|
I actually retrieved it from a box. You might find a copy at a library. Authors are Bryan Burrough, Evgenia Peretz, David Rose and David Wise. It has a lot of interesting points.
From the point of view of the chronology, everything revolved around the date February 5, 2003, the day Colin Powell (supported by Tenet sitting next to him on the podium) went to the U.N. with the "evidence" supporting Bush's case for war, which the Blair memo debunks. p. 230.
At page 283, the article tells that BLAIR VISITED BUSH IN CRAWFORD IN APRIL 2002 and "made clear that he would back whatever America decided about Iraq." The article states that, IN JULY 2002, Blair's attorney general, Lord Goldsmith insisted that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal without the support of UN, that "Blair would need to demonstrate that the threat to British national security was real and imminent," in short, that "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction." p. 283. The Blair memo confirms what Vanity Fair reported last year.
Blair sent his chief foreign-policy adviser, Sir David Manning to meet with Rice, possibly in LATE JULY 2002 OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER. p. 283. Bush called Rice into his office while Manning was there, and Manning told the president directly that Blair wanted to go through the UN. pp. 238-84. A few days later, Bush spoke to Blair on the phone, and "a White House official who has studied the transcript of the phone call" said that, at that time, "SEVERAL DAYS AFTER MANNINGS VISIT," SOMETIME AROUND END OF JULY OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER (UNCERTAIN DATE), Blair and Bush agreed that "Saddam was going to go; . . . they were going forward, they were going to take out the regime, and they were doing the right thing." p. 284. After that call, the official said that going into Iraq was "a done deal."
The die had been cast. The whole UN route was a ruse to try to legitimize the war. It would have worked except that it was, from the very beginning, just a way to make an illegal act look legal.
The article describes the demands Bush made on Saddam as "so Draconian that Saddam could never accept them, thereby creating a trigger for war." p. 286. It would have required Saddam to allow, not just the UN inspectors, but "representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council, as well as military forces from those countries" who would follow the inspectors around, for instance. p. 286. The problem was that the French balked at the UN proposal and its "hidden trigger" that would lead automatically to war without UN approval. pp. 286-287. The Vanity Fair article describes how the French objections were handled -- or, more appropriately, strong-armed. pp. 286-287.
Hans Blix delivered his first report to the UN on January 27, 2003. p. 289. It was pro-war. Blix reported that Iraq had not accounted for certain chemical and biological warfare substances that it had possessed and that Iraq had missiles that violated UN restrictions and that Iraq refused to let the inspectors use U-2 surveillance planes. p. 298.
Powell's speech was February 5, 2003. p. 298. The "evidence" behind that speech is discussed at page 298. It explains that Powell was not informed of facts that placed his "evidence" in doubt, and that his speech contained many errors (as we now know, since he said there was evidence that Iraq had WMDs, and Iraq did not have them). p. 298.
Following Powell's speech, and the reason it is so pivotal, "on February 14, Hans Blix appeared once more before the Security council, and his findings contradicted Powells." p. 290. Blix completely debunked much of Powell's "evidence," and stated "that Iraq was finally taking steps toward real cooperation with the inspectors, allowing them to enter Iraq presidential palaces, among other previously proscribed sites." p. 290.
(I add, that, shortly after this, Saddam allowed Dan Rather to interview him and, looking straight into the camera, without flinching, denied that he had WMDs.)
After the invasion, Americans soon realized that there were no WMDs. pp. 293-294.
The UN route was a hoax, and the evidence of that has been public since at least May 2003. The Blair memo corroborates that evidence. Anyone who says they don't "agree" with the memo (McCain) is either misinformed or purposely spreading lies.
|