mechanism designed to get round the legal obstacles in international law against the removal of Saddam Hussein.

“The British Government has not come clean and been frank with the British people, either about regime change or the long term troop commitment which would result if Saddam was removed.“It is hardly surprising that the Government has resisted any form of inquiry which would allow scrutiny of the actions of ministers or officials.
“Iraq has become a question of trust. There is ample material in these documents to show why the Government has lost so much.”
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3513167

Except unlike 45% of Americans, Britons aren't morons and they want their leader who mislead them gone right now. Stupid repugs.

"The War on Terra" and The Illegal Invasion of Iraq.

What will the bush lickers say?

Ooops sorry, this is in the Scotsman, not an murican paper, move along, if it is not on teevee it never happened

The fact that the only leader in the bunch that looks like he was telling the truth was Hussein. How fucked up is that?

spurious charges of child porn (later dropped).

The documents, seen by The Telegraph, show more clearly than ever the grave reservations expressed by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, over the consequences of a second Gulf war and how prescient his Foreign Office officials were in predicting the ensuing chaos.
The documents further show that the Prime Minister was advised that he would have to "wrong foot" Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, and that British officials believed that President George W Bush merely wanted to complete his father's "unfinished business" in a "grudge match" against Saddam.But it is the warning of the likely aftermath - more than a year in advance, as Mr Blair was deciding to commit Britain to joining a US-led invasion - that is likely to cause most controversy and embarrassment in both London and Washington.More than 900 allied troops have been killed in Iraq since the end of the war, 33 of them British. More than 10,000 civilians are believed to have been killed.

Most of the US assessments argued for regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Mr Straw said.
"But no one has satisfactorily answered how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be any better. Iraq has no history of democracy so no one has this habit or experience."Senior ministerial advisers warned bluntly in a "Secret UK Eyes Only" options paper that "the greater investment of Western forces, the greater our control over Iraq's future, but the greater the cost and the longer we would need to stay".

Even a representative government would be likely to create its own WMD so long as Israel and Iran retained their own arsenals and Palestinian grievances remained unresolved.But there would be other major problems with a democratic government.If it were to survive, "it would require the US and others to commit to nation-building for many years. This would entail a substantial international security force."

The documents also show the degree of concern within Whitehall that America was ready to invade Iraq with or without backing from any of its allies.Sir David Manning, Mr Blair's foreign policy adviser, returned from talks in Washington in mid-March 2002 warning that Mr Bush "still has to find answers to the big questions", which included "what happens on the morning after?".

In a letter to the Prime Minister marked "Secret - strictly personal", he said: "I think there is a real risk that the administration underestimates the difficulties. "They may agree that failure isn't an option, but this does not mean they will necessarily avoid it." The Cabinet Office said that the US believed that the legal basis for war already existed and had lost patience with the policy of containment.It did not see the war on terrorism as being a major element in American decision-making.


There were "real problems" over the alleged threat and what the US was looking to achieve by toppling Saddam, he said. Nothing had changed to make Iraqi WMD more of a threat."Even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years. Military operations need clear and compelling military objectives. For Iraq, 'regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge match between Bush and Saddam."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar18.xml

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

this phoney war and the economic aftermath and anger.

Can you imagine how the people of our so-called 'coalition partner' countries are feeling?

How many dead and wounded between all the partners?

How many of the missing dollars from the DOD were used to pay for the men from these countries or their contributions of these countries?

Our country should apologize to the world for these moronic maniacs who have done this to us all.

Our government is giving aid to hurricane victims.
Is there a department to provide anger resolution and counseling for citizen victims of this war?

I guess that answer to that question should be ridicule for even asking it since our leaders are not even giving our soldiers what they need.

by the phoney prez

...
- phoney driving records
- phoney National Guard records
- phoney Yale transcripts
- phoney businesses
- phoney business transactions

DO
- phoney elections
- phoney commissions
- phoney economic reports
- phoney job reports
- phoney security alerts
- phoney wars
Until a catastrophic end ... to the world

can ride off into the sunset together, like Matt Dillon and Chester.

