SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: lurqer who wrote (41529)4/6/2004 12:40:19 PM
From: Kip518  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Bush and Blair Made Secret Pact for Iraq War 9 Days After 9/11
By David Rose
The Observer

Sunday 04 April 2004

Decision came nine days after 9/11
Ex-ambassador reveals discussion

President George Bush first asked Tony Blair to support the removal of Saddam Hussein from power at a private White House dinner nine days after the terror attacks of 11 September, 2001.

According to Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to Washington, who was at the dinner when Blair became the first foreign leader to visit America after 11 September, Blair told Bush he should not get distracted from the war on terror's initial goal - dealing with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Bush, claims Meyer, replied by saying: 'I agree with you, Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.' Regime change was already US policy.

It was clear, Meyer says, 'that when we did come back to Iraq it wouldn't be to discuss smarter sanctions'. Elsewhere in his interview, Meyer says Blair always believed it was unlikely that Saddam would be removed from power or give up his weapons of mass destruction without a war.

Faced with this prospect of a further war, he adds, Blair 'said nothing to demur'.

Details of this extraordinary conversation will be published this week in a 25,000-word article on the path to war with Iraq in the May issue of the American magazine Vanity Fair. It provides new corroboration of the claims made last month in a book by Bush's former counter-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke, that Bush was 'obsessed' with Iraq as his principal target after 9/11.

But the implications for Blair may be still more explosive. The discussion implies that, even before the bombing of Afghanistan, Blair already knew that the US intended to attack Saddam next, although he continued to insist in public that 'no decisions had been taken' until almost the moment that the invasion began in March 2003. His critics are likely to seize on the report of the two leaders' exchange and demand to know when Blair resolved to provide the backing that Bush sought.

The Vanity Fair article will provide further ammunition in the shape of extracts from the private, contemporaneous diary kept by the former International Development Secretary, Clare Short, throughout the months leading up to the war. This reveals how, during the summer of 2002, when Blair and his closest advisers were mounting an intense diplomatic campaign to persuade Bush to agree to seek United Nations support over Iraq, and promising British support for military action in return, Blair apparently concealed his actions from his Cabinet.

For example, on 26 July Short wrote that she had raised her 'simmering worry about Iraq' in a meeting with Blair, asking him for a debate on Iraq in the next Cabinet meeting - the last before the summer recess. However, the diary went on, Blair replied that this was unnecessary because 'it would get hyped ... He said nothing [was] decided, and wouldn't be over summer.'

In fact, that week Blair's foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, was in Washington, meeting both Bush and his National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, in order to press Blair's terms for military support, and Blair himself had written a personal memorandum to the President in which he set them out. Vanity Fair quotes a senior American official from Vice-President Dick Cheney's office who says he read the transcript of a telephone call between Blair and Bush a few days later.

'The way it read was that, come what may, Saddam was going to go; they said they were going forward, they were going to take out the regime, and they were doing the right thing. Blair did not need any convincing. There was no, "Come on, Tony, we've got to get you on board". I remember reading it and then thinking, "OK, now I know what we're going to be doing for the next year".'

Before the call, this official says, he had the impression that the probability of invasion was high, but still below 100 per cent. Afterwards, he says, 'it was a done deal'.

As late as 9 September, Short's diary records, when Blair went to a summit with Bush and Cheney at Camp David in order to discuss final details, 'T[ony] B[lair] gave me assurances when I asked for Iraq to be discussed at Cabinet that no decision [had been] made and [was] not imminent.' Later that day she learnt from the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, that Blair had asked to make 20,000 British troops available in the Gulf. She still believed her Prime Minister's assurances, but wrote that, if had she not done so, she would 'almost certainly' have resigned from the Government. At that juncture her resignation would have dealt Blair a very damaging blow.

But if Blair was misleading his own Government and party, he appears to have done the same thing to Bush and Cheney. At the Camp David meeting, Cheney was still resisting taking the case against Saddam and his alleged weapons of mass destruction to the UN.

According to both Meyer and the senior Cheney official, Blair helped win his argument by saying that he could be toppled from power at the Labour Party conference later that month if Bush did not take his advice. The party constitution makes clear that this would have been impossible and senior party figures agree that, at that juncture, it was not a politically realistic statement.

Short's diary shows in the final run-up to war Blair persuaded her not to resign and repeatedly stated that Bush had promised it would be the UN, not the American-led occupying coalition, which would supervise the reconstruction of Iraq. This, she writes, was the clinching factor in her decision to stay in the Government - with devastating consequences for her own political reputation.

Vanity Fair also discloses that on 13 January, at a lunch around the mahogany table in Rice's White House office, President Chirac's top adviser, Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, and his Washington ambassador, Jean-David Levitte, made the US an offer it should have accepted. In the hope of avoiding an open breach between the two countries, they said that, if America was determined to go to war, it should not seek a second resolution, that the previous autumn's Resolution 1441 arguably provided sufficient legal cover, and that France would keep quiet if the administration went ahead.

But Bush had already promised Blair he would seek a second resolution and Blair feared he might lose Parliament's support without it. Meanwhile, the Foreign Office legal department was telling him that without a second resolution war would be illegal, a view that Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, seemed to share at that stage. When the White House sought Blair's opinion on the French overture, he balked.

A Downing Street spokesman said last night: 'Iraq had been a foreign policy priority for a long time and was discussed at most meetings between the two leaders. Our position was always clear: that we would try to work through the UN, and a decision on military action was not taken until other options were exhausted in March last year.'

truthout.org



To: lurqer who wrote (41529)4/6/2004 12:45:38 PM
From: lurqer  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
For those that haven't been watching Central Asia, here's an update - with an interesting note about Yee at the end.

