40% Still Believe Saddam Behind 911

[Nbadan]

...20% still believe Iraq had WMDs and that most of the hijackers came from - you guessed it, Iraq...

Poll: More Than 4 in 10 Americans Still Believe Saddam Involved with 9/11
By E&P Staff
Published: June 25, 2007 8:20 AM ET


NEW YORK Nearly six years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., better than 4 in 10 Americans still wrongly believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in planning or carrying out the actions. Surprisingly, that number has even risen in the past two years, according to a Newsweek poll.

The belief that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, which was endorsed by Vice President Cheney and other Bush administration officials, was seen as a prime reason for broad public support for the attack on Iraq in 2003. Some have suggested that the media did not do enough to dispel this myth. President Bush and Cheney have belatedly declared that Iraq actually had nothing to do with it.

A Newsweek poll in September 2004 showed that 36% believed "Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001." Now the number in the same poll is 41%.

In a separate question, 20% said that "most" of the 9/11 hijackers came from Iraq. The correct answer, Saudi Arabia, was chosen by 43%.

Public awareness that Iraq did not possess WMD has gained ground, however, with only 20% now stating that it did have chemical or biological weapons when we invaded.

Editor and Publisher (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003602869)

That's the 'fair and balanced' truth for you.....

:hat

[Yonivore]

It'd be nice if they asked people from where they got their information or upon what they based their conclusion.

[PixelPusher]

Already beat you to it...

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72350

[Nbadan]

Sorry, PP, didn't see that thread - still, I'm betting most of those 40% are FAUX News watchers..

[Spurminator]

So 40% believes Iraq was involved in 9/11 and 36% (http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll) believe the US Government was involved. Assuming no duplication within those two groups (and not counting those who believe it was carried out by Martians, Canadians or Scientologists), that's 76% of the country.

[Nbadan]

..about the same percentages that believe in UFO's...fortunately, we don't vote based on our UFOology..

[boutons_]

the dubya/dickhead/neo-cunt/Repug lies of Saddam-WTC and Saddam-AQ and Saddam-mushroom-cloud-threat were repeated ad nauseam.

Sheeple/rabble and Bible-thumpers are so fucking stupid.

Thomas Jefferson said the best defense of democracy and freedom against tyranny was an informed populace.

One man, dickhead, has moved the country far into tyranny, intimidation of free press and freedom of expression, and into an impenetrable jungles of lies.

[Nbadan]

I think a lot of people are just confused, I mean, why would we preventively attack a country that had little or nothing to do with 911, right?

Besides, Saddam was Muslim, the terra'ist where Muslim...Muslims hate Christians cause the Bible says so.....

[Wild Cobra]

Funny thing is that none of the conservative hosts I listen to never say Saddam was a part of 9/11. I too, wonder where this information is coming from.

As for WMD... There has been proof it existed, and small quantities of old stock were actually found.

Too many times, polls are 'pushed' with certain ideas. I have a hard time believing such reports of an editor when he doesn't source his so-called facts.

How many times has the mainstream media pushed the idea that conservatives believed Saddam was involved with 9/11 when we only believe he as loose ties to Bin Laden?

The media sets such misconceptions up frequently, then suggests we are ignorant when they show the part untrue we didn't believe anyway.

If anyone can find the exact wording of the questions, I think that would be appropriate to filter the merit of this poll and conclusion.

[boutons_]

I agree, Dan, too many dumbfucks still trust dubya to have done the right thing.

The lazy, naive bastards think:
"If dubya started a fucking war, he must have had good reason(s), right?
Hey, let's go shopping!"

.... even after ALL the "justifications" turned out to be bullshit.

[Nbadan]

As for WMD... There has been proof it existed, and small quantities of old stock were actually found.

Stuff buried from the Iraq-Iran war is not a 'immenent threat'. None of it was useable.

There's no doubt that Saddam possessed WMD's, maybe even used some in GW1, but by 2003 that stock was long-gone...

[Nbadan]

Funny thing is that none of the conservative hosts I listen to ever say Saddam was a part of 9/11. I too, wonder where this information is coming from.

Guilt by association my guess....some conservative talk-show pundits have sold people on the idea that Saddam was shielding at least some of the 911 conspirators, maybe even financing them or providing strategic aid...none of it is true...

[Wild Cobra]

Guilt by association my guess....some conservative talk-show pundits have sold people on the idea that Saddam was shielding at least some of the 911 conspirators, maybe even financing them or providing strategic aid...none of it is true...Yes and no. Shielding hostiles, yes. Financial aid, indirectly and possible without his knowledge. Problem is, the media changes important distinctions of words.

Stuff buried from the Iraq-Iran war is not a 'immenent threat'. None of it was useable.

There's no doubt that Saddam possessed WMD's, maybe even used some in GW1, but by 2003 that stock was long-gone...Agreed. However, there are not only the reports of General Sada which tells us what happened to the WMD, but documents that were supporting certain facts of his chain of people to Bin Laden. The millions (or hundreds k?) of pages are still not close to complete on being translated.

[ChumpDumper]

Come on, even the Bush administration stopped trying to prop up the al-Qaeda connection myth.

[boutons_]

"Funny thing is that none of the conservative hosts I listen to never say Saddam was a part of 9/11."

dickhead asserted the Saddam-AQ link (thereby Saddam-AQ-OBL-WTC link) long after the 9/11 commission and anybody else (outside of dickhead cesspool of neo-cunt liars) found NO Saddam-AQ-WTC (worth starting a war over). Even dubya had to contradict Saddam-WTC bullshit.

[Wild Cobra]

Come on, even the Bush administration stopped trying to prop up the al-Qaeda connection myth.Probably because they were being misquoted in what they were saying. There were no direct connections, however there was a chain of people who mediated between both. The media tried to twist this into saying the Bush administration claimed a connection between 9/11 and Saddam, which of course president Bush never said. They insert a false claim so they can debunk it.
"Funny thing is that none of the conservative hosts I listen to never say Saddam was a part of 9/11."

dickhead asserted the Saddam-AQ link (thereby Saddam-AQ-OBL-WTC link) long after the 9/11 commission and anybody else (outside of dickhead cesspool of neo-cunt liars) found NO Saddam-AQ-WTC (worth starting a war over). Even dubya had to contradict Saddam-WTC bullshit.
Whi is dick-head? You?

If you cannot maintain at least some decency, I will use the ignore option if it exists in this forum. I think it’s reasonable for people to let loose a bit of profanity once in a while, but yeo go overboard with your disrespect.

Duh.... they didn't find a Saddam to 9/11 connection because it wasn't there. Can you show me a quote stating there was such a connection please?

Why are those of you opposed to the war only bringing up the weak reasons and make it appear as if they are the only reasons? There were several other reasons why we went into Iraq.

[Nbadan]

Why are those of you opposed to the war only bringing up the weak reasons and make it appear as if they are the only reasons? There were several other reasons why we went into Iraq.

nobody listens to the U.N. resolutions, and Saddam was complying with mandatory inspection requirements when the U.S. decided to bomb Baghdad anyway.

[ChumpDumper]

Probably because they were being misquoted in what they were saying. There were no direct connections, however there was a chain of people who mediated between both. The media tried to twist this into saying the Bush administration claimed a connection between 9/11 and Saddam, which of course president Bush never said. They insert a false claim so they can debunk it.


The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/Bush.alqaeda/index.html

Now why would they back off that? He certainly wasn't misquoted there?

And why did Bush wait until September 2003 to explicitly state the following?


We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm

Why was it so difficult for him to spit out those 14 words? Is he not a plain speaker? Was the concept too hard for him to grasp? Was the entire administration unaware of the confusion a great number of Americans had regarding Saddam and 9/11?

Or was it easier to let this kind of obfuscation from Cheney ride to confuse the issue and let citizens think Saddam was behind 9/11 until well after the invasion?


If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html


Please tell me what Cheney meant by that, since he knew and you know that the geographic base of the terrorists was Afghanistan and western Pakistan.

[Wild Cobra]

My God Chump... You are seruiously daft.

None of those links contradict what I said.

A connection between Saddam and terrorists DOES NOT mean a planning acting between Saddam and 9/11.

The third link is wrong where it says:
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda
The report did state a connection, and the report also stated no connection between 9/11 and Saddam. The author has it wrong. Maybe I should say it's misleading. Iraq and Bin Laden were not planning anything together. They did have communications however.

Look at this nice page someone put together:

Questions and Observations (http://qando.net/archives/003626.htm)

And this beauty:

The 9/11 Commission Report (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf)

A few highlights from the 9/11 report:


Page 58 - Bin Laden built his Islamic army with groups in various countries, including Iraq.

Bin Ladin now had a vision of himself as head of an international jihad con federation. In Sudan, he established an “Islamic Army Shura” that was to serve as the coordinating body for the consortium of terrorist groups with which he was forging alliances. It was composed of his own al Qaeda Shura together with leaders or representatives of terrorist organizations that were still independent. In building this Islamic army, he enlisted groups from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Oman, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea.

Page 61 - Bin Laden willing to explore a relationship with Iraq.

Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against “Crusaders” during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.

Page 61 - Bin Laden agrees to stop supporting activities against Saddam; Reports indicate Saddam may have supported, or at least tolerated, Ansar al-Islam.

To protect his own ties with Iraq,Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad’s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.

Page 61 - Bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, and asked for assistance. No evidence of an Iraqi response. This was not the last attempt.

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.

Page 66 - Iraq took the initiative to contact Al Qaeda.

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Page 125 - Clarke points out that Iraq had discussed hosting Bin Laden.

Clarke commented that Iraq and Libya had previously discussed hosting Bin Ladin, though he and his staff had their doubts that Bin Ladin would trust secular Arab dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Muammar Qadhafi.

Page 128 - Clarke suggests that a chemical factory is probably the result of an Iraq-Al Qaeda agreement. Chemical evidence backs that up.

[ChumpDumper]

My God Chump... You are seruiously daft.

None of those links contradict what I said.

A connection between Saddam and terrorists DOES NOT mean a planning acting between Saddam and 9/11.My God Wild Cobra...you are seriously daft.

You never addressed what I wrote.


The third link is wrong where it says:No it isn't.


Blah, blah blah

Thanks for throwing a bunch of shit on the page in an attempt to avoid answering my questions.

[ChumpDumper]

In Iraq, Saddam Hussein was in power, overseeing one of the bloodiest regimes of the 20th century. He had started two wars -- produced and used weapons of mass destruction against Iran and the Kurds, and was in repeated violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions. He was a patron of terrorism -- paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers in Israel, and providing safe-haven and support for such terrorist groups as Abu Nidal and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. He had long established ties with al Qaeda.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040614-20.html

Now there is no way he can be misquoted here, since it's his own site. Cheney said Saddam himself had long established ties with al Qaeda. Clearly nothing you vomited up above shows that. What's up with that?

[Wild Cobra]

Cheney said Saddam himself had long established ties with al Qaeda.
My God....

Ties do not equal collaberation!

So what. They are associates. That doesn't mean they are in bed together. Why does the left try to imply that the right says they conspire together just because the communicate?

That article also disputes none of my claims.

I think you need an English refresher course.

Words have meanings.

[Wild Cobra]

Thanks for throwing a bunch of shit on the page in an attempt to avoid answering my questions.
With all the crap you're throwing out, I missed addressing some. So what. Since you ask;


And why did Bush wait until September 2003 to explicitly state the following?
I don’t know the reason. I could only guess, I’m not a mind reader. My point is that he never said Saddam was behind 9/11. Maybe there was no need to clarify that until the media kept implying the administration was equating the specific connection.

Note: It is the media implying the direct connection, never will you find a quote fron the president or vice president saying there was an operational connection between 9/11 and Saddam


Why was it so difficult for him to spit out those 14 words? Is he not a plain speaker? Was the concept too hard for him to grasp? Was the entire administration unaware of the confusion a great number of Americans had regarding Saddam and 9/11?

Again, I’m no mind reader. It was never confusing to me. I think it was only confusing to those listening to the lies from the left.


Or was it easier to let this kind of obfuscation from Cheney ride to confuse the issue and let citizens think Saddam was behind 9/11 until well after the invasion?

It was an obfuscation by the media! It is the media that perpetrated the lie. Not the Bush administration. I would say it’s possible that Cheney took advantage of the confusion however.


Please tell me what Cheney meant by that, since he knew and you know that the geographic base of the terrorists was Afghanistan and western Pakistan.
Again, I’m not a mind reader. However, I believe he was talking about the money that Saddam would pay to the families of suicide bombers. With him gone, this money would no longer be a factor. It appears that though was in error.

[boutons_]

WC is quibbling with semantics. "ties" vs "co-operation"

So "ties" with AQ/OBL are sufficient to start a war?

Paying bombers families is sufficient to start a war and waste 10s of 1000s of US casualties and a $T?

Here's a good article that shows how dickhead lead the campaign of lies and confusion to justify his war for oil and for financing $Bs in profits for Halliburton, Blackwater, etc. And as late as Sep 06, was still lying his evil ass off, and blaming the CIA for intel failures, in continuing his campaign of lying and confusion

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=120112

For the sheeple and rabble and other dumbfucks, Saddam was linked to AQ FOR YEARS after 9/11, AQ was OBL, and OBL hit WTC. The association of Saddam and WTC is clearly one easy to make for non-thinkers.

The other association was Saddam was an international terrorist threatening the USA, and therefore a legit target in dubya's war on terror. ie, again Saddam=terror, OBL=terror/WTC, Saddam = WTC.

And here's a typical instance of rabble/sheeple rousers making the "confirmed" link between Saddam and 9/11, with NO denials from the WH. The WH's non-denial makes them complicit in the lie.

http://www.rushonline.com/visitors/linkconfirmed.htm

[boutons_]

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/112546/ruth_rosen_on_oliver_stone_s_wtc_and_the_iraq_war

to note:

"
The Big Lie, first coined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf,was made famous by Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister for the Third Reich. The idea was simple enough: Tell a whopper (the larger the better) often enough and most people will come to accept it as the truth. During World War II, the predecessor of the CIA, the Office of Strategic Services, described how the Germans used the Big Lie: "[They] never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

This is, in fact, just what the Bush administration has been doing ever since 9/11. As a result, in 2005, an ABC/Washington Post poll found that 56% of Americans still thought Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction "shortly before the war," and 60% still believed Iraq had provided "direct support" to al-Qaeda prior to the war. In June 2006, Fox News ran a story once again dramatizing the supposed links between 9/11 and Iraq. And, as recently as July, 2006, a Harris poll found that 64% of those polled "say it is true that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda."
"

===================

After 9/11, dubya and dickhead abused 9/11 and their war on terror every time they openend their mouths, to justify everything from the Iraq invasion to all their totally non-war-on-terror programs, ie "never allow the public to cool off" because dickhead and his AIE/PNAC/neo-cunt cabal had decided in the late 90s to go after Iraq. The WTC attack that dickhead allowed was the opening dickhead needed to drive into Iraq and grab the oil, enriching the oilcos eventually, and enriching Halliburton, Blackwater, and all his buddies in the military/defense industries.

[Wild Cobra]

So "ties" with AQ/OBL are sufficient to start a war?

Paying bombers families is sufficient to start a war and waste 10s of 1000s of US casualties and a $T?

No, these are not good reasons by themself.

Why do you focus on just these weak events? There are other events that were the reasons we went to war. In fact, if you read the 9/11 report or at least do key word searches. President Bush did not go to war because of these two reasons! They were small pieces of many pieces of evidence that showed Saddam was a real threat.

Starting on page 334 of the 9/11 report is chapter 10.3 titled "Phase Two" And The Question of Iraq. You will find that president Bush decided not to attack Iraq at this early point. He later changed his mind and I don't think the 9/11 report addresses it because Iraq was not attacked because of 9/11!

[George Gervin's Afro]

No, these are not good reasons by themself.

Why do you focus on just these weak events? There are other events that were the reasons we went to war. In fact, if you read the 9/11 report or at least do key word searches. President Bush did not go to war because of these two reasons! They were small pieces of many pieces of evidence that showed Saddam was a real threat.

Starting on page 334 of the 9/11 report is chapter 10.3 titled "Phase Two" And The Question of Iraq. You will find that president Bush decided not to attack Iraq at this early point. He later changed his mind and I don't think the 9/11 report addresses it because Iraq was not attacked because of 9/11!


If there were 'many' reasons why went to war then why did Bush only concentrate on a few? I find this disingenous because they knowingly made a weak case for war concerning the wmds yet never mentioned any of the other 'many' reasons... Of course the reasons were brought up only after we didn't find wmds.. then all of a sudden the apologists acted as if WMDs didn't really matter..

[Yonivore]

If there were 'many' reasons why went to war then why did Bush only concentrate on a few?
The media only concentrated on a few.

