It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Powell Interview: "Furious and Angry" at false Iraq info

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has been interviewed by German magazine Stern. In the interview he expresses his anger over unwittingly presenting false information to the UN and the wider world. However, he stands by the invasion and is "glad that Saddam is in jail". Powell also claims that they may have been "too loud" in their criticism of European scepticism of the Iraq war.
 



story.news.yahoo.com
BERLIN (Reuters) - The United States made errors in presenting its case for war against Iraq, but Saddam Hussein had to be removed, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told a German magazine.

"We were sometimes too loud, too direct, perhaps we made too much noise," Powell told Stern magazine in an interview released on Wednesday. "That certainly shocked the Europeans sometimes."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The departure of the dovish Colin Powell was a blow to US diplomacy and I feel the World is poorer because of it. I think he was set up with false information to scupper his career as he consistantly scored higher approval ratings than any one else in the cabinet.

He presented the information to the UN because he was the most trustworthy member of the Bush administration. He knows first hand the horror of war and would not put American soldiers lives on the line if he didnt feel in necessary. Judging from the interview he sees that Saddam had to go but I think his fury comes about because he didnt think thousands of American lives was worth it.

I would be interested to find out just what he meant about "taming" Saddam Hussein. Sanctions obviously were not working but what else was left up their sleeves?

[edit on 30/3/05 by subz]




posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Yikes, voted up in less than 15 minutes


I noticed the change to the voting process. I guess its harder to supress disenting views now


Let the discussion begin.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   
No respite for Powell


The man knew his opponents (Rumsfeld and Cheney) and had the resources to investigate the information prior to laying his sales pitches. He chose not to.


Powell said he was "furious and angry" that he had been misinformed about Iraq's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction when he laid out the case for war before the United Nations Security Council in February, 2003.

Shouldn't be angry- he didn't do his job, he followed Bushco's plans without question. Still just a 'good soldier' instead of a leader. Powell showed no leadership during his tenure as Secretary of State. His job was to implement American foreign policy, not Bushco foreign policy. I give him a D- for the job he did.


Yahoo news
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A presidential commission will propose changes to ensure dissenting views within the nation's spy agencies are reviewed and will fault prewar intelligence estimates for largely ignoring disagreements over Iraq's weapons programs, officials said on Wednesday.

This is just an example of what Powell knew. After all the years he spent in the military and his Gulf 1 experience with Bush Sr.'s media manipulation Powell would have known, if he had cared to, the intel he was using was wrong.



But a senior administration official acknowledged in July 2003 that Bush and then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice "did not read footnotes" in the 90-page document.

By glossing over or omitting dissenting views about Iraq's weapons programs, the 2002 intelligence estimate "overstated the accuracy" of U.S. intelligence, according to an official who read the commission's report. "There's a need for more complete reporting."

Years and thousands of lives later Bushco admits to 'errors.' Big deal-

*edit to add
What change in voting other than pts. not showing.
Glad to see something changed. It was looking a little bleak for a while


.

[edit on 30-3-2005 by JoeDoaks]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I guess Powell after that interview in "Germany" will not be able to return to America, bush will make sure he becomes enemy of the state number one.


I though Powell lost his cojones during Bush administration but I am glad he got them back after he quited.

Good for you Powell is nothing wrong from telling the truth.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
As a NON US Citizen I have a TON of respect for Mr. Powell and applaud him for speaking the truth, as said above it's nice to see he got his guts back after leaving the administration.

I truly think he was on a very short leash as Secretary of State and was simply told what to do and what not to do by the admin..

I for one will miss him in his previous role as I thought he was always the voice of reason for that admin, but then again what do I know???



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Personally, I forgive him for what he's done during his time with the Bush administration. I still have a lot of respect for him, and I agree with his viewpoints on this issue. It's a shame he doesn't run for president. I wouldn't hesitate to support him.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Many defend Powell on his military record. This is something that works in his favor, unlike the puppet leader of his criminal gang, George W Bush.

Unfortunately, it was Powell who was tasked with showing the UN and the world beyond equivocation where the stockpiles of WMDs were, very precisely, before the US-led invasion of Iraq. These WMDs were, according to Powell, deployable within 40 minutes and a direct threat to the USA.

Powell lied, thousands upon thousands died. Bush is not alone in his prevarication, and Powell stooped to sink his credibility and personal integrity down the sewer as a pawn in the corrupt Bush administration. There is no redemption for him in interviews with German press.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Unfortunately, it was Powell who was tasked with showing the UN and the world beyond equivocation where the stockpiles of WMDs were, very precisely, before the US-led invasion of Iraq. These WMDs were, according to Powell, deployable within 40 minutes and a direct threat to the USA.


Yes it was Powell that stood there and read the reoport to the UN Council. But you also have to realize that it took a commission of nine people to discover the truth, that the information that Powell was presented with was faulty. Powell Reported only what he had available to him. If you were given data from your Data Analyst you rely on them to provide you with accurate data. So did Powell and they betrayed him.


Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Powell lied, thousands upon thousands died. Bush is not alone in his prevarication, and Powell stooped to sink his credibility and personal integrity down the sewer as a pawn in the corrupt Bush administration. There is no redemption for him in interviews with German press.


The Only people that lied were the CIA operatives that did not question the German Iraqi Defector directly nor did they report that the Germans warned he might not be trustworthy.

I have always thought that Powell did a great job throughout his career. I do believe that the Bush Administration intentionally set him up, He was way more popular than anyone in the entire administration in My opinion.

Phae

[edit on 3/30/2005 by Phaethor]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Powell was snookered big time by the Bush administration. Why within the first week of him taking up his post BushCo. slapped him down on what he was going to try and accomplish. Too bad because he was on the right tracki. He should have run, not walked away from the job. I might still have the respect I always had for him. The respect I lost for him when he went ahead and "made the case" for war with Iraq.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I have been emphasizing the same point as I had in 2002 on Saddam Hussein and Iraq:

The UN sanctions were not working. It didn't even deter Saddam Hussein and his cronies at all through the 1990s up until his ouster in April 2003.

You could add more UN sanctions to the existing ones but it wouldn't make a hill of differences to Saddam. All thanks to his clever manipulations and bribery in the UN Oil-for-Food programs.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I think he is just trying to save face. I remember watching him make the speech, and he didn't seem too convinved himself of what he was saying. IMHO

I bet he sure as hell regrets not running for office after the first Gulf War.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   

The United States made errors in presenting its case for war against Iraq, but Saddam Hussein had to be removed, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told a German magazine.


This is the top paragraph for the story. I'm going to show you that it fails in it's journalistic duty....to inform of the basic facts.....and how it fails on a logic level.

The point of a first paragraph is to communicate the who, what, when, where.

Who - Former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Easy enough.......

What - This is not consistently represented by the first paragraph and the title......the title expresses an emotional reactiopn by one of our leaders(former). That in itself is a potential fallacy, because Powell's anger is irrelevant to the facts of the situation, which are centered upon the
'errors' in the presentation for war and the subsequent consequences.

The title stipulates 'false info', the paragraph cites errors. Seemingly not a big deal, but the difference is very distinct. False information is a lie, is a misrepresentation of the truth. An error in presentation is way more general and kind of dilutes the meaning of 'false'........

Also, the use of the word but negates any prior information in the statement. The fact that 'errors and misrepresentations' abound is casually dismissed by a statement that Saddamn had to go one way or another. This is lip service.......offensive to the intelligence of those who read this, as it does not logically follow.

The first paragraph is a logical fallacy.....one does not beget the other, b does not necassarily follow.....

That fact that Saddamn needed to be replaced does not justify the behavior of our international relations at the time and does not justify the many discrepancies in intelligence that eventually led to more misrepresentations.

[When - The when is completely omitted, but covered later in the story....

Where - This is a very subtle aspect that I find intriguing. The 'where' is stated as "a German magazine.' Vague and unspecific. Could be a tactic to draw the reader into the article, where specification undoubtedly lies. Either way, the 'where' is lacking.

The failure of the author to present the facts of the who, what, when, and where is important because the facts are facts and cannot be misconstrued(assuming the reported words, indeed, represent fact). The author not only failed in providing an unbiased account of his story in the first paragraph, per his/her's job description as defined by basic journalism......

he/she presented a logical fallacy as news. The issue of the lies and misconduct, alleged or not, get swept under the rug of 'Saddamn had to go' and those in charge escape accountability for behavior found wanting.

And this is how many people read thier news, everyday. One logical fallacy after another. It's propaganda 101...........



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
I have been emphasizing the same point as I had in 2002 on Saddam Hussein and Iraq:

The UN sanctions were not working. It didn't even deter Saddam Hussein and his cronies at all through the 1990s up until his ouster in April 2003.

You could add more UN sanctions to the existing ones but it wouldn't make a hill of differences to Saddam. All thanks to his clever manipulations and bribery in the UN Oil-for-Food programs.
Sure, and I agree with you, but does that justify a war? The ends don't justify the means. There were other options before the war, but rather than exercising them, W figures it's better to put the lives of our troops and Iraqi lives in unnecessary danger, just to flex our muscle. Sorry, but W played right into the myth of the superpower, which, in my mind, is rather irresponsible.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by supercheetah
Sure, and I agree with you, but does that justify a war? The ends don't justify the means. There were other options before the war, but rather than exercising them, W figures it's better to put the lives of our troops and Iraqi lives in unnecessary danger, just to flex our muscle.


Sorry, but that's where I draw the line here. We had plenty of options given to Saddam since 1991 and Saddam continued to stall the UN. He simply refused to cooperate, choose to stall the world by playing his games instead of actually honoring and abiding by the UN's resolutions.

