US discussed Iraq regime change a month after Bush took office, senior British officials say

By John Byrne
Tuesday, November 24th, 2009 -- 9:13 am
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

blair US discussed Iraq regime change a month after Bush took office, senior British officials sayThe chairman of the British Joint Intelligence Committee in 2001 told investigators Monday that elements of the Bush Administration were pushing for regime change in Iraq in early 2001, months before the 9/11 attacks and two years before President George W. Bush formally announced the Iraq war.

Sir Peter Ricketts, now-Secretary at the Foreign Office, said that US and British officials believed at the time that measures against Iraq were failing: "sanctions, an incentive to lift sanctions if Saddam allowed the United Weapons inspectors to return, and the 'no fly' zones over the north and south of the country."

Ricketts also said that US officials had raised the prospect of regime change in Iraq, asserting that the British weren't supportive of the idea at the time.

"We were conscious that there were other voices in Washington, some of whom were talking about regime change," Ricketts said.

The head of the British Foreign Office's Middle East department, Sir William Patey, told the inquiry that his office was aware of regime change talk from some parts of the Bush Administration shortly after they took office in 2001.

Story continues below...

"In February 2001 we were aware of these drum beats from Washington and internally we discussed it," Patey said. "Our policy was to stay away from that."

"We didn't think Saddam was a good thing, and it would be great if he went, but we didn't have an explicit policy for trying to get rid of him," he added.

A third official, who was policy director for the British Defense Ministry at the time, said the discussions between the US and Britain "weren't serious."

"The question of regime overthrow was, I recall, mentioned but it was quite clear that there was no proposition being put in our direction on that," he quipped.

News of the British officials comments were first reported Tuesday in the UK Independent.

Interestingly, the head of Britain's Intelligence Committee told investigators that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared to be in charge of US policy on Iraq until the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"Up till then we felt that dealing with the State Department, we were dealing with the people who were forming the policy," Ricketts said.

British investigators are probing how Britain got into the Iraq war and if officials misled the public. Already, a leaked report has shown that then-Prime Minister Tony Blair covered up British military plans for a full Iraq invasion throughout 2002, claiming at the time that Britain's objective was "disarmament, not regime change."

According to Britain's Sunday Telegraph, the leaked report condemns the almost complete absence of contingency planning as a potential breach of Geneva Convention obligations to safeguard civilians. Coalition forces were “ill-prepared and equipped to deal with the problems in the first 100 days” of the occupation.

Blair's lies to Parliament and the public, widespread problems with the Army's supply chain and radio systems, and poor planning for "once Baghdad had fallen" are now confirmed in the public eye.

Particularly egregious are statements Blair made to Parliament in the build up to the invasion. On Sept 24, 2002, Mr. Blair told members of the British Parliament, “In respect of any military options, we are not at the stage of deciding those options but, of course, it is important — should we get to that point — that we have the fullest possible discussion of those options.”

With reporting by Gavin Dahl.

Share this article:
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Story comments are below...

  • ignatzfattis
    One by one all the rumors are proven true. Its only a matter of time before the ones about Cheney and 9/11 are proven true as well.
  • matticusfinch
    So can we now get an independent investigation of the 9/11 attack so we can once and for all prove that that false flag event was nothing more then a pretext to the global imperialism unleashed by Blair and Bush? how much more obvious does it have to get that 911 is the wellspring that all this horrible shit of the last 10 years flows out of.
  • thelonegunman
    this was "revealed" by paul o'neill years ago... and everyone dismissed it..

    the entire illegal invasion was for OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL...
  • Truthteller
    We know beyond doubt that Bush and his Sancho Panza, Blair, lied and tricked their respective countries into war.

    Thousands of their citizens have been killed and maimed as a result. Yet, these traitors and war criminals strut the world free from any threat of being charged in a court of law for their crimes.

    What disincentive, therefore, is there for similar poltroons to lead their countries into other fraudulent wars?
  • rxgary
    when are the traitors going to be arrested and executed for treason during war. bush obama clinton bush sr all gui;ty plenty of evidence says so
  • oktoss
    We can say what we want about the Iraq war, its prelude and the idiots who orchestrated the whole mess. However, the real truth is that ignorance dwells within the majority of Americans because they voted in 2002 to get rid of all legislators who didn't support a war. Unfortunately, no honest admission of stupidity or quilt will come from those Americans so the end result is that we didn't learn a damned thing. Go ahead, blame Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld and anyone else who comes to mind but they'd have been powerless without the blessing of the American and British people. The real horror in these stories is from watching more ignorant Americans line up behind the Republicans again. We've had a chance to help our current president as he attempts to right some wrongs and put this nation back on the path of sanity and - guess what - too many Americans are buying into even more Republican lies once again. Those of us who know the truth and those of us who never bought into Bush's big lie still have to suffer from the stupidity of other Americans.
  • doolindalton
    So where are all of those people who so eagerly and frequently tossed about the terms, tin foil hat brigade, woo woos, conspiracy nuts...etc when it came to a 9/11 being a false flag...... Hmmm ? ! !
  • theghostpony
    Saddam did one important thing. He held Iraq together. Witness the conditions there today.
  • thx1138a
    .
    BUSH CRIME CABAL STEALS TRILLIONS BY PULLING BAIT AND SWITCH ON UK GOVT

    -- Britain's Outrage At Being Excluded From Massive Profiteering Results in "Investigation" --

    -- UK Taken For Ride As BushCO Engineers PNAC 911 Event And U.S. World Domination --
    .
  • po
    This is not in any way, shape or form news. They discussed regime change in Iraq during the 2000 presidential campaign for god sakes . . . does no one remember anything anymore?

