Powell Not Sure Iraq Trailers Were Labs
 

He is saying that his story is not solid. the only thing solid is the crap this administration is dishing out to the american public. why does this stuff always come out on the weekends when the american public is not watching the news:
found this at:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...iraq_weapons_5

In other words, they knew there were no weapons, they always knew there were none, the WMD were lies, and now the CIA are going to be blamed rather than the liars.

Its not that they knew there were no weapons. That's simply not the issue here. They probably did believe that weapons would be found, just as many others in Washington, including Democrats, believed.

But as the President of the United States, it was Bush's responsibility to make damn sure that he knew Iraq had WMD and was a threat to our nation; sure enough to justify the deaths of each and every soldier who has died in this war.
Powell now says our evidence might not have been solid. He should have found that out before we decided to put our troops in harm's way. He says he made sure they were "multi-sourced", but he never made sure they were 100% accurate. He and the administration are going to try to unfairly shift their responsibility onto the intelligence community, which was repeatedly pressured by the administration to provide evidence to justify the war. As Richard Clarke has revealed, the Bush administration reaction to unfavorable intelligence was "try again".

Whatever happened to "the buck stops here"? After Clinton spent most of his term ducking from responsibility, I thought perhaps President Bush would change the tone in Washington and begin to accept responsibility for his actions. Instead, he has refused to even look into his mistakes, initially opposing both this commission and the 9-11 commission.

President Bush says he would do it again if he had the chance, but I'd like to see him say that to all the soldiers who have died in this war, to the guys who were senselessly mutilated this week, to their families who will never see them again. Taking the country to war is a great responsibility. Unfortunately, President Bush has abused this responsibility and in my opinion has proven himself to be incapable of leading this nation.

Oh My.....what a suprise.
Maybe the Powell I used to respect is shining through.

Here's a good read. Sorry for the long paste, but it's worth it. As you read it, keep in mind that every single bit of information in it turned out to be false, and that Colin Powell is now retracting his statements. How can this be anything other than a delibrate misinformation campaign? How do we get from this report in May of 2003 to "oops, forget all that" less than a year later.

The CIA works for President Bush. The buck stops at Bush.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/03052801.htm

a few more nice quotes
 

Heres some other great quotes kindly compiled by Walter Williams in this piece here:


Just because they were ALL wrong, doesn't mean they lied.

They fucked up. They've been fucking up for years, and they will continue to fuck up for years to come. The first changes to our bloated, ineffective, turf battling, secretive federal law enforcement and intelligence gathering entities have happened only recently and after many years of being ignored.

Come to grasp with reality. Being wrong is NOT LYING.

As for General Powell. I don't doubt that he will have more egg to wipe off his face, and I am confident that he will once again step up to the plate. More evidence to me of the cut of his jib, the mettle of his moxy. A true warrior, and statesmen.

imho,

-bear

I don't see how any of your quotes come to bear on the fact that the administration continued to maintain that Iraq had "mobile biological weapons labs" for many years, a claim which they are now retracting completely.

The general claim of Iraq having WMD is irrelevant to the specific claim here that Iraq had mobile biological weapons labs.

By that standard, Bill Clinton must be your hero! Look at all poor Bill had to endure after lying to the american public. What a statesman!!!

:)

The specific claim is and always has been lies.

Continuing to point out 'mistakes' or lack of substantiation of the governments claims, whether bush, cheney, powell, clinton, albright, or other and calling them lies, especially when someone comes forward again, and fesses up to the mistake or failures is disengenous at best.

They might have been lies, who knows. The trail goes back so far. A cabinet member confessing that he was mistaken (or misled or misinformed, possibly even misguided), is not proof of lies. It supports mistakes, and only proves the quality of the man owning up to the mistakes.

If it's simply a mistake, it seems the only way we found out about it was to go and look for ourselves.

Wouldn't you agree?

I still maintain they will turn up in Syria, and in time for the election. Time will tell. I will be humbled to admit as much should I be mistaken. It won't make me a liar.

To keep to the light hearted nature of the ribbing presented:

Hero indeed :rolleyes: If I measured statesmen by the perjuries committed, impeachments imposed, and disbarrments assest.

:)

-bear

Well, for me, enough proof is there to call it a lie. It appears from what I have gathered so far is that the Bush Administration allowed itself to be misled by a single set of misinformation created by Iraqi expats who had a vested interest in the USA invading Iraq.

here's a transcript from June of 2003:
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/03062706.htm

Frankly, to get from that statement to an "oops, it wasn't a weapons trailer, and by the way, our intelligence was wrong and we should have never thought they had mobile weapons trailers in the first place" requires, for me, an assumption of an evil purpose on the part of the Bush Administration.

Your mileage may vary. Also, I have some land in florida you might be interested in, and this bridge here. :)

You could be right. No doubt about it.

Lie and all.

Even still, it has been years of iraqi ex-pats. I wonder who was the director of the cia when Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand? GHWB? Not sure on that actually. Worth investigating.

What other intelligence gathering technique would have yielded different results? More reliable ones?

