The secret Downing Street memo

Ramps up case that Bush cooked the books to invade Iraq

Published on May 5, 2005 By dabe In Politics

The bolded emphases are mine. Did Bush really cook the books? What's missing here, of course, is why was Bush so hell-bent on invading Iraq if the legal requirements for such invasion were as thin as this memo stated? Why did Britain go along with this folly? So many questions, and no anwers.......................... I don't believe we will get any until Bush and Co. are no longer in power. Why do I say that? Because they don't want us to have the answers because they are less than flattering, shall we say. Read on......................... This is scary stuff, boys and girls.

The secret Downing Street memo
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).

(

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.

(

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)

Comments (Page 2)

Lee1776

on May 09, 2005

Hay Guy in the Sky.

dabe also loves to ignore the fact that Saddam was murdering over 50,000 innocent people each year along with the estimated 50,000 innocent Kuwaitis, and millions of Iranians. She could ask the Iraqi Olympic team about that, but Ooops most of them are dead for not winning gold meddles. Compare that to the highly inflated number 100,000 of both Iraqi civilians, soldiers and insurgents posted by Human Rights watch (that has been revised down since then).

You can't arrest someone for shooting at you without causing some collateral damage. Just asking the guy to please place you hands in these cuffs don't work.

So dabe your opinion is to let the guy continue to shoot at planes until he hit one, murder more civilians, and ignore every international agreement? We did that once and Hitler killed millions.

Zoomba

on May 09, 2005

I am not a fan of the war/invasion, I have my doubts as to the shifting justification for going in... but I am sick and tired of hearing people bitch moan and complain about it.

You didn't stop the war by protesting, it happened, we're in the mop-up period now. What do you honestly hope to accomplish by screaming and yelling now? To prove you were right? Honestly, what good is that? It doesn't stop what happened from happening, it doesn't bring people back to life. It doesn't fix anything, it's just a bunch of self-indulgent complaining.

Bush got reelected, Blair got reelected. The war itself is over and now we're there to ensure things don't fall into complete anarchy in the aftermath. What is left to object to? We can't get Bush again, and Blair just went along with Bush. Are you so frustrated with having lost in the first place that you can't let it go and move on?

Are you doing anything productive, or are you just complaining for the sake of complaining?

dabe

on May 10, 2005

Are you doing anything productive, or are you just complaining for the sake of complaining?

Yes, I am doing something productive. I am working like hell to get this administration booted out for their war crimes. I am adamant about how I feel, and I do see what they have done as qualifying as war crimes. The bushies lied their way into this war, killing and maiming thousands upon thousands of innocent people.

LIES + DEATHS = WAR CRIMES

I know that what's done is done. That doesn't mean that I shoud roll over and just accept it. I want to see people held accountable for the misery they've created. I will continue to point out the discrepancies in dubya's logic, or shall I say illogic. I will continue to fight to get these bastards overturned, and return this country to one of at least some modicum of world respect. After all, the diplomatic damage done by this administration will take years to reverse.

It not about proving that I was right. It's about showing people who believed, and still believe the bush lies that he was wrong, and he and his accomplices should be held accountable.

Zoomba

on May 10, 2005

Have you ever, for one second, tried to play devils advocate to your own position? Have you ever really and critically thought about your argument, your argument style and your entire attitude as if you were someone who was coming from the other side of the issue?

If you had, you would realize that as you have been, you have ZERO chance of proving anything, of convincing anyone of anything. Hell, with the way you argue, if you said the sky was blue, even though it is, people would disagree with you just because of your arrogance and attitude.

This is the reason Bush won again, this is why he would keep on winning if he was allowed to continue to run. Not because he's a great leader or anything like that (that one is entirely up in the air depending on who you talk to), but because the opposition is so blinded by pure hatred they can't think rationally for one moment, can't hold an argument or discussion without resorting to insults and sensationalist statements.

I honestly believe that a majority of Americans are less than pleased with Bush, but what's the alternative? A bunch of screaming ranting and raving people on the other side of the fence who are just blind to reality because they are so focused on one goal, getting rid of Bush.

You're not being productive in the least, you're just preaching to the choir. Your audience isn't people who disagree with you, you're not trying to educate them, you're here to insult and yell at them for disagreeing with you. If you were trying to convince people who disagree with you, your entire tone and attitude would be different. Remember, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Island Dog

on May 10, 2005

Maybe some Iraqis are happy that we're there. But, not most. But, tell that to the people who lost loved ones; to the people who have no water and electicity; to the people who are maimed for life; to the people who are living in abject chaos every minute of every day; to the people who are living in their homes like prisoners for fear of going out and getting caught in a bomber's paradise. Tell that to them, as you watch your skewed and fucked up jingo junk news from FAUX FOX.

And I can tell you really know nothing about what's really going on in Iraq. Why don't you comment in the posts that show the progress happening in Iraq? Do you take the time to search about good news in Iraq, and not what the MSM gives you? Where was your concern about the Iraqi people when they were being murdered by Saddams regime? Oh, now all of a sudden you are so concerned about the Iraqi people.

