Posted on 02/02/2006 1:05:52 PM PST by presidio9
Tony Blair told President George Bush that he was "solidly" behind US plans to invade Iraq before he sought advice about the invasion's legality and despite the absence of a second UN resolution, according to a new account of the build-up to the war published today. A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme.
-snip-
The disclosures come in a new edition of Lawless World, by Phillipe Sands, a QC and professor of international law at University College, London. Professor Sands last year exposed the doubts shared by Foreign Office lawyers about the legality of the invasion in disclosures which eventually forced the prime minister to publish the full legal advice given to him by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith.
The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:
· Mr Bush told the Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".
· Bush even expressed the hope that a defector would be extracted from Iraq and give a "public presentation about Saddam's WMD". He is also said to have referred Mr Blair to a "small possibility" that Saddam would be "assassinated".
· Mr Blair told the US president that a second UN resolution would be an "insurance policy", providing "international cover, including with the Arabs"
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
"The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:"
Absolutely nothing, because prior to this week it only existed in Professor Sands' head.
'Zactly. Psssst...I saw a memo showing that the Guardian's editors eat babies.
I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
I'm going to ask them to have their readers target another swing state next election.
Those were other resolutions and didn't count. Didn't you do "do agains" as a kid?
That's as far as I got. I have no time for uneducated, liberal asshats that have NO idea of what they speak.
“The disclosures come in a new edition of Lawless World, by Phillipe Sands”
A newly released book with “startling” revelations – who would have thunk it?
Ah, but how many monkeys do you have? And how long will it be before the next blockbuster from William Shakespeare will come out?
"(PM backed invasion despite illegality)
That's as far as I got. I have no time for uneducated, liberal asshats that have NO idea of what they speak"
Well, it was Blair who placed so much store in the legality of his actions in International Law, so these are legitimate questions to ask of him. If he said "I don't care whether it's 'legal', I'm going to do what I consider to be the right thing", that would be a different matter.
No, they're not. It was a just war. Are you familiar with the 1st Gulf War? There were ultimately 18 resolutions inacted. If Saddam broke ANY of these, the war could resume as if it never ended. HE BROKE ALL 18
So, where's the illegality, hmmm?
Like I said, it was Tony Blair who said that the only lawful reason for invasion was the direct threat posed by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Not me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.