Bush and Blair at the White House, 1-31-2003 (White House photo)
The secret memo
British Prime Minister Tony Blair met with President Bush on January 31, 2003 and had joint press availability that afternoon. The resulting message was one aimed more directly at the United Nations than just at Saddam Hussein or the public at large. Naturally, it was supposed to be assumed that Iraq had the weapons. This is a crucial point because if that is an actual fact, the demand that Saddam Hussein do some kind of visible laying down of the weapons makes sense. If none of the "proscribed" weapons exist, this demand is nonsensical.
It was nonsensical and three years later in February 2006 a secret memo suggesting the war leaders knew this at the time was revealed in the British press. More on that below the fold...
Of course the rhetoric that day was laden with post-9/11 imagery of a resolute Bush whose "vision shifted dramatically after September the 11th" because he realized "the stakes." That's important because it allows Bush to associate Saddam with a threat that is becoming uncontrolled. "The doctrine of containment just doesn't hold any water," Bush said.
But the real punch here is delivered against the United Nations. President Bush proclaims, "I'm the guy who went to the UN," as if it was a trip to the dentist his mommy made him do. The press did press a bit on the concept of a "second" U.N. Security Council resolution to follow UNSCR 1441. Presumably, the only acceptable content to Bush and Blair of such a resolution would have been to define as war the "serious consequences" issued in 1441 for the "breach" that Iraq supposedly had committed. A second resolution would be "welcome," but only if it authorized what the president was planning to do anyway. They already had decided that, "1441 gives us the authority to move without any second resolution." (As it turned out, no such rubber stamp could be obtained. This is a HUGE deal with respect to the legality of the war. More on this below the fold and in later posts.)
So there was not to be more time for process. Bush and Blair agreed, "a matter of weeks, not months" is what was left. There would be no "games," as Blair put it. Colin Powell would go to New York and deliver an airtight case against Iraq. Iraq had only two choices left, one impossible: produce weapons that they truthfully stated in their official declaration did not exist, or be "disarmed by force." The rest is history.
Was the really important thing on Bush's & Blair's minds the disposal of the weapons inspection process, which could derail the war? Listen to the excerpts, and tell me what you think. Then below the fold read about the "secret memo." Listen HERE, 2-1/2-minute AUDIO FILE:
This is President Bush in the State of the Union speech on Iraq, with Hillary Clinton in wild applause:
President Bush: The Iraqis launched a surge of their own.
In the fall of 2006, Sunni tribal leaders grew tired of al Qaeda's brutality and started a popular uprising called the Anbar Awakening. Over the past year, similar movements have spread across the country.
Today, the grassroots surge includes more than 80,000 Iraqi citizens who are fighting the terrorists.
The government in Baghdad has stepped forward as well, adding more than 100,000 new Iraqi soldiers and police during the past year.
While the enemy is still dangerous and more work remains, the American and Iraqi surges have achieved results few of us could have imagined just one year ago. ... (APPLAUSE)
DAHR JAMAIL: Well, the surge and what is very interesting too, is not only do we have a US surge according to Mr. Bush, we have an Iraqi surge, two Iraqi surges actually. The first of which he mentioned in his talk last night, the concerned citizens or the awakening groups. It is really interesting that the same time last year as Mr. Bush was happily doing during his speech, comparing where were we last year to this year, well last year, these same people, these concerned local citizens according to the US military were called Al Qaeda or insurgents or terrorists. And now that there are 80,000 of them on US payroll, they?re concerned citizens and they?re an Iraqi surge. These same people, as we look at the situation on the ground, this is causing a deepening of the political divisions in the country. US backed President Nouri Al-Maliki has been vehemently opposed to this concerned citizens group backed by the US military in Iraq. These people, most of which are former resistance fighters, because they are now a threat to the Iraqi government forces. So that is causing huge problems on the ground in Iraq today. If we look at the situation the military recently announced within the last month that there was a sevenfold increase in the use of air power last year. So these are some of the reasons why right now there are fewer US troops dying but in reality, they?re paying off resistance fighters to stand down.
Lovely. The "surge" really "succeeded" by putting the old enemy on the payroll, and 60,000 other Iraqis in prison, while U.S. warplanes rain terror from above.
