Lefty talk show host Ed Schultz was delighted by Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama, but not all his listeners were so enthused. This led to an eyebrow-raiser of a remark by Schultz during his Oct. 20 broadcast:
Now many of you have sent emails saying, oh Ed, who cares about this, (Powell) went in front of the UN and said there were no WMD. Well, that was an administration's, he was, you know, doing his job and he could have said no to it, that's true, but at the time they thought they had 'em. (emphasis added) And he was the mouthpiece for the administration and the country's position on WMD at that time. Look, it was a mistake, we've all learned a lot since then.
Operative word highlighted above -- "they." (MP3 Audio Here)
In other words, it wasn't just "he" -- Powell -- who believed Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in violation of more than a decade of UN resolutions. It was "they" -- as in Powell, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.
So much for "Bush Lied, People Died." Then again, "they thought they had 'em" isn't as pithy a bumper sticker.
Come to think of it, "they" includes a broader universe, to borrow from census parlance, than the Bush administration. "They" extends to military officers working in another government -- that of Saddam's Iraq. It was not until war was nearly imminent that many Iraqi generals learned Iraq did not possess WMD, as disclosed by them after capture and revealed by Iraq Survey Group leader Charles Duelfer in his September 2004 report to Congress.
Duelfer's report included this revelation, in the section titled "Realizing Saddam's Veiled WMD Intent; Regime Strategy and WMD Timeline" --
Early on, Saddam sought to foster the impression with his generals that Iraq could resist a Coalition ground attack using WMD. Then, in a series of meetings in late 2002, Saddam appears to have reversed course and advised various groups of senior officers and officials that Iraq in fact did not have WMD. His admissions persuaded top commanders that they really would have to fight the United States without recourse to WMD. In March 2003, Saddam created further confusion when he implied to his ministers and senior officers that he had some kind of secret weapon.
That Saddam succeeded in creating a false impression of possessing WMD was further corroborated by a "60 Minutes" segment last January about George Piro, a Lebanese-born FBI agent who took part in interrogations of Saddam.
From the "60 Minutes" report by Scott Pelley --
"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.
"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.
"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.
Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.
"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.
"Absolutely," Piro says.
Hence the widespread impression that "they" believed Iraq "had 'em."
What Saddam did in concocting his WMD ruse is akin to a thief going into a bank with his hand in his pocket and informing a teller that he has a gun. If arrested, the thief would face a charge of armed robbery -- even though he wasn't armed. He would also risk getting shot by a bank guard believing the thief to be armed.
Schultz's unwitting acknowledgment aside, many liberals still prefer to condemn the bank guard rather than the thief with the shadow weapon.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I think people are more
October 24, 2008 - 14:54 ET by arkansaszippersI think people are more upset that after we realized that the gun didn't exist, we continued as if it had.
"They" also included the Clinton administration
October 24, 2008 - 14:58 ET by Arminiushttp://www.sinsofthehusband.com/iraqthreat.html
Of course, we still don't know exactly what Saddam did with his WMD since he never, as required by UNSC resolutions, documented their destruction. My money is on them going to Syria under the guise of providing relief after the Zeyzoun dam burst.
AP story on MSNBC.com July 2008
October 24, 2008 - 15:40 ET by mattmHeadline reads: Last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts arrives in Canada
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
And what were we supposed to do?
October 24, 2008 - 14:59 ET by Captain KirockAnd what were we supposed to do? Put Saddam Hussein back in power and leave the country and say "sorry?"
Of course, there were several valid reasons other than WMD for removing Saddam. State sponsorship of terror was a big one.
Saddam is dead now
October 24, 2008 - 15:03 ET by arkansaszippersSo why are we there now? Because we want to "win?"
We could still put the Baathist back in charge
October 24, 2008 - 15:10 ET by Captain KirockThere's still quite a few of Saddam's old cronies around. We could put them back in charge if you want.
So why are we there now?
October 24, 2008 - 15:11 ET by Dan The Man 2So why are we there now? Because we want to "win?" - I do, I dont know about you AZ. From your "tone" you apparently dont. Winning in Iraq at the momnet is making sure they have a stable government capable of policing and protecting themselves and providing for the welfare of their people. I am of the firm believe when we went there we were obligated to make sure the "baby" country would be able to take care of itself.
