Did Bush / Blair invent the cause for war?

[IJ]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/20 ... index.html

I know we've talked about this before--the views that Bush had always planned to invade Iraq and cooked the facts and public opinion to create a standoff with the UN, an impression of WMD (and later blowing off the falsity of that impression by converting the impetus from WMD to the fact Saddam was bad / a dictator), a false connection to 9/11 that 50% of Americans believed despite a lack of any evidence, VS, Bush's hand was forced by Saddam's actions, etc.

We've also seen outrage over a falsified memo on Bush's service from CBS, and a leak on Quran desecration at Gitmo reported by Newsweek (I recently learned AFTER the Pentagon declined to refute it when asked).

Do people think these memos are real? Where is the reaction to them? Are Conason's referrals to the Clinton Monica/cigar lies appropriate? And are we tacitly accepting that our leaders made a unilateral decision to start a war and then manipulated 2 nations into actually doing it, rather than appropriately investigating the situation and demanding explanation--and more?

[MikeK]

Want to read the rest of this article and all of Salon for FREE?.

Just watch a brief advertisement to get a FREE Site Pass for today. There's no registration required. Or you can join Salon Premium today and read Salon without ads. Just choose one of the two options below.

No I don't to watch ads, especially to read Conason's "biased" babbling polemic.

[Bill Glasheen]

We've all been over this many, many times, Ian. Reasonable people will disagree.

And because you think Bush/Blair unfairly went to war doesn't make it so.

It'll take a generation away from it all and even better accumulated intelligence than we have today to sort it all out. The verdict on whether or not it was worth it or not STILL is in the air.

I shed no tears for Saddam. He WAS supporting terrorism just as blatantly as anyone associated with 9/11. He used oil for food money instead to build his army, his palaces, and fund homicidal bombings in Israel. And he violated countless U.N. resolutions just to prove he could. To what end? Think about it, Ian.

And he INTENTIONALLY misled the world about whether or not he had WMD. That's pretty well documented as well. And sooner or later he would have started his factories up, and supplied terrorists who would gladly use WMD over here. That way he could wash his hands of it all and look smart to his Arab neighbors.

What was the effective response, Ian? What would YOU have done? Obviously the U.N. proved itself to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution. And yes, 9/11 shows what happens when you let problems like these fester.

Whether you like what Bush/Blair did or not, the status quo was unacceptable. Most people agree with that.

Well they say, time loves a hero. But only time will tell...

I don't get so worked up about it any more. If people don't like what Bush/Blair did, that's fine by me. They were both reelected though, right? That's surprising, don't you think? Or maybe not... Mostly all I care about now is that Iraq gets the government the people want and we keep the terrorists out of there as best we can. And I make sure I let our troops know how much I appreciate what they are doing for their country. Like it or not, we are obligated now to finish the job right.

- Bill

[kyushoguy]

Hi

Before the war in Iraq, which is still going on despite lies it has been won or finished.

I and many other people knew that a third world country like Iraq posed No threat no America or the UK.

But some people arent so aware of world politics and were duped into thinking they were under threat.

9/11 was used as a method to stoke this fear in their own people by politicians, nice.

Saddham said he had no WOMD, the weapons inspectors who went in said yes he was telling the truth, he has no weapons.

So the us and uk went ahead anyway and bombed the **** out of the innocent people of Iraq after securing thousands of tons of oil from there first.

Now years later even bush and blair admit there is No evidence Sadham was involved in terrorism or had any connections to bin laden.

Hey I knew that b4 the war, why didnt they?

It is well documented sadhamm does not like bin laden and vce versa.

But bush sr does his father still does business with the bin ladens?

So he supports terrorism?

And the people defending iraq from the illegal, in every sense, invaders are not terrorists they are iraqies trying to get the raping, thieving, and murdering soldiers out of their land.

I would do the same in my country.

If you count up the dead from sadham and the dead from the us and uk over the same period.

I think you may find we killed more.

And it is always little defeseless countries like Iraq, Vietnam, Afgahnistan etc the us uk attack.

what about china?

what about korea?

