Powell: Iraq Evidence May Have Been Wrong

[MrBrau1]

Powell: Iraq Evidence May Have Been Wrong

BY BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) has conceded that evidence he presented to the United Nations (news - web sites) that two trailers in Iraq (news - web sites) were used for weapons of mass destruction may have been wrong.

In an airborne news conference on the way home from NATO (news - web sites) talks in Brussels, Belgium, Powell said Friday he had been given solid information about the trailers that he told the Security Council in February 2003 were designed for making biological weapons. But now, Powell said, "it appears not to be the case that it was that solid."

He said he hoped the intelligence commission appointed by President Bush (news - web sites) to investigate prewar intelligence on Iraq "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 that time."

Powell's dramatic case to the Security Council that Iraq had secret arsenals of weapons of mass destruction failed to persuade the council to directly back the U.S.-led war that deposed the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites). But it helped mobilize sentiment among the American people for going to war.

As it turned out, U.N. inspectors were unable to uncover the weapons, but administration officials have insisted they still might be uncovered.

David Kay, who led the hunt for the weapons, showed off a pair of trailers for news cameras last summer and argued that the two metal flatbeds were designed for making biological weapons.

But faced with mounting challenges to that theory, Kay conceded in October he could have been wrong. He said he did not know whether Iraq ever had a mobile weapons program.

Powell told reporters that as he worked on the Bush administration's case against Iraq U.S. intelligence "indicated to me" that the intelligence was solid.

"I'm not the intelligence community, but I probed and I made sure, as I said in my presentation, these are multi-sourced" allegations, Powell said.
The trailers were the most dramatic claims, "and I made sure that it was multi-sourced," he said.
"Now, if the sources fell apart we need to find out how we've gotten ourselves in that position," he said.

"I have discussions with the CIA (news - web sites) about it," Powell said, without providing further details. The trailers were the only discovery the administration had cited as evidence of an illicit Iraqi weapons program.

In six months of searches, no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons were found to bolster the administration's central case for going to war: to disarm Saddam of suspected weapons of mass destruction.



No shit. I respect Powell. Why he works for Bush Jr. is beyond me.

 

[Dorian Gray]

that's crazy...

edit: thank god some can admit they might have been wrong

 

[Diemen]

Well it's about damn time they admit this.

 

[Klaus]

"Now, if the sources fell apart we need to find out how we've gotten ourselves in that position," he said.

exactly!

 

[verte76]

I agree, it's about damn time they admitted this. They didn't do themselves any favors by not doing so.

 

[STING2]

It is not a surprise nor a revelation that various pieces of intelligence turned out not to be true. That happens all the time with intelligence and is the nature of intelligence.

The fact remains that Saddam failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD and that was the administrations central case for military action and was supported by UN resolutions 678, 687, and 1441.

 

[BVS]

Then why present this information to begin with? They obviously thought they needed to...

 

[STING2]

Then why present this information to begin with? They obviously thought they needed to...

The information was supportive of the need to act but it was not the central case for action.

 

[Salome]

personally I always thought that whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was secondary to the fact that Saddam was the leader of an extremely cruel regime and therefore IMO needed to go

the allies surely never presented it this way though
unless I'm mistaken it was always about the immediate threat Saddam was for the rest of the world because of the weapons Iraq supposedly had
and the evidence about these weapons were used as the reason why we should now finally follow up on several UN resolutions


personally I think this war was a just one
but I could completely understand it when those who had doubts about this war in the first place now feel like they were deceived

 

[Dorian Gray]

personally I always thought that whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was secondary to the fact that Saddam was the leader of an extremely cruel regime and therefore IMO needed to go

the allies surely never presented it this way though
unless I'm mistaken it was always about the immediate threat Saddam was for the rest of the world because of the weapons Iraq supposedly had
and the evidence about these weapons were used as the reason why we should now finally follow up on several UN resolutions


personally I think this war was a just one
but I could completely understand it when those who had doubts about this war in the first place now feel like they were deceived

my thoughts exactly...
it's good to see though that the administration is taking a step in the right direction, and admitting that they may have been mistaken. it's good for America

 

[STING2]

personally I always thought that whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was secondary to the fact that Saddam was the leader of an extremely cruel regime and therefore IMO needed to go

the allies surely never presented it this way though
unless I'm mistaken it was always about the immediate threat Saddam was for the rest of the world because of the weapons Iraq supposedly had
and the evidence about these weapons were used as the reason why we should now finally follow up on several UN resolutions


personally I think this war was a just one
but I could completely understand it when those who had doubts about this war in the first place now feel like they were deceived

Achieving Verifiable Disarmament of Saddam had been an ongoing process for nearly 12 years. Everything short of the use of military force to remove Saddam had been tried in achieving verifiable disarmament. All of these attempts failed which is why military force to remove Saddam from power became a necessity in order to insure disarmament.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

hmm...ya think?