BUSH AND THE UZBEK COMMUNISTS

Eric S. Margolis

NEW YORK - After a wave of bombings and attacks across Uzbekistan left 40 dead last week, the Bush Administration quickly offered the strategic Central Asian state help in `fighting Islamic terrorism.'

Uzbekistan plays a key role in White House plans to dominate key Central Asian oil producing states — the region I call `Petrolistan.'.

The new US air base in Uzbekistan at Khanabad is the lynchpin of a network of American bases in neighboring Tajikistan, Kyrgystan. Afghanistan and Pakistan guarding the planned pipelines exporting oil from great Caspian Oil Basin.

Khanabad is a vital stepping stone in this new strategic `imperial lifeline' beginning at bases in Germany, Bulgaria and Romania, heading eastward to bases in Iraq and Qatar, then to South and Central Asia. The air bridge is designed to speed highly mobile US forces to trouble spots across the Muslim World, serving the same military function as did roads to Rome's legions and Suez to the British Empire's maritime power.

Uzbekistan, hailed by the White House as `our partner in the global war against terrorism,' is a favored US ally and aid recipient. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says relations between the US and Uzbekistan are `growing stronger every month.'

Russians, however, have long called the communist despots who rule Soviet Central Asia `Red Mafia' and `Red Sultans.' Aptly, because these regimes combine Stalinism's extreme brutality with the Mafia's criminality, clannishness and rapacity.

The Bush Administration's shameful tryst with Uzbekistan shows how the fake `war on terrorism' has allowed some US allies and vassals to massively abuse human rights under the banner of fighting terrorism.

Numerous rights groups — most lately Human Rights Watch — accuse the brutal totalitarian regime of Uzbekistan's President for Life Islam Karimov of being one of the world's worst abusers of human rights. All political opposition parties have been outlawed as `Islamic terrorists.' Free speech banned, newspapers censored, mosques and religious institutions put under secret police control. My extensive travels across Uzbekistan, which took me from the grave of the conqueror Tamerlane(Timur) in Samarkand to the fabled desert oasis of Khiva, revealed one of the most repressive police states I had seen.

Uzbekistan holds over 7,000 political prisoners in under unspeakable conditions — more political prisoners than held in the Soviet gulag during the 1980's. Human rights groups report that Prisoners are subjected to electric torture, burning with blowtorches, boiling alive, gang rapes, acid baths, and other atrocities.

Ironically, President Bush keeps trying to justify invading Iraq by citing Saddam's `torture chambers and rape rooms' while ignoring the horrors in Uzbekistan.

The Bush Administration rejects normal relations with communist Cuba because of its sorry human rights record and political prisoners. Cuba holds about 350 political prisoners. The US's new best friend, communist Uzbekistan, an infinitely more brutal, despotic tyranny than Cuba, holds over 7,000 prisoners.

America's other allies and satraps across the Muslim World also tolerate no real opposition; anyone stepping out of line is immediately jailed. Patrick Seale, one of the finest journalists covering the Mideast, recently observed this has created a dangerous political void — and terrorism. Al-Qaida, Hizbullah, Hamas…`have stepped into the vacuum created by the failure of Arab governments to stand up to Israel and protect their countries from Western pressure.' In other words, privatization of failed state policy.

An inevitable reaction to Karimov's despotic regime has been growing armed resistance by the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU). After 9/11, the US wrongly declared the IMU a terrorist organization, attacked its Afghan bases, and reportedly killed its deputy leader, Juma Namangani, and threw scores of IMU fighters into the Guantanamo gulag. The IMU, and other local militants, all branded `terrorist groups,' seek to overthrow Central Asia's communist regimes, or liberate Sinkiang from repressive Chinese rule.

Washington has been blasting Pakistan over its black market dealings in nuclear components. President George Bush urgently needs senior al-Qaida leaders captured or killed before November elections. So a deal was struck: Islamabad agreed to attack supposed concentration of IMU and al-Qaida militants in South Waziristan.

After a lot of wild claims about killing or wounding Al-Qaida leader Ayam al-Zawahiri and IMU chief Tahir Yuldash, Musharraf's copycat war on terrorism resulted in the deaths of about 100 local Pashtun tribesmen, and dangerous unrest in the traditionally autonomous tribal belt. Pakistan's army was seen imitating the Israeli Army in the West Bank and Gaza by bulldozing homes of suspects.

Small wonder so many Pakistanis were deeply upset by the Waziristan raids, coming as the did after the abandonment of the Kashmir liberation struggle and backstabbing old allies, like Taliban and IMU, to placate Washington.

The US seems to have learned nothing from the Cold War, when all sorts of dictatorial regimes and massive human rights violations were condoned under the banner of fighting communism. In fact, the Bush Administration is showing the same kind of knee-jerk reaction to the accusation `terrorist' that US governments did in the 50's and 60's to accusations of communism.

Today, any group forced to take up arms against intolerable injustice is automatically branded by Washington, guardian of the status quo, `terrorists.' The IMU, Chechen independence fighters, Nepalese Maoists, Hizbullah, Hamas, Kashmiri independence fighters, and Filipino separatists are recent additions. Talk about picking fights where no important US interests are involved.

Fighting Uzbekistan's Stalinist regime is not terrorism, it is liberation of an oppressed people. By supporting despotism for the sake of oil and anti-Islamic crusader ideology, the US is putting itself on the wrong side of justice and history.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Follow-up: Re Capt. James Yee, the persecuted Muslim chaplain this column called the `American Capt Dreyfus,' accused of treason and spying. The US Army has dropped all charges against Yee.

bigeye.com

lurqer



To: lurqer who wrote (41529)4/6/2004 4:02:51 PM
From: T L Comiskey  Respond to of 89467
 
Im Thinking ..
that if George
looks under his desk long enough..he may find the guilty party who OUTED the CIA Agent.

T