Whenever they want us to go all they have to do is ask, so far they have not asked.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Dan: I still believe the
October 24, 2008 - 15:13 ET by BDDan:
I still believe the key to defeating the Islamo fascist message is still held in the streets of Bagdhad. (See post below).
Considering our current
October 24, 2008 - 15:17 ET by arkansaszippersConsidering our current financial crisis, I don't know that making sure Iraq is stable is a top priority right now. Especially considering what the cost is.
The financial crisis is
October 24, 2008 - 15:24 ET by BDThe financial crisis is simply a result of the natural tendancie sof markets being in eb and flow being aggravated by liberal policies.
The economy will surge again by mid summer if left alone, and the president in power then will claim great credit for actions that he undertook that did little or nothing to improve the sitatuation.
However, gaining a communicaitons foothold in Iraq will take years, cost little comparatively, and will ensure the destruction of the Islamo fascist message in the outlying years. it must not be abandoned or metaphorically "be the can kicked down the road."
Your question illuminates
October 24, 2008 - 15:12 ET by BDYour question illuminates your misunderstanding of the GWOT.
The point to being in Iraq is tht it is a far better conduit for our actions to destroy the enemy cente rof gravity in the current conflict. That strategic center of gravity is namely the message of Islamic Fascism.
The weapon of choice as I have stated before is the countering message of democratization and of modernization. We are competing for the future of the Arabic popular mindset, and holding a strategic cente rof communication is key to our success.
For instance:
If you decided you wished to fundamentally change the western worlds appreciation of something (Football, fashion, or even just television watching), would you make you attack in the mountains of Idaho? Or downtown New york City? The answer is clear.
I don't think we can chage
October 24, 2008 - 15:15 ET by arkansaszippersI don't think we can chage mindsets over there any more than a middle-eastern army could come over here and make people decide that they don't like football anymore.
If you donot believe we can
October 24, 2008 - 15:30 ET by BDIf you donot believe we can change mindsets, then you have failed to learn from history.
As one who has lived in Germany, Holland, Japan, South Korea, and man yo other locations the message of Democracy has defeated EVERYTHING it has come up against.
1.) Nazi'ism was not so much defeated by the bayonet as it was by 30 years of US occupation and message spreading.
2.) Shinto/militarism was not defeated so much by a pair of nuclear weapons as it was by forty years of US message spreading.
3.) South Korea had no notion of democracy nor free market capitalism until the US Army descended upon it in 1945 and the pace did not pick up until 1953.
Hell, just LOOK at the worlds population. The US "Message" of Levi's installed by US dependants in Germany in the 1960's-70's has set the world standard. So is Democracy.
You give me an occupying force of Canadians in the US and I guarantee you Hockey will defeat Football for the public attention.
ha Maybe, but I doubt we
October 24, 2008 - 15:38 ET by arkansaszippersha
Maybe, but I doubt we would welcome them with open arms. In fact, if our country was being occupied by a bunch of Iraqis, I imagine most people would be downright pissed. In fact, it would probably make people hate Iraqis even more.
Maybe, but I doubt we would
October 24, 2008 - 15:49 ET by Dan The Man 2Maybe, but I doubt we would welcome them with open arms. - Then you dont see history in the making. The American people just might elect Obama an avowed socialist/communist and welcome his policies with open arms. We are being occupied and the media is controlled by socialists who have one agenda, that to make the USA like Russia.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I understand you would
October 24, 2008 - 16:00 ET by arkansaszippersI understand you would probably like it if a democrat never became president, but you don't think that sounds just a little bit paranoid?
When the typical record of
October 24, 2008 - 16:15 ET by BDWhen the typical record of a typical liberal is examined, yes you are correct, I fear for them ever coming into contact with any form of power.
And that is NOT unduly paranoid. Mere realism...
BD... It would be
October 24, 2008 - 16:20 ET by Clear thinkerBD...
It would be interesting to find if Powell ever attended churches that preach Black Liberation Theology. It would answer a lot of questions!
