"The London Times reports that the British government and the United States government had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in 2002, before authorization was sought for such an attack in Congress, and had discussed creating pretextual justifications for doing so."
US Congressman John Conyers has written to President George Bush seeking his response to these explosive revelations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We write because of troubling revelations in the Sunday London Times apparently confirming that the United States and Great Britain had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority to engage in military action. While various individuals have asserted this to be the case before, including Paul O'Neill, former U.S. Treasury Secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official, they have been previously dismissed by your Administration. However, when this story was divulged last weekend, Prime Minister Blair's representative claimed the document contained "nothing new." If the disclosure is accurate, it raises troubling new questions regarding the legal justifications for the war as well as the integrity of your own Administration.
The Sunday Times obtained a leaked document with the minutes of a secret meeting from highly placed sources inside the British Government. Among other things, the document revealed:
· Prime Minister Tony Blair chaired a July 2002 meeting, at which he discussed military options, having already committed himself to supporting President Bush's plans for invading Iraq.
· British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the case for war was "thin" as "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran."
· A separate secret briefing for the meeting said that Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war.
· A British official "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."
As a result of this recent disclosure, we would like to know the following:
1) Do you or anyone in your Administration dispute the accuracy of the leaked document?
2) Were arrangements being made, including the recruitment of allies, before you sought Congressional authorization to go to war? Did you or anyone in your Administration obtain Britain's commitment to invade prior to this time?
3) Was there an effort to create an ultimatum about weapons inspectors in order to help with the justification for the war as the minutes indicate?
4) At what point in time did you and Prime Minister Blair first agree it was necessary to invade Iraq?
5) Was there a coordinated effort with the U.S. intelligence community and/or British officials to "fix" the intelligence and facts around the policy as the leaked document states?
We have of course known for some time that subsequent to the invasion there have been a variety of varying reasons proffered to justify the invasion, particularly since the time it became evident that weapons of mass destruction would not be found. This leaked document - essentially acknowledged by the Blair government - is the first confirmation that the rationales were shifting well before the invasion as well.
Given the importance of this matter, we would ask that you respond to this inquiry as promptly as possible. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Congressman John Conyers
The Raw Story
Conspiracy?
Just Business
John and Gus, for the benefit of the tape, I offer this interview recorded on Apr 11th 2003.
I do so, not to offer any resistance to your stance on the invasion of Iraq, but to plead the whole scenario has been pretty obvious for a good while. Whether or not any of the political leaders will face the Beak because of their contemptuous conspiracies, it is worth noting that while Tony Blair has aged 10 years in the last 10 days, John Howard has just recharged his batteries. He had to pay for a visit to his sigmoidoscopologist, but he claimed the fee on Medicare. As any true-blue tit-sucker would.
We must move on, and, again, that is not to take away from the scandal of subject of the Congressman's concern.
Have a look at the official report of the shooting of Nicola Calipari. It contains the seeds of understanding the deep mire the US has made for itself. Their youth are really up against it. They are fired on, bombed with grenades, and are the targets for mobile IEDs whenever they stay in the one place for too long. Reminders of Mad Max. The unlucky patrol that was responsible for firing on the car with Sgrena, the released hostage, had to position itself to minimise becoming a target. The guy sitting up in the humvee turret may as well have a bullseye on his head. That's how the US will conduct itself while ever they occupy Iraq. Apart from taking out their frustrations on the innocent civilians.
But, what is this perpetual confrontation doing to the Iraqis? The "insurgents" are training themselves by pushing against the US military. Eventually, an organised resistance will emerge. Probably not one that can evict the occupiers, but one that can be controlled by a tailor-made concoction of political forces. That is, a gang that Rumsfeld and Cheney can deal with.
Bunsen Howard
Now what I really want to see is someone turn up the bunsen flame under Howard, and press for just when was he first approached by Messrs. Bush Jr. and Blair to join the effort. Because I'd bet half my salary that agreement on Australian involvement was reached long before it was debated and decided publicly in Australia.