Powell admits to misleading the public about Iraq-Al Qaeda

[Chris Alger]

Colin Powell, before the UN Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003:

"Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network, headed by Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants." ...

"Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al Qaeda. These denials are simply not credible." ...

"We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades-long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda." ...

"Early al-Qaeda ties were forged by secret high-level intelligence service contacts with al-Qaeda, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with al-Qaeda." ...

"I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons [of mass destruction] to al-Qaeda."
________________________

Powell yesterday, quoted by the NY Times, on the connection "between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of Al Qaeda":

"I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection."

So while before the war the absence of a connection was "not credible" Powell now admits that he knew, and still knows, of no "concrete evidence" for it, apparently unconvinced by his own rhetoric.

For Americans trying to decide whether the war was justified, that would have been useful to hear. Probably more useful still to the 8,000 to 9,800 Iraqi civilians killed in order to turn the Iraqi dictatorship into a U.S. dictatorship. At least until we can stage an election for someone at least as committed to U.S. interests as Saddam was at the height of our support for him.

[Utah]

Interesting. Can you post a link to the entire text of the speech? I recall the general tone was that there might be a link and that Powell never said there was absolute proof. Your quote snipets seem to indicate otherwise. However, your snipets could also be out of context. Also, I recall that this tie between the groups was never very convincing and it was never a major reason for going to war. Troubling still.

What I don't understand though is why the anti-war crowd focuses on WMDs and Al Qaeda as the sole or even main arguments for justification for war. The main arguments was that Saddam did not live up to the U.N.resolutions and did not provide the neccessary documentation as to what happened to the weapons that were known to exist. Is was fully in Saddams control to stop the invasion. Additionally, the world was pretty much united that the weapons were there. I do not recall arguments from any govenment before the war saying the weapons did not exist.

I still do not understand you absolute hate for the U.S. How can you possibly compare the former Iraqi dictatorship to a US run government? What do you prefer and what is your proposal?

Your "8,000 dead" analysis is a false one. You have to compare to a baseline of dead and maybe factor is quality of life as well. For some reason, you don't seem to realize that Iraq was an endless killing field filled with torture and terror before the U.S. invasion. How can you casually dismiss that as if Iraqi's lived in peace?

[adios]

Alger is quoting out of context. Why he would do such a thing on this forum where his spin would have little impact on anything I don't know. Anyway here's a link to the AP story and the story in bold:

Powell Refutes Think-Tank Report on Iraq

Powell Refutes Think-Tank Report on Iraq
Thu Jan 8, 5:03 PM ET Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) acknowledged Thursday that he had seen no "smoking gun, concrete evidence" of ties between Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) and the al-Qaida terror network, but insisted that Iraq (news - web sites) had had dangerous weapons and needed to be disarmed by force.

At a State Department news conference, Powell disagreed with a private think tank report that maintained Iraq had not been an imminent threat to the United States. And the secretary defended the case he had made last February before the United Nations (news - web sites) for a U.S.-led war to force Saddam from power.

"My presentation ... made it clear that we had seen some links and connections to terrorist organizations over time," Powell said. "I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did."

Three experts at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said in a report Thursday that the Bush administration systematically misrepresented a weapons threat from Iraq, and U.S. strategy should be revised to eliminate the policy of unilateral preventive war.

"It is unlikely that Iraq could have destroyed, hidden or sent out of the country the hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons, dozens of Scud missiles and facilities engaged in the ongoing production of chemical and biological weapons that officials claimed were present without the United States detecting some sign of this activity," said the report by Jessica T. Mathews, Joseph Cirincione and George Perkovich.


Powell noted that Saddam obviously had, and used, destructive weapons in the late 1980s, then refused for a decade to assure the world he'd gotten rid of them.

"In terms of intention, he always had it," Powell said. Of Carnegie's finding that Iraq posed no imminent threat, Powell said: "They did not say it wasn't there."

Iraq's nuclear program had been dismantled and there was no convincing evidence it was being revived, the report said.

And the U.S.-led war on Iraq in 1991 combined with U.N. sanctions and inspections effectively destroyed Iraq's ability to produce chemical weapons on a large scale, it said.

The real threat was posed by what Iraq might have been able to do in the future, such as starting production of biological weapons quickly in the event of war, Carnegie said.


Also, Iraq apparently was expanding its capability to build missiles beyond the range permitted by the U.N. Security Council, the report said. "The missile program appears to have been the one program in active development in 2002," it said.


Years of U.N. inspections to determine whether Saddam was harboring weapons of mass destruction were working well, and the United States should set up jointly with the United Nations a permanent system to guard against the spread of dangerous technology, the report said.


