Powell: No connection between Iraq and 9/11

[jimnyc]

Colin Powell, on "Meet the Press", May, 2004: Powell said the sources for information used in his U.N. presentation were "inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.

deliberately misleading

Yes, as is the info given to him was misleading and/or innacurate and deliberately misleading. Now tell us EXACTLY who gave him the misleading info. Was it Kerry when he swore Saddam had WMD and would use them? Was it Hillary or Bubba when they swore Saddam had WMD and would use them? Was it when Berger stated the same? How about when Kennedy made those very remarks? Would you like a complete list of democrats that purposely fed the nation with misleading statements?

 

[nakedemperor]

Yes, as is the info given to him was misleading and/or innacurate and deliberately misleading. Now tell us EXACTLY who gave him the misleading info. Was it Kerry when he swore Saddam had WMD and would use them? Was it Hillary or Bubba when they swore Saddam had WMD and would use them? Was it when Berger stated the same? How about when Kennedy made those very remarks? Would you like a complete list of democrats that purposely fed the nation with misleading statements?

You don't think that the accountability of the president of the United States takes precedence over that of a senator? A senator who "swore" based on misinformation being fed to him by the administration? No one can be blamed for believing the assertions made by Bush et al. It was convincing-- unfortunately it was exagerated and in some cases completely false.

And it defies comprehension how often conservatives and Bush heads give this "they didn't know, it was false information!" response. Its a perfect excuse. Plausible deniability run amok. You are completely willing to let those people off the hook when they were either too gullible or not thorough enough to determine that the basis for sending our country to war was either false or misleading. Ahem, deliberately misleading. President Bush, what is it? Too dumb or too gullible? Or too dishonest? Either way, a man and an administration like that is too dangerous to have in office. Let's get another team in there to try to clean up their messes.

I find it laughable that conservatives are ready to display Dan Rather's head on a pike on the white house lawn for mis-reporting a story because a) either his sources wanted to mislead him or b) he wanted to mislead his viewers. Its the same trope of plausible deniability. ITS THE SAME THING. And somehow people already believe the Kerry campaign and/or the DNC were behind it! Whoa, political motivations for providing/accepting false sources? Where could we POSSIBLY find a similar situations.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[insein]

Yes, as is the info given to him was misleading and/or innacurate and deliberately misleading. Now tell us EXACTLY who gave him the misleading info. Was it Kerry when he swore Saddam had WMD and would use them? Was it Hillary or Bubba when they swore Saddam had WMD and would use them? Was it when Berger stated the same? How about when Kennedy made those very remarks? Would you like a complete list of democrats that purposely fed the nation with misleading statements?

no need to wait jimmy here's the list.

originally posted by HRGOKIT
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb,! 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 1!! 9, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President! of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ...... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I thin! k to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THESE SAME PEOPLE SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY !

 

[jimnyc]

All those words and you avoided answering my question. EXACTLY who told Powell these misleading statements?

 

[jimnyc]

You don't think that the accountability of the president of the United States takes precedence over that of a senator? A senator who "swore" based on misinformation being fed to him by the administration?

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

By which administration?

 

[nakedemperor]

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

By which administration?

Ah, the Clinton administration, which made the right decision by not invading Iraq based on WMD claims, because they weren't gullible and/or predisposed to wanting to invade Iraq? Congress, John Kerry included, were wrong, and the right decision was made. Bush made a mistake about WMDs. When Clinton was proactive and responded to bad sourcing by bombing an advil factory that he thought was producing WMDs, he was crucified! It was regretable, but double standard much?!

Moreover, this letter seems to recommend air/missile strikes as its most drastic proposals. Why? Let's ask George H. W. Bush:

"An occupation of Iraq would have incurred incalculable human and political costs... there was no viable exit strategy."

"Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying force in a bitterly hostile land."

Atta boy, Bush I. Some intellectual curiosity and nuanced policies really can go a long way.

 

[jimnyc]

Are you going to answer the question?

