Scramble the fighters!

[freeclimb9]

I think Powell and other may think they are acting justly, and I think they would lie through their teeth to gain their objective, manipulate data, anything to gain public opinion. They've done it in the past and will again.

you're off-base. way. why would Powell lie and jepardize any future political career? dude is straight up, IMO

[glacierdog]

Did anyone happen to take that English class that teaches one to read objectively? There are so many half truths and outright fabrications in the media, that one has to sit back and think "what's the flip side to this?" While the whole deal was going on in Kosovo, I monitored a web site published on their side of the tracks, while simultaniously keeping up with CNN. It was enlightening seeing events written from both sides. I don't know if Iraq has a similar website, but it would be interesting to follow things like that again.

[Jim]

Duh! He would lie to keep his career. Do you think he's going to go to the UN and say that the Iraqis are at about 30% strength that they were before the Gulf War, that there is no evidence that they have near the nuclear capability they did before the Gulf War, that the CIA and FBI both concluded there has not been and there is now no clear link between Al Queda and Iraq. Please. A balanced view is not his objective.

[glacierdog]

And yes, Colin Powel is a hard ass mo fo. I seriously doubt he would present anything but the truth. This is indicated by his relative silence up until it was time to reveal to the UN some key facts.

[Jim]

GD,

 

Good point, but even I will admit that the Iraqi website is likely off on another orbit. But do check out other contries press, even our northern cheeseheads and the London papers offer a more balanced view. Even Israel has a press that covers a greater balance for crying out loud.

[freeclimb9]

Duh! He would lie to keep his career. Do you think he's going to go to the UN and say that the Iraqis are at about 30% strength that they were before the Gulf War, that there is no evidence that they have near the nuclear capability they did before the Gulf War, that the CIA and FBI both concluded there has not been and there is now no clear link between Al Queda and Iraq. Please. A balanced view is not his objective.

You shouldn't paint others with your own lack of morality.

[Jim]

I think that's the point. It's based on facts not moral judgements. If you think your government does not lie to you (or at least severly bends the truth) then you are living in a very comfortable, sheltered world. It's not just a simple-mined morality play of good-guy bad-guy. It's more complex. You don't think that the oil company guys have been in for some discreet discussions of what happens in the aftermath, that there has been horse trading among the US, Russia, and France in the background regarding current and future Iraq oil contracts. Here comes the clue train buddy, time to hop aboard.

[chucK]

you're off-base. way. why would Powell lie and jepardize any future political career? dude is straight up, IMO

 

That's what I thought/think too, at least the part about being straight up (he would definitely hurt his political career more by going against his boss the PotUS). But some of that shit he 'divulged' doesn't make sense does it? I mean, if they have all these satellite photos of weapons factories, why don't they just tip off the inspectors and get them out there to inspect them? Does anybody know the answer to this?

 

I'm still hoping it's a big brinksmanship game. We are not going to invade, but want to make it credible that we are just nuts enough to do so. So far though that f**kin' Sadam is calling our bluff.

[freeclimb9]

Jim,

I read your earlier comments as saying that Powell was lieing through his teeth. Now you're squirming another direction.

I think Powell is the best Cabinet member we've had in a long time, and I'm glad that he still serves his country.

[sk]

Jim,

I read your earlier comments as saying that Powell was lieing through his teeth. Now you're squirming another direction.

I think Powell is the best Cabinet member we've had in a long time, and I'm glad that he still serves his country.

 

 

me too

[glacierdog]

Jim,

I read your earlier comments as saying that Powell was lieing through his teeth. Now you're squirming another direction.

I think Powell is the best Cabinet member we've had in a long time, and I'm glad that he still serves his country.

 

I'd fight with that man any day of the week.

[RobBob]

I think that the idea that Colin Powell would lie to "save his career" is preposterous. He has built a career that stands on its own. He is a reluctant politician who apparently has thought about resigning. Whether you like him or agree with his politics is beside the point.

 

I think this would make a good question in a determining whether an individual is high-trust or low-trust oriented. "Do you think Colin Powell would lie as a means to an end?"

 

Those of you who have worked with personality profiles know about such tests and what they mean. Low-trust people tend to believe that everyone cannot be trusted when the boss's back is turned. High-trust people, even cynical old bastards like me who have seen (and employed) their share of chiselers and cheats, believe that most people can be trusted most of the time.

[Jim]

Ok. Let's get specific. In a joint report by the FBI and CIA, each independently concluded that there was no evidence of an Iraq- Al Queda connection. Powell tried to make the case yesterday based on one person and he said "there has been a strong connection between Iraq and Al Queda for over a decade". Well you can choose semantics I suppose and say he wasn't quite telling all the truth, bending the truth, or lying.

