More trouble for Cheney
 

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....ap/index.html

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."

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.

Excuse me, may I inquire as to how you REALLY feel about this?:laugh:

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.

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:

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............

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.......

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.

A truer statement was never made...:nod:

His hula jaw gives it away.

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:

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