Downing Street Memo- thoughts?

**luna** · 06-15-2005, 08:35 AM

A coworker brought this memo to my attention. It was previously classified, and is regarding Bush, Blair and Iraq. Many on the left are claiming this as proof positive that the US "fixed" intelligence to support the war. Rather than give my opinion right off the top, I wanted to see what the general consensus was on this issue. What do you think?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Downing Street Memo

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).

(b) 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.

...page 2,continued...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...3607_2,00.html

Root · 06-15-2005, 08:40 AM

I thought Bush said openly that Iraq was about regieme change? In fact I'm pretty sure I've seen him say exactly that on tv. Kinda negates the need to make stuff up in my mind, as if he said that, then Americas actions are illegal under international law. Mind you, the english arrested general Pinochet despite his full diplomatic status, so I guess international law is only to be used when it suits.

The memo is probably about as real as the leaked majestic documents, and was produced to divert public attention.

Root

D'Tek · 06-15-2005, 08:56 AM

I don't think the memo really means anything. The bottom line for me is Suddam feild to live up to the agrements of 1991. We should have gone in in 1998. If you ask me i was finaly happy we did some about these ppl, anthing that was said to the UN would have not mattered they were not going to come with use, that was well known in 1999.
Anyway like i said this memo means nothing, couse it says nothing...

Root · 06-15-2005, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D'Tek

If you ask me i was finaly happy we did some about these ppl

Regardless of whether or not international law was broken? If you don't mind international law being broken, I do hope you won't object when I come to your house, and break your national laws by stealing your possessions and burning your house down.

Root

**leejo** · 06-15-2005, 09:07 AM

I don't know if this memo is real or not, but SH was done when those two planes hit those buildings.

Done.

He and a host of hippies didn't know it, that's all.

Root · 06-15-2005, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Phuck international law.

So phuck national law too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

SH was done when those two planes hit those buildings.

Based on what evidence? It could just as easily have been Emanual Goldstien at this point. Unless you're cleared for access to information that the public isn't allowed to see?

Root

**leejo** · 06-15-2005, 09:16 AM

No, not national law, because it's real and enforcable. The only way to enforce international law is through sanctions, which....gosh when have they worked on an outlaw nation...and war, which the supporters of international law always seem to soil themselves over and blame the people who enforce the laws they so love.

SH was done based on this evidence: this is a world war on militant islam and dictatorships. It's just starting, but watch. If you're a dictator, and SH was a dictator in the heart of militant islam, you can either shape up or get killed.

**leejo** · 06-15-2005, 09:18 AM

A nice artice that seems apt:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGUNCQHKJ1.DTL

Quote:

Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom.

rs_al · 06-15-2005, 09:24 AM

Bush has stated the memo's conclusions are incorrect, but neither government has tried to deny it's authenticity.

That memo was published in EARLY MAY. It has not been refuted by either government, it is, for all intents and purposes, a genuine article. Yet you are just hearing about it now. Who loves you? Not the mainstream US media.

Bush's reasons for invading Iraq changed with the weather. WMDs, terrorists, and lots of other imagined threats. This memo asserts that he never believed a single one of them. That means when he said "WMD" he meant "nothing". This is what we know as a "Lie". Of the same classification as "I did not have sexual relations...". Only this lie has sent over a twenty five thousand people to their graves.

EDIT: 25k not 100k

**Pokerface** · 06-15-2005, 09:29 AM

I conclude that Iraq was always about regime change, and not about a perceived threat. In this case, I hope that our next president likes other people more than Bush, as the fight is not based on possible attacks on our people, but rather "I'm not fond of the way he's running things".

I also conclude that an exit strategy was apparently an afterthought. If I can have an exit strategy to get out of Best Buy the morning after Thanksgiving, I'd like to think that our leadership can get troops out of an area even MORE hostile than that.

**leejo** · 06-15-2005, 09:42 AM

Yes yes Bush lied and 26 million people are set free. May he burn in hell for that.

**RandomGuy** · 06-15-2005, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rs_al

Bush's reasons for invading Iraq changed with the weather. WMDs, terrorists, and lots of other imagined threats. This memo asserts that he never believed a single one of them. That means when he said "WMD" he meant "nothing". This is what we know as a "Lie". Of the same classification as "I did not have sexual relations...". Only this lie has sent over a hundred thousand people to their graves.

My thoughts exactly.

**leejo** · 06-15-2005, 09:48 AM

100,000? where did that number come from? A lie?

rs_al · 06-15-2005, 09:54 AM

Sorry 25,000. Hundred thousand wounded.

I should stop posting while in meetings.