They have far worse human rights records than iraq iran.

But the us, uk darent go there.

Hey and what about the guy who actually attacked your country?

If bush went against daddy and put the same effort, money, etc he did into Iraq, to go after the guy who actually attacked the us do you not think he may have caught him?

Funny he didn't isnt it.

It's almost like Iraq was a smoke screen? LOL


Believe what you want.

Take care


KG

[Bill Glasheen]

Oh my...

Thanks a lot, Ian. You opened up the can of worms!

That's OK. This last post offers an opportunity for a little bit of fun. But before I start, understand that I personally feel the jury is still out on all this. Anyone who is a reasonable student of world history understands that many wars (such as Vietnam and the Spanish American War) were started on false premises. But when you look at the "false" trigger event alone, it doesn't do justice to why the war happened. Usually there are many events that lead up to the powderkeg event. Then it takes just one spark to cause things to blow up. This clearly was the case with Iraq.

Before the war in Iraq, which is still going on despite lies it has been won or finished.

Other than one photo opportunity on the deck of a ship, I don't see anyone over here calling anything "finished." Let's see now... There is the training of more Iraqi troops, there is a new constitution to be put together (the original was for the transitional government), there are elections in half a year, there are patrols to deal with insurgents, there are cat-and-mouse games between the Iraqi, U.S., and British troops vs. the insurgents who now pretty much resort to homicidal bombing of innocents to foment civil war, etc., etc.

Just another day in Iraq. You think it was any better before Opertion Iraqi Freedom? If you do, I want some of your happy pills! Check with the Kurds and Shia, and ask them how things were before we "bombed the **** out of the innocent people of Iraq ."

I and many other people knew that a third world country like Iraq posed No threat no America or the UK.

Let's see now... A ragtag bunch in a third world country trained 19 whacko idiots to take some box cutters and hijack 4 of our own planes which resulted in the destruction of the symbol of world commerce, the destruction of part of the symbol of the U.S. military, and the loss of over 3000 innocent men, women, and children from around the world. And this all happened in a matter of a few hours.

And we're still trying to figure out what idiot with a few envelopes of anthrax powder brought the entire U.S. postal system and several major media outlets down to their knees.

No... We have nothing to fear from any third world country. Nobody bothers me; I'm an American. Right?

How easy it is for you to say that, living comfortably across the pond as you are. You didn't see the destruction first hand as I did. You didn't lose close friends, and almost lose a sister. (She elected not to enter the Pentagon when she heard about the WTC on the radio. Instinct told her to get out of town. Good thing...)

In your anger over what you see as an injustice, you have undermined your case with a simple statement.

So the us and uk went ahead anyway and bombed the **** out of the innocent people of Iraq after securing thousands of tons of oil from there first.

This was the most filmed military operation in history. Could you please supply some video clips of the U.S. and the U.K. bombing the **** out of innocent people in Iraq? Surely with all that has been published and all the anti-Bush and anti-Blair forces out there, there must be SOME video evidence of this.

Thank you in advance.

Oh, and where is my oil? Did Virginia not get its fair share? Did they send it all to you? If so, could you please send a few liters? Last I checked, gas prices have been skyrocketing over here.

Now years later even bush and blair admit there is No evidence Sadham was involved in terrorism or had any connections to bin laden.


Hey I knew that b4 the war, why didnt they?

Au contraire. Saddam was giving cash payments to the families of suicide bombers. That's pretty well documented.

And Al Zarqawi - the Iraqi lieutenant of bin Laden - arrived in Iraq and set up a camp in the north before the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. We knew that as well. If you'd like, I'll link you in on a Wall Street Journal article that documents that fact. We elected not to bomb the camp w/o permission because we were trying not to piss off all our good friends in the U.N. We were busy asking the French and the Germans and the Russians to help us solve the problem, all while they were getting oil credit payola under the table from Saddam. Naturally they told us there was no problem, and that WE were the problem.

And let's not forget the payola that the son of the secretary general of the U.N. was getting from the oil-for-food program. That was documented as well.

Or did you not know all that?

