Slam dunk!
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.
Well the media has been singing Powells praises of late. It will be interesting to see them do a "Belafonte"
The article neglected Sheila Jackson Lee who suggested we hide the troops in the desert so nobody will know we are there.
OOPS. Wrong thread.
I suggest we hide her in the desert, and nobody will know she is there.
Well, this is very interesting to say the least...Powell confirms what the WH has been saying for months...
Wouldn't work, all the enemy would have to do is look for the Martian flag.
Get a load of this.
Sounds like political hacks at the intelligence agencies might have been busy dressing up the intel reports so the boss would here what they thought he wanted to hear.
Excellent article. The CIA lies are being brought to light!
"And even then, I suspect, there will be a continuing relationship and presence of some significance for some years to come."
I certainly hope so. We've got Syria and Iran to deal with next.
All evidence and signs for years pointed to Saddam having WMD-s. He was given 6 months in addition to prove that his WMD were destroyed and to let the UN inspectors in and he didn't do it, he used that time to hide away and transport the WMD out of Iraq, to Syria.
I am really annoyed that people claim that just because we didn't find tons of WMD when we went into Iraq, they never existed.
If you lose something, or something is stolen, how would you like it, if the Insurance company says they won't pay, because the fact that you don't have it now is evidence that you never had it in the first place. If this sounds ridiculous, well, the exact same logic is being used in the case of the WMD: we didn't find them, after having given Saddam ample warning to hide them or dispose of them, therefore they never existed.
"here what they thought he wanted to hear." That's covering the spelling bases. ;^)
More goodies for your files.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1615880
Kay: "I actually think the intelligence community owes the president (an
explanation) rather than the president owing the American people (an
explanation). You have to remember that this view of Iraq (that it had WMD)
was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush
administration.
Kay said there was "a constant stream of trucks, cars, rail traffic" moving
from Iraq to Syria. "We simply don't know what was moved," he said, adding,
"The Syrian government has shown absolutely no interest in helping us resolve
this issue."
he told NPR "I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq
posed an imminent threat."
Kay: "I must say I actually think Iraq — what we learned during the
inspections — made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than in fact we
thought it was even before the war."
What was Bush supposed to do, personally inspect Iraq himself with a magnifying glass, because Saddam surely was NOT providing evidence he had gotten rid of anything.
It was up to Iraq to provide evidence of WMD destruction. they never did. BTW, who care about WMD, Iraq broke 14 UN resolutions, and repeatedly breached the ceasefire terms from the Gulf war.
Powell, is a Mcpainintheass loser, as well as all the MSM/dem, anti-war,CIA, State Dept. prix.
Powell/Rice 2008. Or Rice/Powell 2008.
Do you realize it would make perfect sense if they were both simply . . . moderately pro Life? I think both are very slightly pro Choice . . . I think Rice and Powell have both said something about the calendar. Someone can dig this out. I think they were okay with the morning after pill but strongly opposed to abortion after a few weeks or something. This is far far more stringent than the Dems who are okay with killing right up to partial birth. But they both didn't draw the line at conception and that would make them uncomfortable for our hardliners to support.
OTOH, hell, if people are talking Guilliani and McCain . . . I think Rice and Powell are more pro Life than either.
But . . . God wouldn't it be nice to watch the left go utterly INSANE when they realize the first black ticket to be elected is Republican?
Well ... the Dems just lost another argument
Guess this means Harry Reid will be calling Powell a loser too, huh?
"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.
Slam dunk!
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.
That is all the media plays up. And it is causing unbearable stupidity.
Yep, but what do you expect from a nation largely educated by members of the NEA?
What took him so long to make that point?
WMD's were only one of the reasons we went to war, and the fact that we didn't FIND them doesn't mean they didn't exist.
The stupid UN inspectors gave them all the time in the world to hide them.........or give them to Syria.......
Let me try and understand....
Valerie Plame a WMD analyst at the CIA. The WH did not know of CIA WMD concerns, something that should have come from her desk....
Is there a problem here?
Reids the same stuff as Daschele-just piled higher.
Thanks for the ping. It's illogical to believe there were no WMD in Iraq, IMO. And it's pointless for Powell to lament about not being told of that possibility at this juncture. In fact, it's irritating.
As others have pointed out, Saddam was allowed time to move or hide them. And they are likely dispersed.
The question I'd like to see Powell or any admin official ask publically is "who" had the interest in allowing Saddam to do just that. And why.
It would seem he is suffereing under the delusion that they reported to him? What ever gave him that idea?
Did he in turn always report to Rumsfeld when he wanted to take some action?
Pres. Bush is just basically appologizing for the CIA is my guess. Do you think he believes anything that is coming out of those fool's mouths? I sure don't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.