| Author |
Message |
    
mfpark
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 142
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 11:40 am: |     |
"Powell Admits No Hard Proof in Linking Iraq to Al Qaeda"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/09/politics/09POWE.html
But it sure was a convincing show he put on for the UN back in February. It is interesting to say NOW that "there is no smoking gun", when Bush, Rice, Chaney, and Powell all used that phrase dozens of times to justify the war on Iraq.
No weapons of mass destruction have been found, either, and no evidence of mobile biological weapons labs (which we were only shown cartoons of, and no real intelligence data).
How can we believe anything these guys say? |
JJC
Citizen
Username: Mercury
Post Number: 160
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 11:43 am: | |
I feel bad for Powell - what a fool he has been made into. All of this on the same day they pull the WMD search teams from Iraq. Incredible. |
mfpark
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 143
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 11:45 am: | |
You can't feel bad for Powell--he signed on for this and made the choice to back it all the way. Perhaps he really believed the intelligence he was receiving, but in that case if he was deceived he should resign in protest. Instead, he gave a "spirited defense" of his actions. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 657
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 11:55 am: | |
Perhaps this president really believed it too. But we know he wouldn't resign even if that was the case.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_54281.asp |
mfpark
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 145
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 1:21 pm: | |
Believe me, I am no fan of, or apologist for, Clinton (he screwed up plenty of foreign policy initiatives). But Bush et al went to war based on this major misread of the situation. Clinton did not.
My point about Powell is that he is losing much of the tremendous global credibility he has built over the years, and perhaps needs to rethink his membership in this administration. |
Greatest Straw of all time!
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1740
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 1:27 pm: | |
boring
BUSH/CHENEY IN 2004.. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 659
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 1:35 pm: | |
Powell saw the same intelligence as everyone else did, largely from the same career-employee intelligence community that justified lobbing cruise missiles into Baghdad. Now, Powell is suddenly a craven liar? No sale.
It may turn out that Saddam's secrecy did allow for a mistaken assumption that the WMD threat was what people thought it was -- Powell included. He knew everyone involved in this assessment and had for years.
Who knew....Clinton bombed Saddam for WMD, and Saddam disposed of his WMD (Not proven yet, but for the sake of argument..) but wouldn't document same nor share the information with the UN so we were left to believe Saddam (not an option)....so Clinton and Bush both agree he probably had the stuff.
So that, 18 UN violations and his repression of his people and destabilizing nature in the Middle East has us go to war.
Yup. 19 out of 20 reasons sounds good to me. |
mfpark
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 149
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 1:57 pm: | |
Weapons inspectors found and destroyed many WMDs after the first gulf war. Subsequent inspections did not find much of anything (cf: Scott Ritter, Hans Blix). It has been called the most invasive inspection system in military history (by a CIA operative).
Inspections failed to find actual manufacturing of WMDs (note the cartoons of mobile facilities which turned out to be hydrogen processing). If he had them, they were likely very old and useless (weapons grade anthrax has a short shelf life, for example). How much could Saddam have had if no one could find them even before the war--whether with on-site or high-tech surveillance?
We know plenty well what North Korea, Israel, et al have in their stockpiles without invading them.
One does not necessarily go to war on this type of information.
Regarding the UN resolutions, Israel is in violation of many, also--before you jump up and down, I am a supporter of Israel, but you cannot use simple violation of UN resolutions as a pretext for war. That is why so many desired full UN backing, or at least NATO backing, for this war. It is one thing to pass resolutions, quite another to go to war.
Regarding instability in the Middle East, only time will tell. One could easily argue that this made the region more unstable--dictators might be more willing to use their WMDs sooner rather than risk losing them; a power vaccuum in Iraq could usher in another Islamist regime with an anti-Western bent. |
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 433
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 2:27 pm: | |
noone's saying Powell's a craven liar. Where'd you get that?
These guys gambled (badly) on the the WMD theory and Iraq/Al Queda to go to war. They blew it.
Now they're taking their medicine. Gulp.
Some conservatives can't stomach it.
19 out of 20 is no way enough for me (to go to war, if that's what you mean. War.)
Where was this $87 billion for covert action?
The Clinton/Bush hypothetical falls way short. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 661
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 2:40 pm: | |
Bush lied is the charge in many places and on this board, so Powell carried his water or unwittingly did by those he worked with shielding him from any information that countered his boss. Not likely.
Even 20 out of 20 is easily ruled no reason because it wasn't an "imminent" threat to many on the left, nor was it said to be by this Administration. Better a couple missiles and keep the mass graves coming -- UN and NATO backing or not.
You have Bush and 'one of the greatest presidents in this century' agreeing on the threat. The cost of not acting was too high. |
Duncan
Citizen
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 1406
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 3:18 pm: | |
I dont think people are debating "the cost of not acting". People take issue with acting unilaterally and BY BALD FACE LYING ABOUT IT. That is what has people's panties in a twist. Can we stop with the "it was the right thing to do no matter how we did it" nonsense. The ends do not always justify the means for Gods sake. I am tired of hearing from all the Bush apologists that it doesnt matter. It Does.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"
Wayne Gretzky |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 664
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 3:26 pm: | |
Powell is a bald faced liar now.
And people only like unilateral action when their own party's president takes it. And if it really does matter, where were your howls in 1998, 1999? |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4248
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 4:11 pm: | |
I don't think there was much lying about WMD. I don't think anyone doubted that SH had some capability in that area and was working on more and better for the future. Still, somebody is going to have to take the rap for the bad inteligence. We have nearly 500 dead soliders and nearly 10,000 wounded and this little undertaking is costing about !,000,000,000 per week when we were told the Iraqi's would pay for their own rebuilding with oil revenues.
The Al Quada connection was much less sure. I posted about this before the war started, as did others. Other than treating an Afghan with a leg wound, hardly a reason to take out a country imho, there really wasn't anything there. The secular Iraq regime and Al Quada have little more in common than they have with Israel. |
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 434
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 4:41 pm: | |
Again, it was "clear and present" danger, not "imminent" (corrections welcome).
Implying that there's a gulf between the definitions is a weak point the right should really, quietly, give up. But that I think has been amply discussed- not going there again.
in 1998 & 1999 I was concerned too, just to answer that one. We all just weren't within earshot.
|
mfpark
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 151
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 4:46 pm: | |
Bobk:
I do not think it is true that "no one doubted that SH had some capability in that area..." From what I can tell, there was a lot of doubt in the minds of many at the CIA and NSC and Pentagon--but they were not listened to by the Administration, who only wanted to hear what they wanted to hear. I laid out several reasons above why some felt his WMD capability was very weak if nonexistent.
Condee Rice says that her job is to interpret POTUS's instincts and implement policies accordingly. In this case, I think she and others selectively listened to data and intelligence and gave him what he wanted to hear.
Duncan is right on--starting a war, killing thousands--has to be based on more than wishful thinking and selective data analysis. And to try to cover this up by not admitting to being at fault is wrong--whether done by Clinton, Nixon, or Bush. |
JJC
Citizen
Username: Mercury
Post Number: 161
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 9, 2004 - 5:15 pm: | |
mfpark - you are right on. The issue was not with the intelligence, it was with the "interpretation". The White House had an outcome in mind (invade Iraq) and massaged the intel to match. It is criminal. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 669
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 12:53 pm: | |
it was never described as "imminent." The Admin spoke of a "gathering threat." Where imminent came into play I don't know -- maybe Kosovo. |
drewdix
Citizen
Username: Drewdix
Post Number: 435
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 12, 2004 - 12:57 pm: | |
thanks for the correction
ok "gathering threat" it is.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page