The Bait
Bush wanted to paint a US spyplane in UN colors, fly it over Iraq, and have the Iraqis shoot it down.
This would have given him enough reason to invade. Because, you see, they knew the WMD evidence wasn't complete. They knew that Saddam's heinous past wasn't compelling enough to invade, destroy, and occupy a nation.
No. I'm serious:
This would have given him enough reason to invade. Because, you see, they knew the WMD evidence wasn't complete. They knew that Saddam's heinous past wasn't compelling enough to invade, destroy, and occupy a nation.
No. I'm serious:
President Bush said that:
"The US would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would 'twist arms' and 'even threaten'. But he had to say that if ultimately we failed, military action would follow anyway.''
Prime Minister Blair responded that he was: "solidly with the President and ready to do whatever it took to disarm Saddam."
But Mr Blair said that: "a second Security Council resolution would provide an insurance policy against the unexpected, and international cover, including with the Arabs."
Mr Sands' book says that the meeting focused on the need to identify evidence that Saddam had committed a material breach of his obligations under the existing UN Resolution 1441. There was concern that insufficient evidence had been unearthed by the UN inspection team, led by Dr Hans Blix. Other options were considered.
President Bush said: "The US was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
He went on: "It was also possible that a defector could be brought out who would give a public presentation about Saddam's WMD, and there was also a small possibility that Saddam would be assassinated."
Speaking to Channel 4 News, Mr Sands said:
"I think no one would be surprised at the idea that the use of spy-planes to review what is going on would be considered. What is surprising is the idea that they would be used painted in the colours of the United Nations in order to provoke an attack which could then be used to justify material breach. Now that plainly looks as if it is deception, and it raises some fundamental questions of legality, both in terms of domestic law and international law."
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home