Downing Street Memo
The Left is all aflutter over alleged documents that claim that the in July of 2002, the Bush administration was already planning to resume the war with Iraq.
Why “alleged document?” Because the person who claims to have seen the documents said he destroyed them.
The eight memos — all labeled “secret” or “confidential” — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Times.
Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.
So what’s the big deal?
Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.
Alleged Memo
Apparently the lefties don’t think that jives with this:
We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force
Bush: Radio Address: 3-8-2003
He didn’t disarm! If he had disarmed, and the war had gone ahead anyway, then maybe there’s an issue. But he didn’t disarm! There is no contradiction.
If you’ll recall, weapons violations was not the sole reason for invading Iraq. Something tells me that people don’t recall, so here’s a refresher.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
[...]
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
[...]
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
[...]
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President “to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677″;
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),” that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and “constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,” and that Congress, “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688″;
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Iraq War Resolution
I don’t know if the memo is real. Frankly, it doesn’t matter. Saddam has been violating the ceasefire and countless U.N. resolutions ever since we kicked him out of Kuwait. He had it coming. Period.
Now, if the point is that certain reasons for resuming war with Iraq (WMDs) were pushed, and others (human rights abuses, ceasefire violations) were not… that’s a valid point, be it a rather yawn-worthy one.
Consider the two headlines:
- BUSH WANTED TO INVADE IRAQ PRIOR TO WAR ON TERROR!
- FDR WANTED TO INVADE GERMANY PRIOR TO PEARL HARBOR!
Both are likely true. Both don’t matter in the least. Pearl Harbor was what it took for the American people to support involvement in WWII. The war on terror is what it took for the American people to support continuation of war with Iraq. That the wars were desired prior to the reason that allowed their public support is merely a footnote.