Blair has no one to blame but himself, and I doubt the British public will let him get away with it the way Bush has with most of the United States. I can only hope (futilely) that this story gets a lot of play over here, which may cause more people to wonder just how upfront Bush was about this war.

And I agree with another post...Scott Ritter was right, I was always convinced of that. But the media destroyed him.

This war was PREMEDITATED, premised on a LIE. What is so damn hard to understand about that? Can anyone explain? Is it that we don't want to admit that our government is no better than any other regime?

do not want to be made fools of, therefore they push the truth out of their minds. They go in denial mode and suubstitute the truth with what they would rather believe.

they already know he lied about the mass graves of a million iraqis was actually about 5,000, and that many bodies were most likely from the gulf war. blair has his pants down now. what i want to know is why saddam's offer for a public televised debate prior to the us invasion is never brought up today. hoping saddam's trial is before the election. it would be a hoot to hear the goods he has on the bush dynasty,eh?

He was seriously inconvenineced and put out of action for a while, but he most certainly wasn't "destroyed." I saw him yesterday (or Fri?) on probably MSBNC. He was tough, hard-hitting and, as always, right.

"'Failure is not an option, but it doesn't mean they will avoid it'
By Michael Smith

<...>

Any British action had to be "narrated with reference to the international rule of law", Mr Straw insisted. He warned that his legal advisers were telling him that it would almost certainly need a fresh UN mandate to make it legal, a mandate the Americans didn't feel was necessary and the rest of the Security Council was unlikely to give. He questioned the rationale behind the whole enterprise. Whatever the allies put in Saddam's place, it was unlikely to be much better. But the problem for Mr Blair was that he knew there was no stopping the Americans. That much was clear from the Secret UK Eyes Only "options paper" on Iraq given to him on Friday, March 8, 2002.

<...>

Mr Bush had reportedly told one aide: "F*** Saddam. We're taking him out". It no longer seemed to be a question of if; all the discussion was of how soon, with increasing talk of an invasion that autumn when conditions on the ground in Iraq would be ideal.

<...>

Mr Wolfowitz was the most hard-line of those within the administration advocating an attack on Iraq, one of the key players the British would have to win over if they were to have a chance of persuading the Americans to wait for the UN backing Mr Blair needed to sell another American war to Britain.

<...>

Peter Ricketts, his policy director, offered the Foreign Secretary some advice in a confidential memo dated Friday, March 22. "By sharing Bush's broad objective, the Prime Minister can help shape how it is defined, and the approach to achieving it," he said.
"In the process, he can bring home to Bush some of the realities which will be less evident from Washington. He can help Bush make good decisions by telling him things his own machine probably isn't.""

There are many more interesting quotes in the article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar118.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/09/18/ixnewstop.html

"The mandarins propose, but Blair carries the can

<...>

The confidential documents published by The Telegraph today paint a fascinating picture of British officials wrestling, a year before the invasion of Iraq, with the fact that George W Bush is set on removing Saddam Hussein from power as the first step in destroying the "axis of evil".

There is a certain amount of received mandarinate opinion. Sir Christopher Meyer, British ambassador to Washington, points to the critical importance of reviving the Middle East peace process as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy. An option paper prepared by the Cabinet Office loftily dismisses Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Council, as "a Shia and convicted fraudster, popular on Capitol Hill".

Most notable, in the light of events, is the same paper's prescription for a future Iraqi administration: "This would be Sunni-led but, within a federal structure, the Kurds would be guaranteed autonomy and the Shia fair access to government."

<...>

The received wisdom of the bureaucracy is summarised by Mr Straw's memo to the Prime Minister before his April 2002 summit with Mr Bush in Texas. Warning that rewards from the meeting would be few, the Foreign Secretary reviews the political and legal difficulties of invading Iraq and points, presciently, to the glaring absence of plans for the country once Saddam is gone."

http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/09/18/dl1801.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/09/18/ixopinion.html

is astounding:

"Reading the documents seen by this newspaper brings a deeper appreciation of Mr Blair's courage in throwing in his lot with Washington over Iraq. Of course, it can be argued that no British prime minister could risk alienating America over an issue so close to its heart. But that meant stepping beyond the justified caution of Whitehall, defying parliamentary and public opinion, and parting company with European allies. Such a big, political decision entailed huge risks, as Iraq today shows. But in making it, Mr Blair proved himself the statesman."


