[quote]US Secretary of State Colin Powell has acknowledged the pre-war information he gave to the United Nations about mobile laboratories in Iraq used to develop chemical and biological weapons was not “solid.”
Ahead of the Iraq war that began a little over a year ago, Mr Powell had provided data to the UN which sought to prove that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction in mobile laboratories.
He presented the UN Security Council with the findings in a special session on February 5 2003, in efforts to drum up support for an invasion of Iraq.
“Now it appears not to be the case, that it was that solid,” said Mr Powell, speaking to reporters aboard a plane to Washington after a trip to Brussels.
“But at the time I was preparing that presentation it was presented to me as being solid,” he said.
Mr Powell’s comments are the most straightforward acknowledgement from the US government that the information was probably wrong.
[/quote]
AHA! let’s see just how far US administation officials are going to backtrack now. It seems that many are now playing with how to admit they were lying. Can Fred Smith now defend the ‘solid’ arguments used to justify going to war? I feel sure he will and there will no doubt be lots of links to lots of right-wing publications as he bombards us with justification after justification after justification.
[quote]Rice’s testimony could make-or-break her, Bush
By RON HUTCHESON
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who once dreamed of becoming a concert pianist, has been performing in public since age 4. Now she’s preparing for the role of a lifetime.
The soft-spoken foreign-policy expert will serve as President Bush’s chief defender Thursday in a televised appearance before the independent panel that’s investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Her mission is to rebut allegations that Bush failed to deal with the terrorist threat before Sept. 11, but her own reputation is also on the line.
Former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke’s harsh critique of Bush’s performance as commander in chief strikes at the core of Bush’s presidency and undermines the theme of his re-election campaign. Bush has been telling Americans for months that he’s made them safer. Clarke said the president failed to take the terrorist threat seriously and made the problem worse by launching a war in Iraq that diverted attention from Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network.
[/quote]
Powell, Rice. Who will come out next? Rummy Rum Rum? Ha!
Watch this: ifilm.com/viralvideo?ifilmid=2537851
Rumsfeld caught lying.
He lies on Face the Nation, and the interviewers pin him to the table.
Great videoclip. Difficult to have any confidence in this stammering lying old git who is just making up for not being able to play a bigger part in bombing Cambodia/Laos/Vietnam.
We have gone over this issue for a year now. Thank you for finally adding your two cents. Guess what? We as do managers, generals and politicians go with best information available each and every day. Was it wrong yes. Was it deliberately presented to make the case for war? Could be, but no one has proven that yet. And as Rascal is so fond of pointing out “show me the wmds” until then I am not convinced. Show me the proof that anyone lied or shut up because until you have evidence that the Bush administration misled the American people, we will have to go with what we had which was that
A. Saddam was legally obligated to comply to maintain the ceasefire. He did not comply.
B. Saddam believed that he had wmds.
C. France believed that he had wmds.
D. Gore and Clinton believed that he had wmds as did most senators on the Left until it became politically advantageous to start having doubts.
E. The Russians believed that he had them.
F. Blix did not know what he had but believed that he was hiding something.
G. The Germans believed that he had them.
H. The British believed that he had them.
I. The Israelis believed that he had them.
J. Even Chirac a month before the war made a statement indicating that he believed Saddam had them but wanted inspections to continue.
In the event that time was truly running out, and no one was able to prove prior to the invasion that it was not, how did the US know that Saddam would not suddenly become as safe as North Korea, which would have enabled him to threaten nuking the oil fields thus preventing any action being taken against him and allowing him time to build even more wmds which would be used to threaten even more actors. What would you have done then oh protesters? Would the Europeans be dealing with that particular problem or would it be American lives on the line as usual. I notice that the Europeans are very busy sending their troops to South Korea now to deal with the North Korean problem. As usual, Europe is worthless.
