The "Downing Street Memo"

[kallend 2,112]

Britons faulted U.S. war plan

A pre-"Downing" memo says Bush aides gave "little thought" to the aftermath of an inevitable invasion.

By Walter Pincus

Washington Post


WASHINGTON - A briefing paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq concluded the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation.

The eight-page memo, written in advance of a July 23, 2002, Downing Street meeting on Iraq, provides insights into how senior British officials saw a Bush administration decision to go to war as inevitable, and realized more clearly than their American counterparts the potential for post-invasion instability.

In its introduction, the memo "Iraq: Conditions for Military Action" notes that U.S. "military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace," but adds that "little thought" has been given to, among other things, "the aftermath and how to shape it."


The July 21 memo was produced by Blair's staff in preparation for a meeting with his national security team two days later that has become controversial on both sides of the Atlantic since last month's disclosure of official notes summarizing the session.

In those meeting minutes - known as the Downing Street Memo - British officials who had just returned from Washington said Bush and his aides believed war was inevitable and were determined to use intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and his relations with terrorists to justify an invasion.

The "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," said the memo - an assertion attributed to the then-chief of British intelligence. In Washington last week, U.S. officials and Blair, at a news conference with Bush, denied that assertion.

"Now, disclosure of the memo written in advance of that meeting - and other British documents recently made public - show Blair's aides were not only concerned about Washington's justifications for invasion but also believed the Bush team lacked understanding of what could happen in the aftermath."

"Testimony by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, a chief architect of Iraq policy, before a House subcommittee on Feb. 28, 2003, just weeks before the invasion, illustrated the administration's optimistic view of postwar Iraq. He said containment of Hussein for 12 years had cost "slightly over $30 billion," and added: "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to spend another $30 billion to be there for another 12 years." As of May, the Congressional Research Service estimated that Congress has approved $208 billion for the war in Iraq since 2003."



etc.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[slug 1]

Hi John

The brits told us and were correct

There are theories are why we did what we did, but the horse has already left the barn. To late to argue who or why.

The spin folks just got to figure out a way to get the hell out, hopefully with a little more Honor than Viet nam.

My WAG a north, south, and central iraq. Sometime in the future, with or without us.

R.I.P.

Support our troops and their families

[billvon 3,080]

>The "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," said the memo . . .

A few years back I bet Rhino that there would be no sudden relevation of the 'real' reason we invaded Iraq. Indeed, the opposite has happened. As time has gone on, the reasons originally given for invading Iraq have shown to be false. There was no link between 9/11 and Saddam, and there were no WMD stockpiles that could be used with 45 minutes warning. Now, lo and behold, it turns out that what some of us have been saying all along is true - that the intelligence was created to support the war instead of the other way around.

And despite this, I have no doubt whatsoever that some of the far-right-wing posters on this board will not even acknowledge that we might have been wrong to invade Iraq based on trumped-up intelligence.

[Ron 10]

Quote

And despite this, I have no doubt whatsoever that some of the far-right-wing posters on this board will not even acknowledge that we might have been wrong to invade Iraq based on trumped-up intelligence.

Oh I'll go first.

I find it funny that this memo is taken as absolute, while the left continues to admit that there was intel that stated the very things that have been bashed on here forever.

You only accept the intel that supports your view.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[dropoutdave 0]

Quote

I find it funny that this memo is taken as absolute

I find it funny that your President's word was taken as absolute.

------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......

[billvon 3,080]

>You only accept the intel that supports your view.

We've come a long way! You used to claim that there was no such intel, that it was lunacy to think that Bush might not have had great reasons to go to war. Now at least you are admitting that there is intel on both sides.

Someday I suspect you will get to 'we may have been wrong about Iraq.' (Which of course is a phrase that will never cross Bush's lips.) More and more people are coming to realize that the intelligence was made to fit the desire for war, instead of the other way around.

[Ron 10]

Quote

I find it funny that your President's word was taken as absolute

There was intel....It has been shown wrong. Bad intel happens.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

We've come a long way! You used to claim that there was no such intel, that it was lunacy to think that Bush might not have had great reasons to go to war. Now at least you are admitting that there is intel on both sides.

Same thing to you Bill. You ignore that there was intel that said he had WMD.

Quote

Someday I suspect you will get to 'we may have been wrong about Iraq.'

I have already said it. You don't pay attention. You never even thought the intel could be right. Who has the open mind?

Quote

More and more people are coming to realize that the intelligence was made to fit the desire for war, instead of the other way around.

More an more people are getting sick of BEING in a war. Thats normal. Happens in every war. The population rallies behind the troops at first, then after a few years they get tired of the constant bad news...They slowly turn. (Need I mention that in the mid 60's people thought military service was a good thing and that all future leaders needed to serve....In the late 60's it changed, and in the 70's it was evil).

Normal cycle.