And the people defending iraq from the illegal, in every sense, invaders are not terrorists they are iraqies trying to get the raping, thieving, and murdering soldiers out of their land.

Please show us evidence of the rapes. If you are going to make an aligation like that, you're going to have to back it up with facts.

Please show us what was stolen from whom. Again, we need some facts.

I'll spot you the invasion part. That's a no-brainer.

I would do the same in my country.

Oh really? You would carve the heads off of innocent civilians on camera for our viewing pleasure? You would kill innocent men, women, and children in your own country to make a point? You would convince whackos to commit suicide?

Gee, you're swell!

And it is always little defeseless countries like Iraq, Vietnam, Afgahnistan etc the us uk attack.

Oookaaay....

what about china?

what about korea?

They have far worse human rights records than iraq iran.

They didn't violate 13 (thirteen) U.N. resolutions. And I don't believe we invaded Iran.

If bush went against daddy and put the same effort, money, etc he did into Iraq, to go after the guy who actually attacked the us do you not think he may have caught him?

Funny he didn't isnt it.

I suggest you do a little research on just how an organization like al qaeda works. This is not a conventional army, a conventional enemy, or conventional warfare.

If you choose to post more, please start by supplying facts to back the statements you made. And if you have any problem with anything I have posted, I'll be happy to provide material to substantiate my own statements.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

- Bill

[jorvik]

Quote
"Let's see now... A ragtag bunch in a third world country trained 19 whacko idiots to take some box cutters and hijack 4 of our own planes which resulted in the destruction of the symbol of world commerce, the destruction of part of the symbol of the U.S. military, and the loss of over 3000 innocent men, women, and children from around the world. And this all happened in a matter of a few hours."

I'm sorry Bill, I'm uneducated .never did High school or whatever you call it.............so correct me if I'm wrong here but weren't those guys from Saudi...and wasn't that the same place that Osama Bin Laden came from????...........and I may be totally out of line here but wouldn't it be more logical to bomb Saudi arabia and try to kill Osama than Sadam .....and let's be honest they did lie about WMD........didn't they?? ..you're a big guy you can admit to this surely?
Did you know that Michael Howard has called Tony Bliar a "Liar" 3 times out of parliament.......this means he can be sued for "libel" but tony Bliar has not instructed counsel..Why is this ...do you think??
nowhe is trying to ban kitchen knives and replica guns........I hate living in a police state.....what do you think about the "patriot act"...how unpatriotic....how very unAmerican

[IJ]

The problem here is question dodging--not what the justification is for war, or whether there was an ad there. If an ad bothers you, the subject is a betrayal of our trust by our leaders, so look up the memos on google.

Dodging is what Conason's gripe is. Bush and Blair don't refute the memos that appear to indicate they lied and mislead to get everyone else into a war they decided on their own would be good. And instead of answering the question about whether this is the right way to start an enormous war and chronic half war in the mid east, we're talking about whether saddam was bad and 9/11 again, even though, as I mentioned before, there is no link. And it doesn't matter that they were reelected. People get scared during wartime esp when their other choice is a mushy democrat like Kerry AND there's an intensive effort to misinform them about the war and scare them about made up moral crises at home.

I'm not asking to rehash the "should we have gone to war" question. I'm asking, "Do I want these pathologic liars running my country," and "Does it matter that a people who were told they went to war for reason A+B are totally nonplussed to find out that whole shtick was invented to push for a war their leaders had already planned for other reasons."

This is like (on a big scale, with thousands killed and billions spent) when somehow we mostly all heard that the Clinton's had defaced and robbed the white house on leaving--yet the real story (they hadn't) was buried some time later and no one seemed to mind the fabrication.

[Bill Glasheen]

Couple of things going on simultaneously here.

First...

weren't those guys from Saudi...and wasn't that the same place that Osama Bin Laden came from????...........and I may be totally out of line here but wouldn't it be more logical to bomb Saudi arabia and try to kill Osama than Sadam

"Those guys" were born in Saudi Arabia. They were then trained by Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. We subsequently asked the Taliban government to turn over Osama and shut down the terrorist camps. They refused. We then went in there and shut the camps down ourselves. Bin Laden fled.