The President stated his reasons in the AUMF in Iraq and in his speeches before the U.N. and Congress.


I find this disingenous because they knowingly made a weak case for war concerning the wmds yet never mentioned any of the other 'many' reasons... Of course the reasons were brought up only after we didn't find wmds.. then all of a sudden the apologists acted as if WMDs didn't really matter..
That's disingenuous. And, it's not that WMD's didn't matter; it's that this was all the lefties wanted to talk about after WMD's weren't discovered. All of a sudden, as you still pretend, WMD's were the only reason we invaded Iraq.

That's what's disingenuous.

[clambake]

How do you explain Colin Powell's admission that much of the reasons were either exaggerated or simply "made up'? Who gives a shit about false information that's written on a sheet of paper?

[Yonivore]

How do you explain Colin Powell's admission that much of the reasons were either exaggerated or simply "made up'? Who gives a shit about false information that's written on a sheet of paper?
Care to source that "admission" so that we can read and actually form an opinion on what he said as opposed to your characterization of what he said?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Care to source that "admission" so that we can read and actually form an opinion on what he said as opposed to your characterization of what he said?


Yoni your complainig about someone's characterization of what someone said? That's all you do here when it comes to democrats? You take the liberty of characterizing of what someone's intentions are without any supporting evidence..

[Yonivore]

Yoni your complainig about someone's characterization of what someone said? That's all you do here when it comes to democrats? You take the liberty of characterizing of what someone's intentions are without any supporting evidence..
I'm not complaining, I'd just like to know where, when, and in what context clambake heard former Secretary of State Colin Powell admitting to "exaggerating" and making up the reason for invading Iraq.

I'm fairly certain that if such an admission had been made, we'd be in the middle of an impeachment scandal that would have eclipsed that of Bill Clinton's.

Now, I'm fairly certain clambake believes the reasons were exaggerated or made up but, that is much different than someone in the administration actually admitting to what could be an impeachable offense.

So, not so much a complaint as skepticism.

[Yonivore]

That's all you do here when it comes to democrats? You take the liberty of characterizing of what someone's intentions are without any supporting evidence..
As for this part. Really? When?

[boutons_]

I didn't bring up the Saddam-WTC link nor the $25K compensation in this thread, the dickhead quote did. Those 2 reasons obviously don't justify a war. dickhead and his liars were throwing all kinds of shit out to see what would stick as justification.

After all the many insufficient reasons, dubya and dickhead decided the WMD/smoking-gun-mushroom-cloud was the single, primary, overwhelming reason to invade Iraq.

Since the UN inspectors didn't have hard evidence of WMD, dickhead sent Powell to get the UN Security Council vote for the invasion with the "mobile bio-weapons lab" as the definitive proof of WMD. But dickhead, his accomplices and Tenet knew the mobile bio-weapons lab was bullshit, but they didn't stop Powell, since war-evading dickhead as insane Dr Stranglove was fighting and undermining war hero Powell as too diplomatic and circumspect about starting the war.

[clambake]

Care to source that "admission" so that we can read and actually form an opinion on what he said as opposed to your characterization of what he said?
It was during a video linked interview with Pat Buchanan, and it pained him to divulge this information. I doubt he would cooperate with any investigation since he played such a performing role, knowing full-well of it's collusive ingredients. He was ashamed of his actions.

If you haven't seen this interview, I don't know how to direct you to it. It has been several years since his dismissal, and the interview took place shortly thereafter.

The question is: Would you accept his word?

[Yonivore]

It was during a video linked interview with Pat Buchanan, and it pained him to divulge this information. I doubt he would cooperate with any investigation since he played such a performing role, knowing full-well of it's collusive ingredients. He was ashamed of his actions.

If you haven't seen this interview, I don't know how to direct you to it. It has been several years since his dismissal, and the interview took place shortly thereafter.

The question is: Would you accept his word?
I would have to see what he said.

Pardon me for not taking your word for it...but, if this were the case, there's not a liberal alive that wouldn't be beating this drum every day. I've yet to hear Nancy Pelosi use the "Colin Powell admission" as a pretext for attacking President Bush on Iraq policy.

In fact, I've yet to hear any anti-Iraq war Democrat use that reasoning.

So, until you find me a video link or a transcript, it's bogus.

[clambake]

I would have to see what he said.

Pardon me for not taking your word for it...but, if this were the case, there's not a liberal alive that wouldn't be beating this drum every day. I've yet to hear Nancy Pelosi use the "Colin Powell admission" as a pretext for attacking President Bush on Iraq policy.

In fact, I've yet to hear any anti-Iraq war Democrat use that reasoning.

So, until you find me a video link or a transcript, it's bogus.
I will look for it.

But I have a question: If he said evidence was exaggerated and some simply made up, would you be inclined to accept his word as truth?

[fyatuk]

...20% still believe Iraq had WMDs and that most of the hijackers came from - you guessed it, Iraq...

Poll: More Than 4 in 10 Americans Still Believe Saddam Involved with 9/11
By E&P Staff
Published: June 25, 2007 8:20 AM ET



Editor and Publisher (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003602869)

That's the 'fair and balanced' truth for you.....

:hat

Just for fun, it has been conclusively proven that Iraq had some chemical weapons. Several decades old checmical warheads have been turned into IED's. Granted, it was so old it didn't work anymore and more likely than not even Saddam didn't realize he still had them, but hey.

The ISG did state that Saddam had worked to keep his scientists ready to resume research in chemical and biological weapons as soon as sanctions were lifted, but had completely abandoned his nuclear program because of costs. So, some people might be confused because of that statement.

Probably not though, since most people didn't take the time to look it over.

Meh, people are idiots and easy to convince.

[Yonivore]

I will look for it.

But I have a question: If he said evidence was exaggerated and some simply made up, would you be inclined to accept his word as truth?
Context and accuracy.

I'm waiting for the quote.

If Colin Powell said the moon was made of cheese, I wouldn't accept his word but, I've never heard him say that...just like I've never heard him admit to exaggerations or fabrications regarding the invasion of Iraq.

[fyatuk]

nobody listens to the U.N. resolutions, and Saddam was complying with mandatory inspection requirements when the U.S. decided to bomb Baghdad anyway.

True about the UN resolutions, but if you read them, several of them actually authorize war if certain conditions were not met, which they weren't. Not important though.

And Saddam was not really complying. The inspectors filed several complaints that he wasn't abiding by the rules set before him with regards to inspectors. He kept giving a little at a time to try and continually put off getting tossed, but they day the inspectors left they still felt he wasn't complying particularly well.

There was a lot of hedging about by Saddam, and apparently the common theory is that he was trying to create the illusion that he had WMDs more than anything else to exert influence over other Arab nations, and trying to feed on anti-US feelings like AQ has been.

[clambake]

It was Tim Russert, my mistake, and I saw the interview live and nearly fell out of my seat. I haven't found the video yet, but still looking.


Colin Powell Interview With Russert Is Cut Off

Monday, May 17, 2004; Page C04


A State Department staffer tried to pull the plug on Tim Russert yesterday.



Toward the end of a "Meet the Press" interview with Secretary of State Colin Powell in Jordan, the camera suddenly moved off Powell to a shot of trees in front of the water.

"You're off," State Department press aide Emily Miller was heard saying.

"I am not off," Powell insisted.

"No, they can't use it, they're editing it," Miller said.

"He's still asking the questions," Powell said.

Miller, a onetime NBC staffer who recently worked for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, also told Powell: "He was going to go for another five minutes."

Undeterred, Russert complained from Washington: "I would hope they would put you back on camera. I don't know who did that." He later said, "I think that was one of your staff, Mr. Secretary. I don't think that's appropriate."

As the delay dragged on, Powell ordered: "Emily, get out of the way. Bring the camera back please." Powell's image returned to the screen, and Russert asked his last question.

What happened was that both NBC and Fox News were using Jordanian television facilities for back-to-back Powell interviews. Russert was allotted 10 minutes and was asked to wrap when he went over by about two minutes. He said "Finally, Mr. Secretary," but abruptly lost his guest.

Russert was still puzzled afterward. "A taxpayer-paid employee interrupted an interview," he said. "Not in the United States of America, that's not supposed to go on. This is attempted news management gone berserk. Secretary Powell was really stand-up. He was a general and took charge." Powell later called the NBC anchor from his plane to apologize for the glitch.

State Department spokeswoman Julie Reside disputed Russert's characterization, saying that NBC "went considerably beyond the agreed end time. Other networks were waiting for their interviews and had satellite time booked, and we didn't want to keep them waiting."

Asked why he simply didn't edit out the awkward interlude from the taped interview, Russert said: "It's part of the story."

[Yonivore]

Just for fun, it has been conclusively proven that Iraq had some chemical weapons. Several decades old checmical warheads have been turned into IED's. Granted, it was so old it didn't work anymore and more likely than not even Saddam didn't realize he still had them, but hey.

The ISG did state that Saddam had worked to keep his scientists ready to resume research in chemical and biological weapons as soon as sanctions were lifted, but had completely abandoned his nuclear program because of costs. So, some people might be confused because of that statement.

Probably not though, since most people didn't take the time to look it over.

Meh, people are idiots and easy to convince.
But, that's not all.

I think the biggest factors that led to people believing Iraq still had WMD's even in their absence, post-invasion, is that:

1) Saddam Hussein led the international community to believe he still had them. Until, immediately prior to the invasion, it was pretty much universally, and internationally uninanimous that Iraq had WMDs;

2) Saddam Hussein failed to account for tons of militarily viable chemical weapons precursors and stockpiles that were known to exist prior to the last inspections in 1998; and,

3) Renewed activity at chemical plants that had been shut down after the first Gulf War and for which Iraq had not received permission -- from the U.N. to begin using again because of their potential to manufacture chemical weapons.

Those are the first three that pop to mind.

There's also the allegations of weapons being moved to Syria in the run up to the war with satellite pictures of caravans of hundreds of trucks loading and hauling away something at a site believed to be a weapons depot.

Finally, there's a vast amount of geography in Iraq where there are no people and no fighting, and therefore, no forces and no real good way to search for buried or hidden contraband.

Personally, I think he destroyed some (I seem to remember early reports of chemical contamination of the Euphrates or Tigris rivers early in the conflict) and that he sent some to Syria. But, I never doubted that he had them and that he intended to reconstitute his Nuclear program as soon as sanctions were lifted.

I believe the invasion caught him totally by surprise.

[Yonivore]

It was Tim Russert, my mistake, and I saw the interview live and nearly fell out of my seat. I haven't found the video yet, but still looking.


Colin Powell Interview With Russert Is Cut Off

Monday, May 17, 2004; Page C04


A State Department staffer tried to pull the plug on Tim Russert yesterday.



Toward the end of a "Meet the Press" interview with Secretary of State Colin Powell in Jordan, the camera suddenly moved off Powell to a shot of trees in front of the water.

"You're off," State Department press aide Emily Miller was heard saying.

"I am not off," Powell insisted.

"No, they can't use it, they're editing it," Miller said.

"He's still asking the questions," Powell said.

Miller, a onetime NBC staffer who recently worked for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, also told Powell: "He was going to go for another five minutes."

Undeterred, Russert complained from Washington: "I would hope they would put you back on camera. I don't know who did that." He later said, "I think that was one of your staff, Mr. Secretary. I don't think that's appropriate."

As the delay dragged on, Powell ordered: "Emily, get out of the way. Bring the camera back please." Powell's image returned to the screen, and Russert asked his last question.

What happened was that both NBC and Fox News were using Jordanian television facilities for back-to-back Powell interviews. Russert was allotted 10 minutes and was asked to wrap when he went over by about two minutes. He said "Finally, Mr. Secretary," but abruptly lost his guest.

Russert was still puzzled afterward. "A taxpayer-paid employee interrupted an interview," he said. "Not in the United States of America, that's not supposed to go on. This is attempted news management gone berserk. Secretary Powell was really stand-up. He was a general and took charge." Powell later called the NBC anchor from his plane to apologize for the glitch.

State Department spokeswoman Julie Reside disputed Russert's characterization, saying that NBC "went considerably beyond the agreed end time. Other networks were waiting for their interviews and had satellite time booked, and we didn't want to keep them waiting."

Asked why he simply didn't edit out the awkward interlude from the taped interview, Russert said: "It's part of the story."
Yeah, I remember the incident. Where's the admission of exaggeration and fabrication?

I've read it three times now. Four...one more before hitting the "submit reply" button.

[ChumpDumper]

so the invasion took him totally by surprise, but he was able to destroy and move tons of stockpiles of chemical weapons to Syria....

Which part are you making up here?

[clambake]

I said I would try to find the entire video---VIDEO---

With your rather extensive knowledge of finding things on the Internet, you might consider helping me in this search.

[Yonivore]

I said I would try to find the entire video---VIDEO---

With your rather extensive knowledge of finding things on the Internet, you might consider helping me in this search.
With the nature of your claim, the internet tubes should be bulging with links to verbatim transcripts and videos of Colin Powell's admission.

I'm not having any luck either.

[ChumpDumper]

(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/28/iraq/main575469.shtml

[clambake]

Interesting isn't it. I will continue to look.

But it was painfully obvious why they were cutting the interview.

It gave Powell no thrill to make his claims.

[ChumpDumper]

We found the weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html

[Yonivore]

Interesting isn't it. I will continue to look.

But it was painfully obvious why they were cutting the interview.

It gave Powell no thrill to make his claims.
Well, I've googled Colin Powell fabrication exaggeration and come up with a buttload of links to liberal commentators talking about how Colin Powell fabricated and exaggerated and one where Colin Powell concedes that he may have been mistaken.

Powell: Iraq Evidence May Have Been Wrong (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2004/0404powellwrong.htm)


Associated Press
April 4, 2004

Secretary of State Colin Powell has conceded that evidence he presented to the United Nations that two trailers in Iraq were used for weapons of mass destruction may have been wrong. In an airborne news conference on the way home from NATO 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 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. 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 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.
Nowhere in there do I see an admission of exaggeration or fabrication. Do you?

Now, this is shortly before his Russert appearance but, still, I think I would have recalled some admission of fabrication or exaggeration. I know Nancy Pelosi would have.

[Yonivore]

duh, I googled "Colin Powell Russert"

Here's your transcript. We'll read it together as I'm posting before reading. So, go ahead, point it out, please...



Transcript for May 16

Guests: Secretary Colin Powell, Department of State; Senator Joseph Biden, D-DE, Ranking Member, Foreign Relations Committee; Senator John McCain, R-AZ, Armed Services Committee

NBC News

Updated: 12:08 p.m. CT May 16, 2004
Copyright© 2004, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS NBC TELEVISION PROGRAM TO "NBC NEWS' MEET THE PRESS."

NBC News

MEET THE PRESS

Guests: Secretary Colin Powell, Department of State; Senator Joseph Biden, D-DE, Ranking Member, Foreign Relations Committee; Senator John McCain, R-AZ, Armed Services Committee

Moderator/Panelist: Tim Russert - NBC News

This is a rush transcript provided for the information and convenience of the press. Accuracy is not guaranteed. In case of doubt, please check with:

MEET THE PRESS - NBC NEWS

(202) 885-4598

(Sundays: (202) 885-4200)

Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, May 16, 2004

Tim Russert: Our issues this Sunday: Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld talks to the troops in Iraq about prison abuse.

(Videotape):

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: In recent months, we've seen abuses here under our responsibility and it's been a body blow for all of us, but it doesn't represent America.

(End videotape)

Russert: An American civilian is beheaded.

(Videotape):

President George W. Bush: There is no justification for the brutal execution of Nicholas Berg--no justification whatsoever.

(End videotape)

Russert: And the president asked Congress for more money for Iraq. What now?

With us: the Secretary of State, Colin Powell.

Will Iraq be the most important issue in the Bush-Kerry race? With us: former POW, now Republican senator from Arizona, John McCain, and the ranking Democrat of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden of Delaware.

Powell, McCain, Biden, only on Meet the Press.

And in our Meet the Press Minute, a wartime secretary of Defense admits mistakes and miscalculations.

(Videotape):

Secretary Robert McNamara: I don't think any of us predicted seven years ago or 15 years ago the climate of 500,000 men in Vietnam. I know I didn't.

(End videotape)

Russert: But first: Earlier this morning, I spoke to Secretary of State Colin Powell, who is in Jordan.

Secretary Powell, good morning.

Let me show you the headline that greeted Americans and people around the world yesterday. "Powell Says Troops Would Leave Iraq if New Leaders Asked." What happened to staying the course?

Secretary of State Colin Powell: We are planning to stay the course and we expect that the Iraqi interim government that will come into place on the 1st of July, would certainly ask us to remain and help them stay the course. Excuse me, Tim. But, basically, what we are anxious to do is return sovereignty, but it's a long way between that initial return of sovereignty and national elections. And we're confident that we will stay the course. This was in response to a specific question as to what sovereignty meant.

