(Star Tribune) Editorial: Fig leaf for war/Paper indicates U.N. was misled

[evermind]

(There's a free reg required, or maybe visit bugmenot.com, or just google-news on the headline)

(edit: or just get it from uruknet.info: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m12596&l=i&size=1&hd=0 )

Editorial: Fig leaf for war/Paper indicates U.N. was misled
June 15, 2005

Now comes, however, a classified briefing paper prepared for a July 23, 2002, British cabinet meeting, the minutes of which have come to be known as the Downing Street memo. The briefing paper makes clear that both the British and American administrations viewed action by the Security Council not as an alternative to war, but as a means of justifying a war already decided on.

--snip--

But more important [than the lack of postwar plans] is the use of the United Nations to fashion a rationale for war. The British briefing paper says that when Blair met Bush at his ranch in Texas, in April 2002, Blair said "the UK would support military action to bring about regime change...." But in order to do that, the paper continues, it "is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action."

--snip--

This is where the plot really thickens. Perhaps readers will recall that Bush's nominee for U.N. ambassador, John Bolton, recently was accused of orchestrating the 2002 ouster of Jose Bustani, head of the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, a U.N. agency. Why did Bolton want Bustani replaced? Because Bustani was aggressively seeking to reinsert chemical weapons inspectors into Iraq. The conclusion of many observers is that the United States did not want inspectors in Iraq because it undercut the U.S. case for an invasion.

Many Bush critics accused him of "using" the United Nations to justify war, rather than truly working to avoid military conflict. But they were naturally suspect because they oppose U.S. policy. The British briefing paper is especially significant because it comes from a government that is not only astute, but is also quite friendly to Bush's objective of invading Iraq. The unavoidable conclusion is that both British and American citizens were duped into hoping that the United Nations would make such a conflict unnecessary. In fact, Britain eagerly and the United States reluctantly went to the United Nations to get a fig leaf of respectability for a war on which they had already decided.

The bold part of that last paragraph is well supported by the six "new" memos, where they talk about the "need to wrongfoot saddam on the inspections and SCRS", etc.

Myself, I think that is the biggest story in the British Memos.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. The Strib is really going to town with this.

This morning they actually printed a story about the second memo on the front page! And they were one of the first to run an editorial about the original memo, and as far as I know the only paper (or at least the first) to print the whole text. I LOVE the Strib these days...

[salin]

2. It is a big deal when these are paper editorials rather than

columnists. And this one spells it all out. Good work Star Tribune!