US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Quote:

Colin Powell Remains Pained By 2003 U.N. Speech

September 9, 2005

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.

Source

0 Replies

Quote:

Updated: 12:06 PM EDT

Powell Calls U.N. Speech a 'Blot' on His Record

Former Secretary of State Speaks Out on Being Loyal -- and Being Wrong

In 35 years of service as a soldier, Colin Powell earned a reputation as the quintessential disciplined warrior. As secretary of state in President Bush's first term, Powell was widely seen as a disciplined, moderate -- and loyal -- voice for the administration. Now out of government service, Powell is airing openly his disappointments and frustration on everything from the invasion of Iraq to the federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

Powell, 68, who recently visited storm survivors at Reunion Arena in Dallas, said he was "deeply moved" by the families displaced by the devastating storm and was critical of the preparations for Hurricane Katrina. "I think there have been a lot of failures at a lot of levels -- local, state and federal. There was more than enough warning over time about the dangers to New Orleans. Not enough was done. I don't think advantage was taken of the time that was available to us, and I just don't know why," Powell told ABC News' Barbara Walters in an exclusive interview airing Friday night at 10 p.m. on "20/20."

Powell doesn't think race was a factor in the slow delivery of relief to the hurricane victims as some have suggested. "I don't think it's racism, I think it's economic," he told Walters.

"When you look at those who weren't able to get out, it should have been a blinding flash of the obvious to everybody that when you order a mandatory evacuation, you can't expect everybody to evacuate on their own. These are people who don't have credit cards; only one in 10 families at that economic level in New Orleans have a car. So it wasn't a racial thing -- but poverty disproportionately affects African-Americans in this country. And it happened because they were poor," he said.

Making False Case for War Still 'Painful'

When Powell left the Bush administration in January 2005, he was widely seen as having been at odds with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney over foreign policy choices.

It was Powell who told the United Nations and the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat. He told Walters that he feels "terrible" about the claims he made in that now-infamous address -- assertions that later proved to be false.

When asked if he feels it has tarnished his reputation, he said, "Of course it will. It's a blot. 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 doesn't blame former CIA Director George Tenet for the misleading information he says he pored over for days before delivering his speech; he faults the intelligence system.

"George Tenet did not sit there for five days with me misleading me. He believed what he was giving to me was accurate. The intelligence system did not work well," he said.

Nonetheless, Powell said, some lower-level personnel in the intelligence community failed him and the country. "There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up. That devastated me," he said.

While Powell ultimately supported the president's decision to invade Iraq, he acknowledges that he was hesitant about waging war. "I'm always a reluctant warrior. And I don't resent the term, I admire the term, but when the president decided that it was not tolerable for this regime to remain in violation of all these U.N. resolutions, I'm right there with him with the use of force," he said.

Powell told Walters he is unfazed by criticism that he put loyalty to the president over leadership. "Loyalty is a trait that I value, and yes, I am loyal. And there are some who say, 'Well, you shouldn't have supported it. You should have resigned.' But I'm glad that Saddam Hussein is gone. I'm glad that that regime is gone," he said.

When Walters pressed Powell about that support, given the "mess" that the invasion has yielded, Powell said, "Who knew what the whole mess was going to be like?"

While he said he is glad that Saddam's regime was toppled, Powell acknowledged that he has seen no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorist attack. "I have never seen a connection. ... I can't think otherwise because I'd never seen evidence to suggest there was one," he told Walters.

Despite his differences with the administration, Powell said he never considered resigning in protest. "I'm not a quitter. And it wasn't a moral issue, or an act of a failure of an active leadership. It was knowing what we were heading into, and when the going got rough, you don't walk out," he told Walters.

Stay the Course in Iraq

When asked what steps he would take in Iraq, Powell said, "I think there is little choice but to keep investing in the Iraqi armed forces, and to do everything we can to increase their size and their capability and their strength," he said.

Still, he questions some of the administration's post-invasion planning. "What we didn't do in the immediate aftermath of the war was to impose our will on the whole country, with enough troops of our own, with enough troops from coalition forces, or, by recreating the Iraqi forces, armed forces, more quickly than we are doing now. And it may not have turned out to be such a mess if we had done some things differently. But it is now a difficult situation, but difficult situations are there to be worked on and solved, not walked away from, not cutting and running from."