 

Why would he dispell the information provided by our best intelligence analysts. Maybe to get where his boss wants to go.

[glacierdog]

Do you know where I could read this report? I'm rather interested in it.

[Jim]

From the London Guardian 2/5

 

The weakest part of the whole presentation, and the most important, was the claims trying to link Iraq with al-Qaeda operations. In the past, the link depended on the claims about one man, Mohammed Atta, meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague (we've since found out that he was almost certainly in the United States at the time of the alleged meeting); now it depends on one man, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

 

Al-Zarqawi is apparently a high-level operative of an Islamist group called Ansar al-Islam, which is operating in northern Iraq (currently an autonomous region with a provisional Kurdish government that is aligned with the United States). Although there is no evident link between this organization and the Government of Iraq (GOI), Powell claims that the GOI has a high-level agent in Ansar, who "offered al-Qaida safe haven" - although apparently few if any accepted the offer, since the supposed presence is in the part of Iraq not controlled by the GOI. The full extent of the connection between al-Zarqawi himself and the GOI is apparently that he got medical care in a hospital in Baghdad, hardly an indication of high-level Iraqi complicity in terrorist attacks against American targets.

 

There is no attempt to link Ansar itself to the 9/11 attacks. In fact, while apparently the mere presence of al-Zarqawi, a subordinate in Ansar, in Iraq is sufficient reason for war, the head of Ansar, known as Mullah Krekar, is living unmolested in Norway, and the United States has not even made an extradition request. Krekar denies any connection of Ansar with al-Qaeda.

 

Powell also claims that one al-Qaeda detainee has told them that Iraq provided information about biological and chemical weapons to al-Qaeda members. Given the condition al-Qaeda detainees are being held in and the obvious incentives for them to tell a story the U.S. government wants to hear, this is very far from being actual evidence. The claim also flies in the face of common sense. Saddam Hussein has always been seen by al-Qaeda as an enemy and has himself seen Islamists as the biggest internal threat to his rule. To give them the ability to make chemical or biological weapons, weapons he sees as essential to the survival of his regime (many analysts think the primary reason the United States didn't implement "regime change" in 1991 was the threat that the GOI would use its stocks of chemical weapons in self-defense), potentially destabilizes his own rule.

 

 

[freeclimb9]

Jim,

I reject semantics, and say you're full of shit.

[willstrickland]

I think Jim is pretty right-on. Absolutely the govt lies to us. Absolutley the press is biased and off-base a good deal of the time. BUT, I still believe that SoDamn Insane needs to be executed and/or removed from power.

 

Am I concerned about the reconstruction costs?Hell yes, I'm also concerned about record deficits. Surely we can extricate reconstruction costs from oil reserves or something. Maybe I'm being naive but one would think we could seize enough oil to compensate for the costs. That, however, would cast us into the public eye as invading them for the oil in the first place.

 

Bad situation.

[sk]

I have to believe thathe wants what is BEST for this country. Not Bush. There are people out there who will call you on your shit. And I think General Powell, is just that kind of man.

 

The botom line here is that you are complaining about humans being capable of making mistakes. That is a truth, Live with it. and do the best you can.

[Jim]

Sorry for another long post, but here's another one from the London Times;

 

And yes military intervention may be necessary. My point is that for such an undertaking it should not be rushed and the balanced information should be put out there for honest debate. It's not.

 

Further, CIA and FBI officials still believe the Bush administration is "exaggerating" information to make their political case for war. Regarding the alleged Iraqi link with al Qaeda, U.S. intelligence officials told the New York Times, "we just don't think it's there."

 

 

 

The most compelling part of Powell's presentation was his brief ending section on the purported al Qaeda link with Iraq and on the dangers posed by the al Zarqawi network. However, he segued disingenuously from the accurate and frightening information about what the al Zarqawi network could actually do with biochemical materials to the not-so-accurate claim about its link with Iraq--which is tenuous and unproven at best.

 

 

 

A key component of the alleged Iraq-al Qaeda link is based on what Powell said "detainees tell us…". That claim must be rejected. On December 27 the Washington Post reported that U.S. officials had acknowledged detainees being beaten, roughed up, threatened with torture by being turned over to officials of countries known to practice even more severe torture. In such circumstances, nothing "a detainee" says can be taken as evidence of truth given that people being beaten or tortured will say anything to stop the pain. Similarly, the stories of defectors cannot be relied on alone, as they have a self-interest in exaggerating their stories and their own involvement to guarantee access to protection and asylum.

 

 

[sk]

My bet is that the *truth* (what ever that is) is somewhere in th middle.