You know though, right after GHWB (his general actually, stormin norman, under Powell's (JCS) command) took a piss in the south of Iraq then packed up his toys and went home. He had them then, and used them. All the while always kicking himself that he couldn't get nuclear on anyone's ass. Who knows what mumbo jumbo, russian and french complicite, UN blind-eyed nonsense happened between then and just before the US took that fucker out. That piece of shit had been so lazy, he only put the word out that he had WMD, and built palaces. Or did he?

I've read that only the Russians have ever publically acknowledge a possibility that Iraq was not WMD capable.

I'm certain Bush II didn't need much provocation into heading to Iraq during his presidency. I'll bet he had a pretty good idea how he would do it too....long before 9-11. Hell, even I did.

Whatcha gonna do?

-bear

Gotta wonder what level of perjury we would get from GWB, if there was an impeachment trial for his "blunders" thus far. If indeed he and his, are lying, there are over seven hundred dead soldiers who have paid the price for it. Seems a bit more severe than the reputation of an intern, and a quickie.
We will likely never know the number of Iraqis killed, as the administration thinks it is unimportant to track.

Once again, unless you know what each individual was thinking and what they knew to be the truth when they made those statements, they can't be called lies.

Sure they can. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies.

I think Powell is lying.

I think George Bush is lying.

I think Condoleeza Rice is lying.

There, I said it.

Here's a few facts you can check.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=40520

What then do you say to the fact that every Democrat, including Clinton and Gore, was saying the same thing, i.e. that Saddam had WMD's?

Were they "lying" too?

Again, I'm talking about the specific claim about the trailers. Of course Iraq had WMD's once, they used them. But, the Bush Administration consistently pumped up the threat that Iraq posed, including the ridiculous claim that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program. The Bush Administration also consistently linked Iraq with 9/11, when no such link existed.

This weapons trailer issue is just one example.

If you'd prefer to not call it "lying" and instead call it "criminal negligence" or "crimes of omission" or "a watergate-level campaign of deception," I'm fine with all those terms too. We don't have to get all caught up in this "lying" term. :)

It is not the term "lying" or the other terms you put forth, it is the intent of deception that I disagree with and the point of my post.

In otherwords, the US intelligence community (under Democrats and Republicans) made many mistakes which resulted in their drawing erroneous conclusions which were passed on to the politicians (Democrat and Republican) above them.

Honestly, I see this continual charge of "lying" as ignoring of these basic facts.

HarmlessRabbit, one of the problems I have with your position, is that you present possibilities as fact.

For example, you state that Iraq did not have an active nuclear weapons program, even though this is *not* a fact. After all, given the uncertainties, it is not unlikely that we will one day learn that Iraq was indeed working on nukes. You *think* that the claim is rediculous, even though it's not at all unreasonable to suspect such a thing from a man known to like WMDs.

Hell, you said it yourself:

Just because you <b>think</b> something does not mean it's true. I'd suggest you stop confusing what you <b>think</b> with what you actually <b>know</b>.

Going back to the topic title: we know for a fact that Powell is unsure *now* about the validity of his statements about the trailers (fact). Some people then extrapolate from this uncertainty, and claim that Powell was lying (possibility, not a fact), and that the whole Bush administration was lying about the WMDs (possibility, not a fact).

I'd suggest the following scenario: Powell and the rest of the Bush administration were convinced that Iraq had WMDs, and were constantly being fed intelligence that appeared to support that position. Naturally, they paid less attention to the few reports disputing their position (as anyone would). Given their knowledge of the background of Iraq's leader, the administration then tried to get the US public and the UN to support them in their quest to end the reign of this (in their eyes) still dangerous individual. Only afterwards do they learn that the information given to them appears to be factually incorrect.

Note that there is no mention of lying in this scenario, because the people involved are all convinced they're right. Now, can anyone *proof* that my scenario is incorrect, or even very unlikely?

Well, we can take a discussion on the meaning of truth to the philosophy board if you'd like. The fact is, unless you are personally experiencing these things, you're taking news reports for their word anyway. Go down that route and you'll soon believe the moon landings were faked.

The fact is, I think Powell is lying. Now, you might have a different conclusion. You think that Iraq might have had an active nuclear program, in the fact of massive evidence that they did not. So, I'm no different than you. In the face of evidence, I have drawn a conclusion and think Powell in lying. You, in the face of evidence, have drawn a conclusion that Iraq had a nuclear program.

I'd be happy to bring of some of your past posts and start contesting what you claimed as "facts". That way lies madness, though!

So, the fact is, I think Powell was lying. On purpose. To acheive a goal of the administration.

:)

I don't mind at all that you have that opinion, but again, it doesn't address the basic fact that both Democrats and Republicans both believed that Saddam had WMD's.

Also, just as clarification, Saddam DID have a nuclear program at one time.

And you can thank the Israelis for putting a large dent in it.