Fine the facts have changed, but how does this change the stupidity of opposing the Bush administration in Iraq NOW. Exactly, the conditions have changed to one of war and invasion to one of nationbuilding and attempting to protect rights of women, children and gays. All pet causes of the Left. Given those new variables, shouldn’t the Left suddenly find a new passion to support Bush administration efforts in Iraq? If Bush is found to have deliberately misled the public then he will no doubt face impeachment hearings and he will have to be held accountable. That is what our system does. Until then, opposition to efforts in Iraq is morally untenable and politically contradictory given what the Left espouses. Blair went through the ringer and was found not guility, Bush is going through a process now for both 911 and Iraq and we will see what happens. Until then, how does this change the reality of what we are fighting for on the ground in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
Finally, given that EVERYONE believed that Saddam is a threat, why is Bush being singled out for criticism? Just because he was the only one to act? If you want to be a worthless debater that never accomplishes anything, by all means go with Europe.
rice is testifying on the pre-9/11 bush administration. basically, some congressmen are going to ask her “could you have prevented terrorists flying airplanes into our buildings?” and she’s going to say “no”.
she’s not there to defend bush’s iraq policy so i don’t see why this would make or break her.
bush’s policy before 9/11 was basically a continuation of clinton’s policy. die-hard liberals who dream that gore would have somehow found a way to magically stop 9/11 need to put down that pipe.
That’s not quite correct. Clarke’s point is that under Clinton, whenever the intelligence community got wind of terrorist activity in the US, Clarke’s cabinet status, as well as Clinton’s stamp of approval, allowed him to make everybody else at dept. head, or below, “shake the tree,” or really just find out all they could about what they knew. In addition, each such official was required to report to Clinton on Actions Taken To Stop Terrorism That Day.
Of course, this is what drives the neocons nuts, this kind of wonkish, drill-down, namby-pamby, pragmatic, policy stuff (they prefer philosophy, sniff, thank you very much). Rice deemphasized the “shake the trees” tactic, or ended it really, as the Bushies chose to concentrate on a Grand Strategy against all state-sponsored terrorism instead. They stopped the crappy grind stuff, sneering at its Clintonian lack of comprehensiveness, and instead tried to figure out ways to depose Saddam Hussein (apparently).
The problem for Bush is that the Millennium Plot of 1999 was stopped precisely due to the “shake the tree” tactics used by Clinton and, most importantly, ended by Bush. In other words, it appears that Rice and Bush simply could not stand Clinton’s tactics and just dropped them, despite Clarke’s warnings, and bingo! 9/11.
That’s the whole thing in a nutshell, and that’s the problem for both Rice and Bush.
Yes, Clinton and Clarke were very successful in stopping terrorist attacks using this method, like the
1993 bombing of the World Trade Center
1995 bombing of the Murray Federal Building in Oklahama City
1996 bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia
1998 bombing of two US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam
1999 bombing of the Cole
I think that you get the drift. The point is that up until 911 no one could ever have imagined the size of the efforts being attempted. Now, we understand and that IS why we have finally taken out Iraq and Afghanistan. If Clarke was all that, why didn’t he get more done during the 8 years of the Clinton administration? Hmmm?
[quote=“fred smith”]Yes, Clinton and Clarke were very successful in stopping terrorist attacks using this method, like the
1993 bombing of the World Trade Center
1995 bombing of the Murray Federal Building in Oklahama City
1996 bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia
1998 bombing of two US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam
1999 bombing of the Cole
I think that you get the drift. The point is that up until 911 no one could ever have imagined the size of the efforts being attempted. Now, we understand and that IS why we have finally taken out Iraq and Afghanistan. If Clarke was all that, why didn’t he get more done during the 8 years of the Clinton administration? Hmmm?[/quote]
Shake the Tree is a set of tactics used. It is not a strategy to contain state-sponsored terrorism. Look at your timeline. Shake the Tree stopped domestic terrorism after 1995.
The point is that the Shake the Tree tactics were stopped by Bush in order to concentrate on an overall strategy to end state-sponsored terrorism (a strategy that strangely concentrated on ICBM missiles, but that’s another thread).
