More trouble for Cheney

[strandinthewind]

This is rather huge and I think the tip of the iceberg about to be revealed :eek: (commentary supplied in bold)


Ex-Powell aide: Was U.S. fooled?

LONDON, England (AP) -- A former senior U.S. State Department official says he has come to doubt whether President George W. Bush's administration presented an honest intelligence case for the war in Iraq.

"You begin to speculate, you begin to wonder -- Was this intelligence spun? Was it politicized? Was it cherry-picked? Did in fact the American people get fooled? I'm beginning to have my concerns," Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, said in an interview broadcast Tuesday.

In the interview with the British Broadcasting Corp., Wilkerson repeated his criticisms of Vice President Dick Cheney, holding him responsible for abuses of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq and for shortcomings in post-war planning in Iraq.

Asked whether Cheney was guilty of war crime, Wilkerson said: "Well that's an interesting question. It is certainly a domestic crime to advocate terror, and I would suspect that it is, for whatever it's worth, an international crime as well." (this is a way high official not expressly refuting culpability to Cheney - that is huge)

He did not explain in the interview why he believed Cheney advocated terror, though he also said that Cheney was "very publicly lobbying the Congress of the United States advocating the use of terror."

Wilkerson said he had believed that intelligence supported the view that Iraq had or was seeking to build weapons of mass destruction, and when none were found he accepted the argument that the administration had simply been fooled.

Lately, however, he said he had been troubled by disclosures that an informant known as Curveball, who supplied information about alleged mobile biological laboratories, was not reliable, and new information casting doubt on statements made by Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al Qaeda military instructor, claiming support from Iraq.

Al-Libi's information, Wilkerson said, "led Colin Powell to say at the U.N. on 5 February 2003 that there were some pretty substantive contacts between al Qaeda and Baghdad."

It now appears, Wilkerson said, that al-Libi's statement "were obtained through interrogation techniques other than those authorized by Geneva (Conventions)."

"More important than that, we know that there was a Defense Intelligence Agency dissent on that testimony even before Colin Powell made his presentation," Wilkerson said. "We never heard about that."


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/11/29/us.iraq.ap/index.html

[dissention]

Is he ****ing kidding me? Powell, plz die. Now. You knew the intel was false just like the rest of these bastards, stop backpedaling simply because your reputation is being tarnished more with each passing day. You knew the intel was bogus, yet you went along with the hoax and presented it to the UN as fact. You have no character and you have no credibility. A real man would have resigned before lying to the world so that we could bomb innocent people for nothing. F*ck you. Methinks you need to flip to the index of your ****ty book and look up the "Powell Doctrine."

[dissention]

Lately, however, he said he had been troubled by disclosures that an informant known as Curveball, who supplied information about alleged mobile biological laboratories, was not reliable, and new information casting doubt on statements made by Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al Qaeda military instructor, claiming support from Iraq.


LATELY?!

If my sorry ass has known about Curve Ball for over two years, how can this man be troubled by his unreliability "lately"? Newsweek had a rather remarkable piece on Curve Ball last year and how everyone knew he was full of ****, yet they used him anyway. Powell even told the administration that Curve Ball's intel didn't add up, yet went right ahead and presented it to the UN willingly. How entertaining it is to see these people jump ship and use stuff that's been known for ages as their reasons for doing so.

[DavidMn]

Is he ****ing kidding me? Powell, plz die. Now. You knew the intel was false just like the rest of these bastards, stop backpedaling simply because your reputation is being tarnished more with each passing day. You knew the intel was bogus, yet you went along with the hoax and presented it to the UN as fact. You have no character and you have no credibility. A real man would have resigned before lying to the world so that we could bomb innocent people for nothing. F*ck you. Methinks you need to flip to the index of your ****ty book and look up the "Powell Doctrine."Excuse me, may I inquire as to how you REALLY feel about this?:laugh:

[strandinthewind]

This is not Powell. It is his Chief of Staff.

As for the existence of WMD - for a decade or more the world thought he had them and had been killing innocent people in the name of finding and/or controlling them :shrug: So, I do not fault Powell there. I do, however, fault him on the use of that to bring us to an all out war.

