# This is interesting. Bush and Blair really did intend war. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 3, 2006, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-bush-and-blair-really-did-intend-war/342907 "2006-02-03T22:16:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-bush-and-blair-really-did-intend-war/342907/1 "2006-02-03T22:16:41Z")
Today’s online edition of _The Guardian_ offers this headlined story: [Blair-Bush deal before Iraq war revealed in secret memo](http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1700881,00.html). Some choice extracts: > [@](#): > > 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 UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme. > > [snip] > > The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals: > > · Mr Bush told 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]”. > > [snip] > > · Mr Bush told the prime minister that he “thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups”. Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book. > > The revelation that Mr Blair had supported the US president’s plans to go to war with Iraq even in the absence of a second UN resolution contrasts with the assurances the prime minister gave parliament shortly after. On February 25 2003 - three weeks after his trip to Washington - Mr Blair told the Commons that the government was giving “Saddam one further, final chance to disarm voluntarily”. Caveat: The source? > [@](#): > > 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. So this may fairly be said to be a source not free of bias. And he’s got a new edition of his book to flog. Nevertheless, > [@](#): > > Downing Street did not deny the existence of the memo last night, but said: “The prime minister only committed UK forces to Iraq after securing the approval of the House of Commons in a vote on March 18, 2003.” It added the decision to resort to military action to ensure Iraq fulfilled its obligations imposed by successive security council resolutions was taken only after attempts to disarm Iraq had failed. “Of course during this time there were frequent discussions between the UK and US governments about Iraq. We do not comment on the prime minister’s conversations with other leaders.” So, the memo cited appears to be genuine, and Downing Street’s response to the implications of its content is, shall we say, an exercise in sidestepping of the main point. And now, the Pitting: You fucking apologists for the Bush administration, you who insisted they weren’t lying to us, they really did believe there were WMD and that’s why the invasion was necessary, who lapped up Colin Powell’s UN speech, who’ve spent the last couple of years sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “BUSH DIDN’T LIE” – gonna brush this one off too? Got any more contortions you can twist yourself into to explain this away? How about it, huh? At long last, have you enough decency to admit you were wrong? That the fix was in, Bush wanted his Iraq adventure no matter what it took, even to “flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours”? You diehards are contemptible. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-bush-and-blair-really-did-intend-war/342907/2 "2006-02-03T22:20:30Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > Nevertheless, So, the memo cited appears to be genuine It’s called a Jump to Cnclusions mat! ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-bush-and-blair-really-did-intend-war/342907/3 "2006-02-03T22:23:09Z")
Hey, I said “appears”, given Downing Street’s not disavowing it. I also pointed out the likely bias of the source. Got evidence to discredit the document or the author? Bring 'em on, I’d like to know how much reliance to place in this, because if it’s genuine it is damning. ---
**Author:** ![jlzania](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/67e7ee/32.png) [@jlzania](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jlzania)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-bush-and-blair-really-did-intend-war/342907/4 "2006-02-03T22:40:18Z")
Here’s my thinking on the Bush apologists, **EFT** Let’s assume you originally support the invasion of Iraq in good faith because you believed everything you were told unquestioningly. As the evidence that you were lied to piles up, you have two choices. Choice the First: Admit you were duped. Now, no one likes to admit that they’ve been fooled (although being fooled is certainly not the same thing as being a fool). However, with your admission comes the knowledge that your support of the war has gotten over 2000 Americans killed and unknown number injured. That’s a large burden of guilt to bear and requires direct action to end the war. Which is why Choice the Second is much more palatable to many Bush supporters-deny, deny, deny. I’ve seen this with families that have lost their childrenin Iraq. They’re furious but they direct their anger at the peaceful anti-war protestors. Why? Because it’s a whole lot easy thanacknowledging that they supported a lie and now their child is dead forever. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-bush-and-blair-really-did-intend-war/342907/5 "2006-02-03T23:17:28Z")
> [@jlzania](#): > > That’s a large burden of guilt to bear and requires direct action to end the war. > Which is why Choice the Second is much more palatable to many Bush supporters-deny, deny, deny. This is compounded by the maneuver that it is silly to pretend it was not planned also before hand: Constantly “catapulting the propaganda” that adds the foolish Iraq war to the justified war against terror in Afghanistan. As the last state of the union address showed, the administration is still demagogically homogenizing the two wars and they calculated that no republican of consequence would ever raise a peep against conjoining the different wars. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-bush-and-blair-really-did-intend-war/342907/6 "2006-02-03T23:22:50Z")