Your scenario is just as unlikely as the "lying" scenario put forth by HarmlessRabbit. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

You say "Naturally, they paid less attention to the few reports disputing their position (as anyone would)." I would strongly dispute this point. If they were being responsible, they would have looked even more closely at the dissenting reports in order to make sure that their position stood up to the scrutiny. You also make the assumption that the intelligence community operates independently of the Bush administration when in fact the Bush administration had considerable influence in shaping what kind of intelligence was actually produced.

*sigh*

Why do I feel that no one is reading a word of what I've said?

I read what you said, but frankly, it is irrelevant to the discussion. I addressed this in my first post.
President Bush is the only President of the United States. Regardless of what anyone else said, Democrat or Republican, it was President Bush who led us into this war. It was his responsibility.
I don't understand why you feel the need to turn this into a partisan political discussion. This is about President Bush. It's time he and his supporters start taking responsibility instead of pushing it onto others and saying "well, Clinton/the Dems did it too". It's irrelevant.

No, it's not irrelevant.

The charge is specifically that Powell, Bush, etc. were lying.

If anything, yours is the partisan position while I am trying to point out that:

a) nothing happens in a vacuum (i.e. there is always more than a simple black and white answer) and

b) the charge ignores what has been going on for the last 20 years or so in Iraq.

Of course the president is ultimately responsible for what happens during his administration, but the repeated mantra of "Liar Liar Liar" is nothing more than mudslinging.

Well, I personally never made the charge that Bush and Co. were lying and neither did the original poster, mrbuck12000. In fact, I made a point of putting down the charge that SF made and later tried to point out that the truth was somewhere in the middle.

I agree that the truth is somewhere in the middle, but it seemed to me that you were refuting Dragonlich when he made that same argument.

And something else that occured to me, it is exceedingly unlikely that they were knowingly lying for one simple reason: if they were lying and knew Saddam didn't have WMD's, once we were in Iraq it would become apparent that they were lying. Hence, I feel very safe in saying that Bush and Blair fully expected to find WMD's because otherwise the political fallout would be overwhelming, as we've seen.

well, i thought Dragonlich was trying to endorse a counter-scenario in which the Bush administration acted in completely good faith and did everything right, though on re-reading it, i may have misread it before.
You are definitely right on your second point and that's exactly why i don't believe they lied. Of course, some of the anti-war people will now say they knew all along there were no weapons, but that's BS. They never knew it, they were guessing, based on the info they had. Likewise, the Bush administration gave their best guess. What I question is whether or not they really considered all the information available in developing this best guess, or if they started with a guess and then asked for information to back it up. I don't know which is true, but perhaps this commission will shed some light on it.

Well, here in San Jose it's 70 degrees and the sky is blue, so for me Weapons Trailers seem a bit irrelevant right now. :)

Said in 1998, months before we engaged in Operation Desert Fox to rid Iraq of WMD. Operation now seen as a success :)

Going off of the best available intelligence, which was provided to them through Presidential Channels. Why shouldn't they trust what the President says? Why should we believe he would lead us astray.
(except, now we know that Bush had a hardon for attacking Iraq since the day he took office and was going to use 9/11 as an excuse for invading.)

Well, I confess that's a twist I haven't heard before.

So your contention is that they believed Saddam had WMD's because Bush told them so?

I'm surprised you haven't heard this before. I thought it was made pretty clear that current proclamations, from both parties, were based on information gathered and disseminated by the administration.

This has always been my understanding of the situation.

I can't speak to statements before 2000. I was under the impression that most people felt that containment was working; that is, most weapons were destroyed, much of what was left was unusable, and the remainder was being sorted out by inspectors.

Yes lebell, that is my contention. None of our congresspeople or Senators have their own intelligence agency. The ones this nation does have fall under direct authority of the President. Bush showed them the information he wanted them to see, and that, of course, was all info that would ascert his beliefs.

Where else would they have got their asertions?

actions like this make me want powell in 08

he is just looking better and better as a candidate

:)

From the various briefings the CIA and FBI would be required to give to congressional groups? The CIA is not directly controlled by the President, they strive to provide independent information. I'd say they have a moral responsibility (at the very least) to provide congress with accurate information.

But then again, I could be wrong. I've only seen the CIA chief talk to the intelligence committees after the war.

I believe, as commander-in-chief all intelligence agencies serve the President. Bush has the power of appointment to each agency as well.
They strive to provide indepenent info, but I believe the President makes the call on whether info can be released or not, even to Congress.

Additionally Cheney was set up as the head of Iraqi Intelligence in the run up to the Iraq war. His creation in the Pentagon, The Office of Special Plans was used to directly collect all other intelligence agencies data so it could be fed to the appropriate outlets, like congress.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/san...cs/7859310.htm
Otherwise the Iraq War vote would not have gone smoothly as it did. Tenet had plenty of information, which has been coming out since we went to war, that directly refuted each claim Bush was making about Iraqi wmd.

Actually, the CIA, NSA, etc. report as much to the Senate and House intelligence committees as much as to the president.

Actually that isn't quite true.

As I mentioned above, they also report directly to congress.

Also, the president nominates the heads and seconds for the agencies, but Congress approves them.

Ok, but still, Cheney was filtering all Iraqi Intelligence through his Office of Special Plans.