[DavidMn]

I would hate to run into Dick(HEAD) Cheney in a dark alley somewhere. See the thing is, I'd just be walking by me, and he'd have his 20th heart attack, and one of his goons would rub me out....:sorry: :laugh:

[irishgrl]

I myself am getting the BBQ warmed up, I'd LOVE to roast me some Monkey boy Marshmallows........Cheney kabobs etc etc....did I say how much I HATE this administration?

editing out the thots of a certain person's death............

[dissention]

This is not Powell. It is his Chief of Staff.

I know, I read it wrong. But my comments about Powell still stand. His current story is ****ing bogus.

As for the existence of WMD - for a decade or more the world thought he had them and had been killing innocent people in the name of finding and/or controlling them :shrug: So, I do not fault Powell there.

I do. If they had evidence of Iraq possessing weapons, there was no need for them to rely on sources like Curve Ball who made up the stuff they wanted to hear. Unfortunately for them, they had no evidence because he had no weapons. All they had was a desire for them to be there so they could invade, and that was enough for them.

I do, however, fault him on the use of that to bring us to an all out war.

Especially since he knew the intel was completely bogus and came from the mouth of a raging alcoholic (Curve Ball, not Bush).

[irishgrl]

I know, I read it wrong. But my comments about Powell still stand. His current story is ****ing bogus.

I do. If they had evidence of Iraq possessing weapons, there was no need for them to rely on sources like Curve Ball who made up the stuff they wanted to hear. Unfortunately for them, they had no evidence because he had no weapons. All they had was a desire for them to be there so they could invade, and that was enough for them.

Especially since he knew the intel was completely bogus and came from the mouth of a raging alcoholic (Curve Ball, not Bush).

hell, they've ALL got issues.......

[chiliD]

IEspecially since he knew the intel was completely bogus and came from the mouth of a raging alcoholic (Curve Ball, not Bush).


Methinks Ol' Dubya has fallen off the wagon and is taking a good swack at the ol' bottle again. And, maybe even snortin' some Peruvian Fairy Dust, too.
To still think he can initiate his totally inappropriate programs, he'd HAVE to be.

[DavidMn]

hell, they've ALL got issues.......A truer statement was never made...:nod:

[dissention]

Methinks Ol' Dubya has fallen off the wagon and is taking a good swack at the ol' bottle again. And, maybe even snortin' some Peruvian Fairy Dust, too.
To still think he can initiate his totally inappropriate programs, he'd HAVE to be.

His hula jaw gives it away.

[strandinthewind]

. . . I do. If they had evidence of Iraq possessing weapons, there was no need for them to rely on sources like Curve Ball who made up the stuff they wanted to hear. Unfortunately for them, they had no evidence because he had no weapons. All they had was a desire for them to be there so they could invade, and that was enough for them . . . .

But, my point is that blame for pursuing all avenues to rid SH of them cannot be put solely on the Bush Administration - the UN and the Clinton and first Bush Administrations must share in that blame.

Where they differ to me is the Bush Administration used 9/11 as a springboard to invade Iraq. I agree with the general point that after 9/11, SH was a loose cannon that had to be dealt with because, again, the world thought he had WMD and 9/11 demonstrated the terrorists were not scared to come here and use them or other methods to hurt us. I would have, however, let the inspections conclude and gone from there. Of course, W could not do this because it was very apparent the inspections would turn up no WMD and the lone peg on which to hang the war hat would be removed. In other words, if W had said "Hey America, I am going to take us to a costly war to remove this really really bad guy," he would not have been able to sell that no matter how much Americans stupidly and blindly hated (and still hate) people from that part of the world.

I do not know the extent of Powell's culpability in the exxageration of the evidence or in the termination of the inspections. Personally, I think that as the Sec. of State and not the head of the CIA, etc., he is not as complicit as you do, but clearly he is on some level.

[DavidMn]

But, my point is that blame for pursuing all avenues to rid SH of them cannot be put solely on the Bush Administration - the UN and the Clinton and first Bush Administrations must share in that blame.

