The White House memo - Bush and Blair discussed US Spyplane in UN colours to lure Saddam into war

channel4.com ^ | February 2, 2005 | Gary Gibbon

[RS]

"President Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."


LOL-

Sure that's what he said - simply ignoring the fact that the UN might actually realize " Hey, we don't own any of those " when they see the film.

[Jackson57]

President Bush said that he: "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." This will present a real quandry for the liberals. They'll either have to admit that this story is false OR admit that Bush is smart enough to use the word "internecine" ...

[Howlin]

has seen minutes from that meeting, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003.

BS.

[Sub-Driver]

what bunk........a human rights lawyer to boot.

[OkiMusashi]

"The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. " ??


LOL ... The US and UN didn't just "think" about it. Heck, they DID it. It was reported. The Iraqis even agreed to let the UN fly U2s. This is a repackaged old-news/new-news/ news story.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/Iraq/INA/iraq-ina-u2-021903.htm

[longtermmemmory]

"seen minutes" but does not have them.

So there is no way to know if the documents are fake.

The MSM is learning. Undocumented inuendo can not be disproven.

[mnehring]

Read between the lines:

The details are contained in a new version of the book 'Lawless World' written by a leading British human rights lawyer, Philippe Sands QC.
Motivation

Prime Minister Blair responded that he was: "solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam."
If Saddam wasn't armed, then why the need to disarm him?
One more nail against the left.

President Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
This actually is a little damning against the credibility of this document as Saddam has been in breach by firing on US aircraft since 92. We didn't need the UN aircraft to prove this breach.

"It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddam s WMD,
Again, I thought Bush knew WMDs didn't exist..


This is like the Downing Street memo.. if taken in full context, it actually defends our side.

[ravingnutter]

Got curious and looked up Blix's presentation to the UN Security Council on Jan 27, 2003, he mentions a U2:

While we now have the technical capability to send a U-2 plane placed at our disposal for aerial imagery and for surveillance during inspections and have informed Iraq that we planned to do so, Iraq has refused to guarantee its safety, unless a number of conditions are fulfilled. As these conditions went beyond what is stipulated in resolution 1441 (2002) and what was practiced by UNSCOM and Iraq in the past, we note that Iraq is not so far complying with our request. I hope this attitude will change.

Source

IOW, this story is bunk, the UN planned to send a U2.

[billhilly]

What is wrong with that? Isn't that what happened anyway? the United Nations failed to do anything. We led, along with the few allies who were willing.

[OldFriend]

The Downing Street Memo has run it's course. Time for a new set of nonsense from the left.

[oxcart]

Well done!

[Howlin]

Did Saddam even have anything that could have hit a spy plane?

[Jackson57]

Additionally, U2s don't fly with fighter cover. They fly high enough that they don't need it. Also, Hussein had already been firing on US and British aircraft in the no-fly zone very regularly. Why involve a U2?

[knak]

"The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach." Um, ok. That's the dumbest one yet. Is Bush not supposed to think the UN would know if they'd sent their planes or not? Duh.

[ravingnutter]

Thanks, that falls in line with my post #28, where Blix mentioned the U2 capability on Jan 27th to the UN Security Council. These people are idiots to think we would swallow a story like this without doing our research. Poor DUmmies, they are going to be drooling over this just to find out that they slipped and fell in their own spit again.

[longshadow]

*****President Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."*****

This actually is a little damning against the credibility of this document as Saddam has been in breach by firing on US aircraft since 92. We didn't need the UN aircraft to prove this breach.

Excellent point. But it gets even worse for this story: how exactly would fighters provide "cover" for a U2? The U2 operates at altitudes that are in excess of what fighters can fly! This story makes no sense at all.

[mnehring]

I am with you, just curious, isn't the F111a's ceiling around the U2's 70k?

[Robe]

[Canard]

"Where do they keep digging this stuff up from?"

Downing Street and, especially, the Foreign Office leak like sieves...

[longshadow]

sn't the F111a's ceiling around the U2's 70k?

A quick Google search shows the F-111 ceiling was 60k'+... and it isn't exactly what what you'd use in a Fighter "cover" role (it's more of a Fighter-Bomber)

BTW, one variant of the U2 was rated to 90k' +. I'm guessing the emphasis in the U2s is on the "+"...