Posted on 09/08/2005 3:28:54 PM PDT by jmc1969
The CIA has not served us well. Finding those weapons was job one, and they can not explain where they went convincingly.
We, here, have seen enough indications to give us an idea what happened, but obviously the CIA should be able to do far better than that. We know about the delays the inspectors endured at the front gates while truckloads of who-knows-what went out the back gate. We know that. We know that truck convoys went over the line to Syria immediately ahead of the war, and even after the war had begun.
We know that there were communications sent out to Iraqi troops ordering them to deploy chemical weapons, which were in fact never deployed.
The CIA should be able to tell us what happened. Instead they ran their own private war against Bush, took sides against him during the elections, and have become politicized.
So Powell may be embarrassed that the weapons he swore were there, have not been found. It is maddening. But he should know there is much, much more to the story.
No, he is saying he doesn't want to head the New Orleans Reconstruction Commission or be a presidential candidate.
History is likely to put the real blot on his record, when people compare the effectiveness of Sec Rice to his lame tenure.
You didn't post the last part of the article which said:
Still, Powell said that while he has always been a "reluctant warrior" he supported Bush on going to war the month after his U.N. speech. "When the president decided that it was not tolerable for this regime to remain in violation of all those U.N. resolutions I am right there with him with the use of force," Powell said.
What he going to say when WMD's are found?
He's separated himself from his team. O ye of little faith.
Absence of charecter, I'm afraid.
But he more than made up for it by appointing Condi SecState...seems to me.
When hundred of our Marines died after bombing in Lebanon, our planes on the Mediterranean carries were ready for takeoff: we knew the terrorist camps in the Bekaa Valley. It was Power who convinced Reagan to back off without firing a shot. All this only emboldened the terrorists -- to the point of attacking us on our soil.
President Bush did not list the present existence of WMDs as a reason for invading Iraq.
If Powell said that WMDs currently existed in Iraq and said that was the reason for invading Iraq, he was not following the official policy statements.
Don't you know that if President Bush had ever said that there were WMDs currently in Iraq that the Old Media would have had the sound bite running 7/24 for the last four years.
He should stand by his statement as a reflection of the best information available at the time. He KNOWS Saddam had WMD, he knows Saddam USED WMD and he KNOWS Saddam supported and sheltered TERRORISTS.
Stand up and be counted and do NOT worry about what LEFTISTS revisionist historians will say about your record.
This is dissappointing to say the least.
Well said!
I am way disappointed. Wonder what he's got cooked up.
No one ever suggested a connection between Sadaam and 9-11
Valerie Plame (CIA so-called expert on WMDs) should be forced to share Saddam's cell until she can find out from him the full story on WMDs. When she teases Saddam into revealing all about Bekka Valley and sites in Syria, etc. then she can come back and testify about what she learned. Then she and hubby Joe can go live in southern France as their retirement.....
If anyone listened to Colin Powell's political views, it would not be an exageration to call him a RINO cubed.
This doesn't change my mind about going to war with Iraq. BUT, let's face it, folks, in the minds of more than a few people, this hurts Bush's credibility. Gen. Powell has been a very respectable public persona, whether we like it or not.
-- Joe
Are you calling me a troll?
Is this another one of those Barbara Walters interviews where the interviewee starts crying like a little girl? It sounds like it.
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."
I can’t believe that I have to get to post #17 (by EagleUSA) before someone sees this simple repeated trick.
Powell did not dispute anything the Bush administration said or implied, It’s only the reporter’s opinion that he did, and he juxtaposed that opinion next to a quote by Powel that appears to support it only until it’s read closely.
Members of the Bush administration have said that there is no evidence of a Baghdad – 9/11 link literally thousands of times and no one ever said there was one. They point to irrefutable Baghdad - terrorist links and deep evidence of a Baghdad - al-Qaeda links, and Powell did not dispute that.
Don’t be like Charlie Brown and keep falling for Lucy’s football trick. Don’t let the left separate us from our moderates with cheap old tricks like this.
Thank you.
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.