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?

[Gamblor]

Human Rights Watch (aside from the fact that it has become a political organization masquerading as a noble cause) has estimated that Hussein has murdered 290,000 Iraq civilians between 1991 and 2003. This number, of course, does not include the millions of Iranians and Persians murdered by various chemical cocktails Hussein served up in the early 80s.

The Associated Press concluded that, after having "canvassed sixty of Iraq's 124 hospitals immediately after the end of major combat operations...at least 3,420 civilians died" (Niko Price "3,240 Civilian Deaths in Iraq," Associated Press, June 10, 2003). Even if, as HRW claims later in the report, that the number is "significantly higher", it is doubtful that AP's journalistic integrity would allow it to claim a number knowing that it had only counted 1/3 of the total, as you claim. Of course, watching the coverage of the Israeli-Arab conflict, I know of their lack of journalistic integrity. Integrity notwithstanding, the left-wing propaganda site, "iraqbodycount.net" is a weak source for the numbers you have provided. The left lies again!

Regardless, let's take both sides of the story: assuming AP are correct, over the 12 years of Hussein's rule, an average of 24,167 Iraqis were murdered by the tyrant. Even taking the blatant lies of IBC as fact, in the year since the war began, a maximum of 10,000 Iraqis were killed (of course, this number includes Baathists ambushing American soldiers as well as insurgent suicide bombers - these are not necessarily civilian deaths), and since major combat operations have ended the annual number of Iraqi civilians dead will shoot downward drastically. I'm sure the 14,000 or so Iraqis spared Saddam's wrath this year are eternally grateful to the US Army. If AP is correct, than 21,000 were saved by the US invasion.

As a side note, perhaps a comparison between Iraqi deaths due to war with US and Palestinian deaths due to war with Israel is in order.

[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]

"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?"

Where do you see hate for the U.S. in this post? I see disgust at a policy that was promulgated based on dissemblance. Mr. Alger long ago posted here that the only basis for U.S. intervention in Iraq would have been on humanitarian grounds based on the ruthlessness of Hussein's rule.

U.S. run governments do not have a good human rights record. They do have a good record of serving U.S. interests. It is evident that the U.S. did not play up the humanitarian aspect of the war because it would have been seen as disingenuous, given that we didn't care about Hussein's human rights record for many years, and that the president's father had already taken some heat for not getting rid of Hussein in the first Gulf War. The humanitarian justification for the war was only brought in after the so-called evidence of the existence of WMDs and the Al-Qaeda link were questioned.

It is a mistake to confuse criticism of a particular foreign policy of our government with hate for our country.

[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.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Hindsight is always 20-20. Saddam would have killed a lot more than 9800 of his own people anyway had we let him go on being a jerk, and getting his ugly ass OUT of there is just fine with me. There are some other countries that need the same damn treatment. As for whether iraq is now an american dictatorship, well if your political views are far enough one way you could call president bush pro al qaeda too. No matter WHAT happens, one side will always demonize the other. And when it comes to politics, those demonizations will often be vicious.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
As a side note, perhaps a comparison between Iraqi deaths due to war with US and Palestinian deaths due to war with Israel is in order.


[/ QUOTE ]

Another conflict (and political BS generating factory) I am quite sick of. I am all for israel getting the FK out of the west bank and gaza and giving the palestinians their own state. Of course as soon as they have it then they will probably find some other reason to fight with israel. The whole damn region just isn't happy without death and hatred. they need more to DO on a daily basis besides bake in the desert.

al

[Gamblor]

and giving the palestinians their own state

You mean the state that, in its de facto charter, has vowed to destroy "the Zionist enterprise"?

Or the state that used EU humanitarian aid to import arms (Karine A cargo ship)?

Or the state that would plunge into instant civil war with Hamas, Fateh, Christians and Muslims all fighting for control?

The whole damn region just isn't happy without death and hatred.

Interesting, considering Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom announced that there is no reason why Israel "shouldn't have diplomatic relations with at least 10 Arab nations". Sounds like a warlike nation to me.

It's not political BS for some people - for people like Cyrus and Chris, their involvement is limited to one tenth of one penny on the dollar of their taxes. For me (eventually), and my family, their lives hinge on the results. Not that you should care, but don't rip on people who do care.