Why Obama Scares The Crap Out Of Me
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Sometimes a bit of paranoia
October 25, 2008 - 05:25 ET by Dan The Man 2Sometimes a bit of paranoia is a good thing. I am paranoid of the MSM and their worship of Obama. For your information I have voted Democrat, voted for Carter and in teh primaries for Jackson. I vote Christian and for now the party that follows my principlesthe closest is the Republican party. Alas they too are moving away from those and I am in a quandry.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Maybe, but I doubt we would
October 24, 2008 - 16:13 ET by BDMaybe, but I doubt we would welcome them with open arms. In fact, if our country was being occupied by a bunch of Iraqis, I imagine most people would be downright pissed.
Yes we would hate them,
October 24, 2008 - 20:53 ET by GregEYes we would hate them, because we don't live in a dictatorship and we already are a free nation. Another nation invading us would not be doing so to free us from a dictator, and would not be looking to promote freedom to us. Their purpose would be to destroy our freedom, so yes, we would hate them. I think your comparison is flawed.
Personally
October 24, 2008 - 15:32 ET by 10ksnookerI like the line 'Powell lied, people died.' I think Powell knew all the time there were no WMDs and should be tried for war crimes.
Afterall, it was Powell who had the last go at convincing the world that 31 countries were going to attack Iraq. He did a good job lting.
No do overs in war, only with BJs can you get a do over if you don't like it the first time.
Powwell
October 24, 2008 - 15:04 ET by ZmeademanI guess he,s thier (house *****)now to toss away.I always liked him but as another poster said the limelite is fleeting ( scott mclelland) but the act of selling out is permanent......................
Dude... Please?
October 24, 2008 - 15:28 ET by Saint ZeroPhrases like your use of "House N-----" to describe Powell are so 19th century. Grow up and join the rest of us in the 21st, okay Zmeademan?
Saint Zero
October 24, 2008 - 15:40 ET by RESTLESS 1I think that Z was trying to point out the hypocrisy of the left as that is what Powell was called on many a liberal blog when he was in Bush's administration.
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
At the time, Obama opposed the war
October 24, 2008 - 15:07 ET by KC MulvilleMay I point out, at the time, Obama and everyone else thought Saddam had the WMDs. So when Obama came out against the war, before we all changed our minds about the WMDs, he wasn't displaying sound judgment. His surrogates now claim that he, and he alone, turned out to be correct. But he didn't know that at the time. He was against the war because he's nothing but a common anti-war type. That's what happens when you pal around with sixties' radicals.
Let's be very clear. When he was faced with the probability that an enemy had deadly weapons, Obama refused to respond. He didn't think we had the right to attack Saddam, even though Saddam was threatening us, and assured us that he had WMDs. That's your next president? That's who we want to answer the 3am phone call?
I'm sorry, and I hope I'm terribly wrong, but the world is going to roll this guy. They're going to take his candy like bullies in a schoolyard, and he's going to "project calm." So much for presidential termperament.
Good Powell interview..
October 24, 2008 - 15:33 ET by mastersofdeceitFrom AARP 2006
Q: Your career was almost spotless. Does it bother you that your most recent public position was a low note? You've said it was very painful.
A: Yeah, it hurt. Let me point out that the same intelligence I provided that's subject to so much controversy—that's the same intelligence that the Senate and House used four months earlier to vote for a resolution. It's the same information the President thought was accurate after his director of intelligence told him it was a slam dunk. And it was the same kind of intelligence that President Clinton used to bomb Iraq in 1998. But nevertheless there was no spotlight on this issue like the spotlight I had on me at the UN. I wasn't alone in believing those stockpiles were there—our commanders believed they were there, and they were prepared to fight through chemical attacks to get to Baghdad—and our President believed it and Congress believed it. So when it turned out that part of that information was wrong, the spotlight was on me. And I'm disappointed. I'm sorry it happened and wish those who knew better had spoken up at the time. But there isn't anything else I can say about it. When people ask me, "Is this a blot on your record?" Yeah, okay, fine, it's a blot on my record. But do you want me to walk around saying I have a blot on my record every day? I have a blot on my record. There it is. It's there for everybody to see forever.