I think that a few years from now you will still never admit that there was intel, and that Saddam did have the desire. You will ignore that he killed his own people with WMD. Hell you will try and put Saddam up for a Nobel peace prize.

So you can quote me later:

"The intel on Iraq was wrong. Bush and the intel communities screwed up".

Of course I think that just adds to the UN being a fuckup, Clinton not dealing with the problem, Bush 1 not doing the job, and Saddam himself for being an ass.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,080]

>I think that a few years from now you will still never admit that there
>was intel, and that Saddam did have the desire.

Of course there was intel. Watch:

Ron has WMD's.

There is now intel that you have WMD's. It is not at all credible, of course. Only a fool would believe such a claim, used during some stupid internet argument. If someone was actually to use this intelligence I just posted, you might suspect that he didn't really think you had WMD's - he just wanted a reason to bust your balls.

>You will ignore that he killed his own people with WMD.

??? I've said several times that he did. We sold him the ingredients to make them and the helicopters to spread them. Remember, we wanted him to gas the Iranians. They were the enemy back then.

>"The intel on Iraq was wrong. Bush and the intel communities
>screwed up".

Bush didn't screw up at all. As this memo indicates, he achieved his objective, which was war at any cost. Indeed the intelligence community did screw up by bending to his will and providing the conclusions he requested. And we screwed up by believing him. We will have to make sure that does not happen again.

>Of course I think that just adds to the UN being a fuckup, Clinton
>not dealing with the problem, Bush 1 not doing the job, and Saddam
>himself for being an ass.

We'll work on the kneejerk Clinton slam thing later.

[eaglenrider 0]

Quote

Quote

I find it funny that your President's word was taken as absolute

There was intel....It has been shown wrong. Bad intel happens.

Sorry guy,
the documents claiming that Saddam was seeking to purchase *yellow cake * from Niger were forgeries.
That's not "bad intel". That is purposefully manufactured documents to suggest something other than the Truth.

In other words , a LIE!
Even before Bush refrenced those documents in his state of the union speech the CIA begged him not to.
He did anyway.
Bush Lied.
People Died.

That is the Truth.
I understand that it is hard for you to change your position now after being so vociferous in your support of the administration and the war for so long .
Face it, you were duped.

Blues,
Cliff

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And despite this, I have no doubt whatsoever that some of the far-right-wing posters on this board will not even acknowledge that we might have been wrong to invade Iraq based on trumped-up intelligence.

We didn't invade based on trumped up intelligence. We used that trumped up intelligence to get support to do the job that both Bushes and Clinton wanted to do - the removal of Hussein. Getting him out was good. Not knowing what to do next - bad.

This memo says little new, aside from their projection that the post Saddam planning was lacking. The SF Chronicle wrote of the inevitable war long before - about 15 months prior to the invasion.

[eaglenrider 0]

We didn't invade based on trumped up intelligence. We used that trumped up intelligence to get support to do the job that both Bushes and Clinton wanted to do - the removal of Hussein. Getting him out was good. Not knowing what to do next - bad.
__________________________________________________

Breaking international law to implement regime change.., BAD.
Using "trumped up intelligence, a.k.a. LIES to gain support for the Bush agenda.., IMPEACHABLE.

I note you bring Clintons' name into this. Let me assure you that lying to Congress to gain approval for a war is a serious crime.
The 1700 dead American soldiers aren't concerned about any "partisan"politics and their 3,400 parents most likely don't give a shit whether it was a Rep or a Dem that lied to the country inorder to "get support to do the job".

The fact is BUSH LIED
PEOPLE DIED.

It is time for a hanging.

Blues,
Cliff

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Breaking international law to implement regime change.., BAD.

There's no such thing.

As for lying to Congress, didn't happen. Surely they have at least as much intelligence as I do.

support looked pretty bipartisan - single Representive (mine) voted no.

[eaglenrider 0]

As for lying to Congress, didn't happen.
__________________________________________________

Do you mean to say that Pres.Bush didn't stand before Congress and the american people and tell stories about centrifuges, yellow cake, al-queida ties to Iraq, mobile biological labs,etc,etc,etc?
Or are you saying that none of those were lies?

Again, I understand how hard it is for those of you who have been so vocal in your support of Bush and the war for so long to realize that you were completely wrong.
It's hard to imagine ,and completely unforgivable for a President to LIE the people into a war . I know you feel like if you admit the Truth now you will have egg on your face.
Don't worry ,my freind, there were many like you who were duped by these professional liars. No reason for shame.
I will dip my handkerchief in the blood of the dead and injured soldiers and wipe that egg off your face.
If you wait much longer to hold the administration accountable I will be able to dunk you in the *pool* of blood to reclaim your innocense and get that egg off your face.
Your call.

