Posted on 09/08/2005 3:28:54 PM PDT by jmc1969
"I'm the one who presented it to the world, and (it) will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It is painful now," Powell said in an interview with Barbara Walters on ABC-News.
The presentation by the soldier-diplomat to the world body in February 2003 lent considerable credibility to President Bush's case against Iraq and for going to war to remove President Saddam Hussein.
In the speech, Powell said he had relied on information he received at Central Intelligence Agency briefings. He said Thursday that then-director George Tenet "believed what he was giving to me was accurate."
But, Powell said, "the intelligence system did not work well."
"There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at the time that some of those sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up," Powell said.
"That devastated me," he said.
Powell in the TV interview also disputed the Bush administration's linking of Saddam's regime with terrorists.
He said he had never seen a connection between Baghdad and the 9-11 attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. "I can't think otherwise, because I'd never seen evidence to suggest there was one," he said.
You're entitled to your opinion. I respectfully disagree. Powell was one of the things that was wrong with the first term, and it was no surprise to me that he was pushed out for the second.
Well I will check him out and if he smells like fish we can feed him to the Viking Kitties!
Powell has some rason for his current actions. At the time of his speech, he was 100% on board. Now he's backing off and placing the blame on the CIA and Bush. Something is afoot and it doesn't smell very pleasant.
Man, some people need to chill out. AP is twisting his meaning. Colin Powell said he saw no link between 9/11 and Saddam. He did not say that Saddam had no links to terrorism - that was AP's implication. Everyone knows, with the possible exclusion of this AP journalist, that Islamic terrorism existed before 9/11 or even before Al Queda.
"Powell in the TV interview also disputed the Bush administration's linking of Saddam's regime with terrorists."
I just lost respect for Powell. Saddam was a state supporter of terrorism. And, no, Powell was not hinting around in the above quote about 911 because Bush never said Iraq had a connection to 911 although Bush would have been justified in saying there was some evidence.
Now Listen Junior! Behave yourself!
More than that, he is an ass.
Classic case of spastic Colin.
Well he does seem to have a few statements that idicate he smells a little like fish.
My money is that the mods already are watching him.
If you want to klearn more about Kerry check out my about me page. FBI files kind of stuff.
Those weren't powell's words, those were the author's! Powell said he saw no link to 9/11!
"He called Mike Brown (FEMA head) Brownie in another post"
Actually, I believe "Brownie" is President Bush's nickname for Mike Brown.
No he is a "insurgent"
At the time of the first gulf war he'd already been serving over 20 years. He wasn't created by it. "Just another Washington General" as if you could have done it. Sheesh.
I do also like Schwarzkopf. :~D
Just another military bureaucrat who was in the right place at the right time.
Now showing his loyalty and lack of judgement.
Do YOU personally believe that there were no WMDs in Iraq before the war?
EVERY indication before the war (and not just CIA info) was that Saddam DID have the weapons. Saddam could have been out from under UN sanctions years earlier - but no, he discovered that he could obstruct the inspections and have nothing to worry about. He was still making billions of dollars, building his temple-like palaces, and paying tons of money to known terrorists all over the world - including Israel. He has direct and well-reported ties to high-level AlQueda members, has directly supported terrorist training, and I believe the fact is - he (Iraqi Government) had direct connections to at least one of the 9-11 hijackers - including the leader.
Signs of chemical weapons have been found. Mobile labs have been found. Sattelite imagery DID show extremely suspicious activities (truck hauling out lots of stuff) just prior to inspection teams arriving at facilites. Eye witnesses of mass shipments of unidentified stuff out of country to Syria prior to the ground war. What about the components found?
Did Saddam pose a direct threat to the US at the time we attacked? In reality, probably not. Did Saddam pose a threat to the US through his support of terrorists and his aspirations to obtain WMD in large quantity (he had small quantities - well documented).
All that can be admitted is that no LARGE QUANTITIES of WMD have been found.
Oh I know that. That's all they call him (Brown) on DU now. It's a tone I pick up from the posts. (I know it sounds crazy)
To make blatent statements that go to an extreme is what I would call troll posting.
He is inferring that we can't call powell wrong so we just smear him as a liar.
Personally, I don't see much of anything that powell says in this interview as any different than he has said before. You may question the timing, but, I believe the timing is dictated by the MSM in this case.
It's a gift!
Exactly what did Powell say in that UN speech that turned out not to be true?
The only thing that is even in dispute is the biological warfare mobile labs, that Iraq claims were actually hydrogen generators for artillery target balloons. I remain unconvinced by Iraq's story. But everything else was borne out after the invasion.
Powell has always wanted, too much, to be liked by the inside Washington/Media crowd. He does not serve our country well by sucking up to Baaba Wawa like this.
Did I then? You bet! Everyone did. But the great stockpiles weren't found. They might have been squirrelled away, they might be hidden still, or they might not have had much but Saddam, for whatever bizarre reason wanted us to think he did. I don't know.
From what I know, we thought there were. Turns out there weren't. He put his credibility on the line. Only a truly credible man would want to be remembered for the actual truth, and the actual motives at the time, and not trying to pretend there was no mistake. I won't begrudge the man for wanting to discuss that. It's important in his career.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.