> [@jlzania](#): > > Here’s my thinking on the Bush apologists, **EFT** > Let’s assume you originally support the invasion of Iraq in good faith because you believed everything you were told unquestioningly. > As the evidence that you were lied to piles up, you have two choices. > Choice the First: Admit you were duped. > Now, no one likes to admit that they’ve been fooled (although being fooled is certainly not the same thing as being a fool). > However, with your admission comes the knowledge that your support of the war has gotten over 2000 Americans killed and unknown number injured. > That’s a large burden of guilt to bear and requires direct action to end the war. > Which is why Choice the Second is much more palatable to many Bush supporters-deny, deny, deny. > > I’ve seen this with families that have lost their childrenin Iraq. > They’re furious but they direct their anger at the peaceful anti-war protestors. > Why? > Because it’s a whole lot easy thanacknowledging that they supported a lie and now their child is dead forever. Oh, lordy, lordy. How many people think that the bulk of the Bush apologists that come into this thread, rather than address the allegations of the OP, will attack **jlzania** ’s post with accusations of “broad brush,” and “mind reader”? ---
**Author:** ![jlzania](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/67e7ee/32.png) [@jlzania](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jlzania)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-bush-and-blair-really-did-intend-war/342907/7 "2006-02-03T23:45:50Z")
You know, this is\* my \* thinking on the issue based on a number of \* personal \* observations. I may well be slammed but heh-comes with the territory, doesn’t it? However, I wasn’t trying to deflect attention from the OP and if I did, I apologize. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2006, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-bush-and-blair-really-did-intend-war/342907/8 "2006-02-03T23:52:02Z")
Sunk cost fallacy. We’ve come too far to quit. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-bush-and-blair-really-did-intend-war/342907/9 "2006-02-04T00:08:05Z")
> [@jlzania](#): > > You know, this is\* my \* thinking on the issue based on a number of \* personal \* observations. > I may well be slammed but heh-comes with the territory, doesn’t it? > However, I wasn’t trying to deflect attention from the OP and if I did, I apologize. On the contrary, you’ve offered the only rationale for the apologists that incorporates any excuse for it, IMO. I can understand that the agony of grief would overthrow the ability to think clearly about why such a cruel loss had to happen. Anyone got the over/under on when an apologist drops in to post: ":rolleyes: Ho-hum, another BUSH IS TEH SUXXOR!!!11one thread. :rolleyes: " ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-bush-and-blair-really-did-intend-war/342907/10 "2006-02-04T00:24:04Z")
Seems like as good a time as any to mention this one again. During the run-up to the invasion, a good friend of mine was chief financial officer of a major wild-well control contractor based in Houston. In October 2002, representatives of his company, and several others, were invited to a US Army headquarters in Florida (Central Command?) where an Army general and a couple of civilian staff from the Bush Administration gave a presentation on the possible scenarios for a Kuwait-style sabotaging of Iraqi oilfields by a retreating Iraqi army, and to hammer out contingency contracts should the well control companies be needed. So far so good; unlike some other aspects of the invasion, the administration was at least considering contingencies, right? Well, the thing that gave me pause, and that struck my friend to the point that he commented on it, was that the officials, to a man, took the invasion as a given; that is, it was going to come off no matter what. OK, granted this is anecdotal, third-hand, and I can’t personally verify the story from another source. Nevertheless, I am firmly convinced that anyone who believes the Bush Aministration’s claims that they only went into Iraq as some sort of last resort, must be very naive indeed. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-bush-and-blair-really-did-intend-war/342907/11 "2006-02-04T00:30:11Z")
> [@jlzania](#): > > You know, this is\* my \* thinking on the issue based on a number of \* personal \* observations. > I may well be slammed but heh-comes with the territory, doesn’t it? > However, I wasn’t trying to deflect attention from the OP and if I did, I apologize. No apology necessary, IMHO. I’m _hoping_ that they’ll be too embarrassed to be so transparent, now that I’ve mentioned it. The past so often does turn out to be precedent, though, doesn’t it? ☹ \<_le sigh_\> ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-bush-and-blair-really-did-intend-war/342907/12 "2006-02-04T00:39:41Z")
By the way, **ETF** a tip o’ the slow guy’s hat on the way your thread title parallels ol’ **Humpy’s** so nicely. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-bush-and-blair-really-did-intend-war/342907/13 "2006-02-04T00:54:57Z")
