Post by Newsgroups on Apr 3, 2004 22:34:45 GMT -5
From: Alert (www_insider_org@postmaster.co.uk)
Subject: Colin Powell admits the case for attacking Iraq was wrong
View this article only
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush, alt.politics.british, alt.politics
Date: 2004-04-03 12:07:03 PST
Colin Powell admits the case for attacking Iraq was wrong
US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has finally admitted that the
case for invading Iraq "appears" to have been untrue. As if the US
government didn't know it at the time!
Powell was given the job of making the case for overthrowing Iraq's
government to the UN last year. He delivered a presentation to the
Security Council, broadcast in the media throughout the world,
claiming that Iraq had WMD and had to be disarmed. He showed
photographs and maps of weapons facilities. But none of the locations
he pointed to were weapons facilities. These sites were all visited by
UN weapons inspectors before the war and known to be clean.
Colin Powell said the US knew Iraq had WMD, and even claimed to know
where the weapons were located. Many people took his word for it,
particularly in the US. Did you? The official reason for the war on
Iraq was a pack of lies. The UN weapons inspectors knew it. Russian
intelligence knew it. German intelligence knew it. French intelligence
knew it. Even we knew it. Are we supposed to believe that the US and
the UK were the last to know? In fact, the truth was freely available
for anybody who cared to look.
Richard Clarke, the US government security advisor during the last
four presidencies, and Paul O'Neill, the former Treasury Secretary,
have both confirmed that the plan to conquer Iraq was already on the
table on 9/11. Bush and his cabinet were ready to use 9/11 as an
excuse to take Iraq's oil even before the bodies were cold.
There was literally never any evidence whatsoever to support
accusations that Iraq had WMD. The reasons for the war on Iraq were
not the reasons sold to us: www.thedebate.org
www.theinsider.org
SOURCE
BBC News, "Powell admits Iraq evidence mistake", 3 April 2004.
[ news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3596033.stm ]
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has admitted that evidence he
submitted to the United Nations to justify war on Iraq may have been
wrong.
In February last year he told the UN Security Council that Iraq
had developed mobile laboratories for making biological weapons.
On Friday he conceded that information "appears not to be... that
solid".
The claim failed to persuade the Security Council to back the war,
but helped sway US public opinion.
Mr Powell said he hoped the commission appointed to investigate
pre-war intelligence on Iraq would examine whether the intelligence
community was justified in backing the claim.
Doubts have been widely cast on the existence of the mobile labs,
not least by the former US chief weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay,
who now says does not know whether Iraq ever had a mobile weapons
programme.
...
FURTHER READING
New York Times, "Ex - Advisor Says Bush Eyed Bombing of Iraq on 9 /
11", 19 March 2004.
[ www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-iraq-retaliation.html
]
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A former White House anti-terrorism advisor
says the Bush administration considered bombing Iraq in retaliation
after Sept. 11, 2001 even though it was clear al Qaeda had carried out
the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Richard Clarke, who headed a cybersecurity board that gleaned
intelligence from the Internet, told CBS ``60 Minutes'' in an
interview to be aired on Sunday he was surprised administration
officials turned immediately toward Iraq instead of al Qaeda and Osama
bin Laden.
``They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it
on 9/12,'' Clarke says.
Clarke said he was briefing President Bush and Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld among other top officials in the aftermath of
the devastating attacks.
``Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq. ... We all said,
'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan,'' recounts Clarke, ``and
Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there
are lots of good targets in Iraq.'''
Clarke, an advisor to four presidents, left his position in
February 2003 after the White House transferred functions of the
cybersecurity board to Homeland Security.
Clarke's comments are the latest to raise the question of the Bush
administration's focus on overthrowing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, fired in a shake-up of
Bush's economic team in December 2002, told ``60 Minutes'' in an
interview aired in January he never saw any evidence Iraq had weapons
of mass destruction -- Bush's main justification for going to war.
O'Neill also charged that Bush entered office intent on invading
Iraq and ousting its leader, Saddam Hussein.
``I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection''
between Iraq and al Qaeda, Clarke tells ``60 Minutes.''
