Inevitable

In the Los Angeles Times last Thursday, there was an editorial by Michael Smith, defense writer for the Sunday Times of London, and the person who first reported on the Downing Street Memos.

In this editorial, he opines that, to him, the most important document that he saw was not the one most people are familiar with - the one that states that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." As damning as that is, the one he regards as the real 'smoking gun' is the one that asserts that

"the UK would support military action to bring about regime change." Because this was illegal, the officials noted, it was "necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action."

Their first plan was to have the UN issue an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein in language so harsh that Saddam would reject it, thus giving the US and Britain a 'legal' justification to attack Iraq. However, Saddam did not reject it, and allowed the weapons inspectors in, although the media told us otherwise.

What came next was 'Plan B'.

This plan involved stepping up bombing raids ('spikes of activity', in military double-speak) on Iraq, in an attempt to goad Saddam into retaliating. This also did not get the desired response, so the US and Britain intensified the bombing - all without Congress' knowledge or approval.

As Michael Smith says,

"In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq.

The way in which the intelligence was "fixed" to justify war is old news.

The real news is the shady April 2002 deal to go to war, the cynical use of the U.N. to provide an excuse, and the secret, illegal air war without the backing of Congress."

There's something to chew on...