Russert: But, Mr. Secretary, if you look at a poll taken by our own government, the Coalition Provisional Authority, it says, "Four out of five Iraqis report holding a negative view of the U.S. occupation authority and of coalition forces, according to a new poll conducted for the occupation authority. In the poll ... 82 percent said they disapprove of the U.S. and allied militaries in Iraq."

This was before the allegations of prison abuse. If a government is in power in Iraq, is responsive to its people, why wouldn't they say to the U.S, "Get out"?

Powell: Because there's still a need for the U.S. to remain. They need our financial support. They need the reconstruction effort that is under way. And, frankly, they need the U.S. armed forces and the other coalition forces that are present to help create an environment of security and stability so they can get on with the process of rebuilding their country and preparing themselves for national elections. We don't want to stay one day longer than we have to, but we know they want us to remain long enough so that they have their own security forces built up and in place and that'll take some time.

Russert: John McCain said this the other day, Mr. Secretary: "If we fail in Iraq, we will have taught our enemies the lesson of Mogadishu, only one hundredfold: If you inflict enough pain, America will leave. Iraq will then descend into chaos and civil war. Warlords will reign. There will be bloodletting. We will have energized the extremists and created a breeding ground for terrorists, dooming the Arab world."

Do you agree?

Powell: We certainly are not going to cut and run. The president's made that clear. And quite the contrary, as you see from what Secretary Rumsfeld and General John Abizaid have done, we are stabilizing our force at a higher level than we thought we would at this point? Why? Because there is still danger there. Why? Because the work is not finished. Why? Because we need to help the Iraqi interim government as it is established create an environment of security.

So we're not going to walk away. We're not going to cut and run. We're going to stay and help the Iraqis do what we know the Iraqi people want and that is to have a democracy based on free elections. It takes time to get there and we are on our way with the creation of an Iraqi interim government.

Over the past several weeks, we've set up 11 Iraqi ministries that are now free-standing, not connected to the Coalition Provisional Authority. Of course, the Iraqis want the occupation to end. They want the Coalition Provisional Authority to cease its work and that's going to happen when this Iraqi interim government is established, but they need our troops there for some considerable period of time in the future to provide the security environment needed so that they can have free, open and fair election and have the time to build up their own security forces.

Russert: In those free, open and fair elections, if the Iraqi people choose an Islamic theocracy similar to what we have in Iran, we would accept that?

Powell: We will have to accept what the Iraqi people decide upon. But right now, I think most Iraqis understand that in order to live together in peace as a single nation, they have to have a nation which understands the role of the majority but respects the role of minorities within a country. And they know they have to have, for international acceptability, a country that preserves human rights, that is founded on democracy, that respects the rights of all individuals and respects the rights of women, that respects basic tenets with respect to open speech and meeting fundamental needs of the people and the fundamental standards of human rights that all of us believe in.

Russert: But, Mr. Secretary, if the Iraqis opt for an Islamic theocracy, which could easily become a haven for terrorists, how then do we explain to the 782 who died or the nearly over 4,000 who were wounded or injured that this was worth the fight?

Powell: I don't think that's going to be the case. I think that those who have given their lives in the cause of freedom for the Iraqi people will see that the Iraqi people are interested in creating a democracy. If you look at the same kind of polling that you mentioned earlier, that's what they are interested in, that's what they're looking for.

If you talk to some of the Shia leaders, such as Mr. Sistani and others, Ayatollah Sistani, they are talking about openness and freedom. Surely everybody understands it is a nation that rests on the faith of Islam, but they also know that in order to be successful as a 21st-century country, they have to respect the rights of all individuals and not allow a purely fundamentalist regime to arise in the country. And my sensing of what the Iraqi people want is a democracy with a majority, but with respect for all the minorities, all working together to create the kind of country they'll be proud of.

Russert: Bob Woodruff reports that on August 5, 2002, you met with the president and warned him about Iraq; that, in your words, "You break it, you bought it." In light of the fact that we have miscalculated being greeted as liberators, miscalculated the number of troops needed, miscalculated the extent of weapons of mass destruction, do you wish the president had followed your advice?

Powell: My advice to the president was that we had to be sure that we understood the difficulties of managing this country once we took it over, if that's what it came to. The advice I gave to the president was that we should take it to the international community, to the United Nations, to see if there was a diplomatic solution before we resorted to the use of force. And if we had to resort to the use of force, we had made the efforts with the United Nations so that we could get coalition partners to join us. And the president followed that advice.

My advice to the president was to make sure that we understood all the consequences of the actions that we're about to take. And he took that advice, and he responded to that advice by going to the United Nations. And we went to the United Nations. We knew that it would either be solved diplomatically or through of use of force. And we knew that if it was the use of force, we would be in for a challenging time. We would be responsible for the fate of 25 million Iraqis. The president understood that. And we are acting on that responsibility.

We have 138,000 troops there providing security. We have provided $18 billion for reconstruction and we're helping now the Iraqi people develop a democratic system. We are putting in place ministries that are functioning and we're going to be moving forward to elections. And so, yes, the place was broken after the war. And we're well on our way to fixing it.

Russert: Let me show you the video of Nicholas Berg, with the terrorists behind him who are about to behead him. When you see that picture and then what happened to Mr. Berg, are you satisfied with the level of outrage that exists in the Arab world, the level of outrage that has been formally announced by Arab leaders?

Powell: I think that should be a higher level of outrage. Notwithstanding what people think, what we did at the prison, there can be no comparison to the actions of a few who are going to be punished and brought to justice as a result of what happened at Abu Ghraib. But what we saw with this horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible murder of Mr. Berg should be deplored throughout the world. It is an outrage and the terrible thing about it is these individuals are yet to be brought to justice. They have no concept of justice. They have no concept of right. What a horrible thing for them to have done. But as the president said, we will do everything we can to bring all of these people to justice so they can pay for this horrendous crime.

Russert: Why the silence from the Arab world about Mr. Berg?

Powell: Well, I don't know, Tim. I wish I could explain that. There ought to be outrage. There is anger in the Arab world about some of our actions, but that is no excuse for any silence on the part of any Arab leader for this kind of murder. This kind of murder is unacceptable in anyone's religion, in anybody's political system, that is a political system based on any kind of understanding and respect for human rights. And so I would like to have seen a much higher level of outrage throughout the world, and especially the Arab world, for this kind of action.

Russert: Let me show you a picture of a United States soldier holding an Iraqi prisoner by a dog leash. That, too, is seen around the world. This morning, Seymour Hersh reports, "The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists but in a decision, approved last year by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to expand a highly secret operation, which had been focussed on the hunt for Al Qaeda, to the interrogation of prisoners in Iraq. ... According to interviews with several past and present American intelligence officials, the Pentagon's operations, known inside the intelligence community by several code words, including Copper Green, encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in an effort to generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq."

Your reaction.

Powell: I haven't read the article and I don't know anything about the substance of the article. I've just seen a quick summary of it, so I will have to yield to the Defense Department to respond. And I think the initial response from the Defense Department is that there is no substance to the article, but I will have to yield to the Defense Department to handle any further comment, Tim.

Russert: But, Mr. Secretary, Newsweek reports that on January 25, 2002, the White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales, wrote a memo to your department which said, "In my judgment, this new paradigm of terrorism renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitation on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions, the Geneva Accords." And it is reported that you hit the roof when you saw that memo to scale back, in effect, on the rules governing the treatment of prisoners. Is that accurate?

Powell: I don't recall the specific memo and I wouldn't comment on the specific memo without rereading it again. But I think I have always said that the Geneva Accord is an important standard in international law, and we have to comply with it, either by the letter, if it's appropriate to those individuals in our custody that they are really directly under the Geneva Convention, or if they're illegal non-combatants and not directly under the convention, we should treat them nevertheless in a humane manner in accordance with what is expected of us by international law and the Geneva Convention.

Russert: Mr. Secretary, you met with the International Red Cross on January 15. In February, they released their report which said that, amongst the other allegations, male prisoners were forced to wear women's underwear; prisoners were beaten by coalition forces, in one case leading to death; coalition forces firing on unarmed prisoners. And then in May, you and others in the administration said you were "shocked" by the allegations about U.S. forces' treatment of Iraqi prisoners. Didn't you have a heads-up on this whole problem?

Powell: In January, when I met with the head of the International Committee for the Red Cross, Mr. Kellenberger, he said to me that a report would be coming and it would outline some serious problems with respect to the treatment of prisoners in Iraq. We were aware of that within the administration. He also met with Dr. Rice and with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

And then in early February, the actual report was presented to our authorities out in Baghdad, both to Ambassador Bremer's office and to General Sanchez's office. By then, of course, an investigation was already under way as a result of a soldier coming forward in the middle of January and outlining specific cases of abuse, and so an investigation was well under way by time the report was made available in February to the command. I first saw the report in March when it was made available eventually to us in Washington.

Russert: But you're a military man. Do you believe that national reservists would go to Baghdad with hoods or dog leashes and actually undertake that kind of activity without it being devised by someone higher up?

Powell: I wouldn't have believed that any American soldiers would have done any such thing, either on their own volition or even if someone higher up had told them. I'm not aware of anybody higher up telling them. But that's why Secretary Rumsfeld has commissioned all of these inquiries to get to the bottom of it.

What these individuals did was wrong, was against rules and regulations. It was against anything they should have learned in their home, in their community, in their upbringing. So we have a terrible collapse of order that took place in that prison cell block. Let's not use this to contaminate the wonderful work being done by tens of thousands of other young American soldiers in Iraq. We'll get to the bottom of this. Justice will be served.

The command responded promptly. Court-martials are already scheduled. And I know that the president wants to make sure that we follow the chain of accountability up to see if there was anybody above these soldiers who knew what was going on, or in any way created a command climate in which such activities might in some bizarre way be found acceptable. They were not acceptable in any way. And one soldier stood up and said, "I know this is wrong," reported it to his chain of command, and the chain of command responded the very next day with the launching of an investigation that became the General Taguba investigation.

Russert: Finally, Mr. Secretary, in February of 2003, you placed your enormous personal credibility before the United Nations and laid out a case against Saddam Hussein citing...

Powell: Not off.

Emily: No. They can't use it. They're editing it. They (unintelligible).

Powell: He's still asking me questions. Tim.

Emily: He was not...

Powell: Tim, I'm sorry, I lost you.

Russert: I'm right here, Mr. Secretary. I would hope they would put you back on camera. I don't know who did that.

Powell: We really...

Russert: I think that was one of your staff, Mr. Secretary. I don't think that's appropriate.

Powell: Emily, get out of the way.

Emily: OK.

Powell: Bring the camera back, please. I think we're back on, Tim. Go ahead with your last question.

Russert: Thank you very much, sir. In February of 2003, you put your enormous personal reputation on the line before the United Nations and said that you had solid sources for the case against Saddam Hussein. It now appears that an agent called Curveball had misled the CIA by suggesting that Saddam had trucks and trains that were delivering biological and chemical weapons. How concerned are you that some of the information you shared with the world is now inaccurate and discredited?

Powell: I'm very concerned. When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I'm deeply disappointed. But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.

Russert: Mr. Secretary, we thank you very much for joining us again and sharing your views with us today.

Powell: Thanks, Tim.

Russert: And that was an unedited interview with the secretary of state taped earlier this morning from Jordan. We appreciate Secretary Powell's willingness to overrule his press aide's attempt to abruptly cut off our discussion as I began to ask my final question.

Coming next, the view from the Senate with Republican John McCain and Democrat Joe Biden. Then, our Meet the Press Minute, with wartime Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara from 36 years ago. All coming up right here on Meet the Press.

Russert: Senator John McCain, Senator Joe Biden, what should we do in Iraq? After this station break.

Russert: And we are back.

Senators McCain and Biden, welcome.

Senator McCain, let me ask you about a speech you gave in April of this year. "...as we continue to see large numbers of American casualties a year after Americans were told major combat was over, I fear U.S. public support is eroding. So I think we need to admit that serious errors have been made, increase our troop strength in Iraq and do what's necessary to turn this thing around."

What serious errors were made?

Sen. John McCain, R-AZ: I think several. One was the lack of sufficient troops there which allowed the looting to take place, which established kind of a lawless environment. I think any law enforcement person would tell you that the environment is a very important aspect of it. The fact that we island-hopped and left certain areas of towns and cities around Baghdad as well as in the Sunni Triangle alone. I think it's because we probably didn't make sufficient plans to turn over the government as quickly as possible and a level of expectation that probably was unrealistic, which led to a certain amount of disappointment, but a lot of it had to do with lack of sufficient troop strength at the time that "combat phase" was over.

Russert: Senator Biden, what serious errors were made?

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-DE: First of all, there was no imminent threat. By making it an imminent threat, we squandered the opportunity to get international support. We could have easily done this instead of in the fall, in the spring--isolated the French and Germans, gotten more support, number one.

Number two, too little power. John's right. Imagine if we had not treated the French--excuse me, the Turks with such disdain, that 4th ID would have come down from the north through the Sunni Triangle, there may not be a Sunni Triangle. As John pointed out, too few troops, looting, 850,000 tons of weapons left open, not able to guard them and then we went with too little legitimacy. Remember the notion. There was going to be a guy named Garner and a guy named Chalabi. Before they even flew in troops, they flew in Chalabi who was going to come from the south as a Shia and, you know, be the liberator from outside.

I think they just miscalculated from the very beginning which is--that doesn't bother me as much as the failure to acknowledge how badly they miscalculated, and as John suggested and others of us have, do something about it. A year ago, I called for more force. John visited after that, as well, argued we need more force. I don't know what it is. They seem to be unwilling to acknowledge the mistakes made and trying to correct them.

Russert: You mentioned Mr. Ahmad Chalabi. He was the person responsible for the agent Curveball, that I talked about with Secretary Powell, who gave discredited information. Mr. Chalabi is still on the payroll of the United States government for three...

Biden: Almost 400 a month.

Russert: Four hundred thousand dollars...

Biden: A month.

Russert: ...per month.

Biden: Yeah.

Russert: Should he be taken off?

Biden: He should have been taken off to begin with. Look, I was on your show after Chuck Hagel and I came back from--after we sort of got smuggled into northern Iraq before the war. The reason we went to see the Talibani and Barzani clans of the north and I said to them--I said, "By the way," I said, "Tell me about Chalabi. Are you guys with Chalabi?" They said, "Chalabi's his own man. We're not part of him," even though they formed the INC with him.

I think he seems to be the darling of the vice president and of some of the civilians in the Defense Department. I think he's a problem, he's not part of the solution. But yet there seems to be an unwillingness to break from him.

Russert: Senator McCain, in that speech I read to you a few minutes ago, you said "to do what's necessary to turn this thing around." I'm going to ask both you and Senator Biden to try to be very constructive here. What specifically must President Bush do "to turn this thing around"?

McCain: I believe that we have to make sure that we stick to the June 30 date. I believe we should accelerate the date of the elections. I think that many parts of the country, including in Baghdad, that we could have these elections. They may be flawed but the quicker we turn the government of the Iraqi people over to the Iraqi people, the more it will be then the insurgents verses the Iraqi government rather than the insurgents against us. And I would accelerate the timetable for the elections and I would certainly enter into the status of forces agreement so that we would know exactly the relationship between the U.S. military and new Iraqi government.

Russert: Senator Biden?

Biden: About the same as John. I would make this about the Iraqi people, not about us. Look, it's real simple. Why are we there? We're there now to make sure the Iraqis end up with a government. What kind of government? One that's secure, its own borders, is representative, is not a threat to its neighbors and does not have weapons of mass destruction. How do you get there? You get there by an election.

An election is going to take place, hopefully in November or December of 2005. What do you need to do that? You need more security and more legitimacy. Right now, 82 percent of the people don't want us there. This new government we're going to get, they're not going to be happy if they wake up on July the 1st and there are still 138,000 Americans and no one else. We need a contact group. We need to get to the major powers and, say, "Look, here's the deal, guys. Sign on to Brahimi's plan. Help us pass a resolution that is a NATO-led multilateral force to be in place for Iraq," giving an excuse to the Iraqi government to be able to cooperate.

And those who say NATO will not cooperate, I met with five four-stars for a two-hour conversation yesterday, with Jim Jones. If the president will lead, if the president gets on a plane and/or summons or asks the major European leaders to come here, NATO will authorize the use of NATO forces.

Russert: Do you believe President Bush should reach out to Russian President Putin, French President Chirac, German Chancellor Schroeder, and meet with them?

Biden: Absolutely. Positively. This is about presidential leadership. That's what it takes. It needs a president. I don't believe this is lost. I believe it will be lost if the president does not lead.

Russert: Senator McCain, should the president embark on such a mission, meeting with Putin, Chirac and Schroeder?

