**The preponderance of intelligence was that Hussein was reconstituting these weapons**
The problem was that there was no "evidence". Intelligence with no evidence is like breathing with no air..... it just has no value. On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Keith In Köln <[email protected]>wrote: > Hello Dena! > > Thank you for a very thoughtful, responsive reply, and I apologize if I > offended you! You raise some excellent, thought provoking points, many of > which I am in total agreement with. > > By no means am I a "Colin Powell Defender"; but I do think that the speech > that Mr. Powell made to the United Nations which you reference has been > over-criticized, and in general, the Bush Administration, (of which, as a > conservative, I can find a whole bunch of faults with!) has been thrashed > beyond what was called for, and by many who either choose to forget the > facts of what was transpiring in the particular time period, and/or don't > have a clue about what was going on in 2002/2003 from an internatonal > standpoint. > > The facts are that Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party who controlled Iraq > had used weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds, the Shia and > against the Iranians. There is no quesiton that Iraq possessed weapons of > mass destruction. It was in fact American and European Nation-States who > sold him the ingrediants for the biological weaponry. No question, > Hussein and Iraq used weapons of mass destruction on numerous occasions. > > The preponderance of intelligence was that Hussein was reconstituting these > weapons, despite the United Nations ban on such weaponry, and despite the > voluminous inspections that Iraq refused to comply with. It was not only > the United States intelligence who had this information, but it was also the > Russians, the British, the French, the Germans, the Sudanese, the Egyptians, > the Saudis, and every other Nation-State that has an intelligence agency. > > There was some debate about how far Hussein had gotten on the nuclear > front, but there was really no question that Iraq was in fact pursuing > nuclear weaponry. Some saying that with foreign help it could be a year; > others saying it would be several years. > So my point is this. When then Secretary Powell appeared before the > United Nations, no, it’s simply not the case that there was, if you’re in a > position of decision-making, evidence to say that it was likely that Hussein > and Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. It is also incorrect to > say that Mr. Powell's information came from only one source. It was the > belief from most all of Western Civilization that Iraq possessed weapons of > mass destruction. > > This is where I refer to revisionist history. It's easy to Monday Morning > Quarterback today, in January of 2011, but I believe that Mr. Powell was > convinced, as he has said recently, that there was a legitimate belief of > the danger posed by Iraq. > > Now, what we found is that he was indeed breaking out of the constraints > that had been put there — we all know the scandal of oil-for-food — that he > was not as far along in that *reconstitution* as the intelligence had > suggested. But the idea that somehow Saddam Hussein was not pursuing or was > never going to pursue weapons of mass destruction, I think, is as misplaced > as an argument that he had fully reconstituted. > > > > > On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Dena Liles <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear Keith, >> Truth Sojourner <<<< What do you think this means? I dictate your truth, I >> am absolutely 100% positive that I know the truth, that I do not continue to >> try to find truth? You know what? after a little thought about this I wasn't >> on a Hummer to see the 2 traveling chemical lab trucks, come to think of it >> neither were you? >> >> Yes, I've been to the Moonbattery site, but for the life of me (since I >> went back to try to find why I was on that site) I can't remember. I have a >> mass in my brain and sometimes my short term memory escapes me. Obviously it >> wasn't too awfully interesting. It sounds as if you know the answer to that. >> I have an open mind, so I visit other's sites (read and listen, etc.) to try >> and get incite or maybe even change my mind, but I don't snap to judgement >> and decide that I believe anything to be 100%. If I do that, then I will >> lose my capacity to learn anything else on that subject matter. >> >> And by the same token, there are those in Western Civilization that are >> truly baffled by the naivety of those who cannot see the threat posed by >> Islam, <<< This baffles you? Then you need to back up and start all over >> again because you have obviously gotten lost by the way side. But it is not >> Islam it is people who use a religious book to justify slaughter IMHO. >> >> Once again, a post from August, 2008, and the old adage, "Everything >> Changes.....Nothing Changes...." <<< I prefer to say that the only thing >> you can count on is change! >> >> Real American Patriot: "So, you discount his predecessor, President >> Clinton's, the CIA's, the M-5's, the Mossad's, the Saudi's, the Russian's, >> and the Sudanese claims, as well as Saddam Hussein's own claims, and the >> fact that many of Iraq's known weapons of mass destruction are still >> unaccounted for, when you make a statement that President Bush lied?" <<< >> Well Good God Almighty they are still searching and haven't found them in a >> decade? Maybe they will find them