I read the link, Anon, and in fact saw the 60 minutes piece. I just don't see that the article, or the TV interview, validate any of your assertions. All that is proven is that Thielman espouses a point of view with which you agree.
Of particular note are the last few paragraphs of the article:
Quote:(Powell says) "That's nonsense. I don't think I used the word 'imminent' in my presentation on the 5th of February. I presented, on the 5th of February not something I pulled out of the air. I presented the considered judgment of the intelligence community of the United States of America -- the coordinated judgment of the intelligence community of the United States of America," said Powell, according to a transcript of the interview released by the State Department.
"The investigation continues. There is an individual, I guess, who is going on a television show to say I misled the American people. I don't mislead the American people and I never would. I presented the best information that our intelligence community had to offer."
When the BBC interviewer pointed out that Thielmann was considered the leading expert for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in his department, Powell replied: "I have many experts in my department, and there are many differences of opinion, among any group of experts. And it's quite easy for a television program to get this individual and then they complain. But to try to turn it around and say that 'Secretary Powell made this all up and presented it, knowing it was false,' is simply inaccurate."
Powell again refuted the charges in an Oct. 16 interview with National Public Radio.
"It wasn't hyped. It wasn't overblown," said Powell, in a transcript released by the State Department. "I would not do that to the American people, nor would I do that before the Security Council, as a representative of the American people and of the President of the United States."
Oh, and heres some inconvenience for the
"Missing Billions" theory. Here's some
More. And here, from the Coalition Provisional Authority, is more
DETAIL.
Where are the
evidentiary documents, not opinions, commentaries, or editorial pieces, to support your allegations?