Posted by The Owl on Jan 30 at 23:55. Filed under: Iraq
Bush January 28, 2003 State of the Union; obsequious response from NPR; Saddam as "evil"
Going back to this and listening again to the Iraq section, I have found it absolutely chilling. It was an open declaration of war against Iraq, and included the biggest of all the implicitly-stated weapons of mass destruction big lies, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
For those of you who believed at some time in your lives that America was a righteous nation founded on the rule of law and are willing to subject yourselves to what now sounds like horror beyond belief, please listen to President Bush on January 28, 2003 in this 13-minute State of the Union excerpt in an AUDIO FILE, HERE:
These are the big applause lines that, to the cheers of the assembled Chambers, tear down the post-World-War-II edifice of international behavior embodied in the U.N. Charter:
President Bush: Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.
Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.
We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (massive applause)
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?
If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (massive applause)
The supporting material Bush delivered contained a litany of WMD threats. I have dealt with them in other postings in this series and will continue to do so, especially in discussion of Powell's February 5 fiasco. Already, however, the January 28, 2003 discourse portends Powell's actions that will firmly establish in the media mind the validity of the Iraq WMD "case."
After the speech, in the sound file I recorded, was some of the "analysis" presented by National Public Radio (NPR). This is very indicative of how all mainstream media carried the ball for the Administration and utterly failed to include critical analysis that I have been showing time and time again with these postings was available at the time. HERE is an excerpt of NPR coverage in a 2-1/2 minute AUDIO FILE:
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell previewed his infamous February 5, 2003 U.N. Security Council presentation on Iraq before the elite international finance community at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on January 26, 2003.
His big message was "trust." We all know where he put that.
One fascinating aspect of Powell's February 5 presentation is that it did not contain the same language about alleged Iraqi attempts to import uranium from the African nation of Niger that President Bush used in his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003. This claim has been proven fraudulent and its absence from Powell?s February 5 remarks is what is truly interesting.
Later, in the spring of 2005, the so-called Silberman-Robb Commission report, for the most part a White House whitewash of political use of intelligence in the run-up to the war, tells of how "CIA officers sent urgent e-mails and cables describing grave doubts" about the charges former Secretary of State Colin Powell was to make before the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, but that former CIA director Tenet "relayed no such concerns to Powell." Obviously, someone knew Powell was about to tell some giant boners to the world, and at least a few of the most egregious items ended up being deleted from Powell's speech, even though they were not deleted from the president's message on January 28, two days after Powell spoke in Davos.
However, let?s not completely let Powell off the hook for the uranium fraud. He was willing to pimp the Iraq threat, including a nuclear threat, before a somewhat reluctant audience in Davos. The transcript of his remarks contains the following quote:
Powell: Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons? These questions are not academic. They are not trivial. They are questions of life and death, and they must be answered.
Powell will then go on to discuss Iraq's "revived nuclear program" and effort to enrich uranium in some detail on February 5, alluding to magnets and the famous aluminum tubes to prove his case. It is now clear that these tubes and magnets were useless for uranium enrichment, and the entire case Powell presented is now widely known to be a fraud.
Posted by The Owl on Jan 26 at 23:09. Filed under: Iraq
To celebrate the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Rice issued false causus belli against Iraq
H.T. to Gerald at Turn Maine Blue for THIS LINK. The Center for Public Integrity has developed a searchable database called "False Pretenses". They say that, "Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq." Then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is assigned a score of 56 of 935 administration "false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
The whole database is a nice companion for Five years ago in war....
This day's menu of blatant lies and intentional, purposeful mischaracterizations came from Rice in the form of a New York Timescolumn entitled "Why We Know Iraq is Lying". I'm just amazed how Rice has over the years been the go-to person whenever a media splash of serviceable excrement is needed.
The Rice quotes: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," and "It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information, and it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States," and, during the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon in 2006, "What we're seeing here, in a sense, is the growing -- the birth pangs of a new Middle East," are enshrined in the Hall of Infamy.
Almost from the beginning I have been wondering, how does she keep her job? Maybe I've answered my own question. She is an extremely smart, able writer and mouthpiece who serves the White House at key moments an outrageous episode is occurring or is discovered from the past and someone who sounds good is needed to wave it away.
So, what did Rice say was the reason we were able to "know" Iraq was lying? Well, the simple assertion that Iraq does possess the weapons is taken as axiomatic. The rest of the logic then falls right out: Unlike other countries that in the past gave up certain kinds of weapons, "Iraq has a high-level political commitment to maintain and conceal its weapons."