It recommended that consideration be given to making the job of CIA (news - web sites) director a career post instead of a political appointment.


Mathews is president, Cirincione is director of the proliferation project, and Perkovich is vice president for studies at Carnegie, an independent research group.


Citing the CIA and other U.S. intelligence offices, the Bush administration contended that Iraq had caches of weapons of mass destruction and plans to produce more.


The Carnegie report said the U.S. intelligence process failed on Iraq and that Bush administration officials dropped qualifications and expressions of uncertainty presented by U.S. intelligence analysts.


In the weeks before the war, the administration also intensified its allegations of links between Saddam and the al-Qaida terror network headed by Osama bin Laden (news - web sites).

Since May, when Bush declared an end to major combat, 357 U.S. service personnel have died in attacks on them and in accidents.

[andyfox]

"Powell disagreed with a private think tank report that maintained Iraq had not been an imminent threat to the United States."

Powell is then also disagreeing with President Bush, who specifically denied that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States in his State of the Union address.

"'I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I think the possibility of such connections did exist and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did.'"

No one doubts the prudence of considering such connections. What is called into question is the accuracy of the analysis and whether the presentation of the evidence was misrepresented to the American people.

None of this is unusual. All governments dissemble. A decision was made to go to war and get rid of Hussein. There would be less discussion now had the evidence for Hussein's brutality been presented to us, rather than the less the credible evidence for the existence of WMDs, Hussein's intention to use them, and the purported connection with 9-11. Again, this is something Mr. Alger pointed up in this forum long ago.

[Wake up CALL]

Andy it is pretty entertaining to read your posts, hard to believe you criticize Rush and his circus comment yet defend Alger when he regularly and intentionally attempts to mislead with out of context quotes and rarely provides links.

I think your priorities are in disarray.

[andyfox]

Alger didn't call anyone a clown show or a dwarf. Nor does he have an audience of millions. There was a comment that Alger hated his country; I inquired where the poster found this in Alger's post.

The point of Chris's post, as I read it, was that Secretary Powell said one thing before the invasion and changed it after. Frankly, the full article was much more damaging, in my judgment, to Powell than the part Chris posted.

What Rush Limbaugh says is much more important than what Chris Alger says (with all due respect to Mr. Alger). So while my priorities may be in disorder (certainly Mrs. Fox would be in agreement [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]), I don't think criticizing Limbaugh and defending Alger qualifies.

[Chris Alger]

This is the second time I've been accused of quoting "out of context" in this thread without any explanation of how, or what Powell's comments actually mean "in context." So I guess the "out of context" criticism is just a meanginless label for an unwelcome quote.

[MMMMMM]

"...A decision was made to go to war and get rid of Hussein. There would be less discussion now had the evidence for Hussein's brutality been presented to us, rather than the less the credible evidence for the existence of WMDs, Hussein's intention to use them, and the purported connection with 9-11. Again, this is something Mr. Alger pointed up in this forum long ago."

The evidence of Hussein's brutality WAS presented. Almost everyone knew of this and had a rough idea of the scope as well.

andy, what does it say about the ability of certain persons to reason and to keep in mind the entire picture, when: these persons would have supported the war for humanitarian reasons alone (of which they knew), but ended up opposing the war because they were unsure whether other pro-war arguments were also valid? Even if NO other pro-war arguments were justified cause for war, and ONLY the humanitarian argument justified the war, the fact that other pro-war arguments were raised should not have detracted from the commitment to war of those who would have favored the war solely on humanitarian grounds. Not, I guess, unless they had so little powers of concentration and focus that they could not keep the entire picture in mind at once. It isn't that darn complicated once one acknowledges that humanitarian reasons justified the war. And the humanitarian argumentr was made loud and clear.

[Vehn]

By itself, the fact that Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed many of his own people does not justify the US invasion. If it did, the US should be actively pursuing "liberating" most of Africa, North Korea, and probably a half dozen other countries. If it did, we should have invaded years ago when he in fact he was our de facto ally.

Lets put it another way. Let's say you are holding 100 billion dollars. You have to pick one of two options: you can use it to invade a country on the other side that is no threat to the US, only to itself and possibly our "ally" Israel, or you can use it to build schools and hire more teachers, give tax breaks, or basically all-around improve the quality of life for American citizens. I know what my choice is.

[Gamblor]

the existence of WMDs, Hussein's intention to use them, and the purported connection with 9-11. Again, this is something Mr. Alger pointed up in this forum long ago.

So you're prepared to take the risk?

You're a poker player, wise up:

Suppose that pre-War, Bush estimated the likelihood of Hussein having, and eventually using WMDs, and collaboration with Al Qaeda at 10%.

Is it worth the risk - how about if your child was working in the WTC on 9/11?