(11 am. – promoted by ek hornbeck)
On Sept 11 2001 Condi Rice was already sure al Qaeda did the hijackings and attacks but was also Already Mentioning Iraq as being Involved, or hoping so! To me I keep seeing a picture forming that they weren’t interested At All in seeking out bin Laden nor even al Qaeda members, but Were Hell Bent On Regime Change In Iraq, which was already being discussed and pushed prior to Sept 11 2001. They had no concern for seeking out those who were a part of this extremely destructive criminal act against our Nation and it’s Citizens, nor seemingly concern or thought as to the victims of the three extremely destructive acts, Saddam was on their minds!!
George W. Bush and Tony Blair appeared to have “converged” on regime change in Iraq after talks at the U.S. president’s Texas ranch in April 2002, a former British ambassador to Washington said on Thursday.
“I know what the Cabinet Office says were the results of the meeting but to this day I am not entirely clear what degree of convergence was, if you like, signed in blood at the Crawford ranch,” Meyer told a British inquiry into the Iraq war.
“There are clues in the speech that Tony Blair gave the next day … To the best of my knowledge, I may be wrong, this was the first time that Tony Blair had said in public ‘regime change’,” Meyer said.
“What he was trying to do was to draw the lessons of 9/11 and apply them to the situation in Iraq which led — I think not inadvertently but deliberately — to a conflation of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.”
Meyer said that on Sept. 11, 2001, he spoke to Condoleezza Rice, then Bush’s national security adviser, who said there was no doubt the attack on America was an al Qaeda operation and agencies were looking into possible connections with Iraq.
The former ambassador said that the “unforgiving nature” of the military timetable for an invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not give time for U.N. weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix to do their job in Iraq.
“It was impossible to see how Blix could bring the inspection process to a conclusion, for better or worse, by March,” Meyer said.
“… you had to short-circuit the inspection process by finding the notorious smoking gun … We found ourselves scrabbling for the smoking gun, which was another way of saying ‘it’s not that Saddam has to prove that he’s innocent, we’ve now bloody well got to try and prove that he’s guilty.'”
“And we — the Americans, the British — have never really recovered from that because of course there was no smoking gun.”..>>>>>
From “The American Conservative”:
We are only two days in, and already we have “learned” that (for the benefit of the American market) there was no link to 9/11, that there were no WMD, and that Saddam Hussein would have been toppled by an internal coup anyway.
And why doesn’t everyone on the British Right who admires the American neoconservatives ask what it is about them that makes them so attractive to Tony Blair, of all people? If he loves them so much, then why do they? Likewise, to the Bush supporters now accruing to Palin, do some digging into Blair’s domestic record. If Bush loved Blair so much, then why did and why do you love Bush?…>>>>>
Sir Christopher Meyer’s evidence has surely made it impossible to claim that Iraq was about WMD and not regime change
At the Iraq inquiry this morning, Sir Christopher Meyer has let so many cats out of the bag that it is hard to keep up with them all. He has confirmed that by the time Tony Blair met George Bush at Crawford, Texas in April 2002, Blair had already agreed to regime change. Meyer and others had told the US administration about this change of heart in March 2002. The “UN route” was a way to justify the war but the inspectors were never given the chance to do their job.
Or did we know all that already? Ever since the war, there has been a massive gulf between what various leaked documents have shown and the official version. Previous inquiries have failed to close that gap. Now Meyer, who was the UK ambassador to Washington at the time, has done exactly that.
Meyer said that the plan initially worked perfectly, with the passing in November 2002 of UN security council resolution 1441, which put the emphasis on Saddam Hussein. The US hoped that it would provide a tripwire to justify war but it did not. As we know now, there were no WMD.
This turned 1441 on its head. The military timetable, with war slated for March 2003, did not allow the inspections to work. There was a desperate scrabble for a smoking gun and attention turned to claims of Iraqi non-co-operation. Unfortunately, in March 2003, Hans Blix reported increased co-operation.
