I find all of this very interesting. Especially considering that Powell just a few days ago defended U.S. intelligence reports that were used to justify the war against Iraq at the Feb. 5th UN briefing before the Security Council. Powell seems to think the intelligence info was solid enough. He was convinced by U.S. intelligence that Irag had WMD and that they were continuing to develop illegal WMD programs. Powell was quoted as saying:
I doubt Powell would intentionally use and reference false or bad intelligence. Not only would it be an unethical move it could also devastate him politically. Powell was also quoted as saying:
I think Curious George is going to have a difficult time spinning his way out of this one. Once the Dems think it is safe, they will come after Bush on this. Any formal investigations will probably be a step behind the revelations coming out of England though.
elucidator
Seeing the Guardian was quoting two German newspapers did they also get it wrong? Is there a more authoritative Cite to that then a cartoon? Maybe “Tom Tomorrow” is right, but I would like to see something of a non-cartoon variety before discreting an actual newspaper (or three as the case may be). Thanks.
Where are the Bush-Huggers? Where are all the guys on this boards who used words like ‘peaceniks’, ‘pinko’ and ‘coward’ a few months ago? Are they waiting for the spin supplied by the administration, so they can get the arguments they need to carry on a debate?
Here’s the transcript of the Q&A session in which Wolfowitz made his remarks.
The Guardian totally butchered his meaning:
What Wolfie was saying was that, due to Iraq’s oil wealth, economic leverage was no use against them, but that he did expect it to be useful in working with NK.
That’s still a pile of crap, of course, but it still bears no resemblance to saying, “we went to war for oil.”
They are merely giving the new inspectors the necessary time to complete their search and analysis. This process is expected to be complete on or about November 3, 2004.
Lying about the WMD’s won’t, I think, make much difference in public views of Bush by itself. The war is still rationalized as having brought “freedom” to the Iraqis and somehow gotten back at those responsible for 9/11. The steady drip-drip of news about more American soldiers getting killed every week by those they’ve “liberated”, the need to send the 100,000+ soldiers there for years (as Shinseki and White got fired for pointing out), and continued Al Qaeda and other attacks will help expose the other rationalizations as lies, as well.
The tipping point regarding Bush’s lying hasn’t been reached yet, but I think it’s close in the US, and may already have been reached in the UK and Oz. When it does, the search for someone to blame will be in full force, and Bush won’t be able to evade it.
Yes, Powell has some ‘splainin’ to do about his about-face.
Well, I’m not the guy to act as an apologist, but I will say this:
There is something to be said for the fact that the U.S. government is not continuing to feed us the same bullshit that led to this war. There is a note of integrity in admitting they’re not finding anything.
The thing is that the motivations that led to this war are increasingly being revealed to come from a “desperate times require desperate measures” point of view. This administration has the luxury of acting with integrity now, because they have a year to find the goodies, the later the better because it will make all of us look all the more like jerks.
And the truth of the matter is that there are problems with Iraq’s accounting of their chemical and biological stocks. There is a reasonable chance that illegal weapons will be found.
But if the weapons are not found, this administration has already shown that they are willing to bend if not completely transgress the boundaries of truth to get what they want.
That’s when the minty gambit comes into play. However, I think the crisis will come much sooner than Nov. 3, 04. Instead, I think we’ll have some sort of sudden revelation on a very particular date: July 23, 2004, the weekend before the Democratic National Convention. If they don’t have the goods by then, you can bet they’ll find them anyway.
As one of the pro-war advocates (although vehemently NOT!!! a Bush-Hugger), I have already stated in a couple of threads that Bush hoodwinked me. I supported the war because it appeared that Saddam was amassing nuclear capabilities, but now it appears that was false.
While I still think toppling Saddam was a good idea, the premises on which the war was based were fraudulent. Bush lied to the American people; more importantly, he lied to ME, and I want that SOB out of the White House.
Moreover, it appears that the US is making an unholy pig’s breakfast out of the reconstruction process.
I’m certainly not unhappy that SH is gone from Iraq, but as you say, the war was based on false premises.
My criticism of the absent pro-war crowd was not directed at everyone, *gobear, least of all you. I concede that plenty of good people supported the war, and often for pretty good reasons. But i don’t remember you calling anti-war people cowards, idiots, or un-American, or claiming that you knew everything and that we knew nothing. I was aiming my comments at the belligerent, arrogant people who claimed to know everything and who dismissed the anti-war crowd as nothing more than idiot cranks.
Thanks for the link RTFirefly. Did the German paper’s get it wrong or the Guardian? I noticed it was a DOD link though. It is sad that I was worried for a moment that they would spin control the transcript before dismissing the concern. That is how little credibility the Bushies have left with me now.
Twist et al., though I was not the most outspoken nor radical of the pro-war people on this board, I think I admitted that Bush et al. got me convinced back on page 1;)
…especially when I haven’t finished reading the thread, but please believe me when I say that there are extenuating circumstances. I will be priinting out the whole thing for later perusal, FWIW:
The benefit that could have been realized by a timely resignation by Powell, is that the event could have been a shock to the body politic. It could have jump-started some actual debate about the Administration’s policies in this adventure.
The simple fact that a replacement Secretary of State would require Senate confirmation would have been an unmatched opportunity for Senate Democrats to grow a spine and hold Shrubya accountable for where Dick Cheney and Karl Rove wanted to steer this nation.
I noticed, gobear. And thank you for showing back bone.
I went to see the movie ‘Dark Blue’ earlier tonight, and I guess it brings up this subject, from another angle: Is it OK to do something terrible if the end result is good? Should criminals be shot when caught redhanded? Are you guilty until proven innocent.
A modern society says, emphatically NO. That’s not how it’s done, and The U.S. of A. is built on these principles, making it the first real modern democracy.
The end doesn’t justify the means. I’m happy S.H. is out, but he’s out for the wrong reasons, and I think the U.S. is morally obliged to rebuild the country. You did it with Germany after WWII.
All in all, I get a very strong ‘Wag the dog’ feeling.
There’s no ‘internal affairs’ department in the WH, to my knowledge. As it is now, GWB and his administration will be judged by history or next election. I will be very concerned if he gets a 2nd term.
There is actual talk in Europe about building a stronger EU, with a military power to match that of the U.S. Many people don’t trust the U.S. anymore.