Oh and by the way, the infamous 19 spent time in Germany, and then a good deal of time in the United States before committing their acts. Hmm... What does that tell you?

Do YOU know where Bin Laden is, jorvik? I believe the reward for finding him is at least $25 million. Don't you think someone would nab him if we could? Chances are pretty good he's holed up somewhere between Afghanistan and Pakistan by tribes who either wouldn't know what to do with American dollars or who are getting a bigger payout from the bin Laden family fortune that Osama inherited and brought with him. Money talks...

Meanwhile, if you think that killing Bin Laden is going to make al qaeda go away, then you truly do not understand the modern enemy we are facing. As I said before, it is without country or standing army.

Meanwhile... Al Zarqawi also trained in Afghanistan directly under Bin Laden. He was trained to be a chemical and biological weapons specialist. And then he set up a training camp in northern Iraq. This happened BEFORE Operation Iraqi Freedom started.

Don't take my word for it...

and let's be honest they did lie about WMD........didn't they?? ..you're a big guy you can admit to this surely?

What IS known is that Saddam himself didn't know what he had in his own country. After many interrogations of his top men, it turned out that his top lieutenants lied to him about what supplies and capacity were there to save their butts. Or so they said...

Meanwhile, why would Saddam want the world to think he had WMD capabilities, jorvik? Well...remember he had just gotten done killing a million (1,000,000) Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war. This before he took over Kuwait to pay his war debts in that war, and then had his army completely routed. Greater historians than you and I have theorized that Saddam was bluffing after Desert Storm so the Iranians wouldn't think he was weak enough for them to cross the border and take over. After all, the majority in Iraq are Shia, as is true in Iran. Don't you think the Sunnis running Baghdad weren't getting just a little nervous? Remember - we were busy protecting no-fly zones in the north and south (by order of the U.N.) because he felt it necessary to exterminate his own people by the thousands to stay in control. And both U.S. and British pilots enforcing the U.N. mandate were getting targeted and shot at on a regular basis.

Sorry, jorvik, neither you nor anyone else is going to make the pat, simple case you want. This thing has way too much history, and folks seem to have short memory.

what do you think about the "patriot act"...

I'll let you know when I read it.

Have your read it?

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Ian

Here's part of the article.

On Tuesday, more than a month after the "Downing Street memo" first appeared on Britain's front pages, a Reuters correspondent asked George W. Bush and Tony Blair to explain the secret document that says the Bush administration had decided by July 2002 to invade Iraq -- and that the intelligence on Saddam Hussein's arsenal was then being "fixed" to bolster an otherwise exceedingly "thin" justification for war.

While the president and the prime minister airily attempted to dismiss the explosive memo -- just as many mainstream and conservative journalists in the United States did at first -- they have a lot more explaining to do. History will hold them accountable even if the press does not. For unlike previous indications of Bush's duplicity in promoting the war, this document provides historical evidence of a kind that usually remains hidden in a vault for years or even decades.

And then they warn me I'm going to have to put up with an ad to see the rest. Sorry, I already spend way too many hours removing spyware and adware from my computer. If it smells funny...

You could always post the rest of it here yourself.

Meanwhile, I don't buy his point of view.

This has been discussed elsewhere before. Plans have been laid down to invade any number of countries already. Business people make plans to do things they may never do all the time. Been there, done that. It's called contingency planning. It's been known for a very, very long time that we had plans ready to invade Iraq long before we ever considered doing it.

This is what you do when you've been dealing with someone who is shooting at your planes enforcing U.N. mandates, funding the families of Palestinian homicide bombers, repeatedly violating U.N. mandates, paying other countries under the table to remove sanctions, housing an al quaeda training camp (al Zarqawi in northern Iraq - someone who was trained by bin Laden as a chemical/biological warfare specialist), etc., etc.

GW went to Harvard business school; he's no dummy. Those who insist on underestimating his intelligence constantly are shown that it was a mistake to do so.

Hate the guy all you want; I don't care. But don't underestimate either him or brother Tony across the pond.