    From the 2000 Republican Platform:

    "A new Republican administration will patiently rebuild an international coalition opposed to Saddam Hussein and committed to joint action. We will insist that Iraq comply fully with its disarmament commitments. We will maintain the sanctions on the Iraqi regime while seeking to alleviate the suffering of innocent Iraqi people. We will react forcefully and unequivocally to any evidence of reconstituted Iraqi capabilities for producing weapons of mass destruction. In 1998, Congress passed and the president signed the Iraq Liberation Act, the clear purpose of which is to assist the opposition to Saddam Hussein. The administration has used an arsenal of dilatory tactics to block any serious support to the Iraqi National Congress, an umbrella organization reflecting a broad and representative group of Iraqis who wish to free their country from the scourge of Saddam Hussein's regime. We support the full implementation of the Iraq Liberation Act, which should be regarded as a starting point in a comprehensive plan for the removal of Saddam Hussein and the restoration of international inspections in collaboration with his successor. Republicans recognize that peace and stability in the Persian Gulf is impossible as long as Saddam Hussein rules Iraq."

    Of course they discussed regime change . . . it's the one thing Bush actually wanted to do when he was put in office.
  • Savantster
    .
    the right-wing was suggesting semi-legal means of having Saddam removed; it did not involve an illegal invasion.

    The "news" is, the Shrub was talking about actively removing him, not supporting some kind of resistance to him if asked.

    it is illegal to invade a country just to toss out the leader you don't like. sovereign nations, and all.
    .
  • dennycrane
    Nothing new. The days before Jack Kennedy was assinated, three presidents "to be," were in Dallas. One, later signed the one "loopy-loop" bullet theory for the Warren Commission.
  • Scuby
    Hmmm? Bush wasn't in office even a month, and they were already plotting to overthrow Saddam! The "summer of terror" ,as Intell officials called it, soon followed while Bush kicked back at his ranch in Crawford. Then 9/11 happens, and it is documented that both Bush and Rummy were screaming "can we tie this to Iraq?" Then shortly thereafter Bush sets up his civilian intell group that miraculously comes up with stockpiles of WMDS, mobile weapons labs, aluminum tubes, etc. They refer to sources which cannot be divulged due to "national security".. LOL!! Anyone with half a brain at the time knew it was all a ruse. I certainly did. Reminds me of when O'Reilly said "If no WMD's are found, I will admit I was wrong and apologize"....which of course he didn't.

    Which also reminds me. As of late, most of the republican talking heads have been blistering the Obama Admin. for somehow letting the Fort Hood attacker fall through the cracks, allowing him to kill a handful of people. Yet those same talking heads were completely and utterly silent when the Bush Admin. let the 19 Al Quaida terrorists slip through the cracks and kill 3000 people on 9/11 (which they said was Clinton's fault....LOL). The sheer idiocy and lunacy of these maniacal malfeasants is palpable!!
  • LWells
    Good post, Scuby.

    I would add that among the "evidence" used for both the Iraq justification and the 9/11 Commission report was attributed statements derived under torture.

    Also, one of the illegal spying programs, as pointed out in statements from an ex-Quest CEO (who was prosecuted for financial crimes after refusing to cooperate in the spying), started before 9/11 as well. According to his attorney's statements, he was approached in Feb of 2001.

    It seems a great many things were already in motion. And let's not forget the PNAC plan of 1998, of course. Do we really need to question that the "elements" and "some parts" of the Bush Administration were the usual neocon suspects?
  • randallspencer
    Big surprise. This is what we all knew all along. Bush didn't care if there were weapons in Iraq. He wanted to get revenge for daddy.
  • lm945
    This was never about Bush Jr. getting "revenge for daddy."

    This was all about proving he had a bigger d!ck.
  • rickpetes
    It was and still is about access to resources. Remember, the Bush crime family has always been about oil and war profiteering.
  • robertjones2001
    . . . oil and war profiteering and cornering the market in worldwide heroin production and distribution (the Bush crime family's first love). Daddy Bush is also heavily invested in owning and controlling all the goldmines on the planet.
  • CarolAll
    We've known this for years, yet no one paid attention to it at the time. Now, the question remains, will the proof from Great Britian be reported by the MSM? Probably not. While loyal Bushies are reaping huge profits from new oil opportunities in Iraq (yet to be paid for by future generations), news reporters are enraptured by the Sarah Palin book tour. Same sh*t, different day.
  • Jay
    I hate to break it to you - but Bush openly discussed regime change in Iraq in the 2000 presidential debates. You only make yourselves look like clumsy blowhards when you act shocked at this. It may be hard to hear, but it is only for your own good to see this. The only real way to end the war is to realize that the Bush's and the Clintons worked together to destroy Iraq over the course of the past 18 years so that they could build their vaunted new world odor.

    If we are really serious about ending war, we need to admit that we were at war with Iraq long before Bush took office. Sanctions are just a euphemism for siege warfare - starving and poisoning people to goad them into overthrowing inconvenient rulers.

    Open your eyes and you will see the real reason that the Bush administration got what it wanted. It's because no one on the left was seriously able to analyze the ongoing violence that American democracy is founded upon. No one on the left was able to admit that American interventionism is at heart evil. Anyone with half a brain knew that Bush did not change much, he simply did openly what Clinton did behind closed doors. Ask the Serbs whose families died when Clinton lied.

    Throughout the 90's Air Force jets regularly bombed civilian infrastructure in Iraq. Acting shocked that Bush planned to finally go in and take out Saddam is the ultimate form of burying one's head in the sand.

    But no one wants to hear this, so someone will post a snotty response to this making me out to be a Bush supporter - even though I never supported him in any way. Just wait and see.
blog comments powered by Disqus