Monday, March 27, 2006

Bush Planned to Attack Iraq No Matter What

Headline in this morning’s New York Times: “Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says”. This is not really news. But it is proof that what we’ve always known to be true, is in fact true: By January 2003, George W. Bush had decided to attack Iraq even if he had to trump up a provocation. NYT reporter Don Van Natta, Jr. writes, “During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he (George W. Bush) made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapon…” Several excerpts of a memo written by Blair’s chief foreign policy advisor David Manning in 2003, were broadcast by the UK’s Channel 4 last February, Van Natta says. A British international law professor, Phillipe Sands, included highlights of the memo in a book published in January, “Lawless World”. But the full five-page memo had not been made public until now. The memo summarizes the January 31, 2003 discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six top aides and was stamped “extremely sensitive”. Van Natta says the memo has been reviewed by the NYT in its entirety. More from Van Natta’s article: “At several points during the meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair there was palpable tension over finding a legitimate legal trigger for going to war that would be acceptable to other nations, the memo said. The prime minister was quoted as saying it was essential for both countries to lobby for a second United Nations resolution against Iraq, because it would serve as "an insurance policy against the unexpected." One stunning revelation in the NYT article is that Bush and Blair kicked around possible ways of provoking a confrontation with Saddam Hussein in order to have a plausible excuse for attacking Iraq. Bush proposed “the US fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours…if Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach." President Bush also suggested, "The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam's W.M.D.” And Bush’s third idea was to assassinate Saddam Hussein. Van Natta’s penultimate paragraph says, “At a White House news conference following the closed-door session, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair said ‘the crisis’ had to be resolved in a timely manner. ‘Saddam Hussein is not disarming,’ the president told reporters. ‘He is a danger to the world. He must disarm. And that's why I have constantly said — and the prime minister has constantly said — this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months.’” So yeah…they’re liars. The people of Great Britain, the United States and the world got set up. The US is in debt up to its eyeballs until our grandchildren have grandchildren because two men (one tiny, the other mentally challenged) thought a war would make them look important. We’ve killed 2,323 fine soldiers because two subhumans thought a war was a dandy way to look good in the history books. But is the info in this memo a smoking gun? Is the memo evidence of war crimes? Can these assholes be prosecuted? The war in Iraq falls under a “crime against peace” and the "sovereignty" rule. The sovereignty rule means that it is a crime of aggression to use armed force with intent to overthrow the government of a state or to impede its freedom to act unhindered, as it sees fit, throughout its jurisdiction. We owe it to ourselves, to the soldiers Bush/Blair have killed, and to the world to bring war crimes actions against the men who started this unnecessary war in Iraq. And by the way, Condoleezza Rice was at the January 31, 2003 with Bush and Blair. Her very existence is a crime against humanity.

1 comment:

Barry Schwartz said...

I do disagree with those who say Bush should be tried at the Hague. That’s just a fallback; Bush should be tried in the United States under our own laws.