**Pokerface** · 06-15-2005, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Yes yes Bush lied and 26 million people are set free. May he burn in hell for that.

He could've used the truth to make a case for setting 26 million people "free". Instead, he fed on the fears of 400 million to create a sense of national defense for a war that was really about him not liking the way another person ran their country.

06-15-2005, 08:40 AM	#2 (permalink)
Root Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: South east england Posts: 8,839	Re: Downing Street Memo- thoughts? I thought Bush said openly that Iraq was about regieme change? In fact I'm pretty sure I've seen him say exactly that on tv. Kinda negates the need to make stuff up in my mind, as if he said that, then Americas actions are illegal under international law. Mind you, the english arrested general Pinochet despite his full diplomatic status, so I guess international law is only to be used when it suits. The memo is probably about as real as the leaked majestic documents, and was produced to divert public attention. Root __________________ BFCL TF2 league admin

06-15-2005, 08:56 AM	#3 (permalink)
D'Tek Join Date: May 2005 Location: Irving,Texas Age: 24 Posts: 32	Re: Downing Street Memo- thoughts? I don't think the memo really means anything. The bottom line for me is Suddam feild to live up to the agrements of 1991. We should have gone in in 1998. If you ask me i was finaly happy we did some about these ppl, anthing that was said to the UN would have not mattered they were not going to come with use, that was well known in 1999. Anyway like i said this memo means nothing, couse it says nothing...

06-15-2005, 09:07 AM	#5 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,683	Re: Downing Street Memo- thoughts? I don't know if this memo is real or not, but SH was done when those two planes hit those buildings. Done. He and a host of hippies didn't know it, that's all. Last edited by leejo; 06-15-2005 at 09:14 AM. Reason: took out some provocatative statements.

06-15-2005, 09:16 AM	#7 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,683	Re: Downing Street Memo- thoughts? No, not national law, because it's real and enforcable. The only way to enforce international law is through sanctions, which....gosh when have they worked on an outlaw nation...and war, which the supporters of international law always seem to soil themselves over and blame the people who enforce the laws they so love. SH was done based on this evidence: this is a world war on militant islam and dictatorships. It's just starting, but watch. If you're a dictator, and SH was a dictator in the heart of militant islam, you can either shape up or get killed.

06-15-2005, 09:24 AM	#9 (permalink)
rs_al Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 499	Re: Downing Street Memo- thoughts? Bush has stated the memo's conclusions are incorrect, but neither government has tried to deny it's authenticity. That memo was published in EARLY MAY. It has not been refuted by either government, it is, for all intents and purposes, a genuine article. Yet you are just hearing about it now. Who loves you? Not the mainstream US media. Bush's reasons for invading Iraq changed with the weather. WMDs, terrorists, and lots of other imagined threats. This memo asserts that he never believed a single one of them. That means when he said "WMD" he meant "nothing". This is what we know as a "Lie". Of the same classification as "I did not have sexual relations...". Only this lie has sent over a twenty five thousand people to their graves. EDIT: 25k not 100k Last edited by rs_al; 06-15-2005 at 09:55 AM.

06-15-2005, 09:29 AM	#10 (permalink)
Pokerface Join Date: May 2003 Location: MD, USA Age: 29 Posts: 5,722	Re: Downing Street Memo- thoughts? I conclude that Iraq was always about regime change, and not about a perceived threat. In this case, I hope that our next president likes other people more than Bush, as the fight is not based on possible attacks on our people, but rather "I'm not fond of the way he's running things". I also conclude that an exit strategy was apparently an afterthought. If I can have an exit strategy to get out of Best Buy the morning after Thanksgiving, I'd like to think that our leadership can get troops out of an area even MORE hostile than that. __________________ NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues. Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality. <anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity <LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

06-15-2005, 09:42 AM	#11 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,683	Re: Downing Street Memo- thoughts? Yes yes Bush lied and 26 million people are set free. May he burn in hell for that.

06-15-2005, 09:48 AM	#13 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,683	Re: Downing Street Memo- thoughts? 100,000? where did that number come from? A lie?

06-15-2005, 09:54 AM	#14 (permalink)
rs_al Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 499	Re: Downing Street Memo- thoughts? Sorry 25,000. Hundred thousand wounded. I should stop posting while in meetings.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Mishkan's thoughts on PassNights	Mishkan	Battlefield 2 - General Discussion	21	10-16-2005 12:16 PM
Loose thoughts on the basics of BF2 Combat	AzrealDarkmoon	Battlefield 2 - Tactics and Missions Discussion	1	06-30-2005 05:55 PM

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links