OT - Powell: Iraq biological labs intelligence not 'solid'

[NoMyths]

Link to CNN story: Powell: Iraq biological labs intelligence not 'solid'

Full text:
Powell: Iraq biological labs intelligence not 'solid'

(CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Friday that part of his dramatic testimony to the U.N. Security Council before the Iraq war was based on intelligence that appears to have been unreliable.

Powell's speech before the Security Council on February, 5, 2003 --detailing possible weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- was a major event in the Bush administration's drive to justify a war and win international support.

Powell told reporters at a press briefing that his testimony about Iraq possibly using mobile biological weapons labs "was presented to me ... as the best information and intelligence that we had" but "now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid."

Powell said he hopes the 9/11 Commission looking into pre-war intelligence "will look into these matters to see whether or not the intelligence agency had a basis for the confidence that they placed in the intelligence at the time."

"Now, if the sources fell apart, then we need to find out how we've gotten ourselves in that position." Powell told reporters. "I've had discussions with the CIA about it."

[Easy Mac]

flame in 3..2...1...

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

flame in 3..2...1...

That countdown, I don't think it means what you think it means.

[Dutch]

NoMyths,

What do you make of this report?

[Glengoyne]

Let me be the first to say. This is news why?


I mean just because you have Colin Powell saying something that everyone has known for sometime?

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Dutch

NoMyths,

What do you make of this report?

I think that it's important for our officials to be honest with us on decisions that can lead us into war. I respect Colin Powell, and am gratified to see that he is not remaining silent now that he is aware the information he used to justify the Iraq war was bad. I think it is important that whatever errors were made in information gathering are corrected, and if this will lead to such corrections--which I hope it will--then I think this is a positive move on Powell's part. I only wish the rest of the administration would be as or more forthcoming with such admissions, and be as fired up about getting to the bottom of intelligence failures and leaks (such as the blowing of the CIA agent's cover) as they are in attacking their political rivals over comparatively weak reasons.

Or, in short: being forthcoming about the errors that were made will go a long way towards restoring the faith of many Americans in the idea that our government is acting in the best interests of its citizens and the world in taking action on solid intelligence. Sadly, the political price that some in the administration would pay for such admissions is probably too high to convince me that any such mea culpas will come without an awful lot of prodding.

[Dutch]

Fair enough. I must point out, however, that Colin Powell never suggests he was lying or made a mistake. Only that the possability does exist that intelligence was faulty since nobody can prove the existance of WMD at this point.

But keeping in line with what you say, and not trying to be combative, what is your opinion then of the UNSCOM determinations for 12 years to maintain UN Sanctions against Iraq?

Reportedly thousands, tens of thousands (and if we believe Amnest International, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's) died every year under UN Sanctions. If we consider one life to equal one life and the hundreds of thousands who have reportedly died in Iraq as a result of the UN Sanctions, would you consider the UN equally responsable for renewing these sanctions year in and year out based on the same information that Bush used to urge direct confrontation?

But, keep in mind that the below sentiments about the Clinton Administration and the United Nations were never challenged as mistakes or lies. I don't believe they were mistaken or lying.

I guess, what I am saying, is I don't understand how the perception (not the reality) went from UN and USA truthful, Iraq lying--to UN and Iraq truthful, USA lying.

[quote]TEXT: ALBRIGHT STATEMENT ON UN SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAQ
(Latest UNSCOM report cites "numerous Iraqi failures")

hxxp://usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/unations/archive/may/un1_5-7.htm

Circa, 1996.

Madeline Albright - In mid-March, Iraqi authorities repeatedly blocked attempts by UNSCOM staff to visit Iraqi facilities they wished to inspect in clear violation of Iraq's obligations under Council resolutions. These delays lasted as long as eighteen hours, plenty of time to move or destroy the incriminating documents the inspectors sought. The Council condemned these Iraqi violations in a strongly worded statement on March 19. The Council should take even stronger and swifter action if Iraq again tries to prevent an UNSCOM inspection.

