Skip to comments.White House 'never told' of WMD doubts (Powell opens up!)
Posted on 12/17/2005 6:14:13 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
THE US administration was never told of doubts about the secret intelligence used to justify war with Iraq, former secretary of state Colin Powell told the BBC in an interview to be broadcast on Sunday night.
Mr Powell, who argued the case for military action against Saddam Hussein in the UN in 2003, told BBC News 24 television he was "deeply disappointed in what the intelligence community had presented to me and to the rest of us."
"What really upset me more than anything else was that there were people in the intelligence community that had doubts about some of this sourcing, but those doubts never surfaced to us," he said.
Mr Powell's comments follow US President George W. Bush's acceptance earlier this week of responsibility for going to war on intelligence, much of which "turned out to be wrong".
US involvement in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion has led to the loss of 2,140 of its troops and badly hit the Republican president's popularity.
The opposition Democrats have increased calls for a timetable for a military withdrawal.
But ahead of this week's parliamentary elections in Iraq, President Bush insisted he was still right to order the invasion and argued a hurried withdrawal would be "a recipe for disaster".
The British government, Washington's key allies in the invasion, has similarly refused to give a withdrawal date for its 8,000 or so troops in Iraq's four southern states, although has said it could happen next year.
For his part, Mr Powell considered the US military could not be deployed in Iraq at its current strength for years to come, raising the possibility of withdrawal from next year.
But he told the BBC that "essentially just to walk away, to say that we're taking all of our troops out as fast as we can, would be a tragic mistake". A US presence would be required in Iraq for "years", he added.
"We've invested a great deal in this country, and the Iraqi people deserve democracy and the freedom that they were promised when we got rid of Saddam Hussein and we have to stay with them... until they decide that they can get it now on their own, they don't need us any longer," he added.
"And even then, I suspect, there will be a continuing relationship and presence of some significance for some years to come."
In the interview, Mr Powell confirmed that White House "hawks" US Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had bypassed him and other colleagues on occasions.
Mr Powell's former chief-of-staff Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson made the damning allegations last month, accusing Cheney and Rumsfeld of running a "cabal" and hijacking US military and foreign policy.
Discussions with Rumsfeld about dealing with the aftermath of the Iraq invasion were "not pleasant", Mr Powell admitted in the interview.
"Yep. Totally nukes the "Bush lied" crowd and it comes from one of their "heros" Powell."
Even Powell seems to recognize that one McCain at a time is all we can take.
Yup, ole Chrissy Matthews and his nightly "Get Bush" show will be a little upset over this.
Oh you can bet the left liberal loonies will quickly distance themselves with their prior "friend" Powell now that he has vindicated that evil Bush. Just like they turned on Judith Miller. It has to be their way or the high way. For the "tolerant lefties" they sure do not believe in practicing the tolerance they preach - only to be applied to the conservative right wingnuts I guess.
I still don't get it. The WMDs were all there, the Russians moved them to Syria, and the Demoratic politicians gave them time to do it.
OK, so what don't you get?
WHOA....the Sh*t is hitting the fan this week.......
The dems will never allow it until or unless they nuke Israel and even then my money is on an isolationist approach.
Guess this means Harry Reid will be calling Powell a loser too, huh?
I can't stomach Reid. I can't remember the last time I heard him speak. I always turn the channel when he's on. It's like watching slime talk.
Did Powell just get kicked in the head? Is the Amnesia oveR?
There is a truism in logic:
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You can't prove anything becuase you can't find evidence. You can only prove something based on the existance of evidence, not the lack of it. You can infer a conclusion, but you do so at great risk, for exactly the reaons that you put forward.
Speaking of the left, loonie, lefties -- did you see that Cindy Sheehan held a anti-war protest outside the US embassy in Spain today? All of 100 people showed up. This woman is really lost, Spain pulled out almost a year ago.
Chrissy Matthews will ignore this article...to concentrate on the article in the New York Times...
Everyone is acting like that was the only reason we went to war with Saddam Hussein.
HELLOoooo ... remember ... WMD's were not the only reason we wanted to oust Hussein.
I feel the same way as you do....
I don't want anyone (least of all, President Bush) apologizing for faulty intelligence....unless/until we get a chance to go over all of Iraq and Syria, Lebanon and even France and Russia...
There are just too many places for WMDs to have been transported to....and then you still have the minds and evilness of Saddam and his sons....THEY were deadly all by themselves...to thousands...
There was a large amount of evidence that Saddam DID have WMD. Based on that evidence everyone was sure he had them.
The fact that we didn't find any proves that we couldn't find them, or that maybe they weren't there WHEN we went in, but it's not proof that they weren't there a month before. Yet people keep insisting, that if we couldn't find them, that's absolute proof that he never had any, despite of all previous evidence.
That's most likely what happened. If we ever venture into Syria and make the Big Find the Democrat party would be on life support and the GOP would significantly increase its congressional/senate majority. But after three years those WMDs are undoubtedly widely dispersed by now. ......with Hezbollah being one of the main recipients.
This is not believeable. The Administration is not run by inexperienced children. Its leaders are well aware of the limitations and uncertainties which accompany all intelligence.