Bush need not apologize over Iraq-uranium statement, Powell says

AZCentral ^ | July 10, 2003 | AP

[EllaMinnow]

PRETORIA, South Africa - Secretary of State Colin Powell defended the administration in its handling of information about Iraqi weapons programs, saying Thursday that President Bush shouldn't have to apologize for a statement that later proved false.

Powell's remarks were the administration's strongest defense yet of Bush's decision to include an assertion in his State of the Union speech that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from Africa.

[EllaMinnow]

The latest...

[jwalsh07]

Good for Powell but he could be a bit more forceful.

Kiss it where the sun doesn't shine comes to mind.

[PhiKapMom]

I just used the Bush-Cheney '04 ping list -- everyone needs to read this from SoS Powell!

Thanks for posting it!

[DoughtyOne]

[Support Free Republic]

Your Donation Helps Counter These Guys
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[EllaMinnow]

Thanks for using your ping list! I think Powell's stement is very important.

[My2Cents]

Have you noticed the pattern that Democrat nitpicking, naysaying, and general attacks on Bush increase in frequency and intensity when he's on overseas trips? When Bush went to Poland, Russian, France, Egypt and Jordan, the Dems kicked off their "Bush Lied" campaign. Now that he's in Africa, they're worrying this Niger uranium comment.

Remember the good old days when foreign policy used to be truly bipartisan, and that whatever criticisms of the President ceased when he was visiting foreign countries? It appears to me that the DemonRats bring out their biggest guns when Bush is overseas, thereby trying to undercut him as he's trying to project American influence with foreign leaders. They're despicable.

[hchutch]

Too bad he can't use the proper word for these claims Biush deliberately lied.

First half of the word is "bull". Second half would probably get me a time-out.

[My2Cents]

Thanks for the ping. Note my comments in post #8.

[Sabertooth]

This is fine by Powell, but the point that needs to be made, incessantly, is that if Saddam didn't have WMDs, what was his purpose in stonewalling the inspections and preventing access to his scientists, which would only lead a reasonable person to conclude that he was, in fact, hiding WMDs.

Further, how do those now in such a hurry to declare the post-war search for WMDs in a nation with the physical size of California to be a failure reconcile their position with their pre-war calls to allow the UNSCOM Weapons Inspectors "as long as it takes?"

We need to get off the defensive in this debate.

[onyx]

<<< Powell compared intelligence gathering to a moving train. >>>

That it is, and the track is laden with the flattened bodies of liar-democrats sprawled face down, but with their mouths still spewing venom.

[My2Cents]

He also noted that President Clinton ordered missile strikes against Saddam in 1998.

Let's not forget the aspirin factory he took out in Sudan. Where were the Democrats when Clinton acted on "false" information that that factory was actually a chemical weapons plant?

These people (I use the term loosely when referring to Democrats) are disgusting in their hypocracy.

[ex-snook]

The only thing he should apologize for is being suckered by the same 'intel' that had Clinton bomb an aspirin factory. 'Fool me once etc'.

Until he starts firing those that duped him, he leaves open the question of his collusion.

[DWPittelli]

I disagree. Here's something I posted on a leftwing site (note that I would not apply the intemperate bolded copy to you):

****************************
You people really are blinded by your Bush-hatred. First, it’s rather difficult to get unambiguous intelligence out of a dictatorship with a record of murdering people who give up intelligence (even if they are, say, married to the dictator’s daughter). So it’s absurd to assume that getting WMDs wrong requires either dishonesty or stupidity (not that dishonesty and stupidity are impossible or unknown among government officials, just that they are not proven by such a mistake).

Further, what if the intelligence was not wrong? Just imagine the possibility that Saddam did have significant WMD programs from 1998 into 2002 – something that Clinton and just about every relevant figure of both parties has believed. In such a case, what does the absence of WMDs now mean? It means that Saddam decided to hide, move or destroy those WMDs.

What could explain this? Only one thing. Let’s assume that Saddam is rational, at least to the extent that he tries to maintain his power and his life. (His perception of reality has often appeared cloudy, and he seems to have no moral compass, but he has always acted in his perceived interest.) It’s not surprising that he would not use WMDs against U.S. soldiers, as WMDs would not give him victory, but would instead increase our resolve, and turn world opinion against him. Since the WMDs were useless against the army that seemed likeliest to invade, there was little reason for him to hang on to them (although they would be useful in another war with Iran or other neighbor, neither seemed likely in the short-term).