Therefore, Rice wrote, "instead of full cooperation and transparency, Iraq has filed a false declaration to the United Nations that amounts to a 12,200-page lie." Of course, because Iraq turned out not to possess the weapons, it's declaration was instead true.
Rice was wrong. But worse, plenty of information from wide open sources AT THE TIME made her epistemological assertion "know" the real lie. Here is the best source summarizing contemporaneous knowledge of Iraq's weapons programs: Claims and evaluations of Iraq's proscribed weapons. Let's just take one specific item, Iraq's then alleged possession of stockpiles of VX nerve agent.
Surge to Nowhere Don't buy the hawks' hype. The war may be off the front pages, but Iraq is broken beyond repair, and we still own it.
By Andrew J. Bacevich - Sunday, January 20, 2008
As the fifth anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom nears, the fabulists are again trying to weave their own version of the war. The latest myth is that the "surge" is working. ...
Sunday January 19, 2003 was a key day for Bangor's anti-war movement. Our annual Martin Luther King celebration took place at the old campus of Bangor Theological Seminary. Channel 5 was there and produced an excellent report for the 11 o'clock news. This coverage is included the video you see above. King's deep message of active resistance to war and violence is conveyed by Professor Doug Allen in the report. That kind of anti-war sentiment in public discourse was and remains extremely rare in America. So this was a good, hopeful day.
The day bristled with news. A large demonstration had taken place in Washington, DC the previous day. Our Center sent a contingent, some of whom were interviewed. The ch. 5 report was marred by a focus on some minor arrests, however. Also, a major area employer, Great Northern Paper in Millinocket, recently had gone belly-up and was of significant concern. In the world arena, war drums were being beaten hard with the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq facing super-hyped attention after the meaningless discovery of some empty shells. Meanwhile, Rumsfeld spoke on the Sunday teevee shows of an exile deal for Saddam Hussein. Everyone should have realized right there that "disarmament" was irrelevant and that the U.S. design was to take control of Iraq and its oil. All came together in this five-minute news report.
Posted by The Owl on Jan 19 at 19:45. Filed under: Iraq
Bush thinks attack on Iraq not for sure? Downing Street documents make this a lie
On January 17, 2003 there was probably some hope somewhere in my body that Bush would not go into Iraq. But I saw the craziness building, media dominated by war drums, and pure propaganda passing as news. I suppose I was buoyed slightly watching Brian Becker from the ANSWER coalition talk about that weekend's protest on the PBS News Hour (carefully "balanced," of course):
MARGARET WARNER: Brian Becker, why are you and your fellow demonstrators so opposed to this prospective war?
BRIAN BECKER: Well, hundreds of thousands of people will be in the streets tomorrow trying to preempt the preemptive war. The people of this country are skeptical; they're apprehensive about the consequences of the war. And frankly many millions of people believe the government is not telling the truth. They do not believe that Iraq poses a grave and imminent danger to the United States, that in fact this is a pretext designed to carry out an unstated but preplanned war policy with other goals in mind and it is not about disarmament; it's about the reconquest of this oil rich region. That's why people are saying it is not enough to send our sons and daughters to shed their blood or to kill others for the interest of big oil.
But deep inside I knew the war was inevitable, as the Downing Street Memos later would confirm.
It was about this time that sometimes the question was asked of the president, Ari Fleischer, or other officials about whether or not the president had decided for sure that there would be a war.
I can't seem to find it in the White House transcripts, but this news story from Voice of America (dated 1/16/03) circulated five years ago today:
Of course, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld set records for mendacity in the war run-up. His way with words... Well, I found the following utterly amazing January 15, 2003 quote from Rumsfeld reported in a Pentagon press release:
Rumsfeld: "The choice between war and peace will not be made in Washington, or indeed in New York," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today. "It will be made in Baghdad, and the decision is facing the Iraqi regime."
The fact that the inspectors have not yet come up with new evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program could itself be evidence of Iraq's noncooperation, Rumsfeld said during a Pentagon news conference.
He said the Iraqi government has designed weapon programs with denial and deception in mind. The programs can continue even as inspections progress. He stated the burden of proof is on Iraq to prove it is disarming and to show U.N. inspectors where the weapons are.
"It is not the responsibility of U.N. inspectors to find the weapons," he said. "It is not their duty nor do they have the ability to find weapons of mass destruction hidden in a vast country."
