May 25, 2005
The Downing Street Memo:
Where is the outrage? Where is the press?
By Floyd Johnson
On May 1st, the Times of London published the Minutes of the Prime Minister's Meeting on 23 July 2002. The document is stamped, "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY." Readers are encouraged to read the actual memo published in the London Times located at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html. (And another recommended reading at: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/05/19/lies/print.html.)
The
`Downing Street Memo' confirms that the Bush Administration had plans to invade Iraq as early as July 2002, eight months before the US actually invaded. The memo states (bold italics mine):
- "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 (National Security Council) had no patience with the UN route,.."
- "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."
This memo clearly indicates that the Bush administration knew that Iraq's WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea and Iran. The memo further states that Bush knew that he would have to use `WMD and terrorism' as a pretext to invade Iraq.
This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. This is not a liberal or conservative issue. This is an American issue.
It is simply a matter of fact that we invaded a sovereign nation without provocation in direct violation of International Law - Iraq did not attack or threaten us - even if we try to suggest preemptive `self defense.' By itself this act is res ipsa loquitur or prima facie evidence of a violation of International Law. Why is the evidence contained in this memo being ignored or under reported by the so-called `liberal' media and by so many Americans?
The Downing Street memo is `the smoking gun' that proves the Bush Administration was intent upon invading Iraq as early as July 2002 (if not earlier) and that they were searching for a pretext to justify such an invasion. The memo clearly indicates that the Bush Administration knew that the Iraqi WMD threat was minimal. The memo also reveals that the Bush Administration was about to manipulate `intelligence' to fit the need for a pretext, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
In the Fall of 2002, the Bush Administration then used the `intelligence' it had, however weak or spurious, to launch a massive public relations propaganda campaign to warn (or worry) the American public that a threat was imminent. On September 8, 2002, Condi Rice, then head of the NSC (National Security Council) warned, "We know that he (Saddam) has the infrastructure, (and) nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon,...But we don't want the smoking gun to be a `mushroom cloud.'" This is the same Condi Rice referenced in the Downing Street memo as indicating, "The NSC had no patience with the `UN route.'" During the build up to the war, Vice President Cheney was appearing everywhere trying very hard to suggest that there was a link between Iraq, Al Queda, and 9/11 - a claim that has been since proven false by the 9/11 Commission.
Why aren't both `red' and `blue' Americans outraged? Why aren't Americans in the streets protesting and screaming for the impeachment of a President who knew in July of 2002 that he and the British were going to invade Iraq and were searching for a pretext? At the latest count we are now 400 Billion dollars out of pocket. Almost 1,700 young Americans - husbands, wives, mothers, fathers - are all dead and their futures gone forever, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, and more than 20,000 American young people are permanently disabled or maimed for the rest of their lives - all for a war that was an unprovoked, unnecessary act of aggression. For what? To show dad how to do it right? For oil? For permanent bases in the Middle East? To put America on a war footing and win re-election? Who knows what?
It boggles my old and very tired mind. I genuinely do not understand why the Bush Administration is not being called to account for its evil deeds. Instead, we delude ourselves that it all has something to do with 9/11. We (who do not have to fight and die) puff up our chests like proud peacocks and pin flags on our lapels and paste yellow ribbons on our cars proclaiming "Support the Troops" - implying that anyone else who does not do likewise is unpatriotic and un-American. At the same time we do not hesitate to make our voices heard on abortion and gay marriages and demonstrate for `family values.' Where are our priorities? What about the `family values' of the 20,000 young Americans killed or maimed?
What has happened to America? Do we believe that since we are the most powerful country on earth that we can do whatever we want? That we are not bound by any law or any other code of decent behavior? How did we get to be so arrogant and militaristic, so unkind and vicious? Is this the "Christian Nation" that some would like us to have in America?
I am genuinely perplexed and perhaps appalled.
------------------------------------------------
Floyd Johnson describes himself as a depression-born, unreconstructed FDR-Democrat. He moved to Phoenix from London in 1975 after residing several years in Brussels and London. He received a Masters Degree from Thunderbird - The Garvin School of International Management in Glendale, Arizona in 1981. After 35 years in the computer industry, he was a used and rare book seller in Peoria, Arizona until his retirement in 2002.
------------------------------------------------