Blair Administration Memo
Always remember that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror or protecting the US from WMD. The Bush admin knew that Iraq posed little real threat.
For example, here is the 2002 secret memo from the Tony Blair administration that describes the legal problems with the invasion of Iraq.
Most important paragraphs:
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 neighbors, 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.
If we knew their was no WMD then why did we invade? Why spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of US lives invading a country that posed no threat to the US?
For example, here is the 2002 secret memo from the Tony Blair administration that describes the legal problems with the invasion of Iraq.
Most important paragraphs:
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 neighbors, 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.
If we knew their was no WMD then why did we invade? Why spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of US lives invading a country that posed no threat to the US?
posted by Brian at 6:39 AM
2 Comments:
Well, the WMD may yet be found. Given all of the current airstrikes and activities in the Westrn sector of Iraq, the US may uncover the long awaited WMD, buried in the sand. Coincidentally buried in the sand in close proximity to the Syrian border, giving another excuse to attempt to blow Syria off the face of the earth in concert with the neocon agenda. Of course, looking at a map, one clearly sees the close proximity of Israel to the same sector -- makes one think it is always a possibility Israeli agents crossed the border and made sure the WMD were there. If the Isarelis can find agents to bury a squadron of fighter jets, are WMD a bridge too far? I think not.
Secret British Memo Confirms WMD Lie
Post a Comment
<< Home