Powell concedes Iraq evidence may have been wrong

[samclem]

@Mr. Svinlesha

(Be sure to read step 3, and should you ever have the chance to try this delicacy, don’t forget it.)

Yum, yum.

::::::wipes away tears of laughter:::::

[Avenger]

There is blatant hypocrisy among the left-wingers: they proudly condemn Bush for not taking action on a vague warning by a low-ranking FBI agent in Arizona about suspicious people taking pilots lessons in Florida.But when he did take action on a specific warning (by Curveball), he is condemned for believing it.

Not a liberal conspiracy who’d have thought it?

chappachula , I will happily condemn Bush for ignoring warnings on your first example, and believing them on the second. This would only be hypocrisy if either of the two following statements were true:

(a) I think that Bush should have reacted to the warnings of suspicious people taking flying leasons in Florida by immediately ordering airstrikes to destroy all Florida flight schools.

or

(b) I think Bush should have totally ignored the warnings about Iraqi WMD, not asked anyone to look into the threat or allowed any neutral weapons experts who may have been on the ground to look into it.

[DoctorJ]

Maybe I’m just reading Rovian election politics into everything the administration does these days, but I think this is another test balloon, like the brief images of the 9/11 firefighters in Bush’s previous ads. With those, they needed to know how the public would respond to the use of such imagery in the rest of the campaign so they could know how hard to push it later. (I think the response showed that the press, if not the public, is not going to let them get away with very much of it.)

Now, they’re finding that the press is not giving them the easy time they’re used to in regards to all this 9/11 information getting out. They had to let Rice testify, and they’ll have to give up the Clinton-era documents they were trying to hide. So, they’re thinking, why not give telling the truth a shot? What if we took a little responsibility? Richard Clarke got crazy props for his mea culpa introduction to his testimony before the commission, so maybe we need to get us some of that re-morse.

Of course, they don’t want to come right out and admit that the attacks were really just a carefully orchestrated, Hollywood-produced plot*, at least not at first. Instead, they sent the expendable Colin Powell out to make the comically uncontroversial suggestion that this one piece of evidence might not have been rock solid. If it flies, we might see some more sackcloth and ashes in the coming months.

How has the response been? I don’t know about the general public, nor have I heard much right-wing spin. The moderate-to-left take has been one of “Well, no sheeit, Mannix.” The press seems to be jumping on it, so maybe it will take a few days for the public opinion to coalesce.

Maybe I’m reading too much orchestration into it–the inexplicably Keystone-ish reaction to Clarke’s book and testimony may indicate that the Rove/GOP machine doesn’t have the grip it needs. It’s my take on it, though.

Dr. J

• It’s a joke. I know how hard it is to tell these days.

[Northern_Piper]

@chappachula

But I dont think Bush acted in bad faith, or intentionally lied. He had contradictory information, and had to decide which evidence to act on.

Possibly. But that’s not how he tried to sell the war. He and Powell weren’t going around saying: “You know, we’ve got contradictory evidence about the state of the Iraqi WMD program, but we think it’s better safe than sorry, so we’re going to war.” Nope, it was always (my paraphrase): “Saddam has WMD. We know that for a fact. Other countries know that for a fact. Hans Blix has been played for a sucker by Saddam and his reports can’t be trusted. If we don’t go to war, Saddam will use his WMD against the US, or sell them to state-sponsored terrorists. Anyone who doesn’t accept that is just plain stupid (and probably a liberal).”

@chappachula

(For me, the best evidence was a tape the Powell played for the UN in February, where we clearly heard an Iraqi officer radio a colleague saying “Blix and his inspectors are on the way, so hurry up and hide that stuff”)

Yeah, and they hid whatever-it-was in a hurry so well that the US military hasn’t been to find whatever-it-was in a year of looking. :rolleyes:

[Rashak_Mani]

@GIGObuster

jshore, now that you mention Sam Stone, I remember that many times he put forward the point that US intelligence had been inefficient in past administrations, due to the official position of not getting in bed with unsavory characters to get intelligence. AFAICR, such position was reached because of very embarrassing scandals of our intelligence agencies getting info from wannna be thugs and dictators.

I do think this administration replicated the error of past administrations by trusting dissidents on the way to invasion (incredibly stupid not to take into account their own interests in the matter, but then again it seems they gave Bush just what he wanted to hear). Then it was Cuba, now it is Iraq. The difference was that in one, the dissidents were the ones willing to risk their lives, this time Chalabi and buddies did one step better: they played the American and British intelligence and media like a fiddle, and made us do the fighting.

Sad to know that he made Bush his bitch in the process too.

Great Post... Its sad how easy Chalabi and the INC are playing the Bush govt. They get millions in money and also an invasion that costs billions. All by just feeding Bullshit to warmongering Hawks.

Remember in Afghanistan when they bombed a wedding ? I bet it was another "great" piece of intelligence BS given by "close" allies. Once more using US firepower to kill off their rivals.

Never mind unwavering support of whatever Israel does... sure seems a case of asking whose interests are they really defending ? How can the US be played along so frequently ?