The failure is simple: Bush ended a set of tactics, loosely called Shake the Tree, that definitively stopped the Millennium Plot in 1999.
No not directed at you but merely reflective of my complete exasperation with Europe. Fine, no wmds were discovered and we are being raked over the coals about this, but ultimately the lives that would have been lost fighting Saddam no matter how you looked at it would be ours and perhaps to some extent British. While the world continues to get its oil from the Persian Gulf, who exactly was going to deal with a Saddam that had nuclear weapons and who decided that he would become the new ruler of all Araby? Who would have stopped him? The French? the Germans? And if we waited until he had such weapons, it would have cost the US far more in lives to bring him down. So given that we are always forced to defend these nations, which after all have asked us there, it is not a question for Europeans to “debate” why the invective directed against Bush and the US for acting in a completely rational manner. It would be one thing if the European intelligence agencies believed that Saddam did NOT have wmds, but when they did and they still chose not to act??? Even worse, when they do act, what do they choose to do??? Oppose the US. Now given that the US has never given them cause for worry but Saddam has and given that the US is central to their political, economic and strategic interests while Saddam is no where being close, how in the name of sanity does this make sense to you?
You did not say only domestic terrorism in your first post. Hey, you may have a point. Presidents make mistakes. If Bush made this particular mistake, then I expect that it will come out during the investigation. But what is the alternative? Kerry who repeatedly chose to cut funding for intelligence services? I still do not see how Clinton was all of that effective in dealing with terrorism.
If Bush is the primary reason for 911, what do you have to say about the 10 year lead up to 911 when al Qaeda became ever more daring. Given that we were not dealing with him, I completely understand why Bush finally decided to go after them directly in Afghanistan and elsewhere to deal with the problem once and for all.
Until then, I will wait and see how your comment pans out as will many other voters, but given his success SINCE then, I don’t think that Kerry will benefit by running on a platform of being tougher on terrorism than Bush is, do you?
You did not say only domestic terrorism in your first post. Hey, you may have a point. Presidents make mistakes. If Bush made this particular mistake, then I expect that it will come out during the investigation. But what is the alternative? [/quote]
Some of the main criticisms in a new article in the Economist.
[quote]Yet when all is said and done, Mr Clarke was the administration’s first crisis manager on September 11th, directing emergency responses from the White House itself that day. He had presented Ms Rice with a memo urging the administration
Shouldn’t that be a “Gore-Lieberman” crybaby routine? [/quote]
No. Gore was dignified, even as he (and the American public) was fucked over. Lien-Soong just didn’t get enough votes, did they?
Gore did, and then some.
[quote=“Alien”]No. Gore was dignified, even as he (and the American public) was fucked over. Lien-Soong just didn’t get enough votes, did they?
Gore did, and then some.[/quote]
If Gore had enough votes, he would have won the election. He didn’t have enough votes and thus he lost the election.
[quote=“tigerman”][quote=“Alien”]No. Gore was dignified, even as he (and the American public) was fucked over. Lien-Soong just didn’t get enough votes, did they?
Gore did, and then some.[/quote]
If Gore had enough votes, he would have won the election. He didn’t have enough votes and thus he lost the election.
Why is this so difficult for some people?[/quote]
Yes, very well. Ho hum.This is off topic.
Let’s talk about the lies, the deceit, the vilifying, the war-mongering, instead:
[quote]Over the past two weeks, he’s single-handedly made the Bush White House look like chumps, anticipating their every move and outmaneuvering the GOP smear machine. Accustomed to bullying adversaries into silence, the White House has made one tactical blunder after another. The result has been a political disaster.
After Clarke’s book depicted Bush on Sept. 12, 2001, urging him to pin 9/11 on Saddam Hussein (the FBI and CIA fingered the hijackers as Al Qaeda operatives almost immediately), an aide to Condi Rice told “60 Minutes” it never happened. Problem was, Clarke had witnesses. Evidently, the only party to the conversation who’d forgotten it was the president himself. The White House changed its story. Rice now alibis that Bush’s suspicions were justified.[/quote]