Powell said he is sensitive to Cindy Sheehan and other mothers and family members whose loved ones have been wounded or killed in Iraq, but stressed that soldiers are risking their lives for a worthy purpose. When asked what he would say to Sheehan, who has grabbed media attention with her daily anti-war protests near Bush's Crawford, Texas, ranch, he told Walters he'd tell her what he'd tell any mother who suffered such a loss: "We regret the loss, but your loved one died in service to the nation and in service to the cause."

He acknowledged that the pain of losing a loved one would be heightened if a family feels the war is unjust. "If they don't feel the war is just, then they'll always feel that it is a deep personal loss and I sympathize with Ms. Sheehan. But this is not over. This conflict is not over, and the alternative to what I just described is essentially saying, 'Nevermind, we're leaving.' And I don't think that is an option for the United States."

Powell's wife of 43 years, Alma, also joined Walters for the exclusive interview. The couple share their thoughts on public service, their current life in the private sector, and whether a White House bid is in their future.

09-09-05 01:14 EDT

Source

0 Replies

A blot eh?

so we went to war on a blot?

0 Replies

Eric Margolis says:-

"Gen. Jumper let the cat out of the bag. While President George Bush hints at eventual troop withdrawals, the Pentagon is busy building four major, permanent air bases in Iraq that will require heavy infantry protection.

Jumper's revelation confirms what this column has long said: the Pentagon plans to copy Imperial Britain's method of ruling oil-rich Iraq. In the 1920's, the British cobbled together Iraq from three disparate Ottoman provinces to control newly-found oil fields in Kurdistan and along the Iranian border. The Sunni heartland in the middle was included to link these two oil regions.

London installed a puppet king and built an army of sepoy(native) troops to keep order and put down minor uprisings. A powerful British RAF contingent, based at Habbibanyah, was tasked with bombing serious revolts and rebellious tribes. In the 1920's, government minister Winston Churchill authorized use of poisonous mustard gas against Kurdish tribesmen in Iraq and Pushtuns in Afghanistan (today's Taliban). The RAF crushed all revolts against British colonial rule.

This is exactly what Jumper has in mind. Mobile US ground intervention forces will remain at the four major `Ft. Apache' bases guarding Iraq's major oil fields. These bases will be `ceded' to the US by a compliant Iraqi regime. "

0 Replies

but there cannot possibly be an air force general with the name general jumper

so the whole piece is fantasy

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

A blot eh?

so we went to war on a blot?

Yes. And at least Colin Powell is enough of a mensch to admit it. George W. Bush and Tony Blair are not. Did I ever mention I miss Colin Powell?

0 Replies

Tony Blair will not admit that, still less the fact that he knew we had no legal or moral case for action even if the wild claims of Powell and the CIA were true.

0 Replies

Quote:

While he said he is glad that Saddam's regime was toppled, Powell acknowledged that he has seen no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorist attack. "I have never seen a connection. ... I can't think otherwise because I'd never seen evidence to suggest there was one," he told Walters.

The absence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 is not relevant to the question of whether or not we should have invaded Iraq. Nor is the absence of ready-to-use WMD in Saddam’s Iraq relevant to the question of whether or not we should have invaded Iraq. What is relevant to whether or not we should have invaded Iraq is that which follows.

The following sentences were excerpted from Islamic Movement in Kurdistan, and from Ansar al-Islam, in Wikipedia.

The Islamic Movement in Kurdistan is an Iraqi political party.
Some more radical members joined the al-Queda aligned Ansar al-Islam.
Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Movement_in_Kurdistan

Ansar al-Islam is an Islamist group, promoting a radical interpretation of Islam and holy war.
At the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq it controlled about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northern Iraq on the Iranian border.
It was formed in December 2001 as a merger of Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), led by Abu Abdallah al-Shafi'i, and a splinter group from the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan led by Mullah Krekar.
Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam

……………………………………………………………………

Relevant Dates:

05/19/1996: Bin Laden leaves Sudan and returns to Afghanistan.

+ 5 years, 3 months, 23 days later
09/11/2001: Osama’s al Qaeda perpetrates terrorist attack on USA. The night of 9/11, the President broadcast to the nation that we will not distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them.

+ 1 month, 9 days later.
10/20/2001: USA invades Afghanistan. Did the USA wait to long?

+ 2 months later.
12/20/2001: Osama’s al Qaeda establishes training base in Iraq.

+ 1 year, 3 months later.
03/20/2003: USA invades Iraq including al Qaeda’s expanded training bases in northern Iraq. Should the USA have waited longer?