 

[Salome]

Achieving Verifiable Disarmament of Saddam had been an ongoing process for nearly 12 years. Everything short of the use of military force to remove Saddam had been tried in achieving verifiable disarmament. All of these attempts failed which is why military force to remove Saddam from power became a necessity in order to insure disarmament.

doesn't really change though that the people we have voted for to represent us made every effort to convince us that immediate action was nesecary based on evidence that now - almost certain - turns out to be false

 

[STING2]

doesn't really change though that the people we have voted for to represent us made every effort to convince us that immediate action was nesecary based on evidence that now - almost certain - turns out to be false

Thats incorrect. Their central case for the removal of Saddam was his failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD per UN Security Council Resolutions.

 

[Dreadsox]

 

[BVS]

 

[MrBrau1]

 

[Popmartijn]

 

[Angela Harlem]

Thats incorrect. Their central case for the removal of Saddam was his failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD per UN Security Council Resolutions.

That's incorrect.

Lets be honest. No one has a friggin clue what the precise and determining factor for this war was. There were issues like the weapons, Saddam being a shitbag and the rumours that oil was the reason. Some believed it was a bit of all of those things, and probably others. Truth is, depending on who from the administration and on what day, was doing the talking, depended on what story we would all be fed. You (anyone) can post 28 articles where it has been stated this or that was the reason for it, and someone else can post 28 showing otherwise. Please dont post any if you expect me to back this up because I can say now I will not. It is not because I am right and you are wrong, it depends on your viewpoint.

The administration must be getting a tad pissed that the weapons intelligence not only might have been wrong, but if it is indeed the case that these were the primary reason for this war, then they waged it on bodgey foundations.

 

[tackleberry]

Thats incorrect. Their central case for the removal of Saddam was his failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD per UN Security Council Resolutions.

Even so, the administration placed a tag on that saying that there was an "imminent threat" and that he needed to be ousted expeditiously. The imminent threat was false because (a) the intelligence was not clear enough, was not good enough to declare war, and (b) Saddam did disarm his WMD's in the early 90's. Not to mention that whether the Bush administration DID go to war because of violation of UN resolutions, the majority of the American public including myself and a lot of my "friends" and foes and my dog, Potter were under the impression that we went to WAR because Saddam posed a threat to us in America. That he could sell his WMD's to terrorists who would in turn threaten the U.S.

If the UN resolution was the main reason for going to war, then Bush did a terrible job of conveying that to the American public. I'm just glad that someone in that administration had the coconuts to admit their mistake, instead of continuing to live in la la land where everything is "cool."

 

[babyman]

what's sad, is that hundreds of civilians and militaries are still losing undeserved their lives for someone elses fault

 

[MrBrau1]

Bush State of the Union Speech 1/28/03:

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes"

My President told me that we needed to stop Iraq from using their weapons on us. This was the emotion core of his arguement to the American people. He played on our fear. Now, there are no weapons. Shouldn't ALOT of people be getting fired, or resigning? I mean, that's probably the biggest fuck-up, um, ever?

 

[verte76]

It's a screw-up of the first magnitude.

 

[STING2]

That's incorrect.

Lets be honest. No one has a friggin clue what the precise and determining factor for this war was. There were issues like the weapons, Saddam being a shitbag and the rumours that oil was the reason. Some believed it was a bit of all of those things, and probably others. Truth is, depending on who from the administration and on what day, was doing the talking, depended on what story we would all be fed. You (anyone) can post 28 articles where it has been stated this or that was the reason for it, and someone else can post 28 showing otherwise. Please dont post any if you expect me to back this up because I can say now I will not. It is not because I am right and you are wrong, it depends on your viewpoint.

The administration must be getting a tad pissed that the weapons intelligence not only might have been wrong, but if it is indeed the case that these were the primary reason for this war, then they waged it on bodgey foundations.

It is a FACT, that Saddam failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD. Saddam never accounted for stocks of over 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of Mustard Gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells.

These were the finds of United Nations weapons inspectors! It is Saddam's failure to verifiably Disarm of all WMD that was the basis for war.

This has been the on going reason for US and coalition semi-military engagement and enforcement of Sanctions and a Weapons embargo for 12 year prior to the start of the war in March 2003.

