House Republican Joins Dems In Making Bush Turn Over Documents About The Downing Street Memo

House Republican Joins Dems In Making Bush Turn Over Documents About The Downing Street Memo

Republican Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa wants Bush to answer questions and turn over documents about whether he doctored WMD intelligence to justify the Iraqi War.

30 Aug 2005

By Greg Szymanski

A leak in the Republican ranks has provided new hope for 39 Democrats on Capitol Hill who recently sponsored a House resolution demanding White House disclosure of documents related to the infamous Downing Street memos.

Republican Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa has thrown his support in with Democrats, the first Republican asking President Bush to come clean with the American people about accusations, based on high-level British documents, that he doctored WMD intelligence reports to justify the Iraqi invasion.

In early May, documents were leaked showing head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, told Prime Minister Tony Blair and others at a top level meeting that Bush had already decided to manufacture the WMD threat, learning this during high-level meetings in Washington months prior to the Iraqi invasion.

The documents were then verified as authentic by Blair, creating a public outcry on both sides of the Atlantic for accountability regarding the accusations made in Dearlove’s assessment of the American war strategy.

After the release of the potentially damaging documents, Bush has remained steadfast, saying the WMD threat was not manufactured, claiming the decision to topple Sadaam Hussein was justified and he should not be blamed if intelligence was flawed.

However, a contingent of 89 Democrats in Congress and signatures from over a half million Americans strongly disagreed with Bush’s explanation, as a letter was quickly authored in May and sent to the White House, demanding accountability.

Although essentially ignored by the White House and the mainstream media who both have downplayed the importance of Dearlove’s statements, a grass roots Washington group called After Downing Street has kept the issue alive with a highly popular internet campaign, drawing millions of supporters at www.afterdowningstreet.org.

And this week aides to the Iowa Republican confirmed an internet announcement, saying Re. Leach will become a co-sponsor of House Resolution 375, written by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).

The resolution requests that Bush and Sec. of State Condaleeza Rice release to the House all information in their possession about the sensitive communications made with British officials between Jan. 1, 2002 and Oct. 16, 2002, in connection with the Iraqi invasion. The information requested includes any memos, meeting minutes, calendars, logs, records, telephone communications and emails.

“These documents offer strong evidence that the Bush administration ‘fixed’ intelligence in order to mislead our country into war, evidence the administration has failed to dispute or answer,” Rep. Lee recently said in an official statement regarding the reason behind the House Resolution.

The explosive Downing Street Memo has also become a centerpiece for the growing anti-war movement, accusing Bush of lying to the American people about his real reasons behind going to war.

Opponents to the Bush war policy claim the President manufactured the WMD threat in order to control valuable Iraqi oil, as well as providing hefty profits for “his rich friends involved in profiting from the war movement.”

Along with Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Lee has been one of the strongest Bush critics on Capitol Hill. Recently at an Oakland town hall meeting, called to get questions answered about the war, she said:

"We knew all along that the president was misleading and lying to the American people about why he wanted to go to war. We all have a right to know. . . . We're going to force them to answer the questions by any means necessary."

However, in a joint news conference, held earlier this summer, both Bush and Blair denied any involvement in trying to fix intelligence reports to justify the war.

“No, the facts were not fixed in any way, shape or form at all. And let me remind you that the memorandum was written before we went to the United Nations,” said Blair in the press conference.

The resolution, now with Rep. Leach’s support, has been forwarded to the House International Relations Committee where he is a senior Republican member.

Adding further credibility to the Downing Street Memo, a leaked "confidential" document entitled the "The Iraqi Options Paper," prepared in March 2002, quotes British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as saying:

"The US administration has lost faith in containment and is now considering regime change… A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to Law Officers advice, none currently exists. This makes moving quickly to invade legally very difficult. We should therefore consider a staged approach, establishing international support, building up pressure on Saddam, and developing military plans. There is a lead-time of about 6 months.

"But there is no greater threat now that he will use WMD than there has been in recent years, so continuing containment is an option. The US has lost confidence in containment. Some in government want Saddam removed. The success of Operation Enduring Freedom, distrust of UN sanctions and inspection regimes, and unfinished business from 1991 are all factors."

Straw’s comment about the lack of an imminent WMD threat from years past clearly puts Bush’s claims for war in doubt, especially when Straw refers to Washington’s plans for regime change in Iraq.

Put these words together with the original memo, indicating in July 2002 Bush had already fixed intelligence reports to fit his war policy, and even a stronger case can be made that the Iraqi invasion was manufactured around a false threat..

This is further bolstered by Straw’s admission that Iraq was not in violation of mandated WMD security sanctions imposed by the Gulf War cease fire agreement, making the accusation that Iraq was an imminent threat to U.S. interests even more tenuous.

"Currently, offensive military action against Iraq can only be justified if Iraq is held to be n breach of the Gulf War cease fire resolution, 687. 687 imposed obligations on Iraq with regard to the elimination of WMD and monitoring these obligations

"They (United Nations) would need to be convinced that Iraq was in breach of its obligations regarding WMD, and ballistic missiles. Such proof would need to be incontrovertible and of large-scale activity. Current intelligence is insufficiently robust to meet this criterion."

Another memo written by Prime Minister’s Tony Blair foreign policy advisor, David Manning, indicates Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice had already made up her mind about regime change in Iraq as early as March of 2002, months prior to the invasion.

Manning’s memo, written on March 25, 2002, refers to a dinner engagement with Rice where she purportedly expressed desire for a regime change, but expressed increasing concerns about the political risks. She also told Manning that President Bush was still unsure about how to justify an Iraqi invasion and was searching for answers.

"Condi’s enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed. But there were some signs, since we last spoke, of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks," said Manning to Blair about his dinner conversation with Rice

"From what she said, Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions as to how to persuade international opinion that military action against Iraq is necessary and justified; what value to put on the exiled Iraqi opposition; how to coordinate a US/allied military campaign with internal opposition (assuming there is any);and what happens on the morning after?"

To add even more fuel to the WMD fire, another confidential memo obtained from P.F. Ricketts, a political advisor to Blair, dated March 22, 2002, purportedly advised the Prime Minister how to deal with the impending problems of an Iraqi invasion and how Blair could help influence Bush’s final decision.

"First, the (Iraqi) threat:. The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September. This is not something we need to be defensive about, but attempts to claim otherwise publicly will increase skepticism about our case document. My meeting yesterday showed that there is more work to do to ensure that the figures are accurate and consistent with those of the US.

"But even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.