…………………………………………………………………………..

The deadly consequences to us all of failure to exterminate malignancy (i.e., those who mass murder civilians and those who are their accomplices) are too horrible to contemplate much less endure!

0 Replies

I finally voted, and I'm with the majority. LOL

0 Replies

Drawing upon the findings of the a) Iraq Survey Group, b) U.S. and British official investigations, (c) contemporary Iraqi official documents, and d) personal memoirs of U.N. officials and others, Associated Press reporter Charles Hanley has constructed a highly regarded "post mortem" of Saddam's non-existent "weapons of mass destruction" threat to us.

Hanley begins his post-mortem - appropriately enough - in August 1995:

Quote:

Piecing together the story of the weapons that weren't

By Charles J. Hanley, The Associated Press

Beneath the giant dome of a Baghdad palace, facing his team of scientists and engineers, George Tenet sounded more like a football coach than a spymaster, a coach who didn't know the game was over.

"Are we 85% done?" the CIA boss demanded. The arms hunters knew what he wanted to hear. "No!" they shouted back. "Let me hear it again!" They shouted again.

The weapons are out there, Tenet insisted. Go find them.

Veteran inspector Rod Barton couldn't believe his ears. "It was nonsense," the Australian biologist said of that February evening last year, when the then-chief of U.S. intelligence secretly flew to Baghdad and dropped in on the lakeside Perfume Palace, chandelier-hung home of the Iraq Survey Group.

"It wasn't that we didn't know the major answers," recalled Barton, whose account matched that of another key participant. "Are there WMD in the country? We knew the answers."

Full report

0 Replies

MI5 head warns on civil liberties
Civil liberties may have to be "eroded" to protect Britons from terrorism, the head of security service MI5 has said.
In a speech made in the Netherlands on 1 September and put online by MI5, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller said the world had changed and a debate was needed.

She said the July London bombings were a "shock", which MI5 and police were "disappointed" they could not prevent.

But ex-MI5 agent David Shayler said any liberties lost would be hard to regain and could make "martyrs" of terrorists.

Mr Shayler told BBC News questions still needed to be asked about how the 7 July suicide bombings happened.

"It's made apparent how MI5 fails to stop attacks even when in possession of intelligence because of bureaucratic inertia," he said.

Mr Shayler, of Middlesbrough, was jailed for six months in 2002 for revealing intelligence service information to a newspaper.

He said he had been motivated by a desire to expose abuses of power by the intelligence services.

Dame Eliza spoke on countering the international terrorist threat at the 60th anniversary celebrations of the Dutch security service, the AIVD, in The Hague.

She said those working in intelligence were also aware of many more attacks that had been thwarted by good intelligence and police work, but that those successes had usually been "quiet ones".

Some erosion of what we all value may be necessary to improve the chances of our citizens not being blown apart as they go about their daily lives
Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller

"We are judged by what we do not know and did not prevent," she said.

She said difficult decisions often needed to be made on the basis of intelligence that was "fragmentary and difficult to interpret".

"Some is gold, some dross and all of it requires validation, analysis and assessment. When it is gold it shines and illuminates, saves lives, protects nations and informs policy," she said.

"When identified as dross it needs to be rejected: that may take some confidence."

The central dilemma, said Dame Eliza - director general of MI5 - was how to protect citizens within the rule of law when "fragile" intelligence did not amount to clear cut evidence.

Sensitive

Such intelligence was often not enough to support criminal charges in the courts, she said.

"We can believe, correctly, that a terrorist atrocity is being planned but those arrested by the police have to be released as the plan is too embryonic, too vague to lead to charges and possibly convictions," she said.

"Furthermore the intelligence may be highly sensitive and its exposure would be very damaging as revealing either the source or our capability."

She said civil liberties were valued and there was no wish to damage those "hard-fought for" rights.

"But the world has changed and there needs to be a debate on whether some erosion of what we all value may be necessary to improve the chances of our citizens not being blown apart as they go about their daily lives," she said.

Legislative powers

Lord McNally, leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, said his party and the Conservatives had said they would work with the government in examining any loopholes exposed by the bombings.

"But I think we've also got to examine what existing powers were not used properly," he said.

Parliament had a "heavy responsibility" to see that any new powers were explained and justified, he said.

It's important that people talk at an early stage about the kind of issues that may be under consideration
Stephen McCabe
Labour MP

Labour MP Stephen McCabe, former parliamentary private secretary to the Home Secretary Charles Clarke, said all new laws would be subject to normal parliamentary procedures.

