PDA

View Full Version : Bush to Blair: First Iraq, Then Saudi, Pakistan



Arjun
10-30-2005, 04:19 PM
Bush to Blair: First Iraq, Then Saudi
By Marie Woolf
Independent
October 16, 2005
George Bush told the Prime Minister two months before the invasion of Iraq that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea may also be dealt with over weapons of mass destruction, a top secret Downing Street memo shows.

The US President told Tony Blair, in a secret telephone conversation in January 2003 that he "wanted to go beyond Iraq".

He implied that the military action against Saddam Hussein was only a first step in the battle against WMD proliferation in a series of countries. Mr Bush said he "wanted to go beyond Iraq in dealing with WMD proliferation", says the letter on Downing Street paper, marked secret and personal.

No 10 said yesterday it would "not comment on leaked documents". But the revelation that Mr Bush was considering tackling other countries over WMD before the Iraq war has shocked MPs. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have been close allies of the US in the war against terror and have not been considered targets in relation to WMD.

The confidential memo recording the President's explosive remarks was written by Michael Rycroft, then the Prime Minister's private secretary and foreign policy adviser. He sent the two-page letter recording the conversation between the two leaders on 30 January 2003 to Simon McDonald, who was then private secretary to Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary. Mr Rycroft said it "must only be shown to those with a real need to know ".

The revelation that Mr Bush told the Prime Minister Iraq should be seen as a first step comes in the American edition of Lawless World, a book by the leading international lawyer Philippe Sands QC, who is also a professor of law at University College London and senior barrister at Matrix chambers, which he shares with Cherie Blair. "The conversation seems to indicate that Iraq was not seen as an isolated issue but as a first step in relation to a broader project," he said. "What is interesting is the mention of Saudi Arabia, which to the best of my knowledge had not at that time been identified particularly as a country with WMD. An alternative view is that the mention of Saudi Arabia indicates that the true objectives were not related exclusively to WMD."

The inclusion of Pakistan, also a key US ally, is also surprising, although there has in the past been concern about nuclear proliferation in that country. Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman, said the timing of the conversation was significant since it took place when Britain and the US were still trying to get a second UN resolution to make the legal case for the Iraq war watertight.

"If this letter accurately reflects the conversation between the President and the Prime Minister it will cause consternation, particularly in Saudi Arabia. American policy in the Middle East for decades has been based on support for Israel and an alliance with Saudi Arabia," he said. "If this was more than loose talk and represented a genuine policy intention it constitutes a radical change in American foreign policy."

Ms Wilmshurst said the trial, which begins this week, will be the first key test of whether the justice system can operate in Iraq. The lawyer, who is now the Senior Fellow at the think tank, Chatham House, says: "There will be no prospect of success for the democratic process in Iraq unless the rule of law can prevail. The trial of Saddam Hussein due to start on Wednesday, presents a test."



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

Asim Aquil
10-31-2005, 05:25 AM
Post the link please.

Ray asked me for this a few days back.

Alarming indeed, and undoubtebly we'd have to re-evaluate our American friends again. Whether or not they still hold such contentions would be closely observed by everyone in America and every American action from now on will be viewed through the lens of this leaked letter.

Ray
10-31-2005, 06:13 AM
Asim,

Alarming it is, but the options are just not there.

One has to just accept it as a fait accompli.

Lie down and enjoy it, so to say!

Asim Aquil
10-31-2005, 06:38 AM
Asim,

Alarming it is, but the options are just not there.

One has to just accept it as a fait accompli.

Lie down and enjoy it, so to say!

Options are in unity. If America sidelines us and wants to lump us in a list of its foes, then alliances of conveniences would be formed which would hurt American interests as well. The American population wouldn't allow it.

Options are in politics.

Ray
10-31-2005, 06:43 AM
You misunderstand me.

It is anytime now.

Don't tell me that I did not warn you!

Rein in the terrorist, or else Uncle Bush is coming! :eek:

Cellis
10-31-2005, 06:44 AM
hi Arjun
it's an assertive, i can say good article
this is very important article for me. i'd like to keep and share in some other communities also.
but i need source, could you give me the link if possible?

about the article, i think all of these possible but i'd like to add iran in the black list. nowadays most of theorists are talking about it.
Thanks

Asim Aquil
10-31-2005, 07:08 AM
I first read it on a blog as well as some Indian newspapers.

The blog had made this graphic with all the 4 nations flags and crosshairs on all of them. With the picture on the Iraqi flag reading "Error".

Asim Aquil
10-31-2005, 07:15 AM
You misunderstand me.

It is anytime now.

Don't tell me that I did not warn you!

Rein in the terrorist, or else Uncle Bush is coming! :eek:

Uncle Bush hasn't been able to reign in on the terrorists himself in Iraq. Couldn't do so in Afghanistan. Israel couldn't do it, Britain couldn't do it. India couldn't do it. Pakistan has done the most of all of them combined.

In the end its all about rethinking the strategy against the extremists. Terrorism comes from ideologies. Even if the people die, their ideologies live on. Pakistan has been harping on about this for a decade now... To attack the root causes of terrorism instead of always raking the leaves.

Ray
10-31-2005, 07:28 AM
OK.

Keep the ideologies burning.

Soon you won't have your hearth fires burning.

The difference of Iraq and Pakistan is that all countries around Iraq are Islamic and there are terrorist sympathisers, inspite of the Takiya position their governments take!

In the case of Paksitan, it is different.

