So, while Bush was telling the American people that he considered war with Iraq "a last resort," he actually had decided to invade regardless of Iraq's cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors, according to the five-page memo of the Oval Office meeting.
The memo also revealed Bush conniving to deceive the American people and the world community by trying to engineer a provocation that would portray Hussein as the aggressor. Bush suggested painting a U.S. plane up in U.N. colors and flying it over Iraq with the goal of drawing Iraqi fire, the meeting minutes said.
"The U.S. was thinking of flying U-2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo said about Bush's scheme. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach." [See Consortiumnews.com's "Time to Talk War Crimes."]
Regardless of whether any casus belli could be provoked, Bush already had "penciled in" March 10, 2003, as the start of the U.S. bombing of Iraq, according to the memo. "Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," Manning wrote. [NYT, March 27, 2006]
In other words, neither the U.N. inspectors' negative WMD findings nor the Security Council's refusal to authorize force would stop Bush's invasion on March 19, 2003. [For more on Bush's pretexts for war in Iraq, see Consortiumnews.com's "President Bush, With the Candlestick..."]
Comfortable History
But Bush remains so comfortable with his fabricated history - and so confident that the White House press corps won't contradict him - that he now sketches the false landscape in a few quick strokes, as in "Remember it? We tried resolution after resolution after resolution."
When Bush is not taking gullible people on a tour of his imaginary history, he is testing how well sophistry works as logic, such as his oft-repeated claim that Americans must believe what Osama bin Laden says.
"What I say to the American people when I'm out there is all you got to do is listen to what Osama bin Laden says" regarding al-Qaeda's goals and the importance of Iraq, Bush said at the Oct. 11 news conference.
Yet, while Bush argues that bin Laden's public ravings should seal the deal - and thus lock U.S. troops into Iraq for the indefinite future - Bush never considers the well-documented possibility that al-Qaeda is playing a double game, baiting the United States about leaving Iraq to ensure that U.S. troops will stay.
In a rational world - if one wanted to give any weight to al-Qaeda's thinking - you would look at unguarded, internal communications, not the public propaganda.
For instance, more credence would be given to an intercepted Dec. 11, 2005, communique' from a senior bin Laden lieutenant known as "Atiyah" to the then-chief of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a document discovered by the U.S. military at the time of Zarqawi's death in June 2006.
In the letter about al-Qaeda's strategy in Iraq, Atiyah told Zarqawi that "prolonging the war is in our interest." A chief reason, Atiyah explained, was that Zarqawi's brutal tactics had alienated many Iraqi Sunni insurgents and thus a continued U.S. military presence was needed to buy time for al-Qaeda to mend fences and put down roots.
The "Atiyah letter" - like a previously intercepted message attributed to al-Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri - indicated that a U.S. military pullout could be disastrous for al-Qaeda's terrorist bands, which are estimated at only about 5 to 10 percent of the anti-U.S. fighters in Iraq.
Without the U.S. military presence to serve as a rallying cry and a unifying force, the al-Qaeda contingent faced disintegration from desertions and attacks from Iraqi insurgents who resented the wanton bloodshed committed by Zarqawi's non-Iraqi terrorists.
The "Zawahiri letter," which was dated July 9, 2005, said a rapid American military withdrawal could have caused the foreign jihadists, who had flocked to Iraq to battle the Americans, to simply give up the fight and go home.
The memo also revealed Bush conniving to deceive the American people and the world community by trying to engineer a provocation that would portray Hussein as the aggressor. Bush suggested painting a U.S. plane up in U.N. colors and flying it over Iraq with the goal of drawing Iraqi fire, the meeting minutes said.
"The U.S. was thinking of flying U-2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo said about Bush's scheme. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach." [See Consortiumnews.com's "Time to Talk War Crimes."]
Regardless of whether any casus belli could be provoked, Bush already had "penciled in" March 10, 2003, as the start of the U.S. bombing of Iraq, according to the memo. "Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," Manning wrote. [NYT, March 27, 2006]
Comfortable History
But Bush remains so comfortable with his fabricated history - and so confident that the White House press corps won't contradict him - that he now sketches the false landscape in a few quick strokes, as in "Remember it? We tried resolution after resolution after resolution."
When Bush is not taking gullible people on a tour of his imaginary history, he is testing how well sophistry works as logic, such as his oft-repeated claim that Americans must believe what Osama bin Laden says.
"What I say to the American people when I'm out there is all you got to do is listen to what Osama bin Laden says" regarding al-Qaeda's goals and the importance of Iraq, Bush said at the Oct. 11 news conference.
Yet, while Bush argues that bin Laden's public ravings should seal the deal - and thus lock U.S. troops into Iraq for the indefinite future - Bush never considers the well-documented possibility that al-Qaeda is playing a double game, baiting the United States about leaving Iraq to ensure that U.S. troops will stay.
In a rational world - if one wanted to give any weight to al-Qaeda's thinking - you would look at unguarded, internal communications, not the public propaganda.
For instance, more credence would be given to an intercepted Dec. 11, 2005, communique' from a senior bin Laden lieutenant known as "Atiyah" to the then-chief of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a document discovered by the U.S. military at the time of Zarqawi's death in June 2006.
In the letter about al-Qaeda's strategy in Iraq, Atiyah told Zarqawi that "prolonging the war is in our interest." A chief reason, Atiyah explained, was that Zarqawi's brutal tactics had alienated many Iraqi Sunni insurgents and thus a continued U.S. military presence was needed to buy time for al-Qaeda to mend fences and put down roots.
The "Atiyah letter" - like a previously intercepted message attributed to al-Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman Zawahiri - indicated that a U.S. military pullout could be disastrous for al-Qaeda's terrorist bands, which are estimated at only about 5 to 10 percent of the anti-U.S. fighters in Iraq.
Without the U.S. military presence to serve as a rallying cry and a unifying force, the al-Qaeda contingent faced disintegration from desertions and attacks from Iraqi insurgents who resented the wanton bloodshed committed by Zarqawi's non-Iraqi terrorists.
The "Zawahiri letter," which was dated July 9, 2005, said a rapid American military withdrawal could have caused the foreign jihadists, who had flocked to Iraq to battle the Americans, to simply give up the fight and go home.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