The advice was correct, and we would all be far better off if it had been heeded and followed, but apparently Bliar has proved himself both courageous and a statesman by ignoring it and lying through his teeth from then onwards.




I don't think Michael Smith is being ironic here...

but if you look at it, this actually strengthens the case for the impeachment of Blair. It's saying he went against the advice of the government (non-political) experts, to support the USA, against the better interests of the UK. This included ignoring the explicit advice that there was no new knowledge of any WMDs worth anything.

Now we have the PROOF IN WRITING that it was all a pack of lies, and that bush & Tony the bLiar KNEW it was a pack of lies.

Not that the rightwingnuttery will give a damn; you need integrity, morality, and a soul to give a shit about public servants lying people to their deaths.

I always knew bush & bLiar were spewing a total pack of lies. I knew they'd been planning this invasion & conquest of Iraq since Day 1. I knew Iraq's "WMD" and "ties to terrorists" rhetoric was pure crap. The vast majority of the entire world always knew.

So how come seeing the proof in government top secret letters & memos that it was all a pack of lies, is such a blow?

I guess I still had a tiny little hope that bush & bLiar were just very stupid, very ignorant little men who hadn't unleashed such total evil & destruction onto so many innocent people, on purpose.

:(

Sir David, according to the Telegraph documents, warned Mr Blair that President George Bush had no answers to big questions such as “what happens on the morning after”.

....

Mr Ancram said today :“This underlines very starkly not only the reservations that existed in the FCO about our ability to handle post-conflict Iraq, but also the lack of a comprehensive plan for the stabilisation and reconstruction of Iraq, which we consistently called for before the war.

....

Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said the documents were “devastating” and described them as “the crown jewels”.

He said they showed that Mr Blair had been convinced of the need for regime change in Iraq, which was illegal.

....
He added: “There are brutal dictators in the world but regime change is illegal.

“The judgment which became the Prime Minister’s judgment is one which will come back to haunt him not just today but again and again.”

<more>
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3514219

pushing Annan into using the term "illegal" about the war? Annan says it (smiling), France jumps on it, and now this revelation. Interesting.

Yes, I tend to agree with the poster above that it seems Saddam is looking like the only one who was telling the truth at the time. That's why he will probably never have his day in court. Certainly it's the reason for pushing so hard for him to be tried in Iraq vs International court. But then, that's been talked about here on DU since his capture.

edit to add:

Here's the link to Annan's illegal statement:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200409170817.html

snip>

In typical give-a-dog-a-bad-name-to-hang-it fashion, the BBC badgered UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to use the word "illegal" to describe the invasion of Iraq by US and British forces last year.

Those of us who saw the interview in which Mr. Annan used the word - which in our opinion is a perfectly legitimate word - were almost embarrassed with the way the BBC reporter was eager to get the word out of Mr. Annan's mouth. With a smile, Mr. Annan agreed to the prodding of the reporter and said yes.

Immediately, the same BBC and other Western media picked this word up and started directing all manner of aspersions and insinuations against the Secretary General. Indeed, one impertinent news reader on BBC World television even had the effrontery of describing it as "diplomatic suicide".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/18/nwar118.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/09/18/ixnewstop.html
'Failure is not an option, but it doesn't mean they will avoid it'
By Michael Smith
(Filed: 18/09/2004)

The Prime Minister knew the US President was determined to complete what one senior British official had already described as the unfinished business from his father's war against Saddam Hussein.
There was no way of stopping the Americans invading Iraq and they would expect Britain, their most loyal ally, to join them. If they didn't, the transatlantic relationship would be in tatters. But there were serious problems.

more ...

Another secret memo disclosed to the Telegraph warned that there was no legal basis for war. (From that moment, Goldsmith was under instruction to cobble one together, come what may.) The document, compiled by the Cabinet Office's Overseas and Defence Secretariat, also predicted that British troops would have to be committed for 'many years'. It spoke of a strong risk of Iraq returning to type, being run by an 'autocratic Sunni dictator' who with time 'could acquire WMD'. That line reinforces intelligence assessments - later massaged and manipulated by Blair's team in their infamous September 2002 dossier - that an attack on Iraq might actually increase any threat posed by biological and chemical weapons.