It really is funny and sad that you crazies bring up fox news. That just shows you listen to the usual liberal bs and keep using their talking points. Pathetic.

You are doing nothing but help us win. There are no war crimes, nobody is getting "booted". You are a sad part of America that is filled with hatred and obsessiveness. Ever wonder why your side keeps losing? Probably not, you probably believe in the election conspiracy theories also.

backatya

on May 14, 2005

"the opposition ( the Left ) is so blinded by pure hatred they can't think rationally for one moment, can't hold an argument or discussion without resorting to insults and sensationalist statements."

...and what exactly was the RNC's featuring a ranting Zell Miller going off about 'spitballs'? Or the Bush campaign's sensationalistic suggestion that if you vote for Kerry your children will die a horible fiery death? Or the constant 'Hitlery's and 'sheets Byrd's from Right Wing radio? Talk about insults and sensationalism!

"Do you take the time to search about good news in Iraq, and not what the MSM gives you?" - 137 terrorist bombings during the month of April in Iraq and violent anti-US protests in Afghanistan where US troops are stoned and have to shoot upon the crowd and he wants us to 'look beyond all that'. ( and I doubt he looks beyond Fox's villification of the UN or takes the time to look at all the good the UN has done over the decades when he's dismissing the organization as useless and corrupt. )

"Where was your concern about the Iraqi people when they were being murdered by Saddams regime? Oh, now all of a sudden you are so concerned about the Iraqi people. " - Maybe we would have been more concerned if the supposedly out to get the Right mainstream media had made it an issue...but curiously, they never mentioned it much despite the fact that Rummy was over there shaking hands with Saddam and mugging for the camera only weeks after the Kurds were gassed. You would think that if the media was so 'out to get' a Bush they woulda jumped on that one....kinda dents the left wing conspiracy theory....as did the mainstream media's hard-on for all things military and rah-rah invasion reporting during those 'imbedded' ride-alongs.

Terrorism has been around for decades and had touched nearly every Western nation save for the US until 9-11. We go off half-cocked on sketchy intel, invade two muslim nations and collaterally kill tens of thousands of innocents in the 'hope' of making ourselves safer and anyone who says 'hold on here....this ain't right' is 'obsessive'.

And what's worse, despite the fact that they were acting out of desire to extract revenge and a desire protect their own butts those same supporters of the war proclaim themselves as some noble 'humanitarians' primarily concerned for the freedom of Iraqi's after their real motivation for invasion fails to pan out and they are wholly embarassed on the world stage.

Excuse and dismiss this admin all you like.

In the end, when the history books are written, Bush will be remembered for invading two nations on a primary justification that was false, turning Iraq into a terror hotbed, and for his troops sodomizing captive muslims.

And when the sons of one of those men at Abu exacts revenge on the US with a terror attack the Righties will proclaim 'he hates us because we are FREE!!!".

dabe

on May 21, 2005

In the end, when the history books are written, Bush will be remembered for invading two nations on a primary justification that was false, turning Iraq into a terror hotbed, and for his troops sodomizing captive muslims.And when the sons of one of those men at Abu exacts revenge on the US with a terror attack the Righties will proclaim 'he hates us because we are FREE!!!".

backatya, I just noticed this response from you. Thanks for your input. It just astounds me that the jingo nationalist fascist neocons have put the cabash on this memo so it hardly made any mainstream media here. And, we talk about free press, like it's something we have. Our "free" press is getting less and less free everyday. They won't allow any kind of disclosure that puts the bushie regime in a bad light. The history books will be written. And, I think the jingos here will ge scrambling to distance themselves from the dubya regime the way the Germans were distancing themselves from the Nazis after their fall from "grace"

Lee1776

on May 21, 2005

And, we talk about free press, like it's something we have. Our "free" press is getting less and less free everyday.

Ya, the media is really being silenced. After Newsweek, the National Guard Story, the almost daily retractions of LA Times front page stories (on page 20 by the way) and the recent posting for a headline story of Saddam in his underpants photos. One has to wonder where the suppression of freedom of press is? Can you show me where the Government has restricted the press? The resent journalist sitting in jail at this time is there because they a) could not produce a source or

would not produce a source related to national security, all of which have been placed their by Judges appointed by Democrats or elected into office. Link to Source Watch: Link

Maybe it is not the pressure of Government getting to the media, but pressure from everyday people not wanting mostly sensationalized non-factual (more like editorial) stories.

Have you checked how fast the circulation rates of the LA Times and New York Times have dropping like a rock? In my area 108 copies of the LA Times are purchased. Of those copies, 100 are bought by the local University and distributed freely to the students, but when I pass the free issue stands in the hallways they are still full in the early evening when I attend classes. Compare that to the Wall Street Journal that the student book store sells. The book store sells out their bundle of 40 copies every day before I get there (I wish they would carry more).

Maybe your idea of “Free press” i.e. sensationalized left wing rags, are not selling. I even remember you in past posts, placing CNN in the Ranks of the conservative media. Really making me wonder what you even call moderate.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!