The United States began large scale vaccinations all military personal against Anthrax in the late 1990s. The major reason was Saddam's unaccounted for stocks, failure to disarm, and the fact that the United States was more likely to go to war in the Persian Gulf than any other region in the world.

The United States sent up over 200,000 troops to Kuwait in 1994 to block a potential re-invasion there by Saddam's forces. The United States extensively bombed Iraq in 1998 because Saddam essentially stopped cooperating with the Inspectors were attempting to VERIFIABLY DISARM Iraq.

President Bush went before the United Nations on September 12, 2002 and made his case based of Saddam's failure to Verifiably Disarm per multiple Security Council Resolutions. In October the United States Congress approved of the Presidents plan to disarm Saddam. In November, the United Nations approved of the use of force to disarm Saddam for the THIRD TIME!

Any study of the 12 year history of the Iraq situation from the March 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire to the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003 will tell you what this war was about!

 

[Dreadsox]

It was about GOOD TARGETS.

Thanks Donald Rumsfeld.

Oh....You will be fined you used the word COALITION without the TOKEN before it.

 

[STING2]

Even so, the administration placed a tag on that saying that there was an "imminent threat" and that he needed to be ousted expeditiously. The imminent threat was false because (a) the intelligence was not clear enough, was not good enough to declare war, and (b) Saddam did disarm his WMD's in the early 90's. Not to mention that whether the Bush administration DID go to war because of violation of UN resolutions, the majority of the American public including myself and a lot of my "friends" and foes and my dog, Potter were under the impression that we went to WAR because Saddam posed a threat to us in America. That he could sell his WMD's to terrorists who would in turn threaten the U.S.

If the UN resolution was the main reason for going to war, then Bush did a terrible job of conveying that to the American public. I'm just glad that someone in that administration had the coconuts to admit their mistake, instead of continuing to live in la la land where everything is "cool."

The administration never said "imminent threat" they said "Grave and Gathering Threat"!

a. The war did not happen because of this disputed intelligence.

b. If Saddam did disarm of all his WMD's where is the evidence? Saddam is required to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD and according to UNITED NATIONS inspectors, he failed to do this.

The United States and coalition allies went to war against Iraq in 1991 because of its invasion of Kuwait. They then enforced sanctions and weapons embargo against Saddam in addition to bombing on multiple occasions over several years.

THE UN resolutions in regards to Saddam's disarmament of WMD were passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations which allows for the use of military force in order to insure the resolution is enforced. Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 all approve of the use of military force to ensure the disarmament of Saddam.

Anything that threatens stability and security in the Persian Gulf is a threat to the United States and the rest of the world. This has been apart of US foreign policy through both Democratic and Republican administrations since World War II.

Insuring that Saddam was disarmed was a necessity, not a mistake. The fact that intelligence that was never a central case for the war turned out to be inaccurate was not a mistake but simply the nature of intelligence.

In 1990 before Iraq invaded Kuwait, the IAEA said Iraq had no Nuclear Weapons program. Most intelligence agencies believed Saddam was more than 10 years away from getting a Nuclear Weapon.

After the War, United Nations Inspectors discovered that the IAEA's and other intelligence agencies information was totally wrong. Saddam was only MONTHS away from having a nuclear weapon.

This is precisely why covert "intelligence" was never the criteria for determining whether Saddam was disarmed or not and there for whether military force would be needed or not.

 

[STING2]

Bush State of the Union Speech 1/28/03:

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes"

My President told me that we needed to stop Iraq from using their weapons on us. This was the emotion core of his arguement to the American people. He played on our fear. Now, there are no weapons. Shouldn't ALOT of people be getting fired, or resigning? I mean, that's probably the biggest fuck-up, um, ever?

The Weapons exist, either intact or in an un-intact form. Saddam never accounted for stocks of 1,000 Liters of Anthrax and 500 pounds of Mustard Gas and 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells.

 

[STING2]

It was about GOOD TARGETS.

Thanks Donald Rumsfeld.

Oh....You will be fined you used the word COALITION without the TOKEN before it.

Yes, according to Dick Clarke and Bob Woodward right?

ahhh, could you define what a coalition is that does not require the word token before it would be? Please be specific and site a historical example.

 

[Dreadsox]

Yep....everyone is wrong. You are right.

Sorry, the people of FYM voted. Token must be in front of the word coalition.

 

[Dreadsox]

Define coalition....yeah....after we figure out how we can say Iraq was not verifiably disarming itself at the time the US attacked. Last I knew there were inspectors there doing their job.