The Waldorf Transcripts

This story is dynamite.The search will be on around the world to find an original copy of the transcript.We will all be hearing alot more of The Waldorf Transcript.


Jack Straw and his US counterpart, Colin Powell, privately expressed serious doubts about the quality of intelligence on Iraq's banned weapons programme at the very time they were publicly trumpeting it to get UN support for a war on Iraq, the Guardian has learned.

Their deep concerns about the intelligence - and about claims being made by their political bosses, Tony Blair and George Bush - emerged at a private meeting between the two men shortly before a crucial UN security council session on February 5.

The meeting took place at the Waldorf hotel in New York, where they discussed the growing diplomatic crisis. The exchange about the validity of their respective governments' intelligence reports on Iraq lasted less than 10 minutes, according to a diplomatic source who has read a transcript of the conversation.



politics.guardian.co.uk...

Colin Powell is gonna be PISSED!

can't wait to hear the officials explain/spin this one.

From Reuters...

The UK government on Saturday denied a report that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and his U.S. counterpart Colin Powell had serious doubts about the quality of intelligence they received on Iraq's weapons programmes.

The Guardian, quoting a diplomatic source, said the pair had met shortly before a crucial U.N. Security Council meeting in February and both expressed their "deep concerns about the intelligence" they were getting on Iraq.

A Foreign Office spokeswoman said the report was "untrue."

To put it in other words Guardian is lying.

I worry about people like you Toltec. You believe the guardian is lying because the government said so? Hmm, doesnt work for me.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Did you see this report?

Peace, it looks like there is no spin, simply denial, which judging by toltec's reaction did the trick.

[Edited on 1-6-2003 by levitationjunkie]

Did I say that?

My opinion of Guardian is well documented and is the result of having discussed in detail several articles.

All of which are available at this board my response in this particlular case was to state what was a conclusion made as a reuslt of the article.

Shame on you

I do not beleive the guardian is lying because the government states it, what i beleive is that the guradian has no credibility whatsoever. My reason for beleiving it is not related to this article
but rather to every other article which has been posted in this forum.

Also to be honest I do not worry about people like you.

[Edited on 1-6-2003 by Toltec]

In that case why post here and say that the foriegn offices words translate to 'the guardian is lying'. The government quote by no means strengthens your statement, as you obviously intended.

Let us focus on the validity of the argument and not the integrity of the paper that publishes it. If i was to take issue with any post that quoted a statement made by a news organisation i did not appreciate i wouldn't have time to eat or sleep. In fact, why not make a new thread instead of polluting others? If you think it would be a discussion worthy of its own thread then i would be more than happy to participate and continue there.

A Foreign Office spokeswoman said the report was "untrue."

Homeboy (this is one planet)don't confuse me with someone who wants to do harm.

Main Entry: un�true
Pronunciation: -'tr�
Function: adjective
Date: before 12th century
1 : not faithful : DISLOYAL
2 : not according with a standard of correctness : not level or exact
3 : not according with the facts : FALSE
- un�tru�ly /-'tr�-lE/ adverb

I'm much more likely to confuse you with someone who causes harm without intention.

Why because I feel the world order is working towards allowing mankind to survive while you feel the opposite is apparent?

levitationjunkie the article's value has a basis which is
actualized as a result of the authors/periodicals credibility (in general).

When in reality no credibility exist what is it exactly that you want?

Guardian has no credibility

So what is the point of suggesting that in this particular case it does?

That would depend upon how you feel about the story of chicken little.

levitationjunkie be clear I feel the same about you.

That is what guardian was set up to supply. Am I the only one who remembers when the powers at hand said they would begin a disinformation program, then mearly weeks later they said they wouldnt? Besides its all propaganda, take these reports with a grain of salt.

I've just seen an interview of Jack Straw by Sir David(let them off the hook)Frost.
He was asked about the story and said it was untrue.
His reason?
On the day the Guardian said the meeting took place he was in France.
Frost followed up by asking if apart from the date was the meat of the story true.
Straw was vague and evasive and a confusing answer was given that he and Colin Powel had many discussions.

Most people who saw the interview will infer that the Waldorf Transcript does indeed exist and denial is based on an error about the date.

The interrview will do nothing to stop the hunt.This morning the media smell blood.

Here is the BBC report of the interview.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Also, just so we can debunk a bit of the anti-Guardian angle. One of their lead reporters on the War on Iraq just won the Emma award for best print journalist. That's the second time in a row that he's won that prize.

