Powell's Misrepresentation

[andyfox]

In February of this year, Secretary of State Colin Powell asserted that the radical Islamic group Ansar al Islam, located in Iraq, was the nexus betwen Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. According to Powell, Ansar was running a "poison factory" and was intent on exporting terrorism from the Middle East through Europe and into the United States.

Now, documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times, along with interviews with U.S. and Kurdish intelligence operatives and visits to the group's strongholds before and after the war have produced no strong evidence of connections to Baghdad and indicated that Ansar was not a sophisticated terrorist organization. The group lacked the capability to muster a serious threat beyond its mountain borders. The group's main intent was to battle the secular U.S. backed Kurdish government in northern Iraq. European officials dispute the allegation a senior U.S. official recently made about there possibly being a connection betweeen Ansar and the Algerians arrested last winter in London with ricin. Ricin has not been detected at Ansar bases so far.

While this group was clearly up to no good, this information shows that the connection the administration posited between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda awaits solid evidence and that the administration is not above presenting dubious information about the alleged connection.

[adios]

I wonder if the Democrats will make this an issue i.e. will the credibility of the administration be an issue for the Democrats in 2004. I'm not being facecious either. I'm not totally familiar with the article you mentioned but I will admit that there is some doubt about Ansar al Islam being a threat to US security.

[andyfox]

I don't think the Democrats have any idea what issues they will make or how to make them. Incompetence seems to be in their bylaws.

But who knows. . . The one thing I do know about presidential elections is that anything can happen. Richard Nixon was left for dead when he lost the race for governor of California in 1962 and was elected president six years later. Jimmy Carter started at 1% in the polls in New Hampshire. Ronald Reagan was widely regarded as being too far to the right to be electable. George Bush 41 seemed unbeatable after Gulf War 1. Bill Clinton was running a poor third to Bush and Ross Perot early in the summer of 1992.

[MMMMMM]

Since your complaint is based on "new" information, do you think Powell intentionally misrepresented this matter or just presented it in accordance with the best of his knowledge at the time?

In the world of intelligence, many things are uncertain, yet decisions must be made and acted upon.

It isn't practical to apply civilian standards for proof to military affairs, nor is it fair to therefore criticize military and strategic decisions which must often be based on likelihoods rather than on certainties. In strategic, military and intelligence matters, absolute certainty is a luxury there sometimes just isn't time for. And the same goes for the heat of battle when playing poker;-)

[nicky g]

The "new" information simply supports what people all over the world were saying at the time - that there was no credible link between Ansar and Saddam. People on this board were saying it. Powell simply relied on most people simply assuming that Ansar's presence in "Iraq" must have been sanctioned by the regime. He merely asserted his various claims and offered no proof. Now it turnsd out it was all a "sincere" mistake. The US has a good enough intelligence service to realise that fundamentalist Muslims don't get on with secularist dictators.

[andyfox]

I have no doubt that Powell misrepresented the information. He was trying to persuade the U.N. and the world that there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. We already know that some of his faulty information was taken from a student's report. Note that some of the "new" intelligence was available before the war.

My point is that in times of crisis, we ought to be very skeptical of information given to us about our enemy because it is the government's interest to shade the facts to suit its theories.