Before Downing Street's Meeting...
Topic: Even MORE British memos!
Well, if the Downing Street Memo hasn't raised enough curiosity wouldn't you know it that there is yet another memo!? I got this from the Washington Post, perhaps bringing back their A-Game due to the whole Deep Throat nostaglia?

"Memo: U.S. Lacked Full Postwar Iraq Plan
Advisers to Blair Predicted Instability"

So, right away you know there is nothing in this memo that is going to be suprising or leave you thinking you read something you didn't know. That being said, we are in an unfortunate place in our society where the stone cold facts, no matter their specific accuracy, are able to be denied, reinterpreted and otherwise batted away because in the end it seems our Adminiistration can do whatever the fuck it wants. Anyway, back to this new memo...

"A briefing paper prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top advisers eight months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the British memo predicted would be a "protracted and costly" postwar occupation of that country.

The eight-page memo, written in advance of a July 23, 2002, Downing Street meeting on Iraq, provides new insights into how senior British officials saw a Bush administration decision to go to war as inevitable, and realized more clearly than their American counterparts the potential for the post-invasion instability that continues to plague Iraq."

So, basically the Brits knew that we needed a post-war plan and also knew that we just didn't have one. All of this in 2002 BEFORE any of these decisions were supposedly made.

"In its introduction, the memo "Iraq: Conditions for Military Action" notes that U.S. "military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace," but adds that "little thought" has been given to, among other things, "the aftermath and how to shape it."

The July 21 memo was produced by Blair's staff in preparation for a meeting with his national security team two days later that has become controversial on both sides of the Atlantic since last month's disclosure of official notes summarizing the session."

So, this 'new' memo is two days older than the DSM, I wonder what they will end up dubbing this memo? The Phantom Memo? Speaking of Downing Street, I also learned something new that Rep. John Conyers is planning:

"The "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," said the memo -- an assertion attributed to the then-chief of British intelligence, and denied by U.S. officials and by Blair at a news conference with Bush last week in Washington. Democrats in Congress led by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), however, have scheduled an unofficial hearing on the matter for Thursday."

I don't know what an unofficial hearing can lead to but it's promising none-the-less that somebody is attempting to do something. I know there are senators concerned as well, here is a line from an e-mail Sen. Barack Obama sent me, "I agree the contents of the Downing Street memo are very troubling, and you can rest assured that I will be looking into this matter very closely. I suspect this subject will remain a topic of heated public debate for some time, and I certainly understand your concerns." I like Barack, he also recently gave another KICK ASS SPEECH at Knox College in Galesburg on June 4th. I highly recommend you take a few minutes to read it here: http://www.knox.edu/x9806.xml

Back to the Pre-Downing Street Minutes Memo...This new paper also reveals that our faithful allie seems to (dare I say it?) question the Bush administration! *GASP* (emphasis added)

"Now, disclosure of the memo written in advance of that meeting -- and other British documents recently made public -- show that Blair's aides were not just concerned about Washington's justifications for invasion but also believed the Bush team lacked understanding of what could happen in the aftermath.

In a section titled "Benefits/Risks," the July 21 memo states, "Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks."

Saying that "we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective," the memo's authors point out, "A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise." The authors add, "As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden."

Nice huh? At least we can have a little faith that while the Brits went along with this mess anyways at least they are not fucking nuts...LIKE US! No matter, again this isn't really a suprise as much as it's an official confirmation of what we already have assumed. This new memo is going to make it harder for Dubya and Co. to squirm out of now. The Post says that it got this stuff from one Michael Smith who writes for the The London Sunday Times and it has been confirmed and authenticated by anonymous British sources.

"The Bush administration's failure to plan adequately for the postwar period has been well documented. The Pentagon, for example, ignored extensive State Department studies of how to achieve stability after an invasion, administer a postwar government and rebuild the country. And administration officials have acknowledged the mistake of dismantling the Iraqi army and canceling pensions to its veteran officers -- which many say hindered security, enhanced anti-U.S. feeling and aided what would later become a violent insurgency.

Testimony by then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of Iraq policy, before a House subcommittee on Feb. 28, 2003, just weeks before the invasion, illustrated the optimistic view the administration had of postwar Iraq. He said containment of Hussein the previous 12 years had cost "slightly over $30 billion," adding, "I can't imagine anyone here wanting to spend another $30 billion to be there for another 12 years." As of May, the Congressional Research Service estimated that Congress has approved $208 billion for the war in Iraq since 2003."

