Where do you think the WOT should be fought?

[manu1959]

Several weeks ago, Colin Powell was on 20/20. Here is an article on that and what he said. I guess you have access to more information than he does. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

Powell Says U.N. Speech a 'Blot' on Record
By BARRY SCHWEID
The Associated Press

Thursday, September 8, 2005; 10:21 PM

WASHINGTON -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday his prewar speech to the United Nations accusing Iraq of harboring weapons of mass destruction was a "blot" on his record.

"I'm the one who presented it to the world, and (it) will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It is painful now," Powell said in an interview with Barbara Walters on ABC-News.

The presentation by the soldier-diplomat to the world body in February 2003 lent considerable credibility to President Bush's case against Iraq and for going to war to remove President Saddam Hussein.

In the speech, Powell said he had relied on information he received at Central Intelligence Agency briefings. He said Thursday that then-director George Tenet "believed what he was giving to me was accurate."

But, Powell said, "the intelligence system did not work well."

"There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up," Powell said.

"That devastated me," he said.

Powell in the TV interview also disputed the Bush administration's linking of Saddam's regime with terrorists.

He said he had never seen a connection between Baghdad and the 9-11 attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. "I can't think otherwise, because I'd never seen evidence to suggest there was one," he said.

Still, Powell said that while he has always been a "reluctant warrior" he supported Bush on going to war the month after his U.N. speech. "When the president decided that it was not tolerable for this regime to remain in violation of all those U.N. resolutions I am right there with him with the use of force," Powell said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/08/AR2005090801497.html

couple of questions:

did al queda order and carry out the attack on the us?

were were the al queda folks located?

those that were not killed or captured, where did the go?

the countries that they went to, did they help the us capture them or no?

did sadam invade kuwait?

did he sign a truce?

did he violate the truce?

did sadam support, give money, praise, give sanctuary to any type of terrorist forces and did any of those forces kill any civilians?

did sadam kill his own people?

now you all on the left claim to be smarter than us on the left....but.....it sure seems simple that those in afganistan piad for some of the above and those in iraq have paid for some of the above....to claim that the two of them are not allies in a common goal is absurd.....maybe not maybe you can extend your logic that since germany and italy did not bomb pearl harbour we should not have invaded germany and italy and only gone to war with japan.

 

[ProudDem]

If this proves true historically, nothing different with him than GW. I fear that the intelligence is that wrong, but it looks like it was. It doesn't help that other countries were saying the same. In any case, it goes to prove none of the 'leadership' did it deliberately.

I was responding to his allegation regarding the relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam.

We can all speculate on whether there was a deliberate attempt to hide intelligence that did not support the war. I think there was.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=333352&postcount=119

 

[manu1959]

I was responding to his allegation regarding the relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam.

We can all speculate on whether there was a deliberate attempt to hide intelligence that did not support the war. I think there was.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=333352&postcount=119

just so you are accurate....it was george tennant, a clinton apointee...that provided the claim .... with the words "slam dunk" that the president delivered.

 

[xen]

I could be dinging you and Xen, yet I haven't really.

Oh what is it, my 3rd neg point from you? yaaaa. Atleast you put in comments, unlike the 10 people i have never even heard of who just give me negetives for not being bush apologist.
This place is insanely biased. Give us a friggin break!!

 

[Annie]

Oh what is it, my 3rd neg point from you? yaaaa. Atleast you put in comments, unlike the 10 people i have never even heard of who just give me negetives for not being bush apologist.
This place is insanely biased. Give us a friggin break!!

You speak like you've never been here before. Give me a figgin break!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=166354

Zhuk, sorry, but he got ya. You are trying to find ways to correlate two completely different things. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush has done his best to try to use phrases like "terrorism", "9/11", "Al-Qaeda", and so forth when discussing Iraq. But, a lie is a lie. Bush has proven that if you set your mind to it, you can justify going into any country you want. France did not support the United States. The United States is fighting terrorism. Therefore France must support terrorism, and therefore be destroyed!

May or may not be you. In any case, you are tiresome.

 

[xen]

You speak like you've never been here before. Give me a figgin break!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=166354

May or may not be you. In any case, you are tiresome.

Uhh, that person is not me, kinda strange though.
But I think im less of a problem than most of these jerks around here. Who don't even know what a proper response is. Just bashing and trolling.