Now, since Saddam knew from experience that the U.S. would likely rout his forces in conventional war, he needed a plan that would give him ultimate victory regardless of this fact. He needed to be able to rely on waiting us out, with such guerilla actions as we are seeing today. This fits with his obsession with Vietnam and Mogadishu, and the perception (shared by Osama et al) that we will get easily demoralized and leave. As long as Saddam is still alive when we leave, he is likely to regain power, at least unless and until another single leader is in firm control (with multiple power centers competing against him, he would likely win).

Now how can he further weaken and demoralize us? Killing an American a day is a start, but discrediting the war itself is, if not absolutely essential, certainly necessary for the guerilla war policy to succeed in less than several years (time he does not have, lest he be killed by the U.S. or an Iraqi opponent, and lest a single strong opponent emerge).

Now how could he discredit the war? He knows he can’t cover up the murder of hundreds of thousands of people, claim to be a democrat, or erase any other part of his past history. But he can quickly eliminate the WMDs, by destroying them, moving them (to Syria or Lebanon), or hiding them well (burying in the desert). This of course, takes them out of immediate or tactical usefulness, but again, they had no strategic usefulness for him anyway. So naturally, the only rational decision for Hussein is to do so.

Then let stupid pinkos like you whine about the illegitimacy of the war, and the lies or stupidity of our leaders.

Hussein outlasted Bush the elder, and he’s betting that with your help, he’ll outlast Bush II. If he does so, he expects to have a free hand in the region, little to fear from the U.S., and the kind of “hero” status that insane Arab bigots give to his ilk. Then he expects to achieve his life-long ambition to be the next Saladin, to unite the Arab world in a military dictatorship, as God has ordained.

[tallhappy]

Buried are Tony Blair's comments that the basis for Iraqi attempts to acquire said uranium was based on more than just the one document in question.

It is selctive reporting to obfuscate the overall facts and attempt to portray the uranium issue as one based solely on this one document.

The claim does not stand or fall on the veracity of this one document yet the media are attempting to paint that picture.

[EllaMinnow]

Have you noticed the pattern that Democrat nitpicking, naysaying, and general attacks on Bush increase in frequency and intensity when he's on overseas trips? When Bush went to Poland, Russian, France, Egypt and Jordan, the Dems kicked off their "Bush Lied" campaign. Now that he's in Africa, they're worrying this Niger uranium comment.

You're right. They're like schoolkids throwing spitballs when the teacher is out of the classroom.

Another thing I've noticed - a minor thing, but it's driving me nuts. When did NYE-jer turn into na-JHAIR?

[EllaMinnow]

Not at all. There's a headline on The Economist online that reads

"Britain's spies are annoyed by an American retraction"

but I don't have a subscription to get into the site and read it.

[Mo1]

FYI .. Powell is going to be on Larry King Live tonight

[ex-snook]

Fair enough. Screw Saddam. But let's start the firings. Handing forged documents to the President is no way to run the country. We got a future to live.

[Dog]

Were you the one who wanted info on Scott Speicher??

I just herard something on MSNBC that is great news if it pans out.

[Mo1]

Welllllll ... what's the news???

And thank you for giving me a reason for turning off CNN ... I hate yelling at the TV

[Dog]

I ping you to it..

[My2Cents]

When did NYE-jer turn into na-JHAIR?

Probably the same time "CAH-tar" (Qatar) became "Cutter".

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks!

I have broken my promise to myself not to watch CNN once today already to watch Ralph Reed -- guess I will now watch Larry King -- UGH!

[PhiKapMom]

I am with you -- we need to go on the offensive!

You are right -- why was Saddam stonewalling -- UN sure gave him time to bury and get rid of the weapons with all their Mickey Mouse too!

[Dog]

Check your pings Mom!

[PhiKapMom]

Just use "bravo sierra" -- gets the point across and won't get your banned! One of the first things I learned working for the Air Force! And that one stuck with me!

[PhiKapMom]

I agree with you 100%. Disagreements used to stop at the water's edge -- like everything else that was class -- the Clinton DemocRATs have destroyed it!

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks! Trying to do too many things at once -- Finally got the Countdown Thread up for the day -- just a little late but got involved in the Thompson deal threads!