But I guess this won't be good enough for Toltec who's never even read the Guardian but has decided that he doesn't like the type of stories that it reports...

Personally, I want to see the waldorf transcript, and I'd like to see some awkward questions for Colin Powell from the US press. (fat chance)

That's funny dom I say that I have been reading the articles from that periodical when they have been posted at this site and you say I have not read it

Levitationjunkie you accused me of polluting the thread when all I did was respond to Peace's inquiry.


These type of responses do little to support a conversation and denote an argument so weak it requires such efforts at manipulation.

A review of this forum does present my responses in respect to Guardian articles and the reasoning that went into the conclusions made.

I would tend to trust the Guardian over the govt.

This is dynamite.

I wonder what would happen if it ignites in the US with the election coming up. At present there seems to be widespread apathy to the allegations that the people were lied to.

More on this story today

www.guardian.co.uk...

"Fresh evidence emerged last night that Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, was so disturbed about questionable American intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that he assembled a secret team to review the information he was given before he made a crucial speech to the UN security council on February 5. "

www.msnbc.com...

"The real test of the government�s case against Saddam came in the testimony by Secretary of State Powell delivered to the United Nations on Feb. 5. Powell, the administration�s in-house moderate, was very wary of being set up for a fall by the administration hawks. Presented with a �script� by the White House national-security staff, Powell suspected that the hawks had been �cherry-picking,� looking for any intel that supported their position and ignoring anything to the contrary."

I'm confused.

Can someone help me sought something out?

The Guardian claims the meeting took place on Nov 5

I watched Frost interview Jack Straw on Sunday he said he was in France on that day.I've looked at the edited interview but this claim has been edited out.

Jack Straw was in New York on the 5 Nov when Powell gave his speech.

????????????????

What's going on?

Either I've misheard(I know what I heard)or .............??

Can someone do some double checking on this please?

The article didn't seem very specific on a date. It simply said 'shortly before' the UN security council session on Feb 5, not Nov 5. In the scheme of things that could have been as much as a week prior, in late January.

Fresh evidence emerged last night that Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, was so disturbed about questionable American intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that he assembled a secret team to review the information he was given before he made a crucial speech to the UN security council on February 5. "

There is no doubt in my mind Powell was coerced into the issue. Of all Bush's cabinet, Powell was the only one who, publiclly, wasnt as gun ho and absolute on the Iraq issue. As a soldier himself, and a vet of several wars, Powel is the last one who wants to send troops on a wild spider fart chase and risk thier lives on the whims of state.

Powell attempted to be more diplomatic and cautious.

It seems Bush was displeased with Powells behavior and performance. Thus, they sent Powell off to south America for a while.

I dont know, but I have the feeling, that Powell will either step down while in Bush's office, or after wards, he will write some pretty condemning stuff against his boss.

I cant wait for his memoirs

To be honest Collin Powel has mentioned resigning but only after the conflict with Iraq is resolved. He was not specific as to a date or to a cause but it seemed clear that during the next election, if Bush won He would not be the Secretary of State for the next term. But for the record these statements were made way before 210,000 people were found missing and presumed dead.

What an interesting way to say it "Spider fart chase," especially after 210,000 people have been found missing and presumed dead. And not only that but as well the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein which resulted in at least another 50,000 dead.

In my opinion Collin Powell has reconsidered his early assessment perhaps the result of his inexperience with matters of state.

Whatever is his response a quarter of a million people are dead the level of apathy towards this issue is apparent

" especially after 210,000 people have been found missing and presumed dead. And not only that but as well the use of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein which resulted in at least another 50,000 dead. "

This makes no sense.If they are found then how can they be presumed dead.

Yet again this is an example of an estimate being claimed as a fact.

I feel you are being a little hard on The Guardian as well.
The Guardian is a Liberal leaning newspaper and so it is more likely to print stories that expose the right or put a different spin on a story than a right leaning newspaper.
But it is a quality broadsheet and it would not make up a story.This leaves two alternatives,it has been the victim of a hoax,or it is true.
When The Telegraph printed stories about George Galloway,Galloway started legal precedings against the newspaper.Straw has not seen fit to do the same thing against The Guardian.Straws denial of the story was based on the date not the contents of the meeting.

I believe the meeting did take place and that a transcript of this meeting does exist.I think it will come to light eventually.

It is important that anyone reading a newspaper understands the political bias and/or buisness interests of the proprietor.
The Guardian is no less liberal than The Telegraph is conservative and as a consequence it is no less valid.