Powell casts doubt on Iraq WMDs

US Secretary of State Colin Powell has conceded that Iraq may not have possessed any stocks of weapons of mass destruction before the war last year.
His comments came after the former head of the US weapons inspection team, David Kay, said he did not believe there were any weapons stockpiles.

Read on...

news.bbc.co.uk...

He could put the Bush junta away with comments like that! I'd regain respect for the man, if he comes clean despite the powerful men leaning on him.

I just have one question... Why is Bush not being impeached?

He may be, if Powell comes clean, but I doubt it. The whole regime would have to topple. They're all in on the lie.

I just have one question... Why is Bush not being impeached?

I asked that very same question about a week ago. Here's the conclusion I have come up with: Bush has made us so afraid of being unpatriotic, unamerican, or not for the troops, that people are afraid to go against him. All he has to do is say that you or anyone else is a terrorist and you'll never see the light of day again.

I suppose doubt has always been there to a degree, in regards to un-confirmed intell. reports and all.

In light of this though, care to answer what Powell asked?

"Powell said:

"The open question is, how many stocks they had, if any, and if they had any, where did they go, and if they didn't have any, then why wasn't that known beforehand?"


Also bear in mind what he said further on and as applied to the 'past' and has been discussed here at ATS prior to this commentary by and from SoS Powell:

"Powell vigorously defended the U.S. intelligence community, whose estimates of Iraq's weapons programs reflected the consensus of other foreign governments and President Bush's predecessor."



regards
seekerof

He was pressured. He didn't agree with them in the first place. Somehow, they convinced him that he should go along with them on this. Looks, to me, like he may be regretting the sell out, or just tired of upholding a lie.

[Edited on 1-24-2004 by Satyr]

well what a suprise this is....after all this time they are finally getting around to saying what a lot of us have been saying all along, My question is, since bush attacked a country who was not a threat to us, why is he not considered a war criminal? who would it be up to to bring these charges? i hope that this is not a case of might makes right

Im curious aswell why Impeachment has not been bore on Bush?

Blair also commented his "WMD" Stockpile curiosity aswell. Now Powell.
Foreign governments consensus? Now we are to believe that all these goverments also believed that Iraq had "WMD'S" at the time? Im not understanding this

Deep

Powell knew the info. he presented to the U.N. last year was bogus. Anyone in the know knew it 2. If Bush went down, Powell would go down. Alotta them would.

The only way Powell could redeem himself is for him to resign. But fellas, he's in too deep with 'em.

I think there are several explainations as to why the issue impeachment has not been mentioned in the halls of congress.

First of all, the administration has shifted away from the WMD threat to "Saddam was a bad man". Now they've made it look like freedom for the Iraqis was the reason they went in last March.

Secondly, I think people, more specifically members of congress, are afraid of him. He's got alot of power in this country, possibly more than any president since say....FDR? He's virtually worshiped by some members of the populous, the media (especially FOX and MSNBC), and religious groups. Mess with him, and you mess with them, capisce? Don't want to be blacklisted....

A third, less cynical reason is the current makeup of congress. The House is overwhelmingly Republican and they have a majority in the Senate. For impeachment proceedings to start I'd imagine the majority would have to get the ball rolling. But really, what congressman is going to be the one to impeach his or her own party leader? That's kind of like cutting your heart out and hoping you'll still be able to live, isn't it?
Republicans were a majority when Clinton was impeached. I dare say that if Democrats were the majority, that would have never happened.

Here it goes again,

If I walk into a bank with a trench coat on and pass a note to the teller saying that I am wired with 10 lbs of plastic explosives and I am here to rob the bank.

The question is this:

do the police care whether I actually have explosives on me or not when they arrest me?

does the court care whether I have explosives on me when I am in front of a Judge?

do you care, if you are an observer or one of the hapless customers in the bank at the time of the robbery, if the guy in the trench coat actually has explosives or not?

a threat is still a crime especially when it comes from someone known to act in past, or has motive to followup on their threats.

case closed, next issue.

What are you talking about? Did you mean to post that in this thread?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I fail to see the relevance of your post to this thread.

[Edited on 1-24-2004 by Satyr]

Impeached? Based on what?
That "he", exclusively, George W. Bush, said that Iraq had WMD?
I find it interesting that many here keep yelling and proclaiming that Bush, exclusively, should be impeached.
With the myrids of intellignece papers within the US and the intelligince papers outside the US, you know...other foreign allied nations have their own sources stating that Saddam had WMD, how do you propose to legally affirm that Bush, exclusively, is to be impeached?

Here's a concrete FACT:
Saddam, inargueablely, had WMD, at one time. The 'time' is of issue, as Powell has mentioned, and as others in political circles have mentioned.
This inargueable evidence is concluded by UNSCOM, by Iraq's past record in regards to WMD, in Iraq having used them, in Iraq's own written and verbal submission to said fact.
Listing of those still "unaccounted for" WMD are found in many official forms from 1998 to before the second Iraq War. Did Saddam ever come clean and fully explain them and have them removed from the "unaccounted for" documents? No. The UN, with the instituting of Resolution 1441, gave Saddam one more chance to explain, in documented, proven form, those lists of "unaccounted for" WMD. Did he? No.
Please bear in serious mind, that it was Saddam's responsibility to clarify and provide the documentation on where and how those WMD were destroyed or where they were so that they could be destroyed. Again, did he? No.

