Let's read all the statements that Bush administration spokespeople made under oath about Iraq before the war and see if we can catch them in any lies -- that is, in any contradictions with the information in the DSMs.
I quote below from Colin Powell's speech before the House Committee on International Relations on September 19, 2002. It is interesting in light of the DSMs. While Blair was being warned that going into Iraq without a United Nations authorization would violate international law, Colin Powell was threatening that Bush would go it alone if he had to.
Powell does not appear to trouble himself with whether invading Iraq would violate international law. (That's not to say that he totally disregards international law. Do you remember how we invoked an important part of that law -- the Geneva Convention -- when the Iraqis published pictures of our captured soldiers.)
Powell's speech was so strange. On the one hand, he claimed that Saddam's alleged violations of international law, specifically the UN mandates, would justify our invading Iraq. On the other, he practically admits there was no imminent threat, but says we should invade Iraq even if he couldn't get the UN resolution he wanted -- an action that the British believed would be illegal. In this speech, Powell didn't really claim that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But, the TV was full of propaganda that Saddam had WMDs. Powell's speech was very cagey in light of the DSMs.
The Bush administration marketed the war masterfully. They created an illusion that Saddam had WMDs, but they knew he did not. Powell covered himself well when he testified under oath. Congress did not listen to what the administration said under oath. It was watching the show on the news, just like the rest of us. It was on primetime TV and in the NY Times and through surrogates who were not under oath that the administration drummed up the WMDs argument. The administration pulled a fast one, and the American people including Congress fell for it. Congress was derelict in performing its duty to think for itself. Every Senator and Representative who voted for the war resolution should read the testimony from the administration, acknowledge the wrong, apologize to the World and make it right to all of us out here.
The Administration's Position With Regard to Iraq
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Testimony before the House Committee on International Relations
Washington, DC
September 19, 2002
. . .
As Delivered
. . .
Over the past weekend while I worked the aftermath of the President's speech, I saw the pressure build on Iraq as the Arab League, the Secretary General and so many other nations pressed Iraq on the need to take action because it stood guilty and nobody could deny the guilt.
And four days ago, on Monday, Iraq responded not with a serious offer but with a familiar, tactical ploy to try to get out of the box, to try to get out of the corner once more. The Iraqi Foreign Minister said Iraq would let the inspectors in ''without conditions.'' And this morning, in a speech at the United Nations he challenged President Bush's September 12th speech. He even called for a discussion of the issue of inspection teams in accordance ''with international law.'' he said. He is already walking back. He is already stepping away from the without condition statement they made on Monday. But he is not deceiving anybody. It is a ploy we have seen before. We have seen it on many occasions. And on each occasion, once inspectors began to operate, Iraq continued to do everything to frustrate their work.
Mr. Chairman, I will call your attention and the members' attention to the written statement that I have submitted, and I ask that it be put in the record, where I record a dozen examples of Iraq's defiance of the UN mandate. Cited in that longer statement is everything from intimidation at gunpoint to holding up inspectors while all the incriminating evidence was removed from the site to be inspected. It is a litany of defiance, unscrupulous behavior and every sort of attempt at noncompliance. And by no means have I listed everything, only a sampling.
. . .
We are trying to solve this problem through the United Nations and in a multilateral way. The President took the case to the UN because it is the body that should deal with such matters as Iraq. It was created to deal with such matters. President Bush is hoping that the UN will act in a decisive way. But at the same time, as he has made clear, and my other colleagues in the Administration have made clear and I make clear today, if the United Nations is not able to act and act decisively -- and I think that would be a terrible indictment of the UN -- then the United States will have to make its own decision as to whether the danger posed by Iraq is such that we have to act in order to defend our country and to defend our interests.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2002/13581.htmAnyway, my challenge stands, let's see who can be the first to find a clear lie in the testimony, and let's see how many of them we can find.
Here is a document to start on: the 2002 NIE:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2002/nie_iraq_october2002.htm
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