How was Paul Wolfowitz punished for this ridiculous horseshit? That's right, he was given a new job in charge of the World bank! Yay! So, I wonder are there more specifics regarding the British doubts about this whole thing?

The British, however, had begun focusing on doubts about a postwar Iraq in early 2002, according to internal memos.

A March 14 memo to Blair from David Manning, then the prime minister's foreign policy adviser and now British ambassador in Washington, reported on talks with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. Among the "big questions" coming out of his sessions, Manning reported, was that the president "has yet to find the answers . . . [and] what happens on the morning after."

About 10 days later, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw wrote a memo to prepare Blair for a meeting in Crawford, Tex., on April 8. Straw said "the big question" about military action against Hussein was, "how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be any better," as "Iraq has no history of democracy."

Straw said the U.S. assessments "assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq's WMD [weapons of mass destruction] threat. But none has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured. . . ."

INteresting, no?

"The Blair government, unlike its U.S. counterparts, always doubted that coalition troops would be uniformly welcomed, and sought U.N. participation in the invasion in part to set the stage for an international occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, said British officials interviewed recently. London was aware that the State Department had studied how to deal with an invasion's aftermath. But the British government was "shocked," in the words of one official, "when we discovered that in the postwar period the Defense Department would still be running the show."

How can Bush or Blair answer to this shit with a straight face?! Well...Just like this...

"Neither Bush nor Blair has publicly challenged the authenticity of the July 23 memo, nor has Dearlove spoken publicly about it. One British diplomat said there are different interpretations.

Last week, it was the subject of questions posed to Blair and Bush during the former's visit to Washington.

Asked about Dearlove being quoted as saying that in the United States, intelligence was being "fixed around the policy" of removing Hussein by military action, Blair said, "No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all." He then went on to discuss the British plan, outlined in the memo, to go to the United Nations to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq.

Bush said he had read "characterizations of the memo," pointing out that it was released in the middle of Blair's reelection campaign, and that the United States and Britain went to the United Nations to exhaust diplomatic options before the invasion."

Troubling to say the least. Again I KNOW that we all KNOW that this is the way it went down yet our administration refuses to answer to this and continues to claim that their lies are somehow justified by this Freedom we are allegedly bring Iraq.

When this many people die for a lie...?

And just a cursory reminder, Bush says America and the world are safer because of our actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and our general "war on terrah." Here's some proof also from the Washington Post:

Rare Bomb Explosions Kill Nine in Iran

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
The Associated Press
Sunday, June 12, 2005; 1:25 PM

TEHRAN, Iran -- Four bombs exploded in the capital of an oil-rich province on the Iranian border with Iraq on Sunday, killing at least eight people and wounding at least 36, state-run television reported. Hours later, another bomb in central Tehran killed one person _ a spree coming just days before the nation's presidential vote.

The bombings were the deadliest in Iran in more than a decade.

Bomb Derails Train in Russia, Injuring 15 People

By Peter Finn
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, June 12, 2005; 12:36 PM

MOSCOW, June 12 -- A bomb derailed a train traveling between the Chechen capital of Grozny and Moscow Sunday morning, injuring 15 people. The incident could have been far more devastating had the train not been already slowing to take a curve when the device was detonated, Russian officials said.

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Insurgents fired mortar rounds at a funeral for the mother of one of Iraq's most senior police generals on Sunday, killing two people, and the Shiite-led government pressed the need to open talks with insurgent groups.

Four Palestinians Executed in Gaza Strip
By CHRISTINE HAUSER
Published: June 12, 2005

JERUSALEM, June 12 - Four Palestinian men convicted of murder were executed by hanging and firing squad in the Gaza Strip today, the Palestinian Interior Ministry said.

Terror convictions don't add up
White House claims 200, but analysis shows 39 such cases
By Dan Eggen and Julie Tate
The Washington Post
Published June 12, 2005

WASHINGTON -- On Thursday, President Bush stepped to a lectern at the Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy in Columbus to urge renewal of the USA Patriot Act and to boast of the government's success in prosecuting terrorists.

Flanked by Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales, Bush said that "federal terrorism investigations have resulted in charges against more than 400 suspects, and more than half of those charged have been convicted."

So yeah, we're fucking WINNING the war on terrah!