Biden: As well as Blair.

McCain: I think he should. I think he should at every opportunity and I think that we should encourage more U.S. participation, but at this point I disagree with my friend Joe. I think the likelihood of that happening is not good. We have to increase U.S. troop strength to do the jobs that's necessary.

Biden: I agree.

McCain: But let me just say that the Iraqi people don't want Americans there as occupiers. But if the Iraqi people saw us there as a way to provide security and to bolster the government and help them make this transition, I think these numbers would be very different. I just don't see our friends in Paris now agreeing to significant NATO involvement. I'm sorry to tell you, because of many of the errors in the past, the bulk of the responsibility is going to lie with America. But should President Bush seek help wherever he can? Absolutely. But it's still going to be America's mission.

Biden: Tim, it is America's mission. Ninety percent of the troops will remain American. We've got to change the face of it, though. No German troops, no French troops, the no German or French veto for NATO-led force. I want a NATO commander, I want--which is an American. I want a NATO label on it. That, in turn, will get additional likelihood of Muslim countries being willing to participate. But the additional U.S. forces must be U.S. forces. But you need legitimacy along with it, Tim. And the legitimacy requires to give the new Iraqi government excuse to say, "It's not the same old deal."

Russert: Senator McCain, you know politics is politics. If 82 percent of the Iraqi people don't want U.S. troops there, if there are, in fact, free elections in Iraq, when someone runs for office, they probably in all likelihood will have to run against America or not be perceived as an American puppet. And what happens in those elected Iraqis say, "We don't want you here?"

McCain: Well, again, I just have to repeat what I said before. I believe that the religious leaders, the Shiites who have now turned on al-Sadr, and others understand that they cannot let an insurgency take over their country in ensuing chaos and return to some kind of authoritarian government. I believe that if there's a relationship where the United States of America and our allies--and I'm not that much in disagreement with Joe--do provide the security to make that government function well, then I think the Iraqi people would appreciate it. Eighty-two percent of them want us out because they don't want us governing their country, and I understand that.

Russert: Senator Biden, we have a situation where Mr. Brahimi, the U.N. representative in Iraq, has called Israel's policies poison and said the United States is supporting poison. We have a situation where Saddam's military is in charge of Fallujah. When you look at the situation in Iraq now, are you optimistic that it can get to a democracy anytime soon?

Biden: I've never been of the view, never once said that I thought there could be a democracy in the terms of a liberal Western democracy. My greatest hope would be that there'd be a representative government, secure within its own borders, where the bulk of the Iraqi people thought they had a stake in the outcome of that government. I still think that's possible, but, Tim, I'm not playing a game here. It requires presidential leadership. I met with the president on Wednesday and he asked me the same question. I said, "Mr. President, you sit in a chair that commands worldwide respect and you have a reputation for moral clarity. It's time for you to lead, Mr. President." We keep talking about not cutting and running. I want this administration to stop walking and reacting. They walk and they react. There's no sense of urgency here.

Russert: Senator McCain, do you think the Bush administration understands the sense of urgency necessary to deal with Iraq at this moment?

McCain: I think they're beginning to. I think the increase in troops, which actually has taken place and more may be needed, is an indication of that. I believe this commitment to hold firm to the June 30 date. As was mentioned earlier, mistakes happen in war. That's why we try to avoid them. Mistakes have been made. I think we all acknowledge that. The important thing is, we are in a crucial time. This is the point where we can still achieve success in Iraq if we get a legitimate election and a legitimate government in power. And now's the time that, yes, we need presidential leadership and we need congressional leadership, and we have to understand that if we lose this conflict, the consequences are enormous. And the benefits of success are also enormous.

Russert: Let me turn to the whole issue of the alleged torture of Iraqi prisoners. Senator Ted Kennedy on Monday took to the floor of the Senate and made this observation:

(Videotape, Monday):

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA: On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked: Who would prefer Saddam's torture chambers still be open? Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management.

(End videotape)

Russert: Is that appropriate, Senator Biden?

Biden: I think it's a little harsh. Look, I don't think they're nearly equivalent, but I do think that the damage done by the treatment of Iraqi prisoners, and we saw the pictures and John--look, I yield to John totally on this. I think John has been absolutely eloquent about the lack of facility, the lack of success that comes with this kind of treatment. And it just undermines us. Big nations can't act small. Noble nations can't act meanly. It is not comparable to say that, "Well, they do it; therefore, we can do it similarly." It does us incredible damage, but I don't think it's comparable to Saddam's torture chambers by any stretch of the imagination. But it is as damaging to us as Saddam's actions were to his reputation.

Russert: Senator McCain, there is a debate within your Republican Party as to how to deal with this particular issue. Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma on Tuesday offered this:

(Videotape, Tuesday):

Sen. James Inhofe, R-OK: ...this outrage everyone seems to have about the treatment of these prisoners. I have to say--and I'm probably not the only one up at this table that is more outraged by the outrage than we are by the treatment.

(End videotape)

Russert: You were someone who was tortured in a North Vietnamese prison cell. Can you talk about torture of a soldier and how you see it as relates to this particular allegation against U.S. soldiers?

McCain: Tim, I believe my view is shaped more by my view of the role of America and the world than whether I was in a prison camp more than 30 years ago. I'm an idealist. I adhere to Wilsonian principles. I believe we are the noblest experiment in the history of the world, and now we are the world's superpower and we have the opportunity to bring democracy and freedom to every part of the world, not through bullets and Humvees but through our example. With all our problems and flaws that we have, which I point out almost every day, we are an incredible example to the world. We are a shining city on a hill. And what this does is that it diminishes our reputation so dramatically.

You're going to see pictures of that guard with a leash on an Iraqi in Burma and in Belarus. And that's a huge penalty that we'll be paying for the sins of a few or some. We still don't know how systemic this was and all the ramifications of it. We've got to get to the bottom of it. We've got to prove that we as a nation punish those--another difference between us and Saddam Hussein...

Biden: That's true.

McCain: ...and other countries criticizing us, we will punish those responsible. In many countries that are criticizing us today, it is common practice. But that doesn't matter. We distinguish ourselves by our treatment of our enemies. And there are conventions for the treatment of prisoners of war. And my view in Iraq, they were violated and we cannot let this happen again. And you got to get everything out as quickly as possible. Take remedial action and move forward and take the measures that we were talking about earlier in the program.

Russert: So you are not outraged by the outrage?

McCain: No. I'm saddened. I'm saddened by what it hurts the reputation of our brave young men and women who are serving with such honor and sacrifice. But I'm also saddened by the image of America in the world. There are prisons all over the world that are looking for our adherence to human rights, the people are, and that we will bring about their freedom. This diminishes our ability to achieve that goal.

Russert: Senator Biden, as I mentioned to Secretary Powell, New Yorker magazine has an article today talking about Operation Copper Green, which suggests that this coercion was instructed by the highest levels of the Pentagon. The Pentagon is denying that. Newsweek reports, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales wrote a memo back in 2002 suggesting that the Geneva Accords' strict limitations had become somewhat obsolete and rendered quaint. How high up do you believe this scandal may go?

Biden: I don't know. It's much higher than these young guards. Look, there's obviously, at a minimum, a policy of a studied ambiguity here, Tim. There is plausible deniabilities built in everywhere here. There's sort of the morphing of the rules of treatment. We can treat al-Qaeda this way and we can't treat prisoners captured this way, but where do insurgents fit, etc.? This is a dangerous slope.

And, look, we're talking about democracy in the Middle East. The single most essential element of democracy is accountability. There is no accountability so far. It cannot be just those people in that prison. It doesn't seem rational, based on my experience. And another piece of this is, where is this notion of the for the good of the country? Where's the nobility of this administration, somebody, coming forward and saying more than, "I take responsibility but I have--but there are no consequences here"?

I mean, look, it's not merely whether or not they were involved, it's whether or not they should have known and didn't do anything. But, again, accountability. The rest of the world, as John is saying, is looking for who is responsible. Are we different than other nations?

Russert: Senator McCain, you're a military man, highly decorated. Do you think it's plausible that National Guardsmen and Reservists would undertake this kind of activity without being instructed?

McCain: I don't think so. I think that there's real questions about this "shift in responsibility" where military intelligence people were given authority over the Guards. There are so many questions that need to be answered. And I agree with Joe in this respect. We need to take this as far up as it goes and we need to do it quickly and I am convinced that the sooner we do that, the sooner the United States of America can begin to reassert its rightful place in the world as a leading advocate for democracy and human rights. And we are signatories to certain protocols as well as adherence to the Geneva Convention which should apply in Iraq.

Russert: This is a presidential election year. I don't have to tell either of you gentlemen. Newsweek, this is the latest poll. President Bush's job approval? Approve, 42 percent; disapprove, 52 percent. President Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq? Approve, 35 percent; disapprove, 57 percent. Senator McCain, what do those numbers tell you for Republican President George Bush?

McCain: It means that we've got to get this issue--bring closure to this issue as quickly as possible, assign whatever responsibility there is and move on, because the thing that bothers me more than the presidential implications is that Americans, when they saw these pictures, turned away from him, as I turned away when I saw them, and we cannot lose this and we cannot lose the American support, public support for this conflict. And that's, I think, the more serious consequences than even to the fortunes of President Bush.

Russert: Senator McCain, do you believe that President Bush has bet his presidency on the outcome of the war in Iraq?

McCain: No, I think he's bet it on the economy, which is becoming very strong and going to be very helpful to him. But, clearly, what happens in Iraq will have significant impact. And I think one of the aspects of that will be the level of casualties and how Americans believe that we have done our stated goal of bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.

Russert: Senator Biden, even though President Bush has a 42-percent job approval and 57 percent disapprove of his handling of the war in Iraq, in the head-to-head race with Senator Kerry, it's John Kerry, 43 percent, George Bush 42 percent, Ralph Nader, 5 percent. Practically a dead heat. What's the problem with Senator John Kerry, the Democratic candidate?

Biden: I don't think there's any problem. I think they just don't know John Kerry. You know, everybody thinks because when you go through and win a primary everybody knows you. The vast majority of the people don't have a firm opinion to John yet and they're not likely to. And I think the poll reflects a view of mismanagement.

Look, the Democrats cannot count on the failure of Bush for the success of the Democratic Party and because--and the American people, including this senator, want Bush to succeed because Bush's success is America's success. Bush's failure is America's failure. I think these poll numbers reflect the notion this has been mismanaged badly, and the war in particular. I think it is about the war, even more than the economy right now. And I think that the president is going to have to start to level with the American people beginning with the cost of the war, beginning with what we have to do from this point on. There has been no leveling with the American people. Foreign policy can't be sustained without the informed consent of the American people. And there has not been informed consent and the president, as I said, his--this has been badly mismanaged. Redeemable, but up to now, badly mismanaged.

Russert: Do you believe that George W. Bush has bet his presidency on the outcome of the war in Iraq?

Biden: He may not have intended to but I think that's what it is.

Russert: Senator McCain, it's the elephant in the room, the story that will not die. This is the front page of The New York Times yesterday. Headline: "Undeterred by McCain Denials, Some See Him as Kerry's No. 2. Despite weeks of steadfast rejections from Senator John McCain, some prominent Democrats are angling for him to run for vice president alongside Senator John Kerry, creating a bipartisan ticket that they say would instantly transform the presidential race. "Senator McCain would not have to leave his party," [former Democratic Senator Bob] Kerrey said. "He could remain a Republican, would be given some authority for selection of Cabinet people. The only thing he would have to do is say, `I'm not going to appoint any judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade,'" the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, while "Mr. McCain has said he opposes." What do you think of Senator Kerrey's recommendation?

McCain: I'd like to have the camera move over to a palm tree to start with.

Russert: Yeah.

McCain: With friends like Bob, who needs...

Biden: I'm about to jump in, John, so hang on.

McCain: I've said categorically--categorically, I will not be vice president of the United States. I will not be a candidate. And I mean that. I'm happy in the Senate. I'd like to maintain my role. I am a loyal Republican. I am supporting President Bush's re-election. I am campaigning for it. And I'd like to mention one other thing. The bullet played in all these stories is John McCain is angry at President Bush about 2000. Look, that was four years ago. My constituents don't want me to look back in anger. They want me to represent them. I work with President Bush on a lot of issues and I want him re-elected and I'm not looking back in anger at anything. That's not what my constituents deserve. So I'm afraid this will not be the last conversation you and I have on this issue and I categorically say no, but I can only hope.

Russert: Senator Biden, what do you think of John McCain as a Democratic candidate for vice president?

Biden: I think John McCain would be a great candidate for vice president. I mean it. I know John doesn't like me saying it, but the truth of the matter is, it is. We need to heal the red and the blue here, man, the red states and the blue states. And John McCain is a loyal Republican. God, he drives me crazy how loyal he is as a Republican as much of a friend as he is. We disagree on a lot of things, but I'll tell you, the fact of the matter is that we've got to bring together the red and the blue here. This is a divided nation. And I think that--I would still urge John Kerry to pick up the phone and call John McCain. He'll say no probably. But I think John Kerry has an obligation to do that for the way he wants to heal. And I know John will listen. He'll say no, but I'm going to tell you, I'm counting on him being a more loyal American than he is a loyal Republican.

And, John, I'm not so sure you're so happy about the Senate. I'd like to see you president instead of the guy we have now. So--but you're a great senator. But I think you'd also be doing a great service. Do I think it's going to happen? No. But I think it is a reflection of the desire of this country, and the desire of people in both parties, to want to see this God-awful, vicious rift that exists in the nation healed, and John and John could go a long way to healing that rift.

Russert: Senator McCain, as an American, you can stay a Republican. You can be a loyal Republican. It would be a fusion or a unity ticket. Would you contemplate it in any way, shape, or form? Would you take Senator Kerry's phone call if you knew he was calling about it?

McCain: I will always take anyone's phone calls but I will not--I categorically will not do it. But I would like to add one additional quick comment. Joe's right, there's too much partisanship in America and there's too much partisanship in the Senate and there's too much partisanship. We've got to have people sit down and start working on issues that are not partisan in nature and start working on them so we can do our job as legislating and working for America. And I'm very disturbed about the level of partisanship which has led to gridlock. And we're not doing our job as our constituents expect us to do.

Russert: All right, Biden. McCain is out. Who is in?

Biden: I'm sticking with McCain. It's safer right now. Look, there's a lot of qualified people. I don't know how John's going to go about the--John Kerry is going to go about the choice. I think the single most important thing that John Kerry has to do is, the day he announces that person for the Tim Russerts of the world--there are not many of you, but for the big feet, as they say, in the press--to say that makes sense, that guy could be president, or that woman could be president. I think that's the single most important thing for people, when he or she is announced, say that person could be president.

Russert: What if John Kerry picked his vice president and also said, "I want Joe Biden for secretary of state and John McCain for secretary of defense?"

Biden: Well, if John will do it, I'll do it.

Russert: Senator McCain, do we have a deal?

McCain: No, no. No, no, we don't have a deal. But I certainly look forward to following Secretary of State Biden on your show.

Russert: We have to leave it there. We'll be back with our Meet the Press minute. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, February 4, 1968.

Russert: And we are back.

Forecasts of victory in Vietnam are shaken when the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong mount a massive and deadly offensive in South Vietnam on January 30, 1968. It becomes clear that the North Vietnamese forces were growing, not diminishing. The secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, makes a rare television appearance right here on the Meet the Press in the midst of the Tet offensive and admits the war has not gone as planned.

(Videotape, Meet the Press, February 4, 1968):

Mr. Max Frankel (New York Times): Looking back over this long conflict and especially in this rather agonized week in Vietnam, if we had to do it all over again, would you make any major changes in our approach to this?

Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara: Oh, this is not an appropriate time for me to be talking changes. With hindsight, there's no question but what five or 10 or 20 years from now the historians will find actions that might have been done differently. I'm sure they will. As a matter of fact, my wife pointed out to me the other day four lines from T.S. Eliot that answer your question. Eliot said, "We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time." Now, that applies to Vietnam. I'm learning more and more about Vietnam every day. There's no question I see better today than I did three years ago or five years ago what might have been done there.

Frankel: Are you suggesting...

McNamara: On balance, I feel much the way the Asian leaders do. I think the action that this government has followed, the policies it's followed, the objectives it's had in Vietnam are wise. I don't, by any means, suggest that we haven't made mistakes over the many, many years that we've been pursuing those objectives.

Frankel: You seem to suggest that we really didn't--that none of us appreciated what we were really getting into.

McNamara: I don't think any of us predicted seven years ago or 15 years ago the deployment of 500,000 men to Vietnam. I know I didn't.

(End videotape)

Russert: The next week marked the deadliest for U.S. troops in Vietnam with 543 killed in action. U.S. involvement in the war continued for another five years. All told, the U.S. lost over 58,000 men and women in the Vietnam War.