 

[MissileMan]

In his address to the nation after 9/11, President Bush declared war on terrorism. (Paraphrasing) He said that there are 2 sides, those who are against terrorism, and those who harbor, fund, support, train, carry-out, etc.

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that Saddam was in the latter category? He used chemical weapons on his own people. He was sending thousands of dollars to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. I wonder what he sent to the families of the 19 9/11 attackers.

Everyone needs to realize that this war on terror is just starting and that it will probably last for a long while. When we finish in Iraq, we'll move on to the next target. Total eradication of terrorism may not be achievable, but it is the only goal that makes any sense, and so, we must try.

Establishment of democratic governments in the regions prone to spawning those willing to strap a bomb around their waste and blow themselves and innocent people up will be the foundation that will make the war on terror easier to fight as time goes on.

 

[nakedemperor]

Ah, the Clinton administration

I mean, its right there..

I rarely get such direct responses to my assertions here. Care to weigh in on the CBS/Bush plausible deniability double standard?

 

[jimnyc]

I mean, its right there..

I rarely get such direct responses to my assertions here. Care to weigh in on the CBS/Bush plausible deniability double standard?

I'm talking about the question that I am now asking you for the 4th time. Who EXACTLY told Powell these deliberately misleading statements?

 

[nakedemperor]

I'm talking about the question that I am now asking you for the 4th time. Who EXACTLY told Powell these deliberately misleading statements?

Wish I knew. Much like CBS, many of the sources of intelligence remain unrevealed to the general public. 'member when Dick Cheney, if asked if he knew more than the 9/11 commission in reference to his insistance that there was collaboration between Iraq and al Qaeda, said "Probably." I guess we may never know.

 

[wade]

I'm not a gambling man, sorry.

Look wade, socialism is a failed ideology, and your juvenile brand of senseless antiamericanism only reveals you as a persnickety snail snacker.

First of, I am hardly a socialist. But that does not mean that in some instances I believe socialist policies are not the best choices for our capitalist society. Education is one example where I believe that socialist principals make sense - everyone should have a fairly equivalent educational opportunity.

I also believe that, at least for children, a fairly good socialized medical plan is justified - it is not right that children should suffer because their parents cannot afford quality health care for them. For adults, including the elderly, I believe that much less should be provided, but there should be reasonable primary care available to all. It is stupid for our society to bear the expense of letting easily cured medical problems become chronic, and then dealing with them at the emergency/critical care level at great expense.

I am, more than anything else, a fiscal conservative. Where you believe capitalism is an ideology, I believe it is a mechansim. Where you believe that only capitalism can bring prosperity, I believe that for most things capitalism is the best mechanism for resource allocation, but there are places where socialism is the better mechanism, and there are even places where authoritarianism is the best mechanism (total war for instance).

===============

The problem I have with your positions RWA is they are 100% right down the neoconservative line. You exhibit no deviations. Don't you know when you're being fed a line of bull?

You say Socialism is a failed ideology. Well, I'm not sure that is true, there are lots of European nations that seem to be doing pretty well. Quality of life in America for most Americans sucks compared to that in many other 1st world nations.

Look at what our unregulated capitalism has bought us. Over the last 25 years the richest 5% of families have increased their income by 850%, the next 15% by a bit over 200%, the next 40% have roughly held their own, and the lowest 40% have actually lost ground.

And the statement above is actually misleading - where in the 60's and even into the 70's most families could manage a middle-class income level with only the father working, today it takes both the dad and mom working to do so. Think about the impact this has on our youth! You want to point a finger at a cause for moral decline in America? Point it here because this is where the problem is!

And it is futher misleading in that it makes no allowance for the huge debt loading of America, both at the government and personal levels.

All the arguments you use to support the idea that pure capitalism is viable are based upon the past, but the future is not the past and the situation is not the same. And remember also that capitalism has been plauged with depressions throughout it's history. You can see a pattern of depressions occuring every ~30 years for centuries prior to WWII. We have been fortunate to avoid such a depression at the 1970-80 mark, but there is no gaurantee that it can be avoided in the future... in fact a depression is to be expected!

