WAR: More Downing Street Memos - Bush's Next Targets Revealed

A book by a senior British international lawyer has revealed a Downing Street memo in which the US President mentions that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea may also be dealt with over weapons of mass destruction. The memo, marked secret and personal, allegedly records a telephone conversation between Tony Blair and George Bush which took place on January 30, 2003. No. 10 Downing Street has said that it would "not comment on leaked documents".



The article does not seem to describe how the author of the book, Philippe Sands QC, professor of law at University College London and a senior barrister at Matrix chambers, came across the memo, and whether or not it is currently in his possession.

If the memo is authentic and is furthermore faithful to the contents of that conversation, then the mention of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan as potential targets for "the WMD method" may raise a few eyebrows, both of these nations being staunch US allies in the war on terrorism.

FLASHBACK: The May 2005 Downing Street Minutes Fiasco

Related News Links:
www.guardian.co.uk
www.mg.co.za
www.upi.com


[edit on 2005-10-17 by wecomeinpeace]

if you will go to The Guardian:
"Bush told Blair of 'going beyond Iraq' "
source www.guardian.co.uk...

the source of the memo is from one of the PMs foreign policy advisors at Downing Street
who in turn passed the memo (a note of telephone conversation) on to the Foreign Office....according to Phillippe Sands.

but this is a leak of an article that is not published or distributed...Yet.

look for the info next week, when you pick up a US Edition of Lawless World, 'America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules' by Phillippe Sands


hmmmm !??!

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, with Bush's term almost up and everything. If this hits mass media, it probably won't happen (if it were going to anyways) given the dwindling support for the Iraqi war, but it wouldn't surprise me to see him issue a "police action" and leave the mess for the next prez to clean up.

Hmm. They must really misunderestimate the public if they think that the populace of G.B. and the U.S. (let alone the world) will stand idly by as they "make the world safe from WMDs".

Sometimes I think that the leaders of men are wise and able, but at times like this, I think that these guys are out of touch and without a clue.

Zip

Originally posted by Zipdot
Hmm. They must really misunderestimate the public if they think that the populace of G.B. and the U.S. (let alone the world) will stand idly by as they "make the world safe from WMDs".

I hate to say it, but I don't think the general public would make a large enough fuss to really do anything about it. And as far as in the US, what does it matter to Bush? Its not like he has to worry much about public opinion polls or anything. Come 2008 he's back on the ranch for good, and he doesn't even need much Congressional support to get the ball rolling over there--it doesn't have to be an actual declaration of war. He just needs to get Congress to approve funding for it, and they seem to love spending money on that stuff anyways. As a wise man once said, it's good to be the king.

Of course, one thing to keep in mind is that there's always the possibility that something may happen between now and the next couple of years that could sway public support in favor of such an action. Like another "terrorist" attack, or another intelligence report that finds something major going on that is a threat to "democracy".

Good points. I really want to have faith in the information generation, though. The people of today are empowered with communication abilities basically unprecedented in history and with all of that, if we can't prevent despotism, then maybe human beings really do have sociological limits to their success and prosperity.

Zip

I'm confused. Bush protects Saudi Arabia. Then he attacks them. He gets the Saudi Royals out of the country after 9/11 and then he invades their country?


Pakistan, is also a bit confusing. They have been instrumental in the war against Al Qaeda and, if you believe the recent news reports, it is Pakistan that is doing the most damage to Al Qaeda. So we attack them?

With 3 years left on the term, he better hurry up because he's going to run out of time

First of all, I find it deeply troubling that a confidential and private conversation between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain would be leaked like this. I would only find such a situation justified if it came as a result of a criminal investigation into the actions of either man, which in this case is not so. Certain things must remain privileged. The President, and the Prime Minister, depend on having conversations and advice that remains between those in the conversation and those who are authorised to know about it. This could seriously effect a president or prime minister's ability to seek counsel on any number of issues from any number of people over the telephone if that person believes that their private conversation could end up on the front of a newspaper.