Many people can argue back and forth over a numbers of things: neo-cons, war over oil, Saddam's euro threat, PNAC, UN Oil-for-Food, supporting terrorism, Israel-Palestine peace, WMD, etc, etc. But it is all boiled down to one simple thing: Saddam's refusal to cooperate and a tendency to stall, given his history!

I'm certain on one side arguing that there could have been this, there could have been that to avoid war but either didn't see Saddam's bribery/corruption going around or just intentionally ignoring it. Another side have argued a far more "bigger picture" scenario that it might have more to do with four factors in the future:
1 - the inevitability of oil depletions around the world
2 - the rise of China as a perennial powerhouse over the global economy (the working model for a future global totalitarianism?)
3 - the growing threats of worldwide instability, terrorism, plague, overpopulation and the dwindling of supplies/sources due to slow decline of oil/natural gas availability and the damages to the ecosystem.
4 - the proliferation of nuclear energy and weapon (every country wanting nuclear energy)

People, particularly the anti-Bush left, have been saying that the neo-cons wanted the US/Israel to rule the world nonsense, but if you look at the big picture scenario and its factors by putting together all the pieces and follow the patterns over the last several years, I would say that the neo-cons had a better foresightedness than the rest of us, in their critical assessments of the future of the world in conjunction with the United States' role as a global superpower and being the engine of the global economy.

It isn't about the US or Israel or Iraq or EU, China, Russia or whatever. It is all about the NWO Elite (or the Illuminati, if you prefers) coordinating the world through a series of unfortunate (staged, planned or actual) events leading up to the end of national sovereignty, a nuclear holocaust, the total subjugation of the human race and finally the total absolute control of the planet by the NWO Elite.

Which explained the strong presence of neo-cons at the Bilderberg conference last year in Italy. The Bilderberg conferences are usually the forum to discuss and plan something benefitting the hidden agendas of the NWO Elite and the Crown for the future.

Make you go hmmm....



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 03:39 AM
link   
MemoryShock, you missed a few points with your rather lengthy rant over the quality of that news story. One, the story title is my own and not that of the source. It clearly states who's speaking, what he said and where he said it. The news story pertains directly to an interview given by Powell so there is no need to fill in the blanks of the story, only to comment on what he actually said. If you read the article you'd read that it does that quite well.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
I have been emphasizing the same point as I had in 2002 on Saddam Hussein and Iraq:

The UN sanctions were not working. It didn't even deter Saddam Hussein and his cronies at all through the 1990s up until his ouster in April 2003.

You could add more UN sanctions to the existing ones but it wouldn't make a hill of differences to Saddam. All thanks to his clever manipulations and bribery in the UN Oil-for-Food programs.


I have a real issue with this. The majority of UN sanctions imposed on Iraq were to prevent development of weaponry (WMD) that could be used against it's neighbors. In all the years UN inspectors were monitoring that, there were no violations. In all the years the UN inspectors were barred from Iraq, there were no violations. In the lead up to the war, the UN demanded that inspectors be allowed back into the country - they complied. The UN demanded full accounts of Iraq's weaponry - they complied. Iraq did everything asked of it to prove it was in compliance, but we were told it was all a lie and there was "proof" it was a lie.

We're the ones who were lying, we're the ones that broke the UN resolutions, we're the ones who need to stop bitching about the cost of the war because even if it breaks the US economy, we have an obligation to stabilize and rebuild a country that we invaded under false pretenses.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   
I heard on "The Chris Matthews Show" that Powell was writing a book that will seperate him from the whole "guilt" of the invasion of Iraq.

It was in the segment of "Tell me something I don't know" I think it was Peggy Noonan that broke it.
Matthews reaction to her was "Are you trying to make my day?"

It was pretty comical.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   

as posted by mythatsabigprobe
The UN demanded full accounts of Iraq's weaponry - they complied.


No, they did not.
There are still unresolved questions and there are still unaccounted for WMDs and components thereof, that Iraq nor Saddam ever gave "full accounting" for.

Multiples of past ATS topics and mentions of this, but to you, it was still full compliance, eh?






seekerof



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   
i have respect for powell and feel he was pretty much doomed in his interactions with the UN. i as someone else said that the US sent their most credible person to stand in front of the UN presenting a bogus report.

i don't think that he knew the full extent of what he was involved in. but that's my opinion.

i think he resigned because he wasn't happy with the inner workings within the white house.............but that's again my opinion.

i'm glad he got out.


angie



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by mythatsabigprobe
The UN demanded full accounts of Iraq's weaponry - they complied.


No, they did not.
There are still unresolved questions and there are still unaccounted for WMDs and components thereof, that Iraq nor Saddam ever gave "full accounting" for.

Multiples of past ATS topics and mentions of this, but to you, it was still full compliance, eh?






seekerof


Just point me to 'em, I'll happily change my mind if there's evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join