Where they differ to me is the Bush Administration used 9/11 as a springboard to invade Iraq. I agree with the general point that after 9/11, SH was a loose cannon that had to be dealt with because, again, the world thought he had WMD and 9/11 demonstrated the terrorists were not scared to come here and use them or other methods to hurt us. I would have, however, let the inspections conclude and gone from there. Of course, W could not do this because it was very apparent the inspections would turn up no WMD and the lone peg on which to hang the war hat would be removed. In other words, if W had said "Hey America, I am going to take us to a costly war to remove this really really bad guy," he would not have been able to sell that no matter how much Americans stupidly and blindly hated (and still hate) people from that part of the world.

I do not know the extent of Powell's culpability in the exxageration of the evidence or in the termination of the inspections. Personally, I think that as the Sec. of State and not the head of the CIA, etc., he is not as complicit as you do, but clearly he is on some level.I agree. That last sentence sums up my feeling on Powell very well.:nod:

[SuzeQuze]

LATELY?!

If my sorry ass has known about Curve Ball for over two years, how can this man be troubled by his unreliability "lately"? Newsweek had a rather remarkable piece on Curve Ball last year and how everyone knew he was full of ****, yet they used him anyway. Powell even told the administration that Curve Ball's intel didn't add up, yet went right ahead and presented it to the UN willingly. How entertaining it is to see these people jump ship and use stuff that's been known for ages as their reasons for doing so.

It's so frustrating isn't it? The evidence of a crime has been around for so long but ignored by so many. :shrug:

[dissention]

But, my point is that blame for pursuing all avenues to rid SH of them cannot be put solely on the Bush Administration - the UN and the Clinton and first Bush Administrations must share in that blame.

Of course all the blame falls on them. Don't try to sell me that ****. They're the ones who invaded. Clinton did not. The United Nations did not. Whether or not Clinton had all of the same intel (which he did not), he did not act on that intel by invading the country and slaying it's citizens. The Bushbots took all of the lies & bull****, packaged it up for mass consumption, and then went about trying to sell it to the world as a respectable bill of goods. The fact that they knew all of it was a bunch of lies just makes it all the more abhorrent.

Where they differ to me is the Bush Administration used 9/11 as a springboard to invade Iraq.

And did you read the article I posted about Bush requesting a report on Saddam's supposed ties with Al Qaeda a mere two days after 9/11? The report came back and contained the exact opposite of what they started saying to rally support for the war. Saddam had no ties with Al Qaeda. Of course, Bush won't release it in any form. Wouldn't even give it to the 9/11 commission.

I agree with the general point that after 9/11, SH was a loose cannon that had to be dealt with because, again, the world thought he had WMD and 9/11 demonstrated the terrorists were not scared to come here and use them or other methods to hurt us.

I think that's utter ****. I'm sorry, but you are not going to sell me on this "They thought there were weapons" ****. The administration knew there were none. This is ****ing Iraq, a country crippled by sanctions and without the ability to wipe their own asses without the rest of the world knowing whether they used Scotts or a generic brand.

I would have, however, let the inspections conclude and gone from there. Of course, W could not do this because it was very apparent the inspections would turn up no WMD and the lone peg on which to hang the war hat would be removed. In other words, if W had said "Hey America, I am going to take us to a costly war to remove this really really bad guy," he would not have been able to sell that no matter how much Americans stupidly and blindly hated (and still hate) people from that part of the world.

Precisely. Why let the inspections continue? It wouldn't have yielded the results Bush wanted and if he let them continue any further, he risked losing some of the support he had to invade. That demonstrates to me that they had knowledge of there not being any weapons.

I do not know the extent of Powell's culpability in the exxageration of the evidence or in the termination of the inspections. Personally, I think that as the Sec. of State and not the head of the CIA, etc., he is not as complicit as you do, but clearly he is on some level.

He can lick my crack. Anyone who would sell out their own integrity like that in order to bomb innocent people isn't worth my pissing on if they were on fire. He's as complicit in blowing off the arms of children as the actual bomb that was used is. It's unforgivable.

