| As the rest of Congress
shuffles off to their Memorial Day recess, Rep. John
Conyers (D-MI) is drafting a letter to Defense Secretary
—Donald Rumsfeld seeking answers after a report
in the Sunday
London Times revealed the U.S. and Britain
may have sought to goad Iraq into war even as UN negotiations
were ongoing, RAW STORY
has learned.
A staffer said the congressman called the latest revelations
"the smoking bullet in the smoking gun."
Conyers' early draft, leaked to RAW
STORY, raises a battery of questions surrounding
the Administration's plans for the Iraq war.
"If true, these assertions indicate that not only
had our nation secretly and perhaps illegally agreed
to go to war by the summer of 2002, but that we had
gone on to take specific and tangible military actions
before asking Congress or the United Nations for authority,"
the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee
pens.
This time, however, the congressman demands more than
answers. In his letter, Conyers will request all computer
files relating to questions surrounding the planning
stages of the Iraq war.
"In connection with all of the above questions,
please provide me with any memorandum, notes, minutes,
documents, phone and other records, e-mails, computer
files (including back-up records) or other material
of any kind or nature concerning or relating thereto
in the possession or accessible by the Department of
Defense," he writes.
The draft letter follows; staffers say the letter may
be revised before it is formally sent to the Defense
Secretary Tuesday.
###
May 31, 2005
Hon. Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
The Pentagon
Arlington, VA
Dear Secretary Rumsfeld:
I write with an urgent and important request that
you respond to a report in the London Times on Sunday,
May 29, indicating that British and U.S. aircraft increased
their rates of bombing in 2002 in order to provoke an
excuse for war in Iraq. Much of this information is
provided by the British Ministry of Defense in response
to questions posed by Liberal Democrat Sir Menzies Campbell.
As you may know, on May 6, I wrote to President Bush,
along with 88 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives,
asking him to respond to allegations first revealed
in the London Times on May 1, that the U.S. and British
government had a secret plan to invade Iraq by the summer
of 2002, well before the Bush Administration requested
authorization for military action, from the U.S. Congress.
A response is still pending on that request.
The allegations and factual assertions made in the
May 29 London Times are in many respects just as serious
as those made in the earlier article. They include the
following:
• “The RAF and U.S. aircraft doubled the
rate at which they were dropping bombs in 2002 ....
The attacks were intensified from May .... By the end
of August the raids had become a full air offensive.”
Then British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon reportedly
told a British Cabinet Meeting in July, 2002, that by
this time “the U.S. had already begun ‘spikes
of activity’ to put pressure on the regime.”
The newly released information also appears to show
that “the allies dropped twice as many bombs on
Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the
whole of 2001.”
• According to the article, this increase at
the rate of bombing was “an attempt to provoke
Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for
war.” As I am sure you are aware, allied commander
Tommy Franks has previously acknowledged the existence
of increased military operations which he asserted were
needed “to ‘degrade’ Iraqi air defenses
in the same way as the air attacks that began the 1991
Gulf War.”
• The new information goes on to indicate that
our military decided “on August 5, 2002, for a
‘hybrid plan” in which a continuous air
offensive and special forces would begin while the main
ground force built up in Kuwait for a full-scale invasion.”
According to the article, “despite the lack of
an Iraqi reaction, the air war began anyway in September
with a 100-plane raid.”
The allegations and factual assertions made in the
May 29 London Times are in many respects just as serious
as those made in the earlier article. If true, these
assertions indicate that not only had our nation secretly
and perhaps illegally agreed to go to war by the summer
of 2002, but that we had gone on to take specific and
tangible military actions before asking Congress or
the United Nations for authority.
Thus, while there is considerable doubt as to whether
the U.S. had authority to invade Iraq, given, among
other things, the failure of the U.N. to issue a follow-up
resolution to the November 8, 2002 Resolution 1441,
it would seem that the act of engaging in military action
via stepped up bombing raids that were not in response
to an actual or imminent threat before our government
asked for military authority would be even more problematic
from a legal as well as a moral perspective.
As a result of these new disclosures, I would ask
that you respond as promptly as possible to the following
questions:
1) Did the RAF and the United States military increase
the rate that they were dropping bombs in Iraq in 2002?
If so, what was the extent and timing of the increase?
2) What was the justification for any such increase
in the rate of bombing in Iraq at this time? Was this
justification reviewed by legal authorities in the U.S.?
3) To the best of your knowledge, was there any agreement
with any representative of the British government to
engage in military action in Iraq before authority was
sought from the Congress or the U.N.? If so, what was
the nature of the agreement?
In connection with all of the above questions, please
provide me with any memorandum, notes, minutes, documents,
phone and other records, e-mails, computer files (including
back-up records) or other material of any kind or nature
concerning or relating thereto in the possession or
accessible by the Department of Defense.
I would encourage you to provide responses to these
questions as promptly as possible, as they raise extremely
grave and serious questions involving the credibility
of our Administration and its constitutional responsibilities.
In the interest of time, please feel free to forward
me partial responses as they become available.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
Article originally published May 28, 2005. |
