[Vision2020] Colin Powell: UN Speech "A blot" On His Record

Sat Apr 29 15:54:26 PDT 2006

Tony, Nick et. al.

I don't think it matters to Tony what defense Nick offers to Tony's list of
objections to Nick's post on the Bush administrations deceptions regarding
the intelligence and facts used to justify the US invasion and occupation of
Iraq.

Tony appears to be following the old adage "don't confuse me with the facts,
my mind's made up."

Perhaps Tony would believe Colin Powell?

Odd that we don't hear much about Colin Powell in the media recently.  Is it
that liberal leftist media bias (tongue in cheek alert!) that keeps his
critical comments about the pre-war Iraq WMD/terrorism intelligence of the
Bush administration off the headlines?  Really though, it's probably more
that Colin Powell is a loyal soldier who does not want to slam his former
boss too much in public!  Note below how he pushes the blame for the false
intelligence to those who were "not senior people."  Of course the "senior
people," meaning Bush, Condi Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al., should have
been listening to all credible sources of intelligence on Iraq, and offered
Colin Powell all the best information before he went before the UN, or they
were not doing their job very well, were they?

Does the "buck stop" on Bush's desk, Tony?  Maybe Bush does not have the
integrity of a Harry S. Truman!

Colin Powell thinks intelligence reports were false that he was given by the
Bush administration regarding Iraq WMDs presenting an immanent threat to the
USA, intelligence that he presented before the UN before the Iraq invasion.
He also states quite emphatically that "...he had "never seen evidence to
suggest" a connection between the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the
United States and the Saddam regime."

His opinion should give die hard Bush loyalists pause, loyalists who
continue to insist Bush has no or limited culpability for the false
intelligence, if indeed they even think that there was false
intelligence, that led the USA into this foolish war.  He was Secretary of
State during W. Bush's first term, the general and military architect who
led the first gulf war to push Iraq out of Kuwait, the war that Colin Powell
insisted be fought with a clear exit strategy, the war that former President
Bush senior had the sense to end after the mission was truly accomplished,
rather than getting sucked into a nation building mess by going all the way
to Baghdad to remove Saddam, as some wanted.

Too bad a man of Colin Powell's integrity was duped by the Bush
administration into making a fool of himself before the UN and the whole
world!

Will Tony ask Colin Powell for his "proof" that he was, in Colin Powell's
words, "misinformed" regarding the pre-war Iraq WMD intelligence he
presented to the UN?:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1456650.htm

Former US secretary of state Colin Powell says his United Nations speech
making the case for the US-led war on Iraq was "a blot" on his record.

Mr Powell has also said that he had "never seen evidence to suggest" a
connection between the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United
States and the Saddam regime.

In an interview with American ABC TV news to be broadcast on Friday (US
time), Mr Powell said "it's a blot" on his record.

"I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world,
and (it) will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful
now," he said.

He said he felt "terrible" at being misinformed.

Some members of the US intelligence community "knew at that time that some
of these sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they
didn't speak up," Mr Powell said.

"These are not senior people, but these are people who were aware that some
of these resources should not be considered reliable," he said.

"I was enormously disappointed."

-------------

Colin Powell is disappointed.

What about you, Tony?

More on Colin Powell and his UN Iraq WMD speech, Feb. 5, 2003, used to
justify the US invasion:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/

Ted Moffett
On 4/29/06, ToeKneeTime at aol.com <ToeKneeTime at aol.com> wrote:
>
>  Nick,
>
> Re:  Atta in Prague,  What American intelligence agencies?  And do you
> have proof that Cheney was specifically aware of this determination prior to
> making his assertions?
>
> second point:  Did Bush/Cheney not have other intel sources advising them
> otherwise?  Could you provide dated quotes from either man, post commission
> report?
>
> Point 3:  How do you know that Saddam's government didn't respond to Bin
> Laden's request?  That doesn't sound like the sort of dialog one might
> engage in openly.
>
> 4)  Are you saying that this 2002 team of inspectors was IN Iraq, freely
> conducting their mission, when Bush made his July declaration?
>
> 5)  I assume you meant to refer to the 911 commission?  If so, so
> what?  The fact that some bureaucratic commission failed to confirm it, does
> not prove that the alleged meeting Bush referred to did not take place.
>
> 6)  When and where did Bush/ Cheney make these assertions after Rummy's
> declaration?
>
> 6)  Cheney should have known "full well" that Zarqawi was not then in
> Iraq.  Why?  Why are you surprised that captured documents failed to confirm
> a connection to Baghdad  Is it not possible that certain documentation was
> either destroyed or never existed at all?  The absence of proof does not
> disprove.
>
> 7)  Why is Bush automatically presumed wrong, while the Atomic
> Energy Association is presumed right?  Could you site dated examples of
> specific statements made regarding Iraq's supposed nuclear capabilities?
>
> 8)   "that they could find......."   Well that gives one pause.   Can you
> understand how, given Iraq's history of nuclear production to which you
> refer, this administration and congress might regard reports of continued
> activity as requiring action?  Did congress, by authorizing the use of
> force, not second the administration's concerns?  Is it fair to laboriously
> heap all this blame at Bush's feet?
>
> 9)  "most likely....."      Again that nasty pause.   And what experts?
> Isn't it possible that Bush may have been advised otherwise by other
> experts?  Perhaps a consensus was arrived at after consulting several......
> who knows for certain?
>
> 10)  Is David Albright a nuclear scientist?  How is he specifically
> qualified to make such a determination?
>
> 11)  I don't know that I find the potential for a brief and necessary tap
> on my phone line to be unreasonable in a post 911 environment.  I trust that
> these folks will by and large direct their curiosities toward appropriate
> targets.  How can we demand protection from our government when we deny it
> the sometimes gritty tools it may need to deal with murderous sociopaths.
>
> 12)  Not necessarily a contradiction.  The administration couldn't provide
> ALL it's intel re: Iraq to the congress.  Yet what WAS provided did lead to
> a consensus in favor of action.
>
> 13)  Memo from where?  And how was this meeting "secret" if it was
> detailed in a lengthy memo?
>
> 14)  Did the administration "cook" the intel on Iraq?  The jury is still
> out.
>
> Best,  --Tony
>
> _____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060429/e254e6b7/attachment.htm