Q: You've always had the attitude that everything looks better in the morning: "It ain't that bad." Did you feel that way in this case? Did it look better in the morning?
A: Ummm, it took a few mornings. You know it wasn't right away that I discovered this stuff was wrong. We sent 1,400 people to look for the stuff that we were sure was there. So the only part that kind of annoys me is "Well, did you lie? Or were you misleading?" No, I didn't lie, and I wasn't misleading. If I was lying and knew what the truth was, which has to be the basis of a lie—you know the truth—we wouldn't have sent 1,400 people wandering around Iraq looking for the stuff. They didn't find it. So the intelligence was wrong. And that's all you can really say about it. Yeah, it comes up almost every day.
Q: Many people wonder, once you knew the intelligence was wrong and we were already in there, why did you stay? Where do you draw the line between being a good soldier, loyal to your superiors, and true to your own beliefs and values?
A: Why would I have quit? Because we had bad intelligence? If I had been lied to, that would be different.
Read it all.
Another lie often repeated is "hans blix was satisfied", which is false.
Powell, Not Too Bright...
October 24, 2008 - 19:05 ET by AllRightyYou know, I don't really give a rat's behind if there were WMDs or not. Hussein was a sadistic idiot that actually used chemical/nerve gas to wipe out a whole bunch of people. The entire country was ruled by this evil dictator, and if you think he wouldn't have gotten ahold of a nuke if he could, you're fooling yourself.
Wonder why Hussein spent so much time fiddling around with the weapons inspectors and no-fly zones and all that?
Ego? Narcissism?
Colin Powell ought to take his son, Michael's advice and go with a war hero not a war zero.
No WMD?
October 24, 2008 - 20:03 ET by zfAsk Syria where Saddam's WMD's are, they might have a pretty good idea...
There is an important distinction.
October 25, 2008 - 01:53 ET by JWFThis is yet another example of the utter failure of the MSM to do their job.
Conspiracy theorists should rightly be labled as kooks and thrust to the outer edges of society where they can do no harm.
The reason irrational conspiracy theories take hold is because of the lack of empirical evidence to back up the conspiracy.
We know space aliens do not beam thoughts into our brains. BUT we have no evidence that space aliens do not beam thoughts into our head.
We know Oswald acted alone, but we have no proof others were not involved.
We know Saddam was a nasty little character, and Congress listed 23 items in the authorisation of force, of which only 1 pertained to WMD's. But we have no proof Bush lied about the WMD's.
It is in the netherworld of the absence of opposing evidence that the conspiracy theorists gain their toehold because you can't stop a question. And they can spread their message to the young and impressionable. The government is big and makes the rules, so there is a certain amount of distrust there, and people want to believe something nefarious is going on.
That is why it is up to each one of us to label these people as kooks and thrust them to the edge of society.
The MSM did the opposite, labling anyone with a BUSH LIED bumper sticker a hero and thrusting them into the spotlight. This was a disgrace and an injustice to the people of the United States.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
WMDs -The Shameful Democrat Betrayal
October 25, 2008 - 07:42 ET by Conservative4LifeMany of you may have seen this but it is a good piece of quotes by democrats prior to entering the war in Iraq, some quotes which were before Bush took office speaking of WMDs in Iraq. All quotes listed are sourced. Good for confronting the "Bush lied" democraps. If they would only open their eyes. Many times I've pointed these out to folks and they flat out refuse to hear quotes from the likes of Clinton, Algore, Albright, Reid and Pelosi, et. al. about WMDs.
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics/2005-11/msg00112.html
United we stand, divided we fall
Uncle Colin
October 25, 2008 - 14:22 ET by flyingmonkeyWhen Ronald Reagan made Colin Powell a four-star general, the left called him an Uncle Tom. When George H W Bush made him Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the left called him an Uncle Tom. When George W. Bush made him Secretary of State, the left called him Uncle Tom.
You betrayed the ones who brought you to the dance when you shuffled to the other side Uncle Colin. I'm sure it was the "content of his character" that swayed your decision. (wink, wink)
No matter, you'll always be Uncle Colin to me.