It looks as if Sir John Chilcot was right – in Meyer’s case – to expect candour, given the mountain of evidence that the inquiry has. Meyer made clear that he was aware of these papers, none of which have yet been officially published. Unfortunately, Meyer said that many of his dispatches, warning of problems to come, are missing from the inquiry’s otherwise excellent archive, which is of course dependent on disclosure by the government.
It looks as if the cover-up is continuing, but being botched this time….>>>>>
Text of the Christopher Meyer Letter – March 18, 2002 memo from Christopher Meyer (UK ambassador to the US) to David Manning (UK Foreign Policy Advisor) recounting Meyer’s meeting with Paul Wolfowitz (US Deputy Secretary of Defense).
There was intrigue today from the moment it began – or didn’t. Sir Christopher Meyer was late for his appearance delaying the start for some 40 minutes. He stated that it was for “reasons almost out of my control.” Almost? What could he mean? He didn’t elaborate.
“That George Bush was Calling the Shots”
Anyway – he got straight into a fascinating account of his time as the UK’s man in Washington. And he didn’t disappoint.
His task was to explain the relationship between Bush and Blair, how that relationship developed and how the stance of both America and the UK changed towards Iraq between 2001 and the invasion in March 2003…>>>>>
After day three of the Iraq war inquiry, a picture is emerging of America’s determination to invade – and the details are getting the Twittersphere spinning.
He is famous for being the man sent to Washington to “get up the arse of the White House and stay there”.
But now Sir Christopher Meyer has told the Iraq war inquiry “there was a large chunk of time” in which no adviser was present as Tony Blair and George W Bush discussed the grounds on which to invade Iraq…>>>>>
The evidence on Iraq is now clear. The former PM was dizzied by Bush, and misled gullible MPs
The limitations of the Chilcot inquiry are obvious. It is a group of establishment trusties, evidence will not be on oath and the government is doing its best to keep key documents from the inquiry. Even yesterday, in the very first week of the inquiry, former British ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, mentioned four key documents that he knew existed but the Chilcot inquiry had not seen.
But despite everything, the truth is coming to light. One key revelation from Meyer’s evidence is that Washington decided they wanted to invade Iraq and then scrabbled around for supporting evidence. As he put it: “The real problem, which I did draw several times to the attention of London, was that the contingency military timetable had been decided before the UN inspectors went in under Hans Blix.” In other words, the inspections were a charade. The Americans were never much interested in the results. They had made up their minds…>>>>>
Chilcot inquiry: Tony Blair’s government never considered opting out or opposing George Bush’s plan to invade Iraq. Photograph: Luke Frazza/EPA
Tony Blair’s government decided up to a year before the Iraq invasion that it was “a complete waste of time” to resist the US drive to oust Saddam Hussein, opting instead to offer advice on how it should be done, the former British ambassador to Washington said today.
Sir Christopher Meyer, testifying to the Chilcot inquiry into Britain’s role in the war, made it clear that once the Bush administration decided to take military action, the Blair government never considered opting out or opposing it…>>>>>
The US had wanted to depose Saddam Hussein for years before the invasion, the war inquiry has heard. (AFP)
The Iraq war inquiry in London has been told that the United States’ insistence on going to war left Britain scrabbling for evidence of dangerous weapons to justify the invasion.
The former British ambassador to the United States, Sir Christopher Meyer, has been giving evidence on the third day of hearings.
Sir Christopher arrived in Washington in 1997 and held his role as chief conduit between London and Washington until 2003.
He told the inquiry that regime change in Iraq was US policy under the Democrats led by Bill Clinton.
He recalled conversations with the former US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz during which the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was first mentioned…>>>>>
They may be still trying to coverup some of what was going on, as mentioned earlier about talk of regime change long before 9/11, but with these pieces of information being spoken that coverup will fall apart rather rapidly, too many heads were in the game of criminality of the coming terror to be wrought on the Iraqi people and continuing on the Afghans as the drums beat away from al Qaeda and bin Laden!!
Iraq Inquiry Digest Everything about the Chilcot Inquiry in one place
Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war Follow the action as inquiry into one of the most contentious decisions of modern times begins hearing evidence