WMD Plot Thickens

Media outlets on both sides of the Atlantic are running lots of pieces on the question of Iraqi WMDs. From The Guardian: Straw, Powell had serious doubts over their Iraqi weapons claims. From MSNBC: Pressure mounting on Bush and Blair as weapons hunters find no unconventional arms. From the New York Times: Powell defends information he used to justify Iraq war. From the Washington Post: Tenet defends Iraq intelligence. And from Reuters: US insiders say Iraqi intel deliberately skewed.

Meanwhile, the story containing the “I’m not reading this. This is bullshit.” quotation from Colin Powell has now made it to US News and World Report’s website. See the following interesting article: Just how good was America’s intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass terror? So the folks at Islam Online and AFP were telling the truth about USNWR saying that, and Craig will need to come up with another explanation for why the rabid leftwing media hasn’t made more of the story so far.

2 Responses to “WMD Plot Thickens”

  1. Craig Says:

    Well, I sit corrected on the existence of the US News article.

    The story paints an additional picture of what we already knew about the internal conflict between the State Department and the White House and Pentagon. It appears even more clear that what Powell presented to the UN was most of, what can be called, the least ambiguous information available. If we all recall that presentation, even at that time, most pro-war people felt it was mostly a rehash of the information that people had already decided was enough credible evidence. And the skeptics continued to make their point that nothing new was presented to warrant action againsy Iraq. So there was nothing in the report that suddenly catapulted public opinion toward supporting war anyway, either within the US or the world.

    The key question still remains (if no compelling evidence is found, which is still to be determined), did the Administration act agressively on information that pointed to only a likelihood of WMD existing and overstate its case to the public, or did they deliberately act on information that they knew to be completely bogus and sell it to be factual?

    I’d say, again assuming nothing is found, that the former will be true. In which case, the Bush Administration, and the Republican Party would have to spin the situation like mad, and hope for a big economic recovery to have the slightest chance of avoiding being swept out of office and its majority in 2004. But the voting public will have a long memory of an Administration that may have sold them on a threat that wasn’t truly there (or at least no longer there by 2003).

    Although its quite unlikely, everyone better hope for the Country’s sake and, frankly, the world’s sake, that the latter isn’t true. If you think about it, that scenario would be much bigger than a “Conservatives lose, Liberals win” viewpoint.

    If the Democrats can get out of their own way and get a coherent message to the public that resonates, and a strong candidate emerges, they would have an easy walk to the White House.

    Let me also add that it seems apparent to me that the context of Powell’s “This is bull—-” comment was in relation to some especially thin evidence that he was being asked to use, not the whole presentation itself, as some may be inferring.

  2. ymatt Says:

    It’s still a little distressing that he would have been asked to present something that he found so objectionable though, even if it didn’t end up being presented. It speaks to an intent on White House’s part to mislead the UN and the public about the seriousness (or lack thereof) of the threat Iraq posed.

    I would however like to comment that you, Craig, are one level-headed dude and I hope you stick around. Even if you’re a bit more trusting than I am…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.