But he added: "If there is any possibility that we're going to have new powers that do curtail recognised freedoms then it's important that people talk at an early stage about the kind of issues that may be under consideration.

"It's important that they're out in the open and there is actually public debate about the needs and the risks and the reasons."

Phone records

MI5 has recently let it be known that it is in favour of making telephone intercept evidence admissible in court.

Previously the intelligence and security services had expressed concern such that evidence might reveal operational details.

Note: shortened to meet new guidelines.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/4232012.stm

Published: 2005/09/10 11:09:49 GMT

© BBC MMV

0 Replies

SPEECH BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE SECURITY SERVICE, DAME ELIZA MANNINGHAM-BULLER, AT THE RIDDERZAAL, BINNENHOF, THE HAGUE, NETHERLANDS, 1 SEPTEMBER 2005

0 Replies

And how bloody predictable was this...

Quote:

World summit on UN's future heads for chaos

UK leads last minute effort to rein in US objections

Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
Saturday September 10, 2005
The Guardian

The British government is mounting a huge diplomatic effort this weekend to prevent the biggest-ever summit of world leaders, designed to tackle poverty and overhaul the United Nations, ending in chaos.

The Guardian has learned that Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, has made a personal plea to his American counterpart, Condoleezza Rice, for the US to withdraw opposition to plans for wholesale reform of the UN. He has asked Ms Rice to rein in John Bolton, the US ambassador to the world body.

More

0 Replies

Ambassador Bolton, who does not even have the support of his country's Congress, has proceeded to try to torpedo the UN.

I think it is outrageous.
I'm not saying the UN doesn't need reform, but this is not the way to do business. The institution should not be weakened in this way.

0 Replies

McTag

A UN that is "weakened" is, it seems clear, exactly the goal of this administration.

We'll recall the Project for a New American Century which layed out as a desireable and appropriate goal of American foreign policy (and this was echoed by Bush in a speech some three years back) was to eliminate the possibility of any other economic or political power rising to challenge the dominance of America. Rather obviously, this would include international regimes/organizations as well as other nations (China) or national conglomerates (EU).

0 Replies

must agree with blatham that bolton seems bent on destroying un not reforming or weakening it

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Drawing upon the findings of the a) Iraq Survey Group, b) U.S. and British official investigations, (c) contemporary Iraqi official documents, and d) personal memoirs of U.N. officials and others, Associated Press reporter Charles Hanley has constructed a highly regarded "post mortem" of Saddam's non-existent "weapons of mass destruction" threat to us. ...

The absence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 is not relevant to the question of whether or not we should have invaded Iraq. Nor is the absence of ready-to-use WMD in Saddam’s Iraq relevant to the question of whether or not we should have invaded Iraq. What is relevant is:

Relevant Dates:

05/19/1996: Bin Laden leaves Sudan and returns to Afghanistan.

5 years, 3 months, 23 days later
09/11/2001: Osama’s al Qaeda perpetrates terrorist attack on USA. The night of 9/11, the President broadcast to the nation that we will not distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them.

1 month, 9 days later.
10/20/2001: USA invades Afghanistan. Did the USA wait to long?

2 months later.
12/20/2001: Osama’s al Qaeda establishes training base in Iraq.

1 year, 3 months later.
03/20/2003: USA invades Iraq including al Qaeda’s expanded training bases in northern Iraq. Should the USA have waited longer?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

McTag

A UN that is "weakened" is, it seems clear, exactly the goal of this administration. ...

The UN was weakoned by the actions and inactions of Kofi Annan et al. Consequently the UN is no longer a credible institution for spreading the securing of human rights.

The UN must be rectified. Among other things its current institutionalization of the abuse of human rights by UN members must be ended. To accomplish that the current leadership of the UN must be called to fully account for its past corruptions.

0 Replies

The USA by its recent actions has made its position as a champion of human rights somewhat weaker, some might say risible, wouldn't you agree?

Secondly

Quote:

The night of 9/11, the President broadcast to the nation that we will not distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them

so why hasn't he attacked Boston yet, which harbours supporters of the IRA?

The invasion of Iraq was immoral, illegal and stupid, and the justifications which you attempt to parrot here are false.

0 Replies

They keep repeating the false justifications for our attack on Iraq, because they know that most Americans are too lazy or scared to learn the truth. WMDs anyone?

0 Replies

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know