[EllaMinnow]

I'm waiting for Niger Innes to appear on a cable news show. How do you think they'll pronounce his name? LOL.

[Weimdog]

This is about all I could find at The Economist -

"Overall, the parliamentary committee's report proved reasonably favourable for Mr Blair, saying that many of the government's claims in its September dossier were "well-founded on the basis of intelligence then available". The report also cleared Alastair Campbell, Mr Blair’s communications chief, of having fiddled with the dossier to insert the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction deployable within 45 minutes. The "45-minute claim"—widely repeated and now widely questioned—helped precipitate a full-scale row between the government and the BBC, Britain's public-service broadcaster, over whether government spin doctors had "sexed up" the charges against Saddam. (The BBC cited a source in the security services as making this charge, with particular reference to Mr Campbell; the government furiously denied it.) Despite clearing Mr Campbell, the report did raise concerns about the emphasis given to certain allegations, including the 45-minute claim."

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1906515

[Sabertooth]

we need to go on the offensive

Instead of us defending Bush, or the intelligence, or the State of the Union, we should be putting Bush's detractors in the position of defending Saddam, and themselves.

Whenever it seems like we're fighting from our heels, it's because we've allowed the opposition to put us on the defensive, rather than doing it to them.

[Mo1]

I have broken my promise to myself not to watch CNN

So have I .. but I am TICKED over what is going on

[jwalsh07]

Yes, and the way to do that is really quite simple.

Mass graves and bleeding hearts.

[deport]

Things must be getting frantic over at the DNC with all the garbage that has been hitting the media lately.... Guess they are worried about sitting out another 4 years until Ms. Hillary can become the savior of their demise.

[tallhappy]

Economist is not an American magazine.

British press have covered this. It is buried in the US press.

[Sabertooth]

Yep, show the Babylonian killing fields. Show the torture chambers. Show Saddam's "Night and Fog."

Interview the families of the girls raped by Uday, and the men wood-chipped by Qusay. Let the Dems stand on that and question this war.

[deport]

WHO
YOU
GONNA
SUPPORT?

[EllaMinnow]

"Mr Bush, on tour in Africa, has not yet substantively discussed the uranium claim, which first came under public scrutiny in March, when the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency declared documents relating to alleged uranium-trafficking by Niger to be forgeries. But until now, the Bush administration had stuck to its broader allegation that Saddam was trying to buy uranium from Africa. This week's flare-up was prompted partly by an article in Sunday's New York Times, in which Joseph Wilson, America’s ambassador to Gabon during the mid-1990s, wrote that during a CIA-sponsored trip last year to Niger, he had found it unlikely that the country had supplied uranium to Iraq."

Has Joseph Wilson been seen anywhere since the Sunday article in the NYT? Has he made television appearances backing up the article?

[4integrity]

Amen, Saber! Funny when we had a President who admitted he lied, none of the people now crying foul wanted to speak about lying.

[Captain Kirk]

You mean like all the many "firings" which took place of those responsible for the intelligence failure on 9-11? Don't hold your breath.

[PhiKapMom]

My guess it that they are trying to take out President Bush now with all their crap to see if his approval with the American plumments at which time Hillary will announce for 2004!

If this fails like everything else, then she won't run in 2004 and we will have plenty of time to take her out by 2008!

[Captain Kirk]

Disagreements should stop at the water's edge? Well....that would mean that all the conservatives who criticized Clinton *during* the Kosovo and Haiti interventions were unpatriotic wouldn't it?

[PhiKapMom]

Great idea in #40. That is going on the offensive in my book!

[Sabertooth]

Funny when we had a President who admitted he lied, none of the people now crying foul wanted to speak about lying.

Aren't these the same folks who were excusing bad intel when Clinton bombed an aspirin factory?

[PhiKapMom]

I am ticked as well! Have to be to watch CNN twice in one day!

[Afronaut]

"This is fine by Powell, but the point that needs to be made, incessantly, is that if Saddam didn't have WMDs, what was his purpose in stonewalling the inspections and preventing access to his scientists, which would only lead a reasonable person to conclude that he was, in fact, hiding WMDs."

I think it was because he was Nuts. He was a crazy loon job for years. You can't ask questions that a pertain to a reasonable person. There is no answer. Why would invade a neighbor? Why would he kill the kurds? Why would he let his people starve?

He was Crazy....