[DavidMn]

Of course all the blame falls on them. Don't try to sell me that ****. They're the ones who invaded. Clinton did not. The United Nations did not. Whether or not Clinton had all of the same intel (which he did not), he did not act on that intel by invading the country and slaying it's citizens. The Bushbots took all of the lies & bull****, packaged it up for mass consumption, and then went about trying to sell it to the world as a respectable bill of goods. The fact that they knew all of it was a bunch of lies just makes it all the more abhorrent.



And did you read the article I posted about Bush requesting a report on Saddam's supposed ties with Al Qaeda a mere two days after 9/11? The report came back and contained the exact opposite of what they started saying to rally support for the war. Saddam had no ties with Al Qaeda. Of course, Bush won't release it in any form. Wouldn't even give it to the 9/11 commission.



I think that's utter ****. I'm sorry, but you are not going to sell me on this "They thought there were weapons" ****. The administration knew there were none. This is ****ing Iraq, a country crippled by sanctions and without the ability to wipe their own asses without the rest of the world knowing whether they used Scotts or a generic brand.



Precisely. Why let the inspections continue? It wouldn't have yielded the results Bush wanted and if he let them continue any further, he risked losing some of the support he had to invade. That demonstrates to me that they had knowledge of there not being any weapons.



He can lick my crack. Anyone who would sell out their own integrity like that in order to bomb innocent people isn't worth my pissing on if they were on fire. He's as complicit in blowing off the arms of children as the actual bomb that was used is. It's unforgivable.Once again, you stick to your guns. God lova ya for that.:nod: The world needs more people like you with conviction.

[SuzeQuze]

Methinks Ol' Dubya has fallen off the wagon and is taking a good swack at the ol' bottle again. And, maybe even snortin' some Peruvian Fairy Dust, too.
To still think he can initiate his totally inappropriate programs, he'd HAVE to be.

In a CNN poll last nite viewers were asked if they thought Bush's plan for dealing with border security was comprehensive and made sense. 98% said no.

[strandinthewind]

. . . I think that's utter ****. I'm sorry, but you are not going to sell me on this "They thought there were weapons" ****. The administration knew there were none. This is ****ing Iraq, a country crippled by sanctions and without the ability to wipe their own asses without the rest of the world knowing whether they used Scotts or a generic brand . . . .

I am not the one selling it. The UN is and was and passed many resolutions saying so and mostly unanimously. Again, for over a decade, they had been killing in the name of these WMD via Oil for Food, no fly zones, etc. If you can show that is an erroneous statement - let's see it. So, the world thought they were there and must share in some of the blame for W adhering to that line of thought, though I readily agree W took the killing in their name to a much higher level. In the end, if you think there were no WMD (from when exactly I am unsure) - then the world has been wrong for over a decade.

[DavidMn]

Of course all the blame falls on them. Don't try to sell me that ****. They're the ones who invaded. Clinton did not. The United Nations did not. Whether or not Clinton had all of the same intel (which he did not), he did not act on that intel by invading the country and slaying it's citizens. The Bushbots took all of the lies & bull****, packaged it up for mass consumption, and then went about trying to sell it to the world as a respectable bill of goods. The fact that they knew all of it was a bunch of lies just makes it all the more abhorrent.



And did you read the article I posted about Bush requesting a report on Saddam's supposed ties with Al Qaeda a mere two days after 9/11? The report came back and contained the exact opposite of what they started saying to rally support for the war. Saddam had no ties with Al Qaeda. Of course, Bush won't release it in any form. Wouldn't even give it to the 9/11 commission.



I think that's utter ****. I'm sorry, but you are not going to sell me on this "They thought there were weapons" ****. The administration knew there were none. This is ****ing Iraq, a country crippled by sanctions and without the ability to wipe their own asses without the rest of the world knowing whether they used Scotts or a generic brand.



Precisely. Why let the inspections continue? It wouldn't have yielded the results Bush wanted and if he let them continue any further, he risked losing some of the support he had to invade. That demonstrates to me that they had knowledge of there not being any weapons.