This was only the most disturbing example of Iraqi non-compliance during the last two months. It was certainly not the only one. During our last review, many Council members expressed hope that UNSCOM's April report would reveal a new cooperative attitude on the part of Iraq. Just the opposite occurred; the report instead records numerous Iraqi failures. UNSCOM noted that, beginning in mid-February of this year, the degree of cooperation from Iraqi officials and the flow of documents from the Iraqi government on its past weapons programs decreased. Iraq's latest "full, final and complete declarations" are, like every previous version of these important documents, incomplete and untruthful.

The Commission remains concerned that Iraq is still engaged in proscribed activities. Chairman Ekeus has noted that Iraq may retain up to sixteen SCUD missiles, as well as chemical and biological warheads. Iraq continues to hold back important material on past programs. UNSCOM notes that it has repeatedly sought documents from the Iraqi Ministry of Defense and Military Industrial Corporation in order to verify or complete information already available. Yet those documents have not been provided. This behavior pattern is not new and is hardly "cooperation." The regime continues its refusal to implement the domestic measures necessary for long-term monitoring of its weapons capabilities, even though as long ago as 1992 Iraqi officials promised to do so. As discussed in its report, UNSCOM even now discovers dual use equipment that the regime has neglected to declare to the Commission. There is only one logical conclusion that can be drawn from this pattern of behavior: Saddam Hussein does not accept his obligation never to attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and he is intent on preserving as much of his weapons programs as he possibly can. Iraqi statements are belied by Iraqi actions.

Further, there is no evidence that Iraq is willing to comply with its other obligations to the Council. Terrorism remains one of Saddam's favorite tools: he uses it to silence any opposition to his brutal rule and to intimidate relief workers trying to assist the people in northern Iraq. The Council's demand,~ embodied in Resolution 688, that Saddam cease the violent repression of his own people continues to be ignored.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Fair enough. I must point out, however, that Colin Powell never suggests he was lying or made a mistake. Only that the possability does exist that intelligence was faulty since nobody can prove the existance of WMD at this point.

But keeping in line with what you say, and not trying to be combative, what is your opinion then of the UNSCOM determinations for 12 years to maintain UN Sanctions against Iraq?

Reportedly thousands, tens of thousands (and if we believe Amnest International, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's) died every year under UN Sanctions. If we consider one life to equal one life and the hundreds of thousands who have reportedly died in Iraq as a result of the UN Sanctions, would you consider the UN equally responsable for renewing these sanctions year in and year out based on the same information that Bush used to urge direct confrontation?

But, keep in mind that the below sentiments about the Clinton Administration and the United Nations were never challenged as mistakes or lies. I don't believe they were mistaken or lying.

I guess, what I am saying, is I don't understand how the perception (not the reality) went from UN and USA truthful, Iraq lying--to UN and Iraq truthful, USA lying.

A few points from me here.

1. I was of the opinion that WOMD or not, we'd make sure that they were found. Cynical? You betcha. Unlike a lot of others who don't like this administration, I'll always be happy to be proven wrong and consider it a credit that they haven't. The opportunity certainly existed.

2. I am against the current inquiry. I have called it a witchhunt and it's certainly politically driven. Being a cynic I can't get behind something that is politically driven. It sticks in my craw.

3. I like Colin. I think he's a straight shooter. I wonder if he'd be part of the next Bush administration. I've heard that likely he wouldn't. This speaks volumes on his character and if Bush wins and he isn't, on theirs.

4. I think the UN sanctions were US driven and rightly so from their perspective. We are the biggest fish in the pond and Iraq wasn't a choirboy. The way they handled the situation made it entirely appropriate to not cut them some slack. They had every opportunity to change that. They didn't. Escalation on the other hand...

5. I really don't equal one life to one life. I'm not that liberal. I don't want to see ANY life wasted unnecessarily but am somewhat a realist. If one wants to squander ones life then so be it. If the political situation necessitates not taking action to save that life then also so be it. As I've said before, if we are so one life equals one life when are we going to invade China, by far a worse offender? We're not and to not include them when we justify doing the same against a relatively defenseless country like Iraq pisses me off. If we feel so strongly about this lets do it right but we won't because we don't. I don't blame us.