when some more of the ice melts. >> >> Kinder, Gentler Tree Hugger: "Bush lied". <<< I never said Bush lied, >> but somebody sent Colin Powell out there to say it. He didn't have the >> authority to do it! >> >> "Efraim Halevy (a Mossad officer since 1961 and its chief between 1998 and >> 2002) stated in his book: 'Man in the Shadows' that he was not privy to all >> the intelligence, but had personal contact with senior levels in the US sums >> it up that 'Given the extreme shortage of reliable >> information such potentially threatening issues, were the intelligence >> chiefs duty-bound to present their assessments to the political level >> regardless of how much hard material they possessed! The intelligence >> officer can never tell the political master that he is unable to give an >> estimate of a threat. Come what may, an officer has to give an estimate, >> even if it is largely a guess." >> >> He goes on the say: "What, then, is the role of the political level in >> matters such as these? First of all it is the political level that must >> receive the information, digest it, and set the tone for future discussions >> and dealings with the subjects at hand." >> >> And one more thing: When President George W. Walker Bush said to stop Gulf >> War I at 100 hours, General Schwarzkopf said that if he could have I believe >> 2 to 3 more hours he could take Baghdad. President Bush said if we take >> Baghdad we will own it. That was in Bob Woodward's book: "State of Denial" >> >> Laughter is the greatest coping mechanism that we have, so I'm glad you >> had a good laugh. I am now going to intentionally hit the send button, and >> if you can't find it within yourself to speak to me (a total stranger) with >> some respect then we just won't! >> Peace, >> Dena >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Keith In Köln <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Whoopsie, did I just hit my send button? I guess I was laughing so hard >>> at Truth Sojouner's last missives, my apologies! >>> >>> I mean, when we think of TommyTomTomForNews, and his attempt at revising >>> history, poor Tommy doesn't hold a candle to TruthSojourner, who obviously >>> can give classes on anti-American revisionist Moonbattery, especially >>> to the uninformed! >>> >>> Once again, a post from August, 2008, and the old adage, "Everything >>> Changes.....Nothing Changes...." >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 7:53 PM, KeithInTampa wrote: >>> >>> Keith Responds: >>> >>> ....Well, how's that for some kinder, gentler arrogance? >>> >>> And by the same token, there are those in Western Civilization that are >>> truly baffled by the naivety of those who cannot see the threat posed by >>> Islam, to our very way of life, and who would in fact make statements like >>> what you just made. What gets me, is the "Kinder, Gentler, Tree Hugging" >>> faction's logic, and then, their hateful repartee when confronted with the >>> truth. >>> >>> Any time a conversation starts out with, "Bush Lied", or "Gore won the >>> election", you know the conversation is never going to be based on fact, or >>> logic, or anything remotely resembling a rational discourse. The >>> conversations usually go something like this: >>> >>> Kinder, Gentler Tree Hugger: "Bush lied". >>> >>> Real American Patriot: "Lied about what?" >>> >>> Kinder, Gentler Tree Hugger: "The war in Iraq" >>> >>> Real American Patriot: "What part of the war in Iraq do you think >>> President Bush or any of his administration lied about?" >>> >>> Kinder, Gentler Tree Hugger: "Weapons of mass destruction". >>> >>> Real American Patriot: "So, you discount his predecessor, President >>> Clinton's, the CIA's, the M-5's, the Mossad's, the Saudi's, the Russian's, >>> and the Sudanese claims, as well as Saddam Hussein's own claims, and the >>> fact that many of Iraq's known weapons of mass destruction are still >>> unaccounted for, when you make a statement that President Bush lied?" >>> >>> Kinder, Gentler Tree Hugger: "Well, he stole the election, and all I >>> know is Bush lied, and you are a fascist pig for not signing the petition >>> calling for impeachment to oust the pig". >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Keith In Köln >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Truth_Sojourner <[email protected] >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> There are a few more to add I'm sure, but I think Colin Powell should >>>>> be with them. Afterall, he knew when he walked into the UN with info from >>>>> only 1 source named "screw ball" as informant an used that evidence that >>>>> he >>>>> was not standing on his principles, but on his perceived "duty" to the >>>>> military. I think he could have at least said get somebody else, and >>>>> reported what he knew. Did he want to save his "military loyalty", his >>>>> paycheck, or his personal character? I guess we will never know, but he >>>>> did >>>>> hang on to the paycheck for awhile but that was it. Just sayin' is all. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>>>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>>>> >>>>> * Visit our other community at >>>>> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> >>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >>> * Visit our other community at >>> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >> >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at >> http://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > -- Mark M. Kahle H. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