Having said that, from what we know thus far I think we may be jumping to conclusions here. From what I read of the article it doesn't quote Bush as saying he wanted to take "military" action against those countries, only that their posession of WMD's was an issue that needed to be dealt with. We've already dealt with Libya and their desire for WMD's through peaceful and diplomatic solutions. I'm almost certain that is what the president also had in mind, especially when mentioning Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We've already taken measures to help Pakistan secure their nuclear arsinal and prevent it from falling into the wrong hands. For all we know we could currently, or since that phone conversation, be working with Saudi Arabia to eliminate and/or secure any biological or chemical weapons that they may be in posession of.

Now I know that most of you consider Bush an evil warmonger, but at the same time most of you would say that the Saudi's have him in the palm of their hand. You just can't have it both ways. Is Bush best friends with the House of Saud, or is he planning to invade them? I believe the former over the latter, and I believe that Bush will use whatever leverage he has with the Saudi royal family to take care of the WMD issue peacefully. I also believe that strides have been made with regard to Pakistan's nuclear weapons since this alleged phone conversation took place.

Now let's just calm down everyone and see how this story plays out...

Originally posted by Zipdot
Good points. I really want to have faith in the information generation, though. The people of today are empowered with communication abilities basically unprecedented in history and with all of that, if we can't prevent despotism, then maybe human beings really do have sociological limits to their success and prosperity.

Believe me, I want to have faith in everyone too, but I think the odds are against it. I mean, unless this hits CNN and the other major stations with a bang, most people are going to discredit it. As much as I love ATS, even as credible as this site is most people would take one look at it and say "there's a bunch of loons." That's just the image that most websites and independant news media that would cover this have: uncredible Chicken-Little-The-Sky-Is-Falling wannabe journalists just trying to get their 15 minutes. Gotta hand it to the big dogs, they know how to cover their tails by discrediting the truth.

Aside from that, contrary to popular belief these guys aren't idiots. Even if Bush or Blair didn't have the common sense to walk across the street, they do have some bright people wagging the dog for them. I'm sure just about any decision they make will have a good enough spin on it to get enough popular support to make it happen. Before coming to ATS I would've laughed at the idea of someone doing a mass attack to generate popular support, but I've seen enough posts about it to where I'm not so sure anymore. An attack is always good PR if you're wanting to start a fight.

Crakeur, there's a couple of possibilities as to the reasonings behind Saudi or Pakistan. Even prior to 9/11, either of them could've been eventual targets, somewhere the powers that be had their eyes on for one reason or another. There's the old adage: keep your friends close, your enemies closer.

My hypothetical scenario for Saudi is this. Keeping the image of Bush as an oil-hungry war monger in mind (because we all know he is ), Saudi is a great target. 9/11 happens, however it did and whomever was behind it, and we treat the Saudi's as royalty, do whatever it takes to make us look good to them.

We handle Afghanistan and Iraq, and all of a sudden, the Saudi's (supposedly) throw a sucker punch at us for one reason or another--terrorist attack, oil embargo, whatever you want to put in here. Now we have a good case for righteous indignation: "We treated you so great, and you do this? Nah, ain't playing that game..." Send in the carriers for a now-justified war, with tremendous public backing. Depending on whatever that punch was, it may even be bigger than the post-9/11 public support, because we always knew Osama was after us, and we didn't do much to help him out.

Pakistan might be a little more difficult to spin, and for the life of me I can't see much motivation other than them becoming a nuclear power recently (albeit not much of one.) Perhaps their war with India has some people irked, although again I can't see why. Maybe there's some strategic value in the location or their resources, and I could see that if someone is wanting to move in on China or N. Korea in the future. Although Pakistan is supporting us quite nicely at the moment, they may have their own political boundaries they aren't letting us cross in those regards.

Either way, a similar PR strategy could be applied: they're helping us, we think they're on our side, they sucker punch us, we go after them. It doesn't even have to be on US or GB soil--a well placed tactical nuke in Calcutta makes Pakistan look like evil incarnate, we go in to save the world.