6. It's a bit easier to use fuzzy logic to create pressure on a country and let them deal with the consequences of not clarifying things. To invade and create anarchy on the other hand needs to be built on more solid and factual information. We didn't do that. That's my beef.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Axxon

A few points from me here.

1. I was of the opinion that WOMD or not, we'd make sure that they were found. Cynical? You betcha. Unlike a lot of others who don't like this administration, I'll always be happy to be proven wrong and consider it a credit that they haven't. The opportunity certainly existed.

2. I am against the current inquiry. I have called it a witchhunt and it's certainly politically driven. Being a cynic I can't get behind something that is politically driven. It sticks in my craw.

3. I like Colin. I think he's a straight shooter. I wonder if he'd be part of the next Bush administration. I've heard that likely he wouldn't. This speaks volumes on his character and if Bush wins and he isn't, on theirs.

4. I think the UN sanctions were US driven and rightly so from their perspective. We are the biggest fish in the pond and Iraq wasn't a choirboy. The way they handled the situation made it entirely appropriate to not cut them some slack. They had every opportunity to change that. They didn't. Escalation on the other hand...

5. I really don't equal one life to one life. I'm not that liberal. I don't want to see ANY life wasted unnecessarily but am somewhat a realist. If one wants to squander ones life then so be it. If the political situation necessitates not taking action to save that life then also so be it. As I've said before, if we are so one life equals one life when are we going to invade China, by far a worse offender? We're not and to not include them when we justify doing the same against a relatively defenseless country like Iraq pisses me off. If we feel so strongly about this lets do it right but we won't because we don't. I don't blame us.

6. It's a bit easier to use fuzzy logic to create pressure on a country and let them deal with the consequences of not clarifying things. To invade and create anarchy on the other hand needs to be built on more solid and factual information. We didn't do that. That's my beef.

I agree with most everything you said. Notably I don't think there was any real chance we would plant evidence in Iraq. The only other point I disagree with is your number 6. I think we/the U.N. needed to go in, and enforce their will on Iraq, since Iraq wasn't even moving toward compliance. If there is no invasion the U.N. just takes one more step toward the League of Nations. The other point where I see things differently is that I do believe that the Administration made every effort to base their decisions on solid and factual information. It just so happens that the information wasn't as reliable as they had every reason to believe it was. I don't fault them for being wrong. I do fault the administration for not being more publicly concerned with the status of the intelligence they did have.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I agree with most everything you said. Notably I don't think there was any real chance we would plant evidence in Iraq. The only other point I disagree with is your number 6. I think we/the U.N. needed to go in, and enforce their will on Iraq, since Iraq wasn't even moving toward compliance. If there is no invasion the U.N. just takes one more step toward the League of Nations. The other point where I see things differently is that I do believe that the Administration made every effort to base their decisions on solid and factual information. It just so happens that the information wasn't as reliable as they had every reason to believe it was. I don't fault them for being wrong. I do fault the administration for not being more publicly concerned with the status of the intelligence they did have.

1. I think there was a chance. I think I was proven wrong when we let the reporters shadow all actions. Again, I'm glad I was proven wrong. Mine was a cynical view. It was a breath of fresh air.

2. I just don't know. I see your point. I really do, but there was compliance as we now know. Where are the WOMDs??? They did comply with that but weren't comfortable with going further. Considering that this was their only ace in a very deep hole I can't say I blame them. You have to leave people something even if it's only dignity. No one ever took this into account. It could have been easily accomplished but it wasn't. Given that we allegedly green lighted the invasion of Kuwait in the first place and the fact that they were our allies when we hated Iran it wasn't too much to ask.

3. We don't disagree here. I don't like the administration but I've never accused them of not at least trying. I think that they did. I NEED to think that they did, cynic or not. I'm not accusing them of being criminal after all. I'm against that.

4. Being more publicly concerned = losing this election. As much as I hope they do I don't want them to lose on this basis nor do I think they're not concerned. I'm cynical not naive.