[slothrop]

Colin Powell seems like an honorable man, and I don't believe he would lie to serve his personal interest. He disagrees often with Bush, and especially Cheney, on policy issues (see NY Times article). That Powell spoke as he did to the UN is a testament to Bush's will to invade Iraq. Something must have convinced Powell that didn't convince me, but perhaps it's the larger picture that's more important in discovering why Powell presented what he did with a straight face.

 

Here's some wild speculation for you. Powell's probably a practical guy, so once he's convinced that Iraq is dangerous (degree of danger compared to other threats notwithstanding) , he can begin to see Iraq's defeat as a 'show of force' that could help defuse problems with other threats, like North Korea. He's thinking more geopolitically, rather than about the horrors of war (dead Iraqi children, burning buildings, dead American soldiers) that he's so well acquainted with and that reactionary leftists can't see past.

 

Would invading Iraq really piss off Islamic fundamentalist terrorists? It would give them fuel for their propaganda, but how big is Iraq in the Muslim world? Can you think of any country who actually supports Iraq because it's a great nation, or an important ally, or a paragon of Islamic virtue? Iraq is basically a dictatorship whose leader co-opts anything to feed his ego (hence the endless mosque- and palace-building). Religious piety is not Saddam's strong suit, and for whatever reason we're invading Iraq (oil, money, chestbeating rights, target practice), it's not about Islam vs. Christianity, never mind Bush's brainless Crusader rhetoric.

 

I'm not sure what my point is, but there it is.

 

One more thing: the only guilty parties in the incident with the Kuwaiti baby incubators are the PR company who solicited false statements and the misguided Kuwaitis who played along. That's some sickening 'end justifies the means' bullshit.

 

Sorry for interrupting the spray with my pseudo-intelligent rambling.

[Jim]

Glacier dog -

 

Here's the requested info. This is the CIA report.

 

From summary:

 

Iran, Iraq and Syria are said to continue to provide support to terrorist groups. Iranian hard-liners intensified their support for terrorists that target Israel (during the Intifada) while also aiding terrorists in Turkey (Kurds), Central Asia (Afghanistan etc) and the Persian Gulf (Iraq). Syria and Iraq provided haven and logistical support to several organizations. The report faults President Saddam Hussein for not condemning the Sept. 11 attacks and for providing a base to several militant groups, including Palestinian and Kurdish organizations. It may be noted that none of the countries identified as supporting terrorists have backed al Qaeda.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50801-2002May21.html

The document may be viewed online at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2001

 

From the Nation:

 

Furthemore, CIA and FBI officials still believe the Bush Administration is "exaggerating" information to make their political case for war. Regarding the alleged Iraqi link with Al Qaeda, US intelligence officials told the New York Times, "We just don't think it's there."

Powell's assessment of Iraq-Al Qaeda links was arguably his most compelling point. He played on the very real and reasonable fears of Americans and others about the capacity of Al Qaeda, focusing specifically on the potential threat posed by the al Zarqawi network.

But the disingenuous component was his clever segue from "al Zarqawi as danger" to "Iraq is harboring al Zarqawi," a claim that is fundamentally unproven. There is simply no clear evidence of these links; US intelligence officials (both CIA and FBI), have accused the Bush Administration of politicizing--cooking--the evidence to bolster the political case for war. UNMOVIC chief Blix said that there are other countries with far greater links to Al Qaeda than Iraq.

 

[MtnGoat]

"that the Iraqis are at about 30% strength that they were before the Gulf War, "

 

And how much strength did it take for Al Queda to kill 3000 people? A handful of guys and a plan.

 

It does not matter what strength Iraq has, what matters is their possession of weapons a handful could use to make 3000 people dead look like nothing. Iraq is a proven supporter of Palestinians hunting Israelis for bounties, a known supporter of Aby Nidal, who killed Americans, and now we see has links to the same people who flew planes into buildings in NY.

 

Don't buy the links with Al Queda? Fine. He is known to have supported the actions I already listed with other groups, and any one of them could do the same thing given the will, and the tools, to do so.

 

Iraq's relative strength is totally irrelevant. I am not concerned about them taking over the world, I'm concerned about the transfer of one vial of really nasty shit from their stockpiles, and no matter what their relative strength is, that can happen anytime as long as they have those stockpiles.

Edited February 6, 2003 by MtnGoat

[Jim]

And that's a good point! If that is the primary reason that we're going in then make that a compelling case and don't (not you, but the Feds) try and do the PR thing and try and manipulate people with tales of woe and torture and misinformation about terrorists. Don't throw around the lame-o idea that Iraq is going to take over the world like Germany did if we appease them.

 

If we're going to muck around this stuff it should be openly debated. What is to fear about open information and democratic debate? That's my issue.