In the 12 months leading to the war, Blair was warned time and again of the problems. He was warned about the legality. He was warned about the flimsy intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. He was warned about the consequences for international diplomacy and the stability of the Middle East. And he was warned about the lack of an American plan for the reconstruction of Iraq, beyond the securing of the oil fields and the handing of lucrative contracts to companies with links to the administration.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1307908,00.html

The highly confidential papers represent one of the most serious leaks Downing Street has ever had to confront - both because of the extremely restricted nature of their circulation and the embarrassment they may cause senior US figures named in the memos - and will prompt a major Whitehall mole hunt. Last night speculation was focusing on the Butler inquiry into the intelligence gathered in Iraq, which was given thousands of confidential documents detailing the run-up to war.

The first leaked paper is a briefing for Blair on 8 March, three days ahead of a meeting he was due to have with US Vice-President Dick Cheney, from the Cabinet Office Overseas and Defence Secretariat. Warning that the US 'has lost confidence in containment', it lists reasons the US now wants to invade, concluding starkly that there was no legal justification for military force: 'Subject to law officers' advice, none currently exists.'The next significant memo is from Manning to Blair, describing how he told US National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice that 'if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done'. Critics will say that shows while the Government was publicly insisting its aim was not regime change but tackling WMD, in private there was no pretence. Manning adds Bush still lacked answers to questions including 'what happens on the morning after?'.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1307907,00.html

Between the wimp TwinkyBoy Pretzledent and Saddam the WMD King.

I cannot fathom how Blair still has his job. I just can't.

The British are not nearly as stupid as the Americans.

I mean, how many options were there a) greeted with flowers and candy b) strong resistance c) combination of a & b

What bothers me is they didn't have a plan for 'the morning after' and they STILL don't. THAT is the issue...despite warnings, no plans. Or at least if they did have plans, their incompetence has continued to lead to one big FUBAR.

"'The next significant memo is from Manning to Blair, describing how he told US National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice that 'if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done'. Critics will say that shows while the Government was publicly insisting its aim was not regime change but tackling WMD, in private there was no pretence. Manning adds Bush still lacked answers to questions including 'what happens on the morning after?'.?

This is a video that has only been out a short time. It is not yet well known. It asks questions about 911 that are ESPECIALLY pertinent now that we know Bush is FUCKING TRAITOR who, by redacting 28 pages of the congressional 911 report, has been harboring the Goddamned Saudis all this time. See extenive corroborating links in this thread and here: http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board=37138459&tid=nmpakistanusaosamadc&sid=37138459&mid=1

Then - if you are ready - see this video and let yourself ask some open-minded questions. Now that we KNOW Bush has been harboring the Saudis And the Israeli spies - extensive evidence here: http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=&action=m&board=37138459&tid=apisraelpalestinians&sid=37138459&mid=1317971&thr=1317971&cur=1317971

Now, we can truly begin to contemplate that 911 may indeed have been an inside job.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6847.htm

Also, here are a coupla good flash presentations:
The cool one:
http://pixla.px.cz/pentagon.swf
The more in depth one:
http://www.erichufschmid.net/911.swf

After you watch the video, read this ~stunning~ Thom Hartmann piece on the parallels in history today:
http://www.awitness.org/journal/bush_hitler.html

NOW


-Let's not forget this as we consider such "whacko conspiracies" - they are indeed real:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba invasion in 1962
In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

I just watched the video about 9/11.

It changed my mind. 9/11 wasn't a case of LIHOP. It was definitely MIHOP.

are scary.

just as he's publicly backing Allawi and vowing to defeat the
terrorists in Iraq and all over the world. What he's saying is
that if "terrorism" (his word) isn't defeated in Iraq, then it
will triumph in the rest of the world.

I think what he means is that if nationalism isn't defeated in Iraq,
then Blair is finished.

will this thing grow fins and swim across the pond... let's hope so ;->

peace