[sabotai]

I've always liked Colin Powell. He's one of the few republicans I'd vote for if he ran for president.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I've always liked Colin Powell. He's one of the few republicans I'd vote for if he ran for president.

I'd vote a McCain/Powell or Powell/McCain ticket tomorrow but it will never happen.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I'd vote a McCain/Powell or Powell/McCain ticket tomorrow but it will never happen.

So would I, and no, it won't happen.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by sabotai

So would I, and no, it won't happen.

I know and it's sad so we just keep voting for the lesser of the presented evils but what's the choice???

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I know and it's sad so we just keep voting for the lesser of the presented evils but what's the choice???

Maybe not the answer, but I choose not to play along. I either vote 3rd party or I don't vote at all.

[Glengoyne]

Regarding "there was compliance as we know now." The deal was that they needed to comply, and make the U.N. aware of their compliance. They may have complied to some extent, but they still fought tooth and nail against the inspection process. Even Blix pointed out a month or so before the invasion that Iraq hadn't even come to the fundamental conclusion that they even had to disarm. I wouldn't even be completely surprised if Iraq was actually feeding misinformation about their WMD. I have posted before about it, and I think it may have been some kind of pride or sovereignty issue, that motivated them to act as if they hadn't complied. I heard a comedian say that he thought our intelligence community had been hoodwinked by a bunch of scientists with the stones to lie to Saddam's face about their weapons programs. I am not so sure he is wrong. All I do know is that they acted as if they had something to hide when there was apparently nothing. Were they really that wrong in their thinking that the U.S. wouldn't move in?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Maybe not the answer, but I choose not to play along. I either vote 3rd party or I don't vote at all.

I'm in South Carolina so effectively my vote can't affect this election. Which is better, voting 3rd party in hopes that it may gain momentum from that or vote democrat and hope that my collective vote might invalidate a mandate?? Tough choice.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Regarding "there was compliance as we know now." The deal was that they needed to comply, and make the U.N. aware of their compliance. They may have complied to some extent, but they still fought tooth and nail against the inspection process. Even Blix pointed out a month or so before the invasion that Iraq hadn't even come to the fundamental conclusion that they even had to disarm. I wouldn't even be completely surprised if Iraq was actually feeding misinformation about their WMD. I have posted before about it, and I think it may have been some kind of pride or sovereignty issue, that motivated them to act as if they hadn't complied. I heard a comedian say that he thought our intelligence community had been hoodwinked by a bunch of scientists with the stones to lie to Saddam's face about their weapons programs. I am not so sure he is wrong. All I do know is that they acted as if they had something to hide when there was apparently nothing. Were they really that wrong in their thinking that the U.S. wouldn't move in?

We don't disagree at all. I'm saying that they did comply to some extent but wrote their own death warrant by not complying completely. I'm just doubting that from that administrations perspective if they could have better. I don't think they anticipated our response to a totally unrelated development. Who could?? They played with fire and got burned. I don't doubt that but disagree with our automatically labelling them the scapegoat to all our problems when it just wasn't so.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I don't think they anticipated our response to a totally unrelated development. Who could??

Do you think we wouldn't have gone into Iraq if there hadn't been a 9/11? I really think we would have. I think that there still would have been public approval for removing Saddam. Not to mention public disapproval as well. I don't think that the threat of Iraq distributing WMD to terrorists would have been the Administration's poster child for invasion, but there was ample reason to invade even without that "threat".

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Axxon

I'm in South Carolina so effectively my vote can't affect this election. Which is better, voting 3rd party in hopes that it may gain momentum from that or vote democrat and hope that my collective vote might invalidate a mandate?? Tough choice.

I don't think it's a tough choice, because federally, my vote doesn't matter (NJ is going to Kerry easily). I pay much more attention to local politcs than I do national politics. It's those people that effect me far more than those asswipes in Washington, and my vote does matter locally.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Axxon

We don't disagree at all. I'm saying that they did comply to some extent but wrote their own death warrant by not complying completely. I'm just doubting that from that administrations perspective if they could have better. I don't think they anticipated our response to a totally unrelated development. Who could?? They played with fire and got burned. I don't doubt that but disagree with our automatically labelling them the scapegoat to all our problems when it just wasn't so.