He can lick my crack. Anyone who would sell out their own integrity like that in order to bomb innocent people isn't worth my pissing on if they were on fire. He's as complicit in blowing off the arms of children as the actual bomb that was used is. It's unforgivable.BTW when are you getting a talk show on one of these cable telly channels. I would be alot more entertained by you than alot of these old farts!!!:lol:

[dissention]

BTW when are you getting a talk show on one of these cable telly channels. I would be alot more entertained by you than alot of these old farts!!!:lol:

As soon as they offer. I'll put Nancy Grace and her squawking to shame.

[DavidMn]

As soon as they offer. I'll put Nancy Grace and her squawking to shame.What would you call your program, and who would be your first guest? Lemme guess, a certain prime time CNN anchor?;)

[dissention]

I am not the one selling it. The UN is and was and passed many resolutions saying so and mostly unanimously.

I was clearly talking about this administration, but you must have missed that in your zeal to play devil's advocate or King of Argumentation yet again. Again, whether or not the United Nations thought he had weapons, the Bush administration invaded. They did not have the support of the UN, they had no coalition to speak of, and went about it unilaterally. Let's not even get into how they possibly violated international law as a member of the UN that completely disregarded rules outlined in the UN charter. Daniel Webster must have been spinning over in his grave when the administration invoked the words "imminent threat."

Again, for over a decade, they had been killing in the name of these WMD via Oil for Food, no fly zones, etc. If you can show that is an erroneous statement - let's see it.

And you seem to think I'm excusing that?

So, the world thought they were there and must share in some of the blame for W adhering to that line of thought, though I readily agree W took the killing in their name to a much higher level. In the end, if you think there were no WMD (from when exactly I am unsure) - then the world has been wrong for over a decade.

Of course anyone who thought there were weapons has been wrong. And this administration knew there were no weapons. That is my point. They suppressed intel that proved that assertion and puffed up intel that contradicted it so that they could invade. End of story.

And I don't think they had any weapons to speak of since the early nineties.

[Rickypt]

In a CNN poll last nite viewers were asked if they thought Bush's plan for dealing with border security was comprehensive and made sense. 98% said no.

That's because it's something his handlers threw together over the weekend and that he doesn't understand himself. It's nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention from the failures and scandals while trying to appease his base. When times go bad, when times go rough, go after the Mexicans.

[strandinthewind]

. . . And I don't think they had any weapons to speak of since the early nineties.


Then why did the world think to the contrary? I mean that is some pretty heavy competition to your opinion :shrug:

Also, I draw no distinction between W's falsely premised invasion of Iraq and Clinton's killing thousands if not millions via starvation and bombs - all in the name of the same WMD. I mean killing is killing. But, yes, W went a big step further than Clinton, though that step is meaningless to those who died over the last 15 or so years.

[dissention]

Then why did the world think to the contrary? I mean that is some pretty heavy competition to your opinion :shrug:

It's not just my opinion, there are many who didn't believe Saddam had weapons. And if you think everyone truly believed that Saddam had those weapons, you're a fool. Our own leaders knew he didn't have them, for christ's sake.

Also, I draw no distinction between W's falsely premised invasion of Iraq and Clinton's killing thousands if not millions via starvation and bombs - all in the name of the same WMD. I mean killing is killing. But, yes, W went a big step further than Clinton, though that step is meaningless to those who died over the last 15 or so years.

I agree to an extent and, as you know, I'm not a fan of Clinton and find him to be just as murderous as the Bushbots. But I find the impact of an actual invasion of Iraq to be a bit more devastating than that of airstrikes. This is something that will never be "won" and people are going to look back at this as a mess of monumental proportions. We've f*cked things up in the Middle East beyond repair.

[strandinthewind]

It's not just my opinion, there are many who didn't believe Saddam had weapons. And if you think everyone truly believed that Saddam had those weapons, you're a fool. Our own leaders knew he didn't have them, for christ's sake . . . .

I am speaking of the UN resolutions and the terror commited under them. I use the word terror because if those resolutions were fabricated, which I think you think they were, then it is terrorism.