I think that having such a short amount of time left in office for Bush can be a really bad thing, as I've stated above. He has nothing left to loose by going after whomever he wants. He can bring this country down to it's international-political knees if he wants, and leave the next guy (or girl) to pick up the pieces. No skin off his back.

But, as Rasputin sez, best thing to do is to see what happens next.

The reason that none of this makes sense is because it came from Bushes mouth...
you all act like he runs the country or something... geeezzze
Could have been something as simple as:

hypothetical transcript:
Aid: "no Mr president, Pakistan is our friend, Palestine is the one with suicude bombers"

Mr Bush: "quit confusing me... I thought we just sent them money... why would we send them money then?"

Aid: "so that we can appear as a moderator in peace talks with Israel..."

Mr Bush: "wait... I know you are messing with me now... we have been over there grabbing israels oil for over a year... couldn't get me there"

Aid: "sir, that is Iraq, not israel... one is jewish and one is arab"

Mr Bush: "Arabs... I always knew that those saudis were trouble"

Aid: "nevermind sir... are you ready for your manicure?"

Mr Bush: "I told you ... I know nothing about that Jeff Gannon guy... and i feel fine..."

LTL, pretty good sum up of what Bush does between his 2 Hour Daily Nap and before he goes to bed at 9pm.

This guy sleeps more then he is awake, that can't be healthy.

Originally posted by MCory1
Crakeur, there's a couple of possibilities as to the reasonings behind Saudi or Pakistan. Even prior to 9/11, either of them could've been eventual targets, somewhere the powers that be had their eyes on for one reason or another. There's the old adage: keep your friends close, your enemies closer.

The Saudi comment was meant to point out the polar opposite theory being presented here (attacking S.A.) versus the theory that Bush is in bed with the Saudis.

If the story turns out to be true, will Michael Moore make a documentary about how his documentary was completely fabricated?

curious why bush would even think about attacking saudi
knowing he would prevoke 1.3 billion muslims into a conflict

They no longer give a damn about popular support for their agenda folks, they Have Diebold now to eliminate their popular concern and the foundation is laid for a Police State now in the Legislature in case we start giving a damn.

Haven't the Saudi royal family been on shaky ground for a while now? If they are deposed then it could put a whole new complexion on this story.

Maybe Bush knows something we don't.....

There is always the chance that the Wahhabi ruling religion in SA will overthrow the government and install a religious rule.

That is why we back the SA leaders... They need military might to rule the Mullahs...
the Mullahs tolerate the kings due to the support they afford them...

It is almost as if the Mullahs are just waiting for the right time before taking over the SA army and weapons of various destruction. they have enough support to force a revolution at any time...

they are trying to crack down on the Wahhabists as we speak, and that will cause a reaction....
but what reaction?

First off, this guy is trying to sell a book...of course he's going to leak something "juicy" that will sell the book.

Secondly, Bush will never go after Saudi Arabia. His family has too many ties to the country and its rulers (same goes for the Bin Laden family...ever wonder why Bush never mentions Osama anymore?)

Originally posted by Zipdot
Hmm. They must really misunderestimate the public if they think that the populace of G.B. and the U.S. (let alone the world) will stand idly by as they "make the world safe from WMDs".

The public in the US will do exactly that. The government is our god. Most people worship it as fervently as any other god or sports team. It is right by definition no matter what it does. Patriotism (devotion to the state) is brainwashed into us from the time we are able to talk.

The executive branch has accumulated sufficient power to pull off a coup in the US. All that is necessary is a president who wants unlimited lifelong power, to have military top brass in place who would support it, and a sufficient "national emergency" to use as an excuse.

"Oh but it can't happen in the US because we're a republic and because we're a Christian nation, and because we speak English. That sort of thing only happens in non-democratic non-Christian non-English speaking places. What? Germany was a Christian republic? Well, but we're smarter than that and besides, they didn't speak English."

Great find WCP. Thanks - and I'd like to read that book!

...Interesting strategy to say the least. Use people, then abuse them. Kinda like what happened to the Christian right in America. Why should he treat Muslims any different?