I agree with this.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Do you think we wouldn't have gone into Iraq if there hadn't been a 9/11? I really think we would have. I think that there still would have been public approval for removing Saddam. Not to mention public disapproval as well. I don't think that the threat of Iraq distributing WMD to terrorists would have been the Administration's poster child for invasion, but there was ample reason to invade even without that "threat".

I don't think we will ever really know the answer to that. I will say that, as somebody who was always eligable to deploy in support of operations protecting the UN Sanctions (and did deploy twice in such a capacity), that I was always hoping we would oust Saddam Hussein. Mostly with "black helicopter" talk about, "Hey, Billy Joe, you think Clinton will send the CIA in to cap Saddam's ass so we can get this shit over with?" But "billy joe" kept responding, "No way, Saddam's got dozens of body double's, if we didn't get him and assassinated the wrong guy, Clinton would get fried."

I think 9/11 and the change in leadership from Clinton to Bush made the decision much easier, if nothing else. That's not a knock on Clinton, I just think it would have been hard for Clinton to "sell" war after working so hard with getting the inspectors in the country. Changing the tune with just 2 years left to military invasion would have been hard. However, I never agreed with the Desert Fox strategy of bombing Iraq from a distance in 1998 or the subsequent bombing of Al Qaeda from a distance as we never knew what we hit, what we missed, and what Iraq and the Taliban made up.

[NoMyths]

Dutch, I don't really have time tonight to address your post as thoroughly as I'd like. Will try to get to it tomorrow. I just wanted to take a moment to point out how great the discussion in this thread has been today on both sides, and express my happiness that one of these things is turning out in the way I'd like all of them to. Nicely done, guys.

See, all these things don't have to turn into flame fests.

[yabanci]

Some of you might find interesting a story that ran in last Sunday's Los Angeles Times. It's basically about how the US "asked former exile leader Ahmad Chalabi, a bitter enemy of Hussein, to help search for intelligence supporting their theory [of mobile labs].

Soon after, a young chemical engineer emerged in a German refugee camp and claimed that he had been hired out of Baghdad University to design and build biological warfare trucks for the Iraqi army.

Based largely on his account, President Bush and his aides repeatedly warned of the shadowy germ trucks, dubbed "Winnebagos of Death" or "Hell on Wheels" in news accounts, and they became a crucial part of the White House case for war — including Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's dramatic presentation to the U.N. Security Council just weeks before the war.

Only later, U.S. officials said, did the CIA learn that the defector was the brother of one of Chalabi's top aides, and begin to suspect that he might have been coached to provide false information. Partly because of that, some U.S. intelligence officials and congressional investigators fear that the CIA may have inadvertently conjured up and then chased a phantom weapons system."

It goes on in some detail and the story played a significant role in forcing Powell to make these recent admissions. Before anybody starts crying and saying it's all false because Bush can do no wrong, most of this was done under Clinton. Of course, Chalabi is still the Pentagon's darling and continues to receive wheelbarrows full of money on top of the millions he's already been given.

http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-curveba...,2569512.story

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I don't think it's a tough choice, because federally, my vote doesn't matter (NJ is going to Kerry easily). I pay much more attention to local politcs than I do national politics. It's those people that effect me far more than those asswipes in Washington, and my vote does matter locally.

I agree with this and locally the republican senator is Lindsey Graham and he has met with me and while we disagree on most issues, I think I'm more than comfortable with him representing me. No, I'm sure of it, but I trust his sincerity and while I disagree with his politics, I trust the man. I wish his views were closer to mine but when I moved here he was the only politician who not only sent me a letter welcoming me to the area but was willing to talk to me and let me know who he was. Leanings aside, I like who he is as a person. I do believe he represents me although he doesn't represent my views.

So I vote for a republican locally but hope for a democrat president. I don't see the conflict but I also don't see how my vote for president has any value. SC will go with Bush. I felt the same way about Thurmond. He has helped my family even though we see things differently. Politics wasn't the only thing that drove these men, they wanted to help their communities. Same with Sam Gibbons on the other side.

