Powell Slams Media On Iraq WMD Reports

CNN ^ | June 8, 2003 | CNN

[John W]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday it was "nonsense" to label U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as bogus.

He said the news media -- not the American people -- were raising concerns about reports the country may have gone to war in Iraq based on inaccurate information.

[Clara Lou]

Colin has learned the hard way just how nasty liberals can be.

[VOA]

He said the news media -- not the American people -- were raising concerns about
reports the country may have gone to war in Iraq based on inaccurate information.

Yep. The more noise the Media (Democrats actually) make noise about this,
the better I feel about Dubya's re-election chances.

The Media (Democrats) complain now that the intelligence must have at least
been shoddy and bemoans the lack of "human operatives" "on the ground"
gathering information.
But then protest it's not the fault of Democrats (e.g,, Senator Frank Church)
that caused this emasculation/blinding of our intelligence community.

And they also forget how our intelligence community was WAY behind on the fall of the USSR.

Anyway you cut the cake, Dubya decided that the "play it safe" route in the long run
was to take out Saddam.
Just like the Demos/Clinton pledged to do in 1998.

Maybe it's unfair, but Dubya is gonna' get the credit for having done the job
that Clinton didn't have the cojones to do.

[arasina]

Bravo! Give it to 'em, Secretary Powell!

[FairOpinion]

"U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday it was "nonsense" to label U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as bogus."
--

I am glad they are fighting back. The Democrats accusations and lies need to be countered and refuted every time they make them, or they WILL seep into public consciousness and sow doubts. Remember if 5% of the people change sides, it could change election results, Bush is riding high, but we can't afford to lose to the Democrats the ones who may be sitting on the fence either.

I guess I am concerned that Republicans become complacent, thinking Bush is invincible, which is dangerous, because Democrats can chip away and by the time we would realize it, it's too late.

Remember the American People elected Clinton not once, but twice, so you never know what they are going to do, and they are susceptible to propaganda, which is what the Democrats are counting on.

[bushfamfan]

That's great to see Secretary Powell take it to them and slam the media in the process. It's so obvious the media is out to get this President and administration. They're fighting back and calling the media on their deliberate distortions and lies about the WMD and Iraq.

[John W]

What were your thoughts on all this BEFORE the war?Since you weren't here then,it would be interesting to know.

[eggman]

Anyway you cut the cake, Dubya decided that the "play it safe" route in the long run was to take out Saddam. Just like the Demos/Clinton pledged to do in 1998.

Immediately after 9/11 the Democrats and their lapdog media dug up some intelligence reports that had very tenuous links to indicate there may have been information indicating an attack was imminent. The evidence was very sparse and hardly ammounted to anything that would point to what actually happened. But that didn't stop the certain people from asking "What did Bush know and when did he know it?"

Pre-Iraqi Freedom there were volumes of evidence against Saddam. There was enough evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction to convice Clinton and the Democrats in Congress that a new bombing attack of Iraq was needed in 1998 to stop Saddam. There was certainly enough evidence to convice the UN to pass resolution 1441 and begin new inspections of Iraq. There were violations found by the inspectors and Saddam refused to come clean, choosing instead to continue to hide things from the inspectors.

Post-Iraqi Freedom the media wants to turn things upside down. They say there was no believable evidence. It was all a sham by Bush even though the evidence was there before Bush took office. Even though the same Democrats that refused to accept the evidence presented by the Bush administration accepted it when Clinton presented virtually the same evidence.

Saddam was a credible threat to the US. The threat has been eliminated. The media just can't stand the fact that Bush did what Bubba should have done.

[cookcounty]

First Chirac and de Villepain lied to him, then the press lies about him.

Powell is getting mighty ticked.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

, and the media are suddenly the bad guys?

Nah, they were the bad guys before the war, but now they're intentionally undermining our efforts by ignoring the primary news source, CENTCOM, and handing their mighty pens to our eager enemies daily.

[Dubya]

bump

[KC Burke]

I knew the reasons given for the war were a sham. I supported going to war to seize control of the oil, but that was never acknowledged as the reason (repeatedly and vociferously denied).

If you mean that we invaded to obtain the oil fields as US property, then you are indeed a child misled by propaganda.

Preserving the Iraqi natural resources to make it a viable economy not destroyed by a despot on the way out is more like it.

We need the oil, but that admission would require that we make massive investments into alternative energy resources, something that no administration has been willing to do so far. It would also require a candid assessment of population policies and resource use--again something no administration has been willing to discuss candidly with the American public.

So, in essecence you are saying that fear of facing a supposed immediate need to address alternatives to fossil fuels caused us to take out Saddam?

I'm sorry, this site is not really designed as an Earth Day discussion forum...try Google.

[Luke21]

The sleazy media never stops. The stories being written about this by the lamestreams have righteous Democrats demanding Congressional hearings and Republican quotes, including Secretary Powell, doctored and cut to give an impression of defensiveness.

[KC Burke]

I will be glad to good naturedly take a request to read more carefully if you will, likewise, compose with more care.

I say this after a re-read of your original post.

You say:
I knew the reasons given for the war were a sham. You make a complete and unequivical statement about all" "the" reasons by using that wording and also draw a conclusion I don't agree with thereby.

I supported going to war to seize control of the oil, but that was never acknowledged as the [see the use of "the" again, claiming it was the lone reason is how I read it] reason (repeatedly and vociferously denied).

As far as the CFR being "conservative", I think that most would disagree. It is a "privileged" group containg liberals and conservatives but hardly dominated by the later.

Look, conservation is conservative by definition, but you will get no Rio accord thinking here. That is recognized for what it is too readily.