Doesn't that make your head spin? They're not finding anything, so that's how we know the weapons are there. I remember this clearly now, it became a typical reporting angle.
Never a peep was made by a mainstream reporter when President Bush, Rumsfeld, and others rang the "disarm" bell, sometimes 30, 40, or 50 times each day. The idea that Iraq was not laying down any weapons because they didn't have any never crossed the American reporters' minds.
Actually, I think this is a point where the Administration is beginning to get really worried that there is just nothing. Old empty chemical rounds will become big news items. The urgency of getting the inspectors out and the war started increased with each day no WMD were found. If Blix and ElBaradei had started to verify too much of the truth, the opportunity to take Iraq may have slipped through Bush's fingers.
Posted by The Owl on Jan 15 at 02:23. Filed under: Iraq
January 14, 2003: Bush sound bite hammers Iraq on non-existent weapons
A seemingly intractable aspect of the weapons of mass destruction ruse is that to this day the media image of pre-occupation Iraq remains one of "deception." Here on January 14, 2003 President Bush in response to a question from a reporter during press availability with then Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski issues the following accusations in an almost child-like tone:
Q The weapons inspectors say they need until March, maybe six months, maybe a year. Is this what you had in mind when you went to the U.N. back in September?
PRESIDENT BUSH: What I have in mind for Saddam Hussein is to disarm. The United Nations spoke with one voice. We said, we expect Saddam Hussein, for the sake of peace, to disarm. That's the question: Is Saddam Hussein disarming? He's been given 11 years to disarm. And so the world came together and we have given him one last chance to disarm. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that he is disarming.
Time is running out on Saddam Hussein. He must disarm. I'm sick and tired of games and deception. And that's my view of timetables.
Thank you all very much.
END 11:38 A.M. EST
Whatever else was true about the Iraqi regime, it was not deceiving anyone when it declared in December 2002 that it did not possess weapons of mass destruction. The president's own hand-picked inspectors very clearly reported as much.
So if President Bush rang the "disarm" bell and refused to allow weapons inspectors any sort of "timetable" in January of 2003, what does he say about those inspections now? According to him in 2008, inspection did not even happen.
As recently as January 2, 2008 in an interview with reporters from Yediot Ahronot, President Bush explained his "decision" to invade and occupy Iraq.
Q Mr. President, you just mentioned Iraq. Can you clarify to us whether there was any Israeli involvement in your decision to invade Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: No, not at all. None whatsoever. My decision was based upon U.S. intelligence, based upon the desire to provide security for our peoples and others. It was based upon my willingness to work with the international community on this issue. Remember, if you look back at the history, there was a unanimous vote in the Security Council: disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. And when he defied, when he refused to allow the inspectors in, when he made a statement by his actions that he didn't really care what the international community said, that I decided to make sure words meant something.
Of course this fits neatly into years now of repeated inaccuracy in the president's view of the history of the run-up to war. No one seems to be holding him responsible.
Posted by The Owl on Jan 14 at 14:15. Filed under: Iraq
Helen Thomas is my hero. She teaches humanity every day in the room where there is precious little of it. Five years ago on the first Monday of January she opened the White House press briefing with Ari Fleischer:
For Immediate Release - Office of the Press Secretary
Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer
January 6, 2003 - 12:35 P.M. EST
MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon and happy New Year to everybody. The President began his day with an intelligence briefing, followed by an FBI briefing. Then he had a series of policy briefings. And this afternoon, the President will look forward to a Cabinet meeting where the President will discuss with members of his Cabinet his agenda for the year. The President is going to focus on economic growth, making America a more compassionate country, and providing for the security of our nation abroad and on the homefront.
And with that, I'm more than happy to take your questions. Helen.
Q At the earlier briefing, Ari, you said that the President deplored the taking of innocent lives. Does that apply to all innocent lives in the world? And I have a follow-up.
MR. FLEISCHER: I refer specifically to a horrible terrorist attack on Tel Aviv that killed scores and wounded hundreds. And the President, as he said in his statement yesterday, deplores in the strongest terms the taking of those lives and the wounding of those people, innocents in Israel.
Q My follow-up is, why does he want to drop bombs on innocent Iraqis?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, the question is how to protect Americans, and our allies and friends --
Q They're not attacking you.
MR. FLEISCHER: -- from a country --
Q Have they laid the glove on you or on the United States, the Iraqis, in 11 years?
