The Downing Street memos just keep flowing and the tide is growing stronger against Bush and Blair. When now not only have the "smoking gun" but we have the bullet holes, the bullet fagments and some 1,700 dead bodies.
Here's the latest from the Times of London and from Shakespeare's Sister blog:
The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.
The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal (**GOI Comment: In other words, "cook the books" to create a war).
The document said the only way the allies could justify military action was to place Saddam Hussein in a position where he ignored or rejected a United Nations ultimatum ordering him to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. But it warned this would be difficult.“It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject,” the document says. But if he accepted it and did not attack the allies, they would be “most unlikely” to obtain the legal justification they needed.
The suggestions that the allies use the UN to justify war contradicts claims by Blair and Bush, repeated during their Washington summit last week, that they turned to the UN in order to avoid having to go to war. The attack on Iraq finally began in March 2003.
***GOI Comment: "The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal."
I find this segment to be the most damning and distrubing of the article. "Since regime change was illegal it was 'necessary to create the conditions' which to make it legal."
This reminds me of stories from inside the mafia where "captains" and "bosses" provide a cover/front plan to justify a policy or "operation" that is illegal in it's true nature.
Oh yes and let's not forget that the Bush/Republican platform was looking for regime change in Iraq as early as 2000.
This from After Downing Street:
If Bush was still seeking to peacefully persuade Saddam Hussein to eliminate his nonexistent weapons of mass destruction during the period when Bush's own public statements, those of his staff, and official minutes of secret meetings say otherwise, how does he justify having been so disloyal to the 2000 Republican Party Platform?
Excerpted from the Republican party platform for the 2000 election, available from CNN.
We support the full implementation of the Iraq Liberation Act, which should be regarded as a starting point in a comprehensive plan for the removal of Saddam Hussein and the restoration of international inspections in collaboration with his successor. Republicans recognize that peace and stability in the Persian Gulf is impossible as long as Saddam Hussein rules Iraq.
Hmmm. Fascinatin' don't ya think?
I think it is time to impeach Bush, dissolve his entire government and hold a special, presidential election because Cheney is just as much to blame as Bush.
---End of Transmission---