``But the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was
sitting there, saying, 'We've looked at this issue for years. For
years we've looked and there's just no connection,''' says Clarke.
...
Subject: Colin Powell admits the case for attacking Iraq was wrong
View this article only
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush, alt.politics.british, alt.politics
Date: 2004-04-03 12:07:03 PST
Colin Powell admits the case for attacking Iraq was wrong
US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has finally admitted that the
case for invading Iraq "appears" to have been untrue. As if the US
government didn't know it at the time!
Powell was given the job of making the case for overthrowing Iraq's
government to the UN last year. He delivered a presentation to the
Security Council, broadcast in the media throughout the world,
claiming that Iraq had WMD and had to be disarmed. He showed
photographs and maps of weapons facilities. But none of the locations
he pointed to were weapons facilities. These sites were all visited by
UN weapons inspectors before the war and known to be clean.
Colin Powell said the US knew Iraq had WMD, and even claimed to know
where the weapons were located. Many people took his word for it,
particularly in the US. Did you? The official reason for the war on
Iraq was a pack of lies. The UN weapons inspectors knew it. Russian
intelligence knew it. German intelligence knew it. French intelligence
knew it. Even we knew it. Are we supposed to believe that the US and
the UK were the last to know? In fact, the truth was freely available
for anybody who cared to look.
Richard Clarke, the US government security advisor during the last
four presidencies, and Paul O'Neill, the former Treasury Secretary,
have both confirmed that the plan to conquer Iraq was already on the
table on 9/11. Bush and his cabinet were ready to use 9/11 as an
excuse to take Iraq's oil even before the bodies were cold.
There was literally never any evidence whatsoever to support
accusations that Iraq had WMD. The reasons for the war on Iraq were
not the reasons sold to us: www.thedebate.org
www.theinsider.org
SOURCE
BBC News, "Powell admits Iraq evidence mistake", 3 April 2004.
[ news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3596033.stm ]
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has admitted that evidence he
submitted to the United Nations to justify war on Iraq may have been
wrong.
In February last year he told the UN Security Council that Iraq
had developed mobile laboratories for making biological weapons.
On Friday he conceded that information "appears not to be... that
solid".
The claim failed to persuade the Security Council to back the war,
but helped sway US public opinion.
Mr Powell said he hoped the commission appointed to investigate
pre-war intelligence on Iraq would examine whether the intelligence
community was justified in backing the claim.
Doubts have been widely cast on the existence of the mobile labs,
not least by the former US chief weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay,
who now says does not know whether Iraq ever had a mobile weapons
programme.
...
FURTHER READING
New York Times, "Ex - Advisor Says Bush Eyed Bombing of Iraq on 9 /
11", 19 March 2004.
[ www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-iraq-retaliation.html
]
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A former White House anti-terrorism advisor
says the Bush administration considered bombing Iraq in retaliation
after Sept. 11, 2001 even though it was clear al Qaeda had carried out
the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Richard Clarke, who headed a cybersecurity board that gleaned
intelligence from the Internet, told CBS ``60 Minutes'' in an
interview to be aired on Sunday he was surprised administration
officials turned immediately toward Iraq instead of al Qaeda and Osama
bin Laden.
``They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it
on 9/12,'' Clarke says.
Clarke said he was briefing President Bush and Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld among other top officials in the aftermath of
the devastating attacks.
``Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq. ... We all said,
'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan,'' recounts Clarke, ``and
Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there
are lots of good targets in Iraq.'''
Clarke, an advisor to four presidents, left his position in
February 2003 after the White House transferred functions of the
cybersecurity board to Homeland Security.
Clarke's comments are the latest to raise the question of the Bush
administration's focus on overthrowing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, fired in a shake-up of
Bush's economic team in December 2002, told ``60 Minutes'' in an
interview aired in January he never saw any evidence Iraq had weapons
of mass destruction -- Bush's main justification for going to war.
O'Neill also charged that Bush entered office intent on invading
Iraq and ousting its leader, Saddam Hussein.
``I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection''
between Iraq and al Qaeda, Clarke tells ``60 Minutes.''
``But the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was
sitting there, saying, 'We've looked at this issue for years. For
years we've looked and there's just no connection,''' says Clarke.
...