And we'll be right back.

Russert: That's all for today. We'll be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.
Unabridged and as found on the website.

[clambake]

Well, we know the video interview took place. Help me with the search, and try to leave Pelosi out of it , for now. She didn't participate in the interview. Frankly, I don't care what she thinks.

[Yonivore]

Here, I think I've narrowed it down for you:



Russert: Finally, Mr. Secretary, in February of 2003, you placed your enormous personal credibility before the United Nations and laid out a case against Saddam Hussein citing...

Powell: Not off.

Emily: No. They can't use it. They're editing it. They (unintelligible).

Powell: He's still asking me questions. Tim.

Emily: He was not...

Powell: Tim, I'm sorry, I lost you.

Russert: I'm right here, Mr. Secretary. I would hope they would put you back on camera. I don't know who did that.

Powell: We really...

Russert: I think that was one of your staff, Mr. Secretary. I don't think that's appropriate.

Powell: Emily, get out of the way.

Emily: OK.

Powell: Bring the camera back, please. I think we're back on, Tim. Go ahead with your last question.

Russert: Thank you very much, sir. In February of 2003, you put your enormous personal reputation on the line before the United Nations and said that you had solid sources for the case against Saddam Hussein. It now appears that an agent called Curveball had misled the CIA by suggesting that Saddam had trucks and trains that were delivering biological and chemical weapons. How concerned are you that some of the information you shared with the world is now inaccurate and discredited?

Powell: I'm very concerned. When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I'm deeply disappointed. But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.

Russert: Mr. Secretary, we thank you very much for joining us again and sharing your views with us today.

Powell: Thanks, Tim.
Not exactly and admission of exaggeration or fabrication, is it?

[ChumpDumper]

So all the premises of the war turned out to be bogus because of faulty intel and perpetuated by endemic groupthink at the highest levels of the US government that seized upon the faulty intel and presented it as gospel truth.

I feel so much better now.

[clambake]

Deliberately misleading. What does that mean to you Yoni?

[Yonivore]

Deliberately misleading. What does that mean to you Yoni?


But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading.
Well, in this context it doesn't mean Colin Powell is admitting to exaggerating or fabricating anything. In this context it means that some of the sourcing may have been deliberately misleading -- without his knowledge.

You can't admit to something of which you have no knowledge.

Your original statement was, and I quote:


How do you explain Colin Powell's admission that much of the reasons were either exaggerated or simply "made up'? Who gives a shit about false information that's written on a sheet of paper?
First of all, what Secretary Powell said bears no resemblence to your accusation.

He conceded that some of the intelligence he received may have been deliberately misleading. But, that could have been from any of the multiple sources he alludes to in his interview.

Your exaggerating and fabricating the admission.

[clambake]

He knows, for a fact, that info was inaccurate, wrong, and in some cases deliberately misleading.

Why no uproar? Why does Bush still use Powell's statement to the UN as gospel to this day?

[Yonivore]

He knows, for a fact, that info was inaccurate, wrong, and in some cases deliberately misleading.

Why no uproar? Why does Bush still use Powell's statement to the UN as gospel to this day?
Well, first, he didn't know it at the time he was presenting to the U.N., as you're suggesting.

Okay, now you're going to have to present some proof of Bush's "gospel" use of Powell's statement.

But, that aside, just because some (and not most as you exaggerated and fabricated) of the intelligence was based on information, later determined to have possibly been deliberately misleading, doesn't mean that his entire statement to the U.N. was discredited.

You made a bogus claim that has been discredited. Face up to it.

[clambake]

Are you saying he doesn't have proof?

And an article posted in this thread has Bush using Powell's address to the UN as reasons for war. His QandA in Poland.

[ChumpDumper]

So how much of the statement has been discredited?

How many premises to the war have been discredited?

WMDs -- check

Saddam's link to al Qaeda -- check

Imminent threat to the US -- check

What's left?

Thumbing his nose at the UN.

Yeah, there's the reason! He disrespected the organization we hate! Invade! Invade!

It's bad anough that we went to war on false premises; we compounded the problem by half-assing the invasion and occupation.

[clambake]

I will face up to it. I also know that he knows. Will you face up to the fact that if he knows, they all know?

[clambake]

Why does he still use Powell's adress? Is he hoping the Polish are stupid?

[Yonivore]

Are you saying he doesn't have proof?

And an article posted in this thread has Bush using Powell's address to the UN as reasons for war. His QandA in Poland.
Like I said, Powell's entire address wasn't discredited.

[Yonivore]

Why does he still use Powell's adress? Is he hoping the Polish are stupid?
Look, you came busting in here claiming Colin Powell admitted to making stuff up. He did nothing of the kind. From now on, I'm going to have to insist you provide some evidence of your wild accusations before I take up the debate.

I don't know what Bush said to the Poles that has you up in a dander but, I doubt it had anything to do with the discredited portions of Colin Powell's U.N. presentation.

Care to share on what you're basing your latest nonsensical allegation?

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know what Bush said to the Poles that has you up in a dander
We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html

[clambake]

^

[Yonivore]

^
I have him on ignore. I you want me to know what was said, you'll have to quote him or retype it.

However, I doubt anything SpunkMuncher says is of much value.

[ChumpDumper]

I'll answer for Yoni.

"Well he was told they were WMD labs by someone else even though they were found to not be WMD labs a month before Bush said this. Bush is blameless. what was he supposed to say? This was Poland! the press forgot about Poland and Bush was determined never to let something like that happen again. Bush hasn't done even one thing wrong since the day he was born and you are obviously a member of al Qaeda for even hinting that he did."

[clambake]

Let's take a closer look at this before you insist I concede.

What was it he said he regretted? Lets see.

Reasons for invading Iraq:

1. Inaccurate evidence

OK. Nobody's perfect. Let's cut them some slack on this one.

2. Wrong evidence

Now that it's flat wrong, they are barely hanging on to a C- when coupled with inaccuracy.

3. Deliberately Misleading

Ouch. here's the mother-lode.
Deliberately adv. intentionally, on purpose, by design, knowingly.
Misleading adj. see Deceptive.

I think I have enough to retain my original statement.

[clambake]

I have him on ignore. I you want me to know what was said, you'll have to quote him or retype it.

However, I doubt anything SpunkMuncher says is of much value.
I don't have to quote Chump, it wasn't his quote. It was Pres. Bush's quote.

[Yonivore]

Let's take a closer look at this before you insist I concede.

What was it he said he regretted? Lets see.

Reasons for invading Iraq:

1. Inaccurate evidence

OK. Nobody's perfect. Let's cut them some slack on this one.

2. Wrong evidence

Now that it's flat wrong, they are barely hanging on to a C- when coupled with inaccuracy.

3. Deliberately Misleading

Ouch. here's the mother-lode.
Deliberately adv. intentionally, on purpose, by design, knowingly.
Misleading adj. see Deceptive.

I think I have enough to retain my original statement.
Okay, maybe we're talking about two different things here. I don't think so but, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

When you said:


How do you explain Colin Powell's admission that much of the reasons were either exaggerated or simply "made up'?
I took it to mean you believed Colin Powell or the administration exaggerated or made up the reasons for going to war in Iraq. If that is not what you meant then, fine; Secretary Powell did tell Tim Russert that they learned some of the intelligence on which they based their assessment of Iraq's WMD capability may have been wrong or deliberately misleading.

If you mean to say Secretary Powell was admitting that he or the administration exaggerated or made up reasons for going to war, I call bullshit. Because, clearly, in the same interview...indeed, in the same response...he says that it was the best intelligence they had at the time and he believed it to be accurate.

So, which is it?

[Yonivore]

I don't have to quote Chump, it wasn't his quote. It was Pres. Bush's quote.
What was President Bush's quote?

[clambake]

It was egregious and now he regrets it. These deliberate acts are wrought with collusion, and Bush is still cheerleading their existence. Why would anyone defend that behaviour?

[fyatuk]

3. Deliberately Misleading

Ouch. here's the mother-lode.
Deliberately adv. intentionally, on purpose, by design, knowingly.
Misleading adj. see Deceptive.

I think I have enough to retain my original statement.

You do realize the "deliberately misleading" was most likely referring to the sources deliberately providing misleading information. Or directly to Saddam who made sure misleading information was deliberately leaked.

[clambake]

What was President Bush's quote?
There is a link to his interview in Poland inside this thread.

I believe it's from whitehouse.org no less.

[clambake]

You do realize the "deliberately misleading" was most likely referring to the sources deliberately providing misleading information. Or directly to Saddam who made sure misleading information was deliberately leaked.
Why would it come from saddam? I understand he was completely surprised by our invasion.

I also think it's "most likely" that Powell has information that supersedes the definition of "most likely".

[clambake]

And what happened to Powell when he started grumbling?

He got dumped. And now we don't even have a Sec. of State. It has been reduced to a useless position.

[Yonivore]

And what happened to Powell when he started grumbling?

He got dumped. And now we don't even have a Sec. of State. It has been reduced to a useless position.
What's that got to do with your original premise that Colin Powell lied at the U.N.?

[Yonivore]

There is a link to his interview in Poland inside this thread.

I believe it's from whitehouse.org no less.
I'm not doing your work for you. If you are claiming the President continues to rely on information provided at the U.N., by Secretary Powell, that was later determined to be untrue or mistaken, I wish you'd post the quote or the article containing the quote or the transcript containing the quote or the video containing the quote.

I'll take it from there.

Telling me to find something I doubt exists, ain't gonna cut it.

[Oh, Gee!!]

If you mean to say Secretary Powell was admitting that he or the administration exaggerated or made up reasons for going to war, I call bullshit. Because, clearly, in the same interview...indeed, in the same response...he says that it was the best intelligence they had at the time and he believed it to be accurate.

So, which is it?

Powell is hedging his bets. He's saying the intel he was given and reported turned out to be exaggareted, but stops short of saying who's responsible for exaggerating the intel.

[Oh, Gee!!]

INTERVIEWER: But, still, those countries who didn't support the Iraqi Freedom operation use the same argument, weapons of mass destruction haven't been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?

THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.

from a 2003 interview

[clambake]

What's that got to do with your original premise that Colin Powell lied at the U.N.?
My "original premise" is what he later admitted. He didn't come to this conclusion without knowledge.

I was asking you why Bush still uses Powell's address? Why does he do that? Is it because he is capable of ignoring truths? Is it because he suspects Pol's aren't swift enough?

Or would you suggest that Powell;s admission is equal to treason?

[Yonivore]

Powell is hedging his bets. He's saying the intel he was given and reported turned out to be exaggareted, but stops short of saying who's responsible for exagaerating the intel.
He also says he thoroughly checked the information and was satisfied of its authenticity at the time.

I went back and checked. He doesn't use the word "exaggerated." He says it was wrong, untrue and in "some cases" deliberately misleading.

We don't know if he's hedging or if it's just not discussed in that interview. I'd like to know who misled him as well. And, as far as I know he's given numerous interviews since that time -- maybe someone should ask him.

But, I'm not going to jump to conclusions on where the bad intel originated. Of course, since you and clambake believe this administration is full of scumbags, feel free.

But remember, telling the lie repeatedly, before you know the facts, leads to the same syndrome clambake demonstrated when he jumped in here insinuating Colin Powell exaggerated and made stuff up for his U.N. presentation. The lies become liberal articles of faith.

[Yonivore]

INTERVIEWER: But, still, those countries who didn't support the Iraqi Freedom operation use the same argument, weapons of mass destruction haven't been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?

THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.

from a 2003 interview
2003 is before 2004 (the date of the Russert interview) just in case you hadn't noticed.

[clambake]

INTERVIEWER: But, still, those countries who didn't support the Iraqi Freedom operation use the same argument, weapons of mass destruction haven't been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?

THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.

from a 2003 interview
I wasn't going to do that OG. It's pretty stupid to suggest something doesn't exist because someone has someone else on ignore.

[ChumpDumper]

INTERVIEWER: But, still, those countries who didn't support the Iraqi Freedom operation use the same argument, weapons of mass destruction haven't been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?

THE PRESIDENT: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.

from a 2003 interviewMake sure Yoni sees this too:


KARBALA, Iraq (CNN) -- The buried labs U.S. troops found last week were not the mobile chemical and biological weapons labs one U.S. Army general suspected, according to the head of an expert team brought in to examine them.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.no.labs/

Note this article appeared the month before Bush's interview with Polish TV.

[Yonivore]

My "original premise" is what he later admitted. He didn't come to this conclusion without knowledge.

I was asking you why Bush still uses Powell's address? Why does he do that? Is it because he is capable of ignoring truths? Is it because he suspects Pol's aren't swift enough?

Or would you suggest that Powell;s admission is equal to treason?
Your not making any sense. When has the president relied on this information? Oh Gee's example pre-dates the Russert interview and when, apparently, Secretary Powell learned of the inaccurate and misleading intelligence.

When did the president rely on this, after it was known to have been untrue or misleading?

[clambake]

At that point, Powell's position was beginning to be steamrolled. Why do act like you've never seen the wheels turning?

[Yonivore]

At that point, Powell's position was beginning to be steamrolled. Why do act like you've never seen the wheels turning?
What wheels?

You've obviously constructed some grand scenario in your mind. Do share.

Because, from what we've discussed in here, we've found out that Colin Powell made what he believed to be true statement at the U.N. prior to the invasion.

President Bush referred to that same presentation in 2003.

Post-invasion and after it was becoming clear WMDs weren't where the administration thought they'd be found, Colin Powell states, in an interview, that some of the intelligence upon which he based his statement was wrong, untrue, and deliberately misleading.

Now, I've not seen the President contradict that and I've not seen him rely on the information after it was learned to be untrue.

What is your point?

[NorCal510]

all i have to say is saddam is a big bitch and id cock slap him with my tiny 1 incher

[clambake]

My point is why is Powell the only one brave enough to admit it? Certainly not you. You're satisfied with pretending it never happened. If I had voted for someone that did what Bush has done, I'd be outraged.

[boutons_]

Washington Postl Sunday, May 22, 2005

More Evidence Of Bush Aides' Doubts on Iraq

By Walter Pincus

On Jan. 24, 2003, four days before President Bush delivered his State of the Union address presenting the case for war against Iraq, the National Security Council staff put out a call for new intelligence to bolster claims that Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear, chemical and biological weapons or programs.

The person receiving the request, Robert Walpole, then the national intelligence officer for strategic and nuclear programs, would later tell investigators that "the NSC believed the nuclear case was weak," according to a 500-page report released last year by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

It has been clear since the September report of the Iraq Survey Group -- a CIA-sponsored weapons search in Iraq -- that the United States would not find the weapons of mass destruction cited by Bush as the rationale for going to war against Saddam Hussein.

But as the Walpole episode suggests, it now appears that even before the war many senior intelligence officials in the government had doubts about the case that was being trumpeted in public by the president and his senior advisers.

( dubya and dickhead hyped WMD as certain enough to justify invasion, while suppressing/classifying numerous doubts by intel analysts. ie, dubya and dickhead had a war for oil to sell, and nobody was going to stop them.)

The question of prewar intelligence has been thrust back into the public eye with the disclosure of a secret British memo showing that, eight months before the March 2003 start of the war, a senior British intelligence official reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that U.S. intelligence was being shaped to support a policy of invading Iraq.

Moreover, a close reading of the recent 600-page report by the president's commission on intelligence, and the previous report by the Senate panel, shows that as the war approached many U.S. intelligence analysts were internally questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about Hussein's alleged weapons programs.

These included claims that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium in Africa for its nuclear program, had mobile labs for producing biological weapons, ran an active chemical weapons program and possessed unmanned aircraft that could deliver weapons of mass destruction. All these claims were made by Bush or then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in public addresses even though, the reports made clear, they had yet to be verified by U.S. intelligence agencies.

( hype hype hype, dubya didn't care about the truth )

For instance, Bush claimed in his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address that Hussein was working to obtain "significant quantities" of uranium from Africa, a conclusion the president attributed to British intelligence and made a key part of his assertion that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program.

More than a year later, the White House retracted the statement after questions were raised about its veracity. But the Senate report makes it clear that even in January 2003, just before the president's speech, analysts at the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Center were still investigating the reliability of the uranium information.

Similarly, the president's intelligence commission, chaired by former appellate judge Laurence H. Silberman and former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.), disclosed that senior intelligence officials had serious questions about "Curveball," the code name for an Iraqi informant who provided the key information on Hussein's alleged mobile biological facilities.

The CIA clandestine service's European division chief had met in 2002 with a German intelligence officer whose service was handling Curveball. The German said his service "was not sure whether Curveball was actually telling the truth," according to the commission report. When it appeared that Curveball's material would appear in Bush's State of the Union speech, the CIA Berlin station chief was asked to get the Germans to allow him to question Curveball directly.