Blues,
Cliff

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

I find it funny that your President's word was taken as absolute

There was intel....It has been shown wrong. Bad intel happens.

particularly when you ignore the indicators that dont fit you preconception...

there will never be a full review of the 'intel' (and i HATE to use the term as it makes and entire field of effort a simple scapegoat for poor leadership) and process used to reach the incorrect conclusions that supported Bush's war... it is hidden under the word 'secret' and would require many people to violate their oaths..

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

>I think that a few years from now you will still never admit that there
>was intel, and that Saddam did have the desire.

Of course there was intel. Watch:

Ron has WMD's.

that is NOT intel... it is simply information... the current administration has a terrible track record of making decisions based on INFORMATION that supports their position and ignoring that which does not... applying a preconceived idea to information and thereby using an improper analysis to create 'intel' that supports your position is a sign of bad leadership..... there were clear indicators, that that information source was suspect... they were ignored because that source supported the conclusion the administration wanted to begin with...

unfortunately our leaders are not elected on their ability, but instead on their popularity....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Of course there was intel. Watch:

Ron has WMD's.

OK now get the UN to buy into that and I'll let Hans inspect my own little piece of earth to prove I don't.

Quote

Bush didn't screw up at all. As this memo indicates

As this memo indicates...You put way to much faith in this memo.

Why don't you put the same faith in the Feith memo?

So the memo that bashes Bush is correct, but the memo that supports Bush is wrong?

Quote

We'll work on the kneejerk Clinton slam thing later.

Nice try, but if you would actually READ things you would see that I blamed everyone INCLUDING Bush and Bush 1, and the UN for not doing their job...

Like I said, try reading it twice, commenting once.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Sorry guy,
the documents claiming that Saddam was seeking to purchase *yellow cake * from Niger were forgeries.
That's not "bad intel". That is purposefully manufactured documents to suggest something other than the Truth.

Well there was other intel...Like the Feith memo...try reading it.

Quote

I understand that it is hard for you to change your position now after being so vociferous in your support of the administration and the war for so long .

Well its clear you only have read a few things that bash the President, and didn't bother to check that the UN also thought Saddam had WMD, Oh, and almost the entire US congress....

Including Kerry, Burger, and Gore:

Quote

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" --Gore, September 23,2003

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."--Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued decit and his consistant grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" --John F. Kerry, Jan 23, 2003.

So I guess Bush is to blame for Kerry, Gore, Burger, the UN ect all thinking Saddam had them.

It is easy to play know it all after the chips have fallen.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

particularly when you ignore the indicators that dont fit you preconception...

I guess Gore, Kerry, Berger, the UN all wanted war with Saddam as well?

Quote

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" --Gore, September 23,2003

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."--Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued decit and his consistant grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" --John F. Kerry, Jan 23, 2003.

Quote

there will never be a full review of the 'intel' (and i HATE to use the term as it makes and entire field of effort a simple scapegoat for poor leadership)

Then don't.

Quote

supported Bush's war

WOW Kerry, the UN Berger and Gore all supported "Bush's war"?

Go fish.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

WOW Kerry, the UN Berger and Gore all supported "Bush's war"?

Maybe they all stupidly believed the lies he was spinning.

You know, Ron, if GWB took a dump on the steps of the US Capitol at midday on 4th July, I'm sure you would leap to his defense and explain how he was not at fault.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Maybe they all stupidly believed the lies he was spinning.

Maybe they looked at the intel and thought the same way?

Quote

You know, Ron, if GWB took a dump on the steps of the US Capitol at midday on 4th July, I'm sure you would leap to his defense and explain how he was not at fault.

And if he single handedly saved a bus load of nuns from a burning bus....You would bitch about him not respecting the seperation of Church and State.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,112]

Quote

Quote

Maybe they all stupidly believed the lies he was spinning.

Maybe they looked at the intel and thought the same way?

And to whom did the intelligence services report? Who were they trying to please? Who's analysis was presented to the UN Security council? The memo clearly states that policy was driving the intelligence analysis, not the other way around.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

particularly when you ignore the indicators that dont fit you preconception...

I guess Gore, Kerry, Berger, the UN all wanted war with Saddam as well?

none of them dictate Intel gathering focus, priorities or can influence the analysis...

if you manufacture evidence to convict someone of murder, are the judge and jury that 'believes' it equally responsible with those who did the manufacturing?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Ron 10]

Quote

And to whom did the intelligence services report? Who were they trying to please? Who's analysis was presented to the UN Security council? The memo clearly states that policy was driving the intelligence analysis, not the other way around.

A memo from a BRITISH source. Guess what? I could find all kinds of memos from all kinds of sources that say whatever I want them to say if I look hard enough.

What about the Feith memo? It said that Iraq had ties to Al Queda AND that Iraq had WMD's....Do you discount that memo but hold this one in high reguard?

Selective intel gathering on your part?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[christelsabine 1]

You know, Ron, if GWB took a dump on the steps of the US Capitol at midday on 4th July, I'm sure you would leap to his defense and explain how he was not at fault.