- Bill

[IJ]

Again, I'll look for links without 5 second ads (it's not that bad! they simply need to pay for bandwidth and they finance it with ads that don't link to spyware) if motivated later.

No one is saying we shouldn't have contingency plans. That's not what's in the memo.

The memos suggest they made a DECISION to go to war and then waged a propaganda / provocation campaign to convince their subjects, I mean citizens.

[Bill Glasheen]

Ian

We had many people on these forums saying we should have gone to Baghdad way back in Desert Storm. I remember arguing with George about it, saying it would have been nice to do so but there was no mandate. Meanwhile, the $hit just kept happening and happening. Saddam just kept violating one U.N. mandate after the next. The U.S. and Great Britain kept insisting we do something about it.

I don't see what the big deal is. It wasn't a snap decision. The media isn't biting either, just as this very journalist is saying.

Did you know our troops were training big time in chemical and bio warfare suits for about a year before we actually went over? We were expecting the worst.

Old news...

- Bill

[jorvik]

Quote
""Those guys" were born in Saudi Arabia. They were then trained by Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. We subsequently asked the Taliban government to turn over Osama and shut down the terrorist camps. They refused. We then went in there and shut the camps down ourselves. Bin Laden fled.

Oh and by the way, the infamous 19 spent time in Germany, and then a good deal of time in the United States before committing their acts. Hmm... What does that tell you?"

What does it tell you?? .they are Saudis trained by a Saudi .....just like the ira training with hamas.they didn't stop being irish
Quote
What IS known is that Saddam himself didn't know what he had in his own country. After many interrogations of his top men, it turned out that his top lieutenants lied to him about what supplies and capacity were there to save their butts. Or so they said...

Yeah but my government were very explicit in what they said the iraqi's could do...they said they could deploy WMD in 45 minutes.so how did they know that ...if saddam didn't.....what they said they knew was that saddam posed a very real threat to europe and this was false a lie .............a p*ss poor lie
and now we are getting closer to the truth...which is that Bush and Blair are liars.........d'ya know in my country school kids have a phrase for exaggerationand lies its called "blairing it up"
They didn't want regime change...Oh please ............and I'm afraid to say that this won't go away, iraq may have served a purpose in showing dubya that wars are easy to fight.................it's the peace that is hard maybe he'll think twice about iran.because they believe they've got God on their side, they are united, and that will be a totally different ball game.
oh yeah the patriot act .restricting freedon or what.they can look on your computer and do what they dam well please, invade every liberty that you have in the interests of the US ( bushbaby).....we've got it here.
No guns...shortly no imitation guns, kiddies cap pistols, no kitchen knives and an exclussion zone around London where anyone can be arrested without reason if they "think" they are a terrorist.....don't need proof or any evidence.police state or what

[Bill Glasheen]

Saudis trained by a Saudi .....just like the ira training with hamas.they didn't stop being irish

Gotta watch out for those Irish, jorvik. You know how they all are...

It mattered not what ethnicity they were. Osama is the black sheep of the bin Laden family and is not allowed back. The House of Saad doesn't want any al qaeda folks back in their country because al qaeda and the Saudi government don't see eye to eye.

Yes, there are Saudis giving money to the al qaeda cause. And folks from other countries as well.

What really mattered is that the training camps were in Afghanistan, and the Taliban allowed it thanks to some bin Laden payola. And we shut the camps down.

Yeah but my government were very explicit in what they said the iraqi's could do...they said they could deploy WMD in 45 minutes.so how did they know that ...if saddam didn't.....what they said they knew was that saddam posed a very real threat to europe and this was false a lie .............a p*ss poor lie

What your government and my government said is a matter of public record in U.N. session testimony.

You are right - the PR campaign for the excursion was weak, and outright wrong in places. Lies? That's a little more difficult to prove, jorvik.

What isn't a lie are the 13 (thirteen) Saddam violation of U.N. resolutions. What isn't a lie is that Saddam annexed Kuwait for its oil, and had to be ejected. And that ejection cost the world both money and lives. (Remember how they torched all the Kuwaiti oil fields before they left?) He had dues to pay and obligations to live up to. He failed those.