On the day before the president's speech, the Berlin station chief raised a warning about using Curveball's information on the mobile biological units in Bush's speech. The station chief warned that the German intelligence service considered Curveball "problematical" and said their officers had been unable to confirm his information. The station chief recommended that CIA headquarters give "serious consideration" before using that unverified information, according to the commission report.

Nonetheless, Bush told the world the next day, "We know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile weapons labs . . . designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors." He attributed that information to "three Iraqi defectors."

A week later, Powell said in an address to the United Nations that the information on mobile labs came from four defectors, and he described one as "an eyewitness . . . who supervised one of these facilities" and was at the site when an accident killed 12 technicians.

Within a year, doubts emerged about the truthfulness of all four, and the "eyewitness" turned out to be Curveball, the informant the CIA station chief had red-flagged as unreliable. Curveball was subsequently determined to be a fabricator who had been fired from the Iraqi facility years before the alleged accident, according to the commission and Senate reports.

As Bush speeches were being drafted in the prewar period, serious questions were also being raised within the intelligence community about purported threats from biologically armed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

In an Oct. 7, 2002, speech, Bush mentioned a potential threat to the U.S. mainland being explored by Iraq through unmanned aircraft "that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons." The basis for that analysis was a single report that an Iraqi general in late 2000 or early 2001 indicated interest in purchasing through a procurement agent outside the country autopilots and gyroscopes for Hussein's UAV program. The manufacturer chosen by the procurement agent automatically included topographic mapping software of the United States in the package.

When the list was submitted in early 2002, the manufacturer's distributor determined that the U.S. mapping software would not be included in the autopilot package, and the distributor informed the procurement agent in March 2002. By then, however, U.S. intelligence, which closely followed Iraqi procurement of such material, had already concluded as early as the summer of 2001 that this was the "first indication that the UAVs might be used to target the U.S."

When a foreign intelligence service questioned the procurement agent, he originally said he had never intended to purchase the U.S. mapping software, but he refused to submit to a thorough examination, according to the president's commission. "By fall 2002, the CIA was still uncertain whether the procurement agent was lying," the commission said. Nonetheless, a National Intelligence Estimate in October 2002 said the attempted procurement "strongly suggested" Iraq was interested in targeting UAVs on the United States. Senior members of Congress were told in September 2002 that this was the "smoking gun" in a special briefing by Vice President Cheney and then-CIA Director George J. Tenet.

( no certainty by the intel people, but for dickhead and Tenet, it was certain smoking gun )

By January 2003, however, it became publicly known that the director of Air Force intelligence dissented from the view that UAVs were to be used for biological or chemical delivery, saying instead they were for reconnaissance. In addition, according to the president's commission, the CIA "increasingly believed that the attempted purchase of the mapping software . . . may have been inadvertent."

In an intelligence estimate on threats to the U.S. homeland published in January 2003, Air Force, Defense Intelligence Agency and Army analysts agreed that the proposed purchase was "not necessarily indicative of an intent to target the U.S. homeland."

By late January 2003, the number of U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf area was approaching 150,000 and the invasion of Iraq was all but guaranteed. Neither Bush nor Powell reflected in their speeches the many doubts that had surfaced at that time about Iraq's weapons programs.

Instead, the president said, "With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region." He added: "Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."

=================

dubya, dickhead, Powell, and dubya-sucker Tenet presented evidence as certain when the various intel orgs all had serious doubts about every single piece of the "evidence".

All of this is old news. NONE of justifications for the invasion were true, ever, and were proven after the invasion to be false.

So why was the WH so hell bent for invading, going back to the late 1990s? A US/UK grab for Iraqi oil and the war as means to privatize military operations and enrich Halliburton, etc with $Bs in no-bid, un-monitored contracts.

The WH said the Dems had the same intel as the Repugs, but the WH suppressed/classified all doubts about their "evidence", so Dems were fed, at best, only half the intel story. The other half, the widespread doubts, were not given to the Dems.

[Yonivore]

My point is why is Powell the only one brave enough to admit it? Certainly not you. You're satisfied with pretending it never happened. If I had voted for someone that did what Bush has done, I'd be outraged.
Who said Powell was the only one?

Bush admits Iraq intelligence was wrong (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1667411,00.html)


The US president, George Bush, today admitted much of the intelligence used as the basis for invading Iraq had been "wrong" - but defended his decision to go to war because it removed Saddam Hussein.

Bush takes responsibility for invasion intelligence (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/14/bush.iraq/)


"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush said during his fourth and final speech before Thursday's vote for Iraq's parliament. "As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that."

Bush Admits He Was 'Wrong' (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0551,news,71029,2.html)


In a speech today in Washington, D.C., President Bush accepted responsibility for faulty intelligence that led the nation to war in Iraq.
That's just the first three links in what appears to be several pages of links after I googled "Bush admits intelligence was wrong.

I don't know what rock you've been under.

[clambake]

We might as well give it up, boutons. Powell turned out to be the only real man left standing. At least he regrets his actions.

[clambake]

That's right, Yoni. He's the guy being provided with endless excuses. It would be nice to have a pres. that could own up to something.

[boutons_]

dubya said was the intel was wrong, as if he were surprised, he's "responsible" but he's not accountable.

Had dubya and fellow murderers really been serious about the intel, he would have known, very probably did know, that the various intel orgs had SERIOUS DOUBTS about all the intel.

But dubya didn't care about the doubts, nor about the truth. Those doubts turned out to be ACCURATE. He instead he cherry-picked and hyped the positive interpretations and extrapoloations of the dubious intel as justifying his grab for oil and enrichment of US contractors.

[ChumpDumper]

Did Bush ever say that his entire strategy for the invasion and occupaiton of Iraq was completely myopic and tragically flawed and that he as commander-in-chief is responsible for the entire debacle?

That's the one I'm waiting for.

[clambake]

But his speech doesn't account for the administration's heavy hand in spinning faulty intelligence.

So why doesn't he feel compelled to expose the ones at fault?

[fyatuk]

Why would it come from saddam? I understand he was completely surprised by our invasion.

I also think it's "most likely" that Powell has information that supersedes the definition of "most likely".

LOL. I never said a "source" was Saddam, just that he was leaking misleading information for whatever sources there were to pick up. And whoever said the surprise line is an idiot.

Don't you love when people drop the most reasonable explanation because it doesn't fit their theory?



Powell: I'm very concerned. When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I'm deeply disappointed. But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.

He's talking about the sources when he mentions the "deliberately misleading". Rather obvious what he meant.

[Yonivore]

But his speech doesn't account for the administration's heavy hand in spinning faulty intelligence.
Nice pick up on the Village Voice subtitle.

There was an investigation and it was determined the administration didn't try to get the intelligence community to lead the intelligence in any direction.

What do you...er, what does the Village Voice mean by "heavy handed spinning?"


So why doesn't he feel compelled to expose the ones at fault?
Hell, I don't know. I don't know why half the CIA isn't in jail over the NSA leaks.

Something I'll ask him if I ever get the chance.

I wonder why the media isn't curious.

[clambake]

Bush admits Iraq intelligence was wrong

That one is hilarious.

[Yonivore]

Bush admits Iraq intelligence was wrong

That one is hilarious.
I'm surprised you'd not heard it before. You sure must feel dumb after running around all this time saying Colin Powell was the only one confessing. Hell, you were even wrong about that.

But, why is it hilarious?

[clambake]

I'm surprised you'd not heard it before. You sure must feel dumb after running around all this time saying Colin Powell was the only one confessing. Hell, you were even wrong about that.

But, why is it hilarious?
Bush doesn't take any cause for war that has been debunked seriously. He just replaces it with a new cause. That's hilarious.

[Yonivore]

Bush doesn't take any cause for war that has been debunked seriously. He just replaces it with a new cause. That's hilarious.
How so?

See, you seem to throw things out without knowing what you're talking about.

You've said Colin Powell confessed to exaggerating and making up intelligence and you were wrong.

You've said Colin Powell was the only one admitting the intelligence was wrong and you were wrong.

Now you're saying the president is constantly moving the target. Please tell us how.

[clambake]

If Bush is now confessing, why hasn't he approached the fabrications?

He's had enough time to do that, don't you think?

[clambake]

I've never heard Bush apologize for submitting fabricated evidence. Do you have a link or quote? I would never put someone on ignore, so I'm ready to see it.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know how he still tried to pass off Saddam as an imminent threat to the US after all the premises for war fell away.

How was Saddam an imminent threat to the US?

[Yonivore]

I've never heard Bush apologize for submitting fabricated evidence. Do you have a link or quote? I would never put someone on ignore, so I'm ready to see it.
Who said he submitted fabricated evidence?

See, you're just making shit up now.

[Yonivore]

If Bush is now confessing, why hasn't he approached the fabrications?

He's had enough time to do that, don't you think?
Now confessing? Fabrications? What's that. Those articles were written in 2005 and some before.

I think your argument is with the press, not the president.

They've had ample opportunity to ask all these questions.

[clambake]

I don't know how he still tried to pass off Saddam as an imminent threat to the US after all the premises for war fell away.
All he had to do was convince people like Yoni. There is more of them than you think.

How was Saddam an imminent threat to the US?
You got me. I understand the most important things came as surprise to him.

[smeagol]

40% Still Believe Saddam Behind 911

That is a lot of stupid people

[Yonivore]

That is a lot of stupid people


A Newsweek poll in September 2004 showed that 36% believed "Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001." Now the number in the same poll is 41%.
Believing his regime was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 is something quite different than believing Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

Planning, financing, or carrying out covers a lot of territory involving varying levels of possibility.

This is the problem with you lefties, you mold a string of text into whatever you want it to say and start carrying on about your made up shit instead of what was actually said to begin with.

This behavior has been on prominent display in this forum today.

Count me as one of the stupid people who believe Saddam Hussein's regime was, at the very least, involved in either financing or logistics of the September 11, attacks.

[ChumpDumper]

Believing his regime was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 is something quite different than believing Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.:lmao

No it isn't.
Count me as one of the stupid peopleYou were counted as one of the stupid people long, long ago.

[clambake]

But everything still came as a surprise to saddam, right yoni?

I'll give you the permission to have it both, all ways. You seem to need it more than me. You dismiss Powells assertion of deliberate misleading as if he couldn't possibly be telling us the truth. Now we're left with nothing but Bush's and Cheney's word, which couldn't spring for a cup of joe in tijuana.

I wonder how you feel about other staunch republicans that finally address the truth. Are they traitors or simply more evolved?

[Wild Cobra]

Looks like the lefties here have been getting too much Randi Rhodes and Al Franken.

A thoughts about "deliberately misleading" evidence. There was Joe Wilson's lies... I know that doesn't count for the point being made, but what if that is what Powell meant?

Another thought is why did the CIA director resign? Was it because of the Valarie Plame Blame Game? Was he part of that possible conspiracy? Or... Did anyone here know that Tenent had a friend die in the 9/11 attack, I think his friend was in one of the planes that flew into a tower. How could this have affected his judgment? Could he have distorted the evidence? "It's a slam dunk!"

[boutons_]

"I know that doesn't count"

no, it doesn't, but throw it in, anyway. JW didn't propose, agitate, bully, spew half-truths and falsehoods about Saddam.

"why did the CIA director resign"

A grab for the book money, and to defend himself against dubya and dickhead refusing all accountability for and dumping the bad intel blame on Tenet and his agency.

[ChumpDumper]

A thoughts about "deliberately misleading" evidence. There was Joe Wilson's lies... I know that doesn't count for the point being made, but what if that is what Powell meant?No, that's absolutely not what he meant. He meant things like wholly fabricated tales about mobile WMD labs from drunk taxi drivers living in Germany.
Another thought is why did the CIA director resign? Was it because of the Valarie Plame Blame Game? Was he part of that possible conspiracy?No, he resigned because he was responsible for a good part of the largest intelligence failure in US history and knew he shouldn't have been DCI anymore.

[Wild Cobra]

A more recent interview with Colin Powell:

Meet the Press pt. 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmK-dztfPok)

Meet the Press pt. 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAqbL-7eo6E)

Meet the Press pt. 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wgelv-q6-_w)

[smeagol]

Yoni, I'm not a lefty and you are an idiot if you believe that Saddam was involved in either financing or logistics of the September 11, attacks.

[Oh, Gee!!]

2003 is before 2004 (the date of the Russert interview) just in case you hadn't noticed.

I was simply posting what you had asked clambake to post. A simple thank you will suffice.

[Yonivore]

I was simply posting what you had asked clambake to post. A simple thank you will suffice.
It didn't support his premise that the president was still relying on faulty intelligence after it was known to be untrue.

I think clambake would have preferred you find an example that occurred after Powell's 2004 interview. Your find was irrelevant to the discussion.

[Yonivore]

Yoni, I'm not a lefty and you are an idiot if you believe that Saddam was involved in either financing or logistics of the September 11, attacks.
The press spent much of the 90's talking about the growing relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

There is much anectdotal and circumstantial evidence of a relationship.

I think it's possible. Is there smoking gun evidence? No. But, so what? I can't believe the world is more ready to believe we know enough about Saddam Hussein's dealings over the last 12 years of his regime to know whether or not there was a relationship between it and al Qaeda.

I think you're an idiot for dismissing it out of hand.

[xrayzebra]

^^Wasn't Saddam giving 25 grand to the families of those
who blew themselves up? Just checking.

[Yonivore]

^^Wasn't Saddam giving 25 grand to the families of those
who blew themselves up? Just checking.
The "Palestinian" suicide bombers. Yes.

He also either gave sanctuary to -- or ignored the presence of -- other islamo-fascist terrorists and groups that took up residence in Baghdad; Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal being the two most famous.

[Oh, Gee!!]

It didn't support his premise that the president was still relying on faulty intelligence after it was known to be untrue.

I think clambake would have preferred you find an example that occurred after Powell's 2004 interview. Your find was irrelevant to the discussion.

I was posting what ChumpDumper had posted originally, which you asked Clambake to re-post because you have Chump on ignore. Really, are you that dense?

[Yonivore]

I was posting what ChumpDumper had posted originally, which you asked Clambake to re-post because you have Chump on ignore. Really, are you that dense?
Sorry, I didn't realize you were carrying clambake's water.

I went back and looked, it was several posts after I told clambake that if he wanted me to know what SpazMaster was saying he'd have to quote him.

Your post doesn't mention why you were posting the president's interview exchange. And, in the context of the thread, at that point, it appeared you were presening the exchange as some sort of support for clambake's argument, not as a response to my request.

Hey, it's an online forum, we don't all have knowledge of your intimate relationship with clambake. Maybe if I'd know you finish his sentences, I would have picked up on the fact you were covering his ass.

Or, maybe, you could say, "here's the interview to which clambake is referring."

Or, you could have simply "quoted" SpunkSipper.

[fyatuk]

Yoni, I'm not a lefty and you are an idiot if you believe that Saddam was involved in either financing or logistics of the September 11, attacks.

In all fairness, there is the possibility that Saddam was INDIRECTLY involved in Financing, since he was known to give money to terrorist groups (who then may have contributed that money to Osama). No way he was involved with bin Laden directly though. He was very much anti-al Qaeda, as shown by the fact that he refused to help them several times on other matters.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Sorry, I didn't realize you were carrying clambake's water.

I went back and looked, it was several posts after I told clambake that if he wanted me to know what SpazMaster was saying he'd have to quote him.

Your post doesn't mention why you were posting the president's interview exchange. And, in the context of the thread, at that point, it appeared you were presening the exchange as some sort of support for clambake's argument, not as a response to my request.

Hey, it's an online forum, we don't all have knowledge of your intimate relationship with clambake. Maybe if I'd know you finish his sentences, I would have picked up on the fact you were covering his ass.

Or, maybe, you could say, "here's the interview to which clambake is referring."


and maybe you could start crediting your sources when you cut and paste entire blogs and articles and pass them off as your own original thoughts. hey, nobody's perfect I guess

[Yonivore]

and maybe you could start crediting your sources when you cut and paste entire blogs and articles and pass them off as your own original thoughts.
Nah.


hey, nobody's perfect I guess
No shit?

[boutons_]

All the academic, legalistic polemics aside, none of what Saddam did or had (he had nothing) was direct threat to the USA nor, above all, did the sum of it justify the invasion.

[clambake]

Yoni doesn't posses any original thoughts. Frankly, he's not capable of simple deduction. The possibility of deliberately misleading and distorting collusive evidence has managed to escape him. He thinks he knows more than someone, who was present and responsible, for actions that he publicly regrets. I don't think a person can get more inside than that. But yoni would have you believe otherwise.

I'll just anxiously await someone else's thoughts through Yoni's narration.

[fyatuk]

All the academic, legalistic polemics aside, none of what Saddam did or had (he had nothing) was direct threat to the USA nor, above all, did the sum of it justify the invasion.