MR. FLEISCHER: I guess you have forgotten about the Americans who were killed in the first Gulf War as a result of Saddam Hussein's aggression then.
Q Is this revenge, 11 years of revenge?
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, I think you know very well that the President's position is that he wants to avert war, and that the President has asked the United Nations to go into Iraq to help with the purpose of averting war.
Q Would the President attack innocent Iraqi lives?
MR. FLEISCHER: The President wants to make certain that he can defend our country, defend our interests, defend the region, and make certain that American lives are not lost.
Q And he thinks they are a threat to us?
MR. FLEISCHER: There is no question that the President thinks that Iraq is a threat to the United States.
Q The Iraqi people?
MR. FLEISCHER: The Iraqi people are represented by their government. If there was regime change, the Iraqi --
Q So they will be vulnerable?
MR. FLEISCHER: Actually, the President has made it very clear that he has not dispute with the people of Iraq. That's why the American policy remains a policy of regime change. There is no question the people of Iraq --
Q That's a decision for them to make, isn't it? It's their country.
MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, if you think that the people of Iraq are in a position to dictate who their dictator is, I don't think that has been what history has shown.
Q I think many countries don't have -- people don't have the decision -- including us.
After that, Helen was shunned. There must be a penalty for putting the spokesman on the spot to explain the crimes the government was about to commit.
Thank you, Helen. You help us to see our rulers as they really are.
Posted by The Owl on Jan 07 at 01:09. Filed under: Iraq
Here I launch a new feature, Five years ago in war.... I intend to keep this "calendar -5" lookback running at least weekly for a good long while. I'll point out key events and quotes in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion, the invasion itself, and the aftermath. More important, I will trace the local response, both my personal response and that of activists in our community who have worked beyond all limits to oppose the insanity in the first place, and then have tried to keep our anti-war profile up over time. It has not been an easy path.
We still have a war going on that since five years ago has ended and destroyed the lives of millions of the Iraqi people while burdening US troops with death, maiming, and long-term stress in ways none of the elite officials or journalists who dutifully carried the messages of war fever ever wanted to report. I cannot say for sure that if mainstream media had listened to us, taken us seriously, not dismissed the huge demonstrations, and better put out the truth about the weapons of mass destruction (known clearly even then), that the war could have been stopped.
What I do know, however, is that the overall effect of the media system is still positive PR for the war and the obfuscation of history. Rarely are Americans reminded how many dead, how many refugees, how much churning of lives our policies have caused. Military solutions still seem to be the only ones taken seriously by the American establishment. The mainline candidates and the rest of the politicians offer little beyond celebration of supposed military accomplishments that are in fact demonstrable disasters. They won't go near constructive critiques or, heaven forbid, unless you're Ron Paul, propose withdrawal of troops and recovery of the now-wasted massive resources the Pentagon consumes.
I'll pick up further discussion of the motivations for this feature later. For now, today's moment in history: a doozy in the annuls of banging the drums of war. Five years ago on the first Friday in January, President Bush visited friendly territory at Fort Hood, Texas, where he found an audience at once more than willing to be pumped up into a war frenzy and also serve as a prop in the image necessary to build public consent for the imperial project.
Under the authority of the "Almighty" Bush portrays the "enemy" as subhuman, ruthless killers requiring the cleansing only the most powerful military in history can do:
Now you're called again into action, to defend America and the cause of freedom in the first war of the 21st century. For this country, and for our friends around the world who love freedom like we do, the stakes are great. The terrorists have shown what they intend for us. And we're not going to forget.
We're not going to forget the fact that they kill without regard for the rules of war. They don't value innocent life like we do. In America, we say everybody is precious, everybody counts. Everybody is equal in the eyes of the Almighty.
That's not the way the enemy thinks. They don't value innocent life. They're nothing but a bunch of cold-blooded killers, and that's the way we're going to treat them. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE: Hooah!
THE PRESIDENT: They reach across oceans to target the innocent. They seek weapons of mass murder on a massive scale. The terrorists will not be stopped by mercy or by conscience. But they will be stopped.
Maine Owl is a news, comment & nature photography blog. The Owl is proprietor. He is a long-time peace & justice activist now residing in the Bangor, Maine area. Ms. Owl occasionally blogs here as Tammy. Our team also is enhanced by Gerald, formerly of Turn Maine Blue and now of the smashing blog Dirigo Blue.
Bush and Blair at the White House, 1-31-2003 (White House photo)