> [@jlzania](#): > > Here’s my thinking on the Bush apologists, **EFT** > Let’s assume you originally support the invasion of Iraq in good faith because you believed everything you were told unquestioningly. > As the evidence that you were lied to piles up, you have two choices. > Choice the First: Admit you were duped. > > \ > > Choice the Second is much more palatable to many Bush supporters-deny, deny, deny. > \ I believe you’re may be overlooking another, more classic reaction: the ends justifies the means. Whatever lies, misinformation, poor intellligence, or the fact the government was simply looking for a reason to invade Iraq, is of little or no consequence because Saddam was removed from power and democracy was spread to the middle east. By only looking at the ends, it makes the means less important. This seems to be the thinking of a majority of conservatives I’ve talked to about these things. And they do have an iota of a point. Saddam was a murderous, evil tyrant and the world, and Iraq, are better off without him in power (at least for now). And the more democracy in the world better (at least for now). So, some good was accomplished. The problem I see with this view is that it ignores the costs, in money, world peace, and, most importantly, American lives. But most conservatives I speak with seem to take solace in the fact that the true outcome of this war in Iraq won’t be known for another couple decades, so the lead up to the problems leading up to the war becomes less and less important. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-bush-and-blair-really-did-intend-war/342907/14 "2006-02-04T01:14:56Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Oh, lordy, lordy. > > How many people think that the bulk of the Bush apologists that come into this thread, rather than address the allegations of the OP, will attack **jlzania** ’s post with accusations of “broad brush,” and “mind reader”? Nah. That only happens to me. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-bush-and-blair-really-did-intend-war/342907/15 "2006-02-04T01:58:34Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Saddam was a murderous, evil tyrant and the world, and Iraq, are better off without him in power (at least for now). Are the people in Iraq better of _now_ then they were under Saddam? ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-bush-and-blair-really-did-intend-war/342907/16 "2006-02-04T02:05:27Z")
Good to see you in here, **Airman Doors** – you’re a rare (in my experience) example of someone who strongly defended the invasion at first, then over time looked at the evidence, thought it through, and made the difficult decision to change his mind. I wish more of the war’s defenders would/could do the same. **Hamlet** , you make a good point. Mighty convenient for the war supporters, isn’t it, that the true worth of the ends won’t be known for so long after we’ve expended the means. Hey, **kaylasdad** , thanks. That was a carefully framed title. [On preview] **Metcom** , with every day’s fresh reports of bombings, killings, kidnappings and other horrors in Iraq, your question becomes more pertinent. Just how much more shit must those people suffer before the balance shifts? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-bush-and-blair-really-did-intend-war/342907/17 "2006-02-04T02:19:51Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > Good to see you in here, **Airman Doors** – you’re a rare (in my experience) example of someone who strongly defended the invasion at first, then over time looked at the evidence, thought it through, and made the difficult decision to change his mind. I wish more of the war’s defenders would/could do the same. Isn’t it obvious? Wait, I already know the answer to that, but I just don’t see how anybody can still say that we did the right thing without temporizing. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-bush-and-blair-really-did-intend-war/342907/18 "2006-02-04T02:53:55Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Saddam was a murderous, evil tyrant and the world, and Iraq, are better off without him in power (at least for now). Tell it to people sitting in the dark, afraid of being killed by either passing American troops or some faction. Tell it to the women who now have fewer rights. Tell it to the jobless, who have watched America rape and warp the Iraqi economy, or been forbidden jobs because they are Iraqi. > [@Hamlet](#): > > The problem I see with this view is that it ignores the costs, in money, world peace, and, most importantly, American lives. Because, of course, the _far higher_ Iraqi death toll doesn’t matter. As foreigners, they are simply cattle for our use. > [@Hamlet](#): > > But most conservatives I speak with seem to take solace in the fact that the true outcome of this war in Iraq won’t be known for another couple decades, so the lead up to the problems leading up to the war becomes less and less important. Besides, “conservative” pretty much equals “sociopath”, as far as I can tell. They don’t _care_ about the harm they have caused ---
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-bush-and-blair-really-did-intend-war/342907/19 "2006-02-04T02:55:01Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > Are the people in Iraq better of _now_ then they were under Saddam? They think so. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-bush-and-blair-really-did-intend-war/342907/20 "2006-02-04T02:55:26Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Besides, “conservative” pretty much equals “sociopath”, as far as I can tell. They don’t _care_ about the harm they have caused :rolleyes: I’m a conservative. I don’t care? Tell me another one. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-interesting-bush-and-blair-really-did-intend-war/342907.md?page=2)