The federal election is another thing though. If my state isn't a gimme then my vote directly matters but SC is a gimme for the Republicans. My vote now matters for sending a message to the other guys. If I vote democrat then I'm encouraging their agenda but if I vote a third party I'm sending a message to the democrats that they need to send another message than the one they're sending me or at least a stronger candidate.

A vote "just because" invalidates my ability to send a message and since I can't influence the results, it makes my vote useless. I don't know how I'm going to vote. I like Kerry better than Dean but I want to see who he runs with. That will speak volumes to me.

Right now, I'd rather abstain than vote for Bush but that could change. I voted for his dad and I don't regret it. I just don't see W as half the man his dad was. He hasn't helped his cause much but he really doesn't have to. I may well abstain from voting in the presidential race this time even though I don't want him to win.

I'm a strange bird.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I don't think we will ever really know the answer to that. I will say that, as somebody who was always eligable to deploy in support of operations protecting the UN Sanctions (and did deploy twice in such a capacity), that I was always hoping we would oust Saddam Hussein. Mostly with "black helicopter" talk about, "Hey, Billy Joe, you think Clinton will send the CIA in to cap Saddam's ass so we can get this shit over with?" But "billy joe" kept responding, "No way, Saddam's got dozens of body double's, if we didn't get him and assassinated the wrong guy, Clinton would get fried."

I think 9/11 and the change in leadership from Clinton to Bush made the decision much easier, if nothing else. That's not a knock on Clinton, I just think it would have been hard for Clinton to "sell" war after working so hard with getting the inspectors in the country. Changing the tune with just 2 years left to military invasion would have been hard. However, I never agreed with the Desert Fox strategy of bombing Iraq from a distance in 1998 or the subsequent bombing of Al Qaeda from a distance as we never knew what we hit, what we missed, and what Iraq and the Taliban made up.

Dutch I want you to know this. I am one of only two male members of my family that I know of that didn't join the armed forces. I came close. I was an ROTC guy in college and had I not had other opportunities come up, I would have gladly joined.

My voice will never be raised in anything but praise for our men and women in uniform no matter what.

What I found shocking is my younger brother. He was a 2 term marine and served in the first gulf war. Our politics have always been night and day. I was shocked when he disagreed with this last war. He said we shouldn't be fighting a personal vendetta for the Bush family. If I had said this, which I didn't then ok, but Jason is a very conservative guy who has always supported the republican party. His view on this shocked me and as he has more personal experience in the region it made me think. Just thought I'd bring this up as I'm more forgiving than my ex marine, pro republican ( still ) baby brother.

[Dutch]

Axxon,

For what it's worth, the old myth that the military is Republican was gone by 2000. I'd say the split was probably 55 or 60% pro-Republican and 45-40% Democratic.

Of course, most of that swung back into Republican hands when the Democrats were trying to throw out most of the overseas votes in Florida!

Military guys are allowed to vote however they wish, and I'm not going to tell a Marine how he can or can't vote. As far as I'm concerned, they can vote any damned way they want and it should count twice! I am Air Force, btw.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Axxon,

For what it's worth, the old myth that the military is Republican was gone by 2000. I'd say the split was probably 55 or 60% pro-Republican and 45-40% Democratic.

Of course, most of that swung back into Republican hands when the Democrats were trying to throw out most of the overseas votes in Florida!

Military guys are allowed to vote however they wish, and I'm not going to tell a Marine how he can or can't vote. As far as I'm concerned, they can vote any damned way they want and it should count twice! I am Air Force, btw.

My cousin did a tour as the supply guy for the Thunderbirds. He's career Air Force. I can honestly say I've never met a nicer bunch of guys and I'm damned proud of them. Of course, I think pilots in general are great guys but these guys really are the greatest, on the ground and in the air.

My brother is a Republican though, through and through, except on this issue. That's why it's weird.

Oh, ever met a guy named John Galbreath?? We were friends in junior high school and I lost track of him. I understand he's career Air Force too. I know it's a shot in the dark but it never hurts to try.