True he had nothing to be a direct threat to the US. I've always supported that Saddam needed to be removed (for past crimes against humanity, continuing support of anti-israeli terrorism, stealing money from "food for oil" which was documented within a year of the program starting, and obvious plans to restart WMD research as soon as sanctions were lifted, etc.) and a repeal of sanctions when possible, but the timing was just idiotic.

Saddam was certainly a threat, even the ISG deemed that, just not an immediate threat. He was a contained threat. Don't forget that regime change in Iraq was government policy even during the Clinton years.

The administration should have let inspectors continue their work while we got Afghanistan straightened out, then worried about Iraq. Now we have a mess in both countries.

[Yonivore]

No way he was involved with bin Laden directly though. He was very much anti-al Qaeda, as shown by the fact that he refused to help them several times on other matters.

Captured Iraqi Document ISGC-2004-019920 Page 6 (http://www.blackvault.com/documents/capturediraq/ISGZ-2004-019920.pdf#search='ISGZ2004019920')

ISGZ-2004-019920 is a 2002 Iraqi Intelligence Correspondence concerning the presence of al-Qaida Members in Iraq. Correspondence between IRS members on a suspicion, later confirmed, of the presence of an Al-Qaeda terrorist group. Moreover, it includes photos and names.

Does the guy on page 6 look familiar?

Captured Iraqi Document ISGQ-2003-00004500-0 (http://www.blackvault.com/documents/capturediraq/volunteers.pdf#search=%22ISGQ-2003-00004500%22)

As translated, ISGQ-2003-00004500-0 demonstrates Saddam Hussein’s government was aware not just of the presence of Al Qaeda terrorist Abu Mus’ab Al Zarqawi, but also was aware that the Anbar province in Iraq was being used as a launch point for organized groups of jihadis headed to fight the United States in Afghanistan.

The document, addressed to the Security Board, Fedayeen Saddam at the office of the Presidency in Iraq, reports what it describes as a “rumor”, says:


there is a group of Iraqi and Saudi Arabians numbering around 3,000 who have gone in an unofficial capacity to Afghanistan and have joined the mujahidin to fight with and aid them in defeating the American Zionist Imperialist attack
This clearly indicates that Iraq was being used as a transit point or launch point for Saudi Arabian jihadis, as well as Iraqis, who wanted to go join the forces of Osama Bin Laden in Iraq in November 2001, nearly a year and a half before the US and Coalition forces commenced military action against Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Document: ISGZ-2004-009247 (http://blogs.pajamasmedia.com/iraq_files/2006/03/document_isgz2004009247.php)

ISGZ-2004-009247, as tranlated, is a report in which the Iraqis talk about their meeting with Osama Bin Laden... In the meeting, Bin Laden asked the Iraqis for joint operations against the Foreign forces (US military) in the land of Hijaz (Saudia or Saudi Arabia)."


In the Name of God the Most Merciful and the Most Compassionate.

The Saudi Opposition and Achieving the Relation and Contact With Them

(Translation of part of Page 4)


2. The Comission of Reform and Advise

Lead by the Saudi Osama Bin Laden who belongs to a wealthy Saudi family with her roots go back to Hadramoot and connected strongly with the ruling family in Saudia, and he is one of the leaders of the Arab Afghan who volunteered for Jihad in Afghanistan, and after the expulsion of the Soviets he moved to stay in Sudan in the year 1992 after the arrival of the Islamists to power in Sudan.

And because of his stands against the Saudi Royal family because of the foreign presence inside it, the Saudi authorities made a decision to withdraw his Saudi citizenship, and we moved toward The Comission from our side and through the following:
Translation of page 5


A. During the visit of the Sudanese Dr. Abrahim Al Sanoosi to the country and his meeting with Mr. Uday Saddam Hussein on 13/12/1994 and with the presence of the respectful Sir the Director of the Apparatus he indicated that the opposition person Osama Bin Laden who is staying in Sudan and who was cautious and fears that he will be accused by his opponents that he became an agent for Iraq, is ready to meet with him in Sudan (The results of the meeting were written to the Honorable Presidency according to our letter 872 on 17/12/1994).

B. The approval of the Honorable Presidency was granted to meet with the opposition person Osama Bin Laden by the Apparatus according to letter 128 on 11/1/1995 (attachment 6) and the meting with him was completed by Mr. M.A ex-4th Directory in Sudan and with the presence of the Sudanese Dr. Abrahim AL Sanoosi on 19/2/1995 and a discussion occurred about his organization, and he requested the broadcasting of Sheikh Sleiman AL Awada (who has influence in Saudia and outside since he is a known and influential religious personality) and dedicate a program for them through the station directed inside the country and make joint operations against the forces of infidels in the land of Hijaz ( the Honorable Presidency has been notified with the details of the meeting according to our letter 370 in 4/3/1995 attachment 7).

Captured Iraqi Document CMPC-2003-001488 (http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/Released-20060314/CMPC-2003-001488.pdf#search='CMPC2003001488')

Document CMPC-2003-001488, as translated:


In the name of God the merciful the compassionate Presidency of the Republic Intelligence Service 2/913/5th directorate

Sir: Director General of the 5th directorate
Subject: Information

Our Afghani source #002 (info on him in paper slip ‘1’) has informed us that Afghani consular Ahmed Dahistani (info on him in paper slip ‘2’) had spoken before him of the following:

1- That Usama Bin Ladin and the Taliban group in Afghanistan are in contact with Iraq and that a group from the Taliban and Usama Bin Ladin’s group had conducted a visit to Iraq.

2- That America possesses evidence that Iraq and Usama Bin Ladin’s group had cooperated to strike targets inside America.

3- Incase Taliban and Usama’s group are proven involved in those sabotage operations, it will be possible that America directs strikes at Iraq and Afghanistan.

4- That the Afghani consular had heard about the Iraq connections with Usama Bin Ladin’s group during his presence in Iran.

5- In the light of what preceded we suggest writing to the Intentions Committee about the above information.

Please be informed…..your feedback please…..with appreciation.
)signature) (signature(
Information office send immediately to the
Of the 5th directorate/3 Intentions Committee
9/15/2001
Then, there is this memo as reported by Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp?ZoomFont=YES):


OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that "al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors."
Stephen Hayes also has a Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp?pg=1) report on Saddam's terror training camps published in January, 2006, from captured Saddam documents claiming-

"Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion."
Then there is the story on Al Qaeda's current leader in Iraq, Abu al Masri, who took over the reins of terror after Al Zarqawi had a 500 pound bomb drop in on him in April of this year.

Abu al Masri, the current head of Al Qaeda in Iraq, organized terror camps in southern Iraq after he fled Afghanistan when the Taliban government fell in 2001.

From Military.com (http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,101513,00.html?ESRC=dodnews.RSS):


Al-Masri - which means "the Egyptian" - is another foreign fighter who trained in Afghanistan like Zarqawi, coalition officials said. No one knows his real name.

The terrorist is said to be about 38 years old and got his beginning in Egypt, where he joined the Islamic Brotherhood. He fled from Egypt and moved to Afghanistan, where he trained in explosives at the al-Faruq Al Qaeda camp. There he met Zarqawi, officials said.

After the fall of the Taliban, Masri escaped to Iraq and set up with the Jordanian-born Zarqawi. The Egyptian specialized in vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices. He helped establish the Baghdad cell of Al Qaeda in early 2003, officials said.
To say there is "no way" Saddam Hussein was involved with al Qaeda ignores this and a decade of history containing evidence of a relationship between the Ba'athist regime of Iraq and Islamo-fascist terror groups, including al Qaeda.

[Yonivore]

Yoni doesn't posses any original thoughts. Frankly, he's not capable of simple deduction. The possibility of deliberately misleading and distorting collusive evidence has managed to escape him.
Present some evidence of collusion. Let's talk about it.


He thinks he knows more than someone, who was present and responsible, for actions that he publicly regrets. I don't think a person can get more inside than that. But yoni would have you believe otherwise.
What actions did Colin Powell say he regretted?


I'll just anxiously await someone else's thoughts through Yoni's narration.
Cool.

[Yonivore]

I don't think a person can get more inside than that.
Here's an insider you don't believe...

Iraqi Official Testifies to Links Between Saddam and Al Qaeda (http://www.nysun.com/article/39631)

[Yonivore]

And another insider:

Angelo Codevilla is a teacher of international relations at Boston University and former Senate Intelligence Committee staffer. In "Intelligence failures (http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1394/article_detail.asp)," Professor Codevilla reviews the memoir by George Tenet covering his tenure at the CIA. Professor Codevilla observes: "The CIA has always valued fighting battles in Washington more than fighting America's battles abroad." Professor Codevilla shows how Tenet fights one particular Washington battle in the book:


The Agency confuses "the intelligence itself" and "what the intelligence says" with its own conclusions, dismissing any facts that lead to contrary conclusions as "cherry picking," "fragments," or " their own set of facts." The CIA argues strictly by its own authority, and by making up standards to fit its needs in any given circumstance. In 2002, the Agency had concluded that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Tenet certified this by prominently sitting behind then-Secretary of State Colin Powell as he delivered his February 5, 2002 testimonial to the United Nations. In his book, Tenet explains: "It would have been helpful to have clarified that the use of the words ‘we judge' and ‘we assess' meant we were making analytical judgments, not stating facts." Confusing fact and judgment in one direction was convenient at the time. Distinguishing them became convenient later.

Despite these confusions, he still maintains that "one thing is certain, we consistently told the Congress and the administration that the intelligence did not show any Iraqi authority, direction, or control over any of the many specific terrorist acts carried out by al-Qa'ida." That's weasel-worded longhand for saying Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not responsible for terrorism. But why should we care whether Iraq's government bodies exercised "authority, direction, and control" over specific acts? Isn't it more significant to ask about the many ways in which Saddam's Iraq contributed to terrorism? Tenet had informed the Senate in February 2002 that Iraq "has also had contacts with al-Qa'ida. Their ties may be limited by diverging ideologies, but the two sides' mutual antipathy toward the United States and the Saudi royal family suggests that tactical cooperation between them was possible." He acknowledges that Saddam provided training, safe haven, and contacts to al-Qaeda and lots of other terrorists. He also mentions that the vice president's staff brought "such detailed knowledge on people, sources, and timelines that the senior CIA analytic manager doing the briefing that day simply could not compete." But Tenet tells us that the CIA discounted "reporting that suggested a deeper relationship" between Saddam and al-Qaeda because "[r]egional analysts who focus on geographic areas believed that fundamental distrust stemming from stark ideological differences…significantly limited the cooperation that was suggested by the reporting" (emphasis added). In short, Tenet and the CIA simply dismissed as opinion the facts that displeased them, and called facts their own favorite beliefs.
I think we have at least one of our deliberate misleaders folks.

[clambake]

Here's an insider you don't believe...

Iraqi Official Testifies to Links Between Saddam and Al Qaeda (http://www.nysun.com/article/39631)
Another hilarious post by Yoni. Giving credibility to this guy. What a joke.

[clambake]

Oh, by the way, deliberate misleading does not equal intelligence failure.

[Yonivore]

Another hilarious post by Yoni. Giving credibility to this guy. What a joke.
So, offer your counter to his testimony. Why is to what he testified incredible?

[ChumpDumper]

:lol

There's an Iraqi document from four days after 9/11 saying an Afghani told the Iraqis that the US had evidence that Osama and Iraq had cooperated to strike targets in America?

So where is that US evidence?

Still translating from English to English?

You're falling into the same trap Feith -- described by Tommy Franks on the record as "the dumbest fucking guy on the planet" -- did. Making the evidence fit the conclusion you've already reached.

[ChumpDumper]

Here's an insider you don't believe...

Iraqi Official Testifies to Links Between Saddam and Al Qaeda (http://www.nysun.com/article/39631)So he gave the CIA this evidence eight months ago....

....what happened to it?

And Salih is an insider now, not when he was PM of the PUK.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

There's an Iraqi document from four days after 9/11 saying an Afghani told the Iraqis that the US had evidence that Osama and Iraq had cooperated to strike targets in America?

There is? First I hears of it...

Who said that?

[ChumpDumper]

There is? First I hears of it...

Who said that?:lmao You don't even read Yoni's posts!

Don't worry, he doesn't either.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao You don't even read Yoni's posts!

Don't worry, he doesn't either.
If you mean the linked materaial, I didn't see it in the four day context. I am not aware of any material placing Osama and Saddam (or Iraq) in talks about attacking the USA. Links yes, specific intel of such talks of direct attacks, no.

How many links can a chain have?

I didn't see it in Yoni's posts anywhere. What am I missing?

[clambake]

I guess there can be as many links as a person/persons want, especially if they're the ones fabricating the chain.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao You don't even read Yoni's posts!

Don't worry, he doesn't either.
If you mean the linked materaial, I didn't see it in the four day context. I am not aware of any material placing Osama and Saddam (or Iraq) in talks about attacking the USA. Links yes, specific intel of such talks of direct attacks, no.

How many links can a chain have?

I didn't see it in Yoni's posts anywhere. What am I missing?

[ChumpDumper]

If you mean the linked materaial, I didn't see it in the four day context. I am not aware of any material placing Osama and Saddam (or Iraq) in talks about attacking the USA. Links yes, specific intel of such talks of direct attacks, no.

How many links can a chain have?

I didn't see it in Yoni's posts anywhere. What am I missing?It's right up there in his posts. :wakeup

[ChumpDumper]

And really, we had Saddam in custody for months. With our reliable waterboarding and stress position techniques, shouldn't we have already gotten any information about the Saddam-al Qaeda link from Saddam himself?

[Wild Cobra]

It's right up there in his posts. :wakeup
I found the term "four years" but not "four day" and that was not quite what you said.

Show me. I'm ignorant, OK?

[ChumpDumper]

If you can't do simple math, that's your problem.

[ChumpDumper]

And really, we had Saddam in custody for months. With our reliable waterboarding and stress position techniques, shouldn't we have already gotten any information about the Saddam-al Qaeda link from Saddam himself?
Well?

[Nbadan]

:lol Saddam had time to talk?

They couldn't kill Saddam fast enough. He should have been tried at the Hague, but he knew where all the bodies were buried, so they tried him in a kangaroo Iraq court, hand-strung his lawyers and still almost lost the one charge he was tried for.

[boutons_]

His administration a total disaster internationnally and domestically, dubya tries to relate his Iraq quaqmire to al-Qaida, those 9/11 guys, which is total bullshit, par for dubya.

Bush Plays al Qaida Card to Bolster Support for Iraq Policy


By Jonathan S. Landay
McClatchy Newspapers

Thursday 28 June 2007

Washington - Facing eroding support for his Iraq policy, even among Republicans, President Bush on Thursday called al Qaida "the main enemy" in Iraq, an assertion rejected by his administration's senior intelligence analysts.

The reference, in a major speech at the Naval War College that referred to al Qaida at least 27 times, seemed calculated to use lingering outrage over the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to bolster support for the current buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq, despite evidence that sending more troops hasn't reduced the violence or sped Iraqi government action on key issues.

Bush called al Qaida in Iraq the perpetrator of the worst violence racking that country and said it was the same group that had carried out the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington.

( "there he goes again!" "where's the Beef/truth?"
http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif the stupid, lying bastard )

"Al Qaida is the main enemy for Shia, Sunni and Kurds alike," Bush asserted. "Al Qaida's responsible for the most sensational killings in Iraq. They're responsible for the sensational killings on U.S. soil."

U.S. military and intelligence officials, however, say that Iraqis with ties to al Qaida are only a small fraction of the threat to American troops. The group known as al Qaida in Iraq didn't exist before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, didn't pledge its loyalty to al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden until October 2004 and isn't controlled by bin Laden or his top aides.

( I read last year that 90% of the US deaths/casualties are by Sunnis/Baathist, who lost the most when US invaded)

Bush's references to al Qaida came just days after Republican Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and George Voinovich of Ohio broke with Bush over his Iraq strategy and joined calls to begin an American withdrawal.

"The only way they think they can rally people is by blaming al Qaida," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center who's critical of the administration's strategy.

Next month, the Senate is expected to debate the Iraq issue as it considers a Pentagon spending bill. Democrats are planning to offer at least three amendments that seek to change Iraq strategy, including revoking the 2002 resolution that authorized Bush to use force in Iraq and mandating that a withdrawal of troops begin within 120 days.

Bush's use of al Qaida in his speech had strong echoes of the strategy the administration had used to whip up public support for the Iraq invasion by accusing the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein of cooperating with bin Laden and implying that he'd played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. Administration officials have since acknowledged that Saddam had no ties to bin Laden or 9-11.

A similar pattern has developed in Iraq, where the U.S. military has cited al Qaida 33 times in a barrage of news releases in the last seven days, and some news organizations have echoed the drumbeat. Last month, al Qaida was mentioned only nine times in U.S. military news releases.