What isn't a lie is that al Zarqawi was operating an al qaeda training camp in northern Iraq. Furthermore, both the U.S. and the U.K. knew that, and knew he was trained as a WMD specialist.

What isn't a lie is that Saddam was constantly targeting and shooting at both U.S. and U.K. planes protecting the no-fly zones. And they existed because Saddam was gassing Kurds in the north and executing Shia in the south - by the thousands. And the no-fly zones were set up by the U.N.

What isn't a lie is that Saddam was funding the families of homicide bombers.

I'll spot you that part of the case to invade turned out to be wrong if you'll spot me all the parts of the total testimony and withheld intelligence that was true. But if you want to call the whole thing a lie because part of the story turned out to be false, well then you're operating on false premises.

They didn't want regime change...Oh please

Where did you get that from? Saddam and company were asked to leave first. They refused. Then the invasion started.

Clinton made "regime change" a PUBLIC policy. That was before GW ever was in office.

What's the issue here, jorvik?

the patriot act .restricting freedon or what.they can look on your computer and do what they dam well please, invade every liberty that you have in the interests of the US ( bushbaby).....we've got it here.
No guns...shortly no imitation guns, kiddies cap pistols, no kitchen knives and an exclussion zone around London where anyone can be arrested without reason if they "think" they are a terrorist.....don't need proof or any evidence.police state or what

Wow... So what's this concealed carry permit in my wallet, jorvik? How come Texas has about 2 firearms per citizen? (I believe that statistic is accurate.) If the patriot act means I can have the weapons I already have, well then it's fine by me.

Too bad about your police state...

- Bill

[MikeK]

No guns...shortly no imitation guns, kiddies cap pistols, no kitchen knives and an exclussion zone around London where anyone can be arrested without reason if they "think" they are a terrorist.....don't need proof or any evidence.police state or what

That's the fault of those who elected representitives that created those laws.

[IJ]

Is it that simple, Mike? Sometimes there is no good choice in an election. The electorate may be at fault, but individuals can usually do little. Otherwise you are responsible for every silly law from your state and the federal government.

Back to the memo:

As for some ad free links to the memo material, try this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 07,00.html

That's the source data. Here's some excerpts:

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

"The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections."

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam."

Before this is all dimissed as contingency planning, let's remember that at this time, Bush and Blair were both publicly stating that they were doing everything they could to avoid war, when that was not the case. As my original link discusses, when asked, neither leader refuted the central message of the memo, that they'd already declared war in their heads and were simply waiting to convince everyone else to go along.

Any number of opinion pieces on this matter can be googled. The Times of London online has alongside that memo some articles on why it took so long for the memo to make the US news. Here are excerpts from another Salon piece on the matter:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/ ... reet_memo/

In an age of instant communications, the American mainstream media has taken an exceedingly long time -- as if news of the memo had traveled by vessel across the Atlantic Ocean -- to report on the leaked document. Nor has it considered its grave implications -- namely, that President Bush lied to the American people and Congress during the run-up to the war with Iraq when he insisted over and over again that war was his administration's last option.

At Tuesday's joint White House press briefing, Bush and Blair were finally asked about the memo in public, an event that the press dutifully chronicled. But the two leaders, not accepting follow-up questions, simply denied the accuracy of the memo's contents, while circumventing the central question of why Blair's most senior intelligence officer believed the White House had already decided on war in the summer of 2002. (Bush finished his response to the memo question with his well-worn catchphrase, "The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power.")

As Mark Danner spelled out in the June 9 issue of the New York Review of Books, the memo helps establish five key facts in understanding how the still-deadly war in Iraq unfolded:

"1. By mid-July 2002, eight months before the war began, President Bush had decided to invade and occupy Iraq.

"2. Bush had decided to 'justify' the war 'by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.'

"3. Already, 'the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.'

"4. Many at the top of the [U.S.] administration did not want to seek approval from the United Nations (going 'the U.N. route').

"5. Few in Washington seemed much interested in the aftermath of the war. "