Note: China has yet to help in the Earthquake relief. There is a report in the Pak paper which has been quoted in the WAB.

Asim Aquil
10-31-2005, 07:40 AM
OK.

Keep the ideologies burning.

Soon you won't have your hearth fires burning.

The difference of Iraq and Pakistan is that all countries around Iraq are Islamic and there are terrorist sympathisers, inspite of the Takiya position their governments take!

In the case of Paksitan, it is different.

Note: China has yet to help in the Earthquake relief. There is a report in the Pak paper which has been quoted in the WAB.

China was the 1st to help Pakistan. It's teams were all over with gear in the rescue effort. They were more focussed on the rescue part than relief.

However Xinhua reports their relief packages have gone upto $20Million so far.

One cannot demand. Whoever gives, just accept it politely.

Rishi
10-31-2005, 11:00 AM
One thing noteworthy about pakistanis is their attitude of licking chinese .
Say one thing about china and lo! you have all pakistanis from the mullahs to the terrorist generals everybody coming to its defence.they all become more chinese than the chinese.

The pakistanis always bitch about of "kafirs" but have no problem is licking the asses of the kafirs of the kafirs the godless chinese.they bitch about "muslim oppression" in kashmir,but help the "kafir" chinese in butchering muslims in xingiang.

Typical hypocrite morons.

Asim Aquil
10-31-2005, 11:42 AM
One thing noteworthy about pakistanis is their attitude of licking chinese .
Say one thing about china and lo! you have all pakistanis from the mullahs to the terrorist generals everybody coming to its defence.they all become more chinese than the chinese.

The pakistanis always bitch about of "kafirs" but have no problem is licking the asses of the kafirs of the kafirs the godless chinese.they bitch about "muslim oppression" in kashmir,but help the "kafir" chinese in butchering muslims in xingiang.

Typical hypocrite morons.

I think there are only two Pakistanis posting here. Me and Alif. I don't think I've called you down using the term Kafir ever. Has Alif?

Rishi
10-31-2005, 11:57 AM
I think there are only two Pakistanis posting here. Me and Alif. I don't think I've called you down using the term Kafir ever. Has Alif?

read my comments again.i talked about your country's phyche,not about you and ur jihadi compatriot.

Asim Aquil
10-31-2005, 11:59 AM
I don't think the Mullahs like the Chinese either, and I don't think the Generals can be called terrorists.

Aliph
10-31-2005, 11:59 AM
read my comments again.i talked about your country's phyche,not about you and ur jihadi pig compatriot.

This language is against forum rules. This is not Indian forum. Personal attacks are not allowed here. Respect Israeli forum you Indian.

Rishi
10-31-2005, 12:01 PM
This language is against forum rules. This is not Indian forum.

oops sorry my jihadi friend :p .i changed my language.refresh it again.

KettleWhistle
10-31-2005, 01:34 PM
Here's the link: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article319993.ece

Sounds like sensantionalist junk.


"If this letter accurately reflects the conversation between the President and the Prime Minister it will cause consternation, particularly in Saudi Arabia. American policy in the Middle East for decades has been based on support for Israel and an alliance with Saudi Arabia," he said. "If this was more than loose talk and represented a genuine policy intention it constitutes a radical change in American foreign policy."

The U.S. policy in the region is based on far more than that. The relationship with SA is not any sort of an alliance. It is a business relationship.

Additionally, the U.S. supports pretty much every country in the region. Egypt is the #2 recipient of the U.S. aid. Palestinians get more money from the U.S. than from any other entity. The U.S. also supports Jordan, Kuwait, and Yemen. Don't know about other countries, but certainly there are a few more.

Rishi
10-31-2005, 02:16 PM
Here's the link: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article319993.ece

Sounds like sensantionalist junk.



The U.S. policy in the region is based on far more than that. The relationship with SA is not any sort of an alliance. It is a business relationship.

Additionally, the U.S. supports pretty much every country in the region. Egypt is the #2 recipient of the U.S. aid. Palestinians get more money from the U.S. than from any other entity. The U.S. also supports Jordan, Kuwait, and Yemen. Don't know about other countries, but certainly there are a few more.

you are forgetting the number one terrorist scum pakistan which always had a "business relationship" with us.

Arjun
10-31-2005, 03:15 PM
Bush to Blair: First Iraq, Then Saudi
Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2005-10-17 10:37. Evidence
By Marie Woolf
The Independent UK
Sunday 16 October 2005

George Bush told the Prime Minister two months before the invasion of Iraq that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea may also be dealt with over weapons of mass destruction, a top secret Downing Street memo shows.

The US President told Tony Blair, in a secret telephone conversation in January 2003 that he "wanted to go beyond Iraq".

He implied that the military action against Saddam Hussein was only a first step in the battle against WMD proliferation in a series of countries.

Mr Bush said he "wanted to go beyond Iraq ......................................

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3730

Arjun
10-31-2005, 03:17 PM
Here's the link: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article319993.ece

Sounds like sensantionalist junk.



The U.S. policy in the region is based on far more than that. The relationship with SA is not any sort of an alliance. It is a business relationship.

Additionally, the U.S. supports pretty much every country in the region. Egypt is the #2 recipient of the U.S. aid. Palestinians get more money from the U.S. than from any other entity. The U.S. also supports Jordan, Kuwait, and Yemen. Don't know about other countries, but certainly there are a few more.


Oily relationships/alliances are very slippery!!