In his speech, Bush referred only fleetingly to the sectarian violence that pits Sunni Muslim insurgents against Shiite Muslim militias in bloody tit-for-tat attacks, bombings, atrocities and forced mass evictions from contested areas of Baghdad and other cities and towns.

U.S. intelligence agencies and military commanders say the Sunni-Shiite conflict is the greatest source of violence and insecurity in Iraq.

( but what do they know? dubya is The Decider)

"Extremists - most notably the Sunni jihadist group al Qaida in Iraq and Shia oppositionist Jaysh al-Mahdi - continue to act as very effective accelerators for what has become a self-sustaining struggle between Shia and Sunnis," the National Intelligence Council wrote in the unclassified key judgments of a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq (PDF) published in January. Jaysh al Mahdi is Arabic for the Mahdi Army militia of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr.

The council comprises the top U.S. intelligence analysts, and a National Intelligence Estimate is the most comprehensive assessment it produces for the president and a small number of his senior aides. It reflects the consensus of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies.

In his speech, Bush made other questionable assertions.

He claimed that U.S. troops were fighting "block by block" in Baqouba, a city northeast of Baghdad, as part of an offensive to clear out al Qaida fighters.

But Gen. Raymond Odierno, the U.S. ground commander in Iraq, said earlier this month that 80 percent of the insurgents American troops expected to encounter in Baqouba had fled before the operation began, including much of the insurgent leadership.

There was little heavy fighting. Out of 10,000 U.S. troops involved, only one has been killed.

Bush categorically blamed al Qaida for the Feb. 22, 2006, bombing of the Askariya mosque, a sacred Shiite shrine in Samarra whose destruction accelerated sectarian bloodshed.

But no group has claimed responsibility for the attack, and U.S. officials say there's no proof that al Qaida in Iraq was responsible, only strong suspicions.

Critics of the war are questioning the administration's increasing references to al Qaida.

"We cannot attribute all the violence in Iraq to al Qaida," retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq before becoming an opponent of Bush's strategy there, told the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday. "Al Qaida is certainly a component, but there's larger components."

(Gen Batiste, I also heard there ARE larger components. )

[Yonivore]

:lol Saddam had time to talk?

They couldn't kill Saddam fast enough. He should have been tried at the Hague, but he knew where all the bodies were buried, so they tried him in a kangaroo Iraq court, hand-strung his lawyers and still almost lost the one charge he was tried for.
Damn, you guys were right, Nbadan hearts Saddam.

[fyatuk]

His administration a total disaster internationnally and domestically, dubya tries to relate his Iraq quaqmire to al-Qaida, those 9/11 guys, which is total bullshit, par for dubya.


There's some really weird bits in that article. The quote from Bush blames al Qaeda for the most sensational killings in Iraq, not the most like the article seems to interpret it. I wouldn't be suprised if Bush did say that they were responsible for the most, but the quote they used didn't seem to support their claim.

Then it went on to blame the Sunni-Shiite violence for the most deaths while attributing the escalation of that violence to al Qaeda and the Mahdi army.

So the article says that al Qaeda isn't responsible for the most deaths, but share a good portion of the blame for the conflict that is responsible.

huh?

[Yonivore]

In an op-ed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062901947.html?nav=hcmodule) for the Washington Post today (reg. required), former DIA analyst Christina Shelton corrects George Tenet's mischaracterization of her analysis on Iraq's ties to al Qaeda.

Shelton says that George Tenet misrepresents a presentation authored by her in his book, At the Center of the Storm:


That day I summarized a body of mostly CIA reporting (dating from 1990 to 2002), from a variety of sources, that reflected a pattern of Iraqi support for al-Qaeda, including high-level contacts between Iraqi senior officials and al-Qaeda, training in bomb making, Iraqi offers of safe haven, and a nonaggression agreement to cooperate on unspecified areas. My position was that analysts were not addressing these reports since much of the material did not surface in finished, disseminated publications.
Tenet himself described Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda to Congress in a letter dated October 7, 2002, then failed to mention his own letter in his book. Shelton says that Tenet now tries to discredit her work by misrepresenting her background:


Tenet's response to my presentation was to attempt to denigrate my credentials. I was not a "naval reservist," as he wrote in his book, assigned to the Pentagon for temporary duty. In fact, I was a career intelligence analyst for two decades, and I spent half of that time in counterintelligence. I did not draw conclusions beyond the reporting, as he suggested. I addressed the substantive material in the reports.
Tenet has been on various sides of the Iraq/al Qaeda issue, but his subordinate Paul Pillar has been consistent: he has stuck to the view that there couldn't possibly be a significant relationship, and has dismissed all evidence to the contrary.

However, Ms. Shelton points to something interesting in Tenet's book. Tenet explains that the CIA's terrorism analysts "believed to be credible the reporting that suggested a deeper relationship," while the agency's regional analysts "significantly limited the cooperation that was suggested by the reporting."

When Tenet mentions the agency's "regional" analysts he is most certainly referring to Paul Pillar, the former National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia, and his supporting crew. Pillar has been a very vocal opponent of the idea that Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda could cooperate. He apparently believes that ideology trumps all other concerns such that the "secular" Saddam and the Islamists of al Qaeda couldn't possibly find common ground.

This is nonsense, of course. Our enemies are not cheap cartoon caricatures. They are more than capable of overlooking even substantial ideological disagreements in order to cooperate against their common enemies (just as humans have for all of recorded history: The Soviets and Nazi Germany pre-World War II, the Soviets and the U.S. in World War II, etc.). And Saddam cloaked his regime in the language of the jihadis during the 1990's as well.

But Pillar has made a name for himself by advancing this argument. His Foreign Affairs piece (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html) published last year, for example, has been widely cited. In that piece, Pillar accused the Bush administration - including Vice President Cheney - of "cherry-picking" data. He wrote:


But the greatest discrepancy between the administration's public statements and the intelligence community's judgments concerned not WMD (there was indeed a broad consensus that such programs existed), but the relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. The enormous attention devoted to this subject did not reflect any judgment by intelligence officials that there was or was likely to be anything like the "alliance" the administration said existed. The reason the connection got so much attention was that the administration wanted to hitch the Iraq expedition to the "war on terror" and the threat the American public feared most, thereby capitalizing on the country's militant post-9/11 mood.

The issue of possible ties between Saddam and al Qaeda was especially prone to the selective use of raw intelligence to make a public case for war. In the shadowy world of international terrorism, almost anyone can be "linked" to almost anyone else if enough effort is made to find evidence of casual contacts, the mentioning of names in the same breath, or indications of common travels or experiences. Even the most minimal and circumstantial data can be adduced as evidence of a "relationship," ignoring the important question of whether a given regime actually supports a given terrorist group and the fact that relationships can be competitive or distrustful rather than cooperative.

The intelligence community never offered any analysis that supported the notion of an alliance between Saddam and al Qaeda...
Pillar goes on. But he never mentions that some of his colleagues within the CIA disagreed with his take - as pointed out by Tenet and Shelton. Pillar leaves no room for the possibility that there was more than one way to look at the issue of Saddam's ties to al Qaeda, or that perhaps he and his analysts in the NESA were simply wrong. Instead, Pillar pretends that only those interested in justifying a war by "capitalizing on the country's militant post-9/11 mood" could possibly think that Saddam's ties to al Qaeda were worrisome.

Pillar also does not mention that his own boss, George Tenet, thinks that there was "more than enough evidence" to worry about. Nor does he mention that his own CIA produced at least three analytic products (memos) from the summer of 2002 to the eve of the Iraq war in January 2003, all of which discussed the evidence of a relationship between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. The evidence cited in a Thomas Jocelyn piece (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/596texms.asp) on Tenet's book goes through the intelligence that was in those three memos - as recounted by Tenet himself.

None of this has been critically examined by the mainstream press. Instead, Pillar is uncritically cited as an unbiased source. (For example, as explained by Robert Novak (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12785&R=EE501DF13), Pillar became a "hero" for journalists like Michael Isikoff and David Corn.) But perhaps those journalists that rely on Paul Pillar for their (mis)understanding of these events should rethink their sourcing.

Pillar's "analysis" is based on an assumption about our enemies. There is much evidence that contradicts that assumption, but Pillar couldn't be bothered to honestly investigate it. Others in the CIA and the DIA did.

That story is still not widely known.

[Yonivore]

'What If...' (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=062607C)


Given the problems and US casualties in Iraq, polls show a large majority of the American people believe the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Yet, if we imagine what the world would look like today if Saddam Hussein had not been deposed, it seems clear that almost no outcome in Iraq would be as adverse to the interests of the United States as today's world with Saddam still in power.

It is important to recall that Saddam had thrown the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq in 1998, and only allowed them to return in 2002 because of the credible threat of a US attack. In addition, the sanctions regime was collapsing—Saddam had learned how to extract billions of dollars for weapons out of the humanitarian exceptions to those sanctions--and our European friends, and perhaps UN officials themselves, were complicit in this. Under these circumstances, Saddam could not have been "contained" or rendered harmless, and Iraq could not have been indefinitely subject to UN inspections. At some point, Saddam would have been able to throw out the inspectors again, with no further action by the UN. It was clear that the UN itself would do nothing to enforce its own resolutions.

We also know from the reports of the weapons inspectors that Saddam and his scientists were working to develop nuclear weapons, work that certainly would have continued if Saddam had remained place. Saddam had already demonstrated that he would use chemical weapons, and there is no reason in logic that he wouldn't also restore his chemical weapons stocks once the inspectors had left. He had the largest army in the region, and had shown a determination to use it for expanding his control beyond Iraq. It's not far-fetched, therefore, to consider what economists call a counterfactual—what things would look like today if the US had not invaded Iraq.

First, US troops would still be in Saudi Arabia. Our troops were there because of the Saudis' fear of an Iraqi attack. We should recall that one of the principal reasons bin Laden cited for attacking us—not only on 9/11, but for many years before—was that US troops were supposedly defiling the Muslim holy places in Saudi Arabia. As absurd as this seems to us, it apparently resonated with the Mohammed Attas of this world. With Saddam still in power, American arms would be necessary to protect Saudi Arabia, and our presence there would still be a continuing irritant among militants and a source of al Qaeda-inspired terrorist attacks against the United States around the world.

Imagine, also, trying to persuade Iran to abandon the development of nuclear weapons when Iraq—which had attacked Iran—was actively engaged in doing exactly that. We hope now to change Iran's course through economic sanctions—a difficult prospect to be sure—but that would be a hopeless quest if its leaders and population believed they needed nuclear weapons to deter Iraq. Once it became clear that Iran would develop nuclear weapons, many Sunni Arab nations would want a nuclear deterrent, and Israel's position would be hideously complicated.

Then there's Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. Before he was deposed by the US invasion, Saddam was bidding for leadership of the Arab world in its opposition to Israel and US policy in the Mideast. We can now see the resources he would have brought to bear in that effort. Saddam was a Sunni leader of a Shi'ite country. As he watched the Islamic world becoming more fundamentalist, he too became more overtly religious. Undoubtedly, he saw himself as the new Nasser, the one person who could unite the Arab and perhaps the Islamic world against the West and Israel. If he had remained in power, he would now be contesting with Iran for sponsorship of Hezbollah and Hamas. With these two regional powers competing in their militancy against Israel, there would be little chance of a Mideast peace any time soon. Gaza, now under Hamas control, would become a protectorate of Iraq, and the effectiveness of the West's financial boycott would have been nullified.

Saddam's interest in driving the US out of the Middle East would be coincident with those of al Qaeda and he would have the weapons of mass destruction that al Qaeda has been seeking. We could never be sure that if we opposed Saddam—say, in another Iraqi invasion of Kuwait—he would not make weapons of mass destruction available to al Qaeda.

In short, it would be difficult to construct a scenario in which the ultimate outcome of events in Iraq today would be as negative for the United States as a world in which Saddam remains in control of Iraq. So, while we are justifiably dismayed about what is happening today in Iraq, we should not allow this to obscure the central point—that the world is a better and safer place because Saddam is out of power. Looked at this way, we have already achieved a lot; what remains now—as the President and Senator McCain have said—is to steady ourselves and see it through.
Peter J. Wallison is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute; he was White House counsel in the Reagan administration.

[boutons_]

AEI: a viper's den of neo-cunt ideologues, along with PNAC, who beat the war drums for the Iraqi invasion. Of course this motherfucking neo-cunt Wallison is trying to justify the gawd-awful disaster he perpetrated.

"Yet, if we imagine what the world would look like today if Saddam Hussein had not been deposed, it seems clear that almost no outcome in Iraq would be as adverse to the interests of the United States as today's world with Saddam still in power."

No, it's DOESN'T SEEM CLEAR AT ALL! The US and world and war on terror are MUCH WORSE OFF now with Iraqi totally de-stablized, infiltrated by Al-Quaida and Iranians, than it was in Feb 03 with Saddam harmlessly marginalized "in power" and nailed down by embargo and US military surveilance, flyovers, and adjacent US-occupied Arab countries.

[PixelPusher]

In short, it would be difficult to construct a scenario in which the ultimate outcome of events in Iraq today would be as negative for the United States as a world in which Saddam remains in control of Iraq.
From the same failure of imagination that brought us "greeted as liberators", "the war will pay for itself" and "insurgency in it's last throes". Any "counterfactual" thesis is premature at best, since the end result of Iraq is still unknown...and I might add that the consequences extend far beyond the borders of Iraq. (like the continuous erosion of the Army and Marine Corps)

[Yonivore]

Strategy Page (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20070701.aspx) has some hopeful observations on the state of al Qaeda today that kind of agree with what I've already been saying:


Al Qaeda continues to take a beating, but you can ignite a media firestorm just saying that.
***
Al Qaeda operations continue to decline, as the number of al Qaeda members, and leaders killed or captured, goes up.
***
American and Pakistani attacks (usually with missiles or smart bombs) along the Afghan border in the last two years have killed an increasing number of foreign fighters.

But that's not what worries al Qaeda, it's the increasing amount of accurate information the counter-terror forces are getting. No one is talking, but al Qaeda chatter claims that either the Americans have some wondrous new bit of technology, or Yankee money has corrupted more al Qaeda members to give up information. The Taliban is suffering the same kind of casualties, and coming up with the same paranoid theories.
***
Al Qaeda is eagerly recruiting other Islamic terrorist organizations, usually ones that have recently taken a big beating in their home country, to become part of al Qaeda. That's about the only growth al Qaeda is experiencing.
***
Al Qaeda is having some success in the Western media, and among Moslems living in Europe. But those expatriate Moslems are handicapped by many of their brethren who are not enthusiastic about Islamic terrorism. The police get tips, make arrests, and al Qaeda losses a few more true believers. Al Qaeda is desperate for another highly visible attack in the West. Many such operations are apparently being planned, but by amateurs who can get no help from al Qaeda experts. Most of al Qaedas traveling experts are dead or in prison. Inspiring amateurs to attempt poorly planned attacks, like the recent ones in Britain, only discourage recruits.
That sounds right to me. The whole picture will likely change, however, if al Qaeda succeeds in driving the U.S. out of Iraq.

Then, there's this hopeful sign...a converted Jihadi. The first if not one of the very few.

The Guardian posted this amazing letter today from a former radical to the Muslim community (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2115832,00.html).

In response to the attacks and attempted bombings this weekend a former radical Islamist, Hassan Butt, called out to Muslims to renounce terror:


When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

Friday's attempt to cause mass destruction in London with strategically placed car bombs is so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that it is likely to have been carried out by my former peers.

And as with previous terror attacks, people are again articulating the line that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, yesterday on Radio 4's Today programme, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: 'What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq.'

He then refused to acknowledge the role of Islamist ideology in terrorism and said that the Muslim Brotherhood and those who give a religious mandate to suicide bombings in Palestine were genuinely representative of Islam.

I left the BJN in February 2006, but if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again. Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the 7 July bombings, and I were both part of the BJN - I met him on two occasions - and though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many of my peers to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain, our own homeland and abroad, was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary state that would eventually bring Islamic justice to the world.

believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism. (The Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from this state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.) However, demystification will not be achieved if the only bridges of engagement that are formed are between the BJN and the security services.

If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence. And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.
So, you've got a jihadi convert and the Islamo-fascists haven't been as successful at fomenting jihadi violence over the Salman Rushdie knighting as they were over the Allah cartoons.

I think it's possible -- although prematurely optimistic -- that the popularity of jihad may be waning in the Islamic community. That's probably good news to everyone but the Democrats and whack-a-doos in this forum.

[Yonivore]

I don't know if this says more about the British healthcare system or the notion that jihadists are disaffected and disenfranchised Muslim youth.

'Terror ringleader' is brilliant NHS doctor (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465481&in_page_id=1770&ct=5)