The NeoCon leasership knows this, and they are collecting the wealth and preparing for the inevitable adjustment that has to come, whatever form it will take. I expect no matter who is president, by 2007 we will see double digit inflation. If things are not managed very carefully, we are then going to see deflation and that will mean a very nasty depression that I cannot see how we will get out of (World War III for real?).

Read this article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north300.html

Below I've quoted a part of it you may find objectionable, but read the whole thing and then consider this quoted section in context. I think you will agree the author's thinking is sound.

Like every auctioneer, we Americans have something to sell. The main thing we have to sell is a dream: the dream of investing in America, of getting in on the deal. So, Asians and others sell us goods, and we sell them a dream. It is the same deal that the Indians used on Manhattan Island in 1624. Well, not quite: the tribe that sold the island for trinkets actually didn’t own it. But it’s the thought that counts.

The problem is, the dream is looking more and more risky. To buy into American markets means buying claims on future wealth – wealth denominated in dollars. But that means wealth supplied by workers who are no longer competitive in world markets. It also means wealth supplied by the Federal Reserve System.

Yet the dream remains a powerful one. Foreigners are enchanted by it. They can’t move here, but they can buy promises to pay dollars (bonds) and the hope of capital gains in dollars (stocks). They, too, trust Alan Greenspan and his colleagues.

But for how long?

and a little further down, conderning the Bush recovery, (this section is a quote within the essay)

America’s policymakers and economists view asset inflation as wealth creation as if this were a self-evident fact. What this asset inflation truly generates is phony collateral for runaway consumer indebtedness, luring the consumer into unprecedented debt excesses. It is phony wealth creation because unlike the real wealth creation through capital investment, both its creation and its use involve no income creation.

This perception of wealth creation, actually, runs completely counter to traditional thinking in economics. It has always been apodictic in economics that there is but one way to create genuine wealth for an economy as a whole, and that is to consume less than current production or income. Wealth creation from the macroeconomic perspective essentially occurs through saving and investment in tangible, income-creating plant, equipment, and commercial and residential buildings.

The fact is our economy is in shambles and the current policies are just making the inevitable adjustment more harsh.

==================

There is no proof that capitalism "works" either. It worked well in the pre-industrial period, it worked well in the industrial period, but in the post-industrial period it may well fail. For capitalism to be "healthy" it must maintain a real growth rate that exceeds the population growth rate, typically this has been considered to be at least 3% per year. It is not at all clear that such growth rates can be maintained in the future.

It all really depends on your definitions. If your definition of success for capitalism is that it will create a few super rich people who will be able to sustain their wealth through whatever the future holds - then it works. If your definition is that it will bring about increasing quality of life for the great majority of the people - well, it looks like it's likely to fail.

The American economy is being run like there is no tomarrow, and if it continues much longer there won't be!

Read the article linked above in full, it might enlighten you and if you act upon it, it might save you a great deal of misery in your future. The author is rather brilliant I think, and nails the issues in very plain speak. But, it is a bit depressing.

Wade.

PS: sorry for the rambly post - I don't have much time for this so I cannot clean it up. The points are there, lets argue them and drop the insults okay RWA?

 

[NightTrain]

Do I really think that liberation was based on WMDs? Well, let me throw it to you this way: do you really think that the war initiative stood any chance in hell of being passed had it SOLELY been based on liberation?

Of course not. We don't commit to invading other countries lightly. I'm glad that you admit there were several other factors involved in the decision to invade. Quite a different stance than you originally entered with. Attaboy.

No, it really wouldn't have, and anyone with "common sense" and "factual knowledge of historical facts" (as reduntant and "uneducated" as that syntax sounds) would agree.

Thanks for catching my grammatical error, Speedy. I was tired. Sue me. If you'd like, I can point out errors in your post as well, but I have more important things to do.

But would the war initiative have passed SOLELY passed on purported WMDs and terrorist connections? It most certainly would have. A country still realing from 9/11 and terrified of the oft-repeated and insanely irresponsible "let's not let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud over Los Angeles" (scare tactics MUCH?) was ready to jump on this bandwagon from the get-go.