Could the US have opted for further "containment" policies? Sure, but with the events of 9/11.....the rules changed. The significance of the tragic event opted for the fulfillment and requirements of Resolution 1441. None compliance resulted in "game over" for Mr. Saddam. Personally, it was inevitable that this was going to happen.

Again, prior existence of Iraq/Saddam having WMD was not in dispute.....the world's documented record(s) on this proves in accordance with what this implies.
All some to many who are against this are doing is a form of syllogism. To further this syllogism, the mode of thinking is:

Saddam/Iraq indeed had WMD.
No large quantities of WMD have been found, hence
Saddam/Iraq didn't have WMD, and
Because Saddam/Iraq doesn't have WMD, George Bush lied for saying that they did, and
Because he said this and lied, he should be impeached.

In light of this, in a syllogism, the conclusion can never make the premise invalid.
In such case....

Saddam/Iraq destroyed those "unaccounted for" WMD, or
Saddam/Iraq, within the 12+ years period, hid them so well, that they have yet to be uncovered or found, or
Saddam/Iraq, within the 12+ years period, had those WMD moved to another nation(s) or another entity(s).

Because WMD have not been found doesn't conclusively prove that anyone has lied. Nor does it imply and justify that Saddam/Iraq complied with the requirements of UN's Resolution 1441 (which passed unanimously and that included Germany and France).

If your going to continue to proclaim and ask 'why' Bush has not been impeached, might better do some more critical thinking on this, because "a lie(s)" has yet to be determined through legal means, definition, and evidences. Might want to read what he actually said and implied, along with those many other nations and what they had documented on Saddam/Iraq WMD issue(s).



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 24-1-2004 by Seekerof]

No I meant to post it here,

what I am saying is that a valid threat without means is as good as a threat with means.

Saddam said he had WMD, and he bragged about it. He waved them under the nose of the Israeli's many times. He was proud of them and that is why he was a popular guy in the middle east. Someone that stood up to the US and supposidly had the means to take them on.

When someone calls your bluff and you do not have what it takes to back it up that does not make you innocent nor does it make the aggressor wrong.

Impeached upon the grounds that he lied about having evidence or intelligence proving that Saddam had WMD, at that time, which posed a direct threat to the US. You don't start wars on a hunch. You're trying to twist this into something ridiculous, IMO. It's pretty obvious that if he doesn't have proof, he lied. Why? To start a war, perhaps. Oil? Big business? The motives are many.

Re: THENEO

When did he ever claim he had WMD? You mean back when we gave them to him? All I remember was him denying he had them for the last 12 years. Are you saying this isn't so?

[Edited on 1-24-2004 by Satyr]

Ah but Saddam had nearly 6 months from the start of his verbal sparring with Bush until the actual invasion and then later on arriving in Baghdad for him to hide them or whatever.

Lets be honest here, Saddam's neighbours are not hostile to his dreams and ambitions and thus he could count on several of them to help him in time of need.

Then there is the idea that they are still there which is still possible, Iraq is not a small country and there is a lot of sand there to hide things under. It is not inconceivable that they are not there somewhere.

Of course Seekerof is correct also, we all know that Saddam had a complete arsenal provided by the US then likely North Korea, France, Germany and even Russia (most definitely). Any of those countries can supply just about anything going around these days.

A "hunch(s)" is/are nothing but a basis for action. Resolution 1441 and the Iraq Liberation Act, was enough to have Saddam removed, with military force.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 24-1-2004 by Seekerof]

But to be fair, the administration should not have used WMD as an excuse to invade Iraq nor claim to definitely know of them. They will turn up sooner or later if there was any and I have not reason to believe that there was none because they were the weapons of choice for Saddam. An issue of personal pride.

The point I am trying to make is that Bush should not be impeached for going into Iraq. Regards his statements on WMD, an investigation would reveal why he had reason to believe they existed and that would justify his saying they existed. After all he is only the President, he doesn't know everything that is going on anywhere and must rely on others to advise him and inform him.

Heres some questions for thought:
Did the current administration use the existing intelligence information in stating that Saddam/Iraq had WMD? If so, isn't it widely known that the prior administration (1993-2001) had pretty much nutured and cut intellignece assets and capabilities of said intelligence assets and in doing such, the gathering of completely accurate inteligence data and information was hindered, hampered, and faulty at best?
So, based on that, is it safe to say that this administration used the intelligence that was obtained, over the years, by prior administration(s) and foreign intelligence services? If so....again, despite the concept of a "hunch", would not others be in need of legal ramifications, besides Bush and his proposed 'impeachment'?



regards
seekerof

Seekerof, we all know the intelligence groups of this nation and others are either completely incompetent or criminal (criminal, IMO), but the blame on the Bush administration by those here is very just. They were the ones who shouted for and got this war after all. All issues aside, the ones who invaded Iraq and got egg on their faces with regards to justification for the war is Bush and company and that is what is in contention here.

The Commander in Chief of our armed forces is our main war guy, and he is the President of the United States. As such, the majority of people who have contention with the legalities of this war will be with this man, our current President.

While I'm not sure just what could be used to impeach Bush on this particular issue, it looks very bad and the idea of impeachment certainly appears to be a valid complaint/solution if no other options are presented to rectify the situation.

[Edited on 24-1-2004 by heelstone]