Powell now doubts Iraq evidence

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
And yet the German government took their words at face value.....

Well if we're going to go that route the war really wasn't justified even if Iraq was awash in WMD.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
The only part of the justification where this happened was the Niger uranium issue.

No, that's the only place they said that the Administration's position was patently false. Much of the rest of the information the U.S. was pushing the CIA said it could not verify and or was suspect. This aspect of the CIA's report to the SNA was downplayed and the major report was written by the NSA to virtually discredit the CIA's doubts and misgivings. On top of that, the CIA was saying through its retirees that the Administration was selling a false bill of goods.

Frankly, if the Intell community fubared this as badly as the Admin is saying, people's heads should be rolling. Either Bush is afraid of firing people (and given the numbr of people canned for ideological disagreements, this can't be it) or the Intell community didn't screw up.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well if we're going to go that route the war really wasn't justified even if Iraq was awash in WMD.

And I agree that WMD's were never a valid justification for war with Iraq.

That was one of the points I argued before the war all along.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
Here at home, I don't think his reputation is tarnished.

It is. Get out of the Beltway.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Either Bush is afraid of firing people (and given the numbr of people canned for ideological disagreements, this can't be it) or the Intell community didn't screw up.

Damn che. There were no firings after 9/11. What more cause do you need to believe that Bush dislikes firing people even when it would help him?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm just telling you what logically follows from the belief that the Bush Admin lied about WMD in Iraq. Reject it based on your prejudices if you want, it make no difference to me.

People can lie and believe their lie at the sam time. The fact that the Administration unquestioningly believed that there were WMDs in Iraq doesn't mean they didn't lie. They told us they had proof. They figured that once they found the WMDs, no one would look too closely at their proof. The truth would justify their lie.

Now the lie is, it was the CIA's fault, not ours. It's never the Administration's fault. The buck never stops there.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
People can lie and believe their lie at the sam time.

Are the German and French intelligence services in on this lie too?

[DanS]

It is. Get out of the Beltway.

As of the end of last year, Powell's approval ratings were 2 points less than they were in February '03. They stand at 74%, about 24% higher than Bush's. If his reputation has been tarnished significantly, I don't see the evidence of it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
That was one of the points I argued before the war all along.

So did I.

[Vanguard]

In addition to the proven falsehoods presented by the Administration (generally attributed to "British Intelligence" because the CIA wouldn't do it), there is also the false presentation by the administration of only intelligence evidence which supported war.

This is not acceptable. US Intelligence assets belong to the people of the United States. It is not marketing data for the benefit of the Administration. While I admit that only people who need to know can be allowed to view highly sensitive intelligence, I expect that those people will not deliberately distort its presentation on a matter of war and peace.

Clearly neither I nor Congress can maintain our own intelligence services to check up on what the Administration tells us. So when we are talking about engaging in a potentially endless war, we have to demand that the Administration present its intelligence findings in good faith. It does not get to shade the truth when we are proposing to violate the UN Charter to engage in an exceedingly dangerous occupation of an entire nation, all for highly dubious strategic reasons.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Vanguard
... violate the UN Charter to engage in an exceedingly dangerous occupation of an entire nation, all for highly dubious strategic reasons.

Been there done, done that back in the Clinton Admin.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
If his reputation has been tarnished significantly, I don't see the evidence of it.

I didn't say significantly.

[Vanguard]

Been there done, done that back in the Clinton Admin.

And I thought that was improper too. However the intervention in Yugoslavia was a hundred times less dangerous than Iraq, was done in support of allies in the region, had grudging international support and was done for good strategic reasons. In addition, we could exit at any time without major consequence, which is certainly not true about Iraq.

I am willing to give any administration enough leeway to allow it conduct a realistic foreign policy, even if it means shading the truth. But there is a difference between giving them leeway and giving them the ocean.

[Sava]

I used to respect Powell... but he's a weakling. And certainly not "black" in the sense that he's a part of the black community or black culture.

And yes, any black person who is a republican is an Uncle Tom.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Vanguard
... was done for good strategic reasons. In addition, we could exit at any time without major consequence, which is certainly not true about Iraq.

I'd call bull**** but that'd be thread jacking.