You obviously are a senior member of Bush's team, right? Or did Mistress Cleo call you and give you a free psychic reading? You don't know what COULD have passed with less than what was in the offing. The decision was made based on many reasons and to speculate in the confident manner you are is silly.

So, common sense boy, the REASON for going to war was to prevent terrorists with no connection to Saddam from recieving WMD that didn't exist

Wrong on two counts. Educate yourself.

liberation of the Iraqis was not part of the justification but an excellent rhetorical device the administration could use as the Christian soldiers went marching off to war.

Wrong. Educate yourself.

I am well-educated and have never, ever been to MoveOn.org. How many have you curious cats can say THAT?

Of course you haven't.

MoveOn and Michael Moore are these far-left institutions that conservatives are weirdly obsessed with...they're both bullshit, so JUST LET IT GO. If you ignore it, you'll not be fanning the flames.

That's the first hint of wisdom you've shared yet. 2nd Attaboy. Impressive, my young Padawan.

And if I tried to educate myself anymore my already astronomical school bills would cost more than the war in Iraq, so back it up, Maverick.

You're all learned up, are ya? LOL You obviously can think, I'll give you that, but what a dumbass thing to say. I suspect that when you get out in the world you'll find that you're not nearly as clever as you evidently think you are. Takes a bit of mileage and a speed bump or two once you're out of school before those rosy little liberal glasses fall from your surprised countenance.

Sometimes you gotta take off the gloves and play dirty. We're killing people before they come kill us. Tough decisions were made, the ultimate goal is to protect U.S. citizens, even the MoveOn weinies like you.

Now...let's not get TOO off-topic.. I want avenger to come back and play, but his post-and-run tactics leave me with little room to rebut.

Oh, I'm confident that RWA is more than a match for you. He'll go toe-to-toe with you, rest assured.

 

[wade]

Train - I got some land in Florida you interested in buyin it?

 

[nakedemperor]

Its petty and arrogant to tell someone to "educate themselves". This board is for people who want to discuss other peoples' views and possibly educate their peers, not say, "Wrong! Go learn something, stupid!"

 

[jimnyc]

Its petty and arrogant to tell someone to "educate themselves". This board is for people who want to discuss other peoples' views and possibly educate their peers, not say, "Wrong! Go learn something, stupid!"

I suggest you worry about your own posts with your -214 rep and refrain from telling the moderator of this forum how he should and shouldn't post.

I assure you that if NT took the time he would educate you 3 times over as he has done to so many before. He's a world traveled veteran who has experience and knowledge second to none on this board.

 

[insein]

I suggest you worry about your own posts with your -214 rep and refrain from telling the moderator of this forum how he should and shouldn't post.

I assure you that if NT took the time he would educate you 3 times over as he has done to so many before. He's a world traveled veteran who has experience and knowledge second to none on this board.

Actually that was Wade that has a -214. NE only has -22 but he's working on it.

 

[UsaPride]

Actually that was Wade that has a -214. NE only has -22 but he's working on it.

Well, Wade was being a smartass to Train talking about buying Florida property!
Sorry, don't mean to get in the middle, LOL! Carry on..........

 

[nakedemperor]

Actually that was Wade that has a -214. NE only has -22 but he's working on it.

My progress agonizingly slow.. better redouble my efforts


And I'm all for being educated, but 'educate yourself' seems pretty unhelpful to me.

 

[wade]

Actually that was Wade that has a -214. NE only has -22 but he's working on it.

Given the bias on this board I consider the negative score a badge of honor. The Right-Wingers who dominate here just spew crap, don't understand economic theory (though some profess they do), don't understand military history, and are generally pretty technically inept as well. They just regurgitate what they hear on Fox news and from the Bush administration without really understanding it. When presented with a counter argument of any depth - they just don't reply (Avatar and RWA stand at the top of that list).

Sadly, they will probably be homeless within 12 years. They have no idea what the implications of the policies they support are.

Wade.