**There is still no sign of WMD in Iraq **
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has admitted that evidence he submitted to the United Nations to justify war on Iraq may have been wrong.
In February last year he told the UN Security Council that Iraq had developed mobile laboratories for making biological weapons.
On Friday he conceded that information “appears not to be… that solid”.
The claim failed to persuade the Security Council to back the war, but helped sway US public opinion.
Mr Powell said he hoped the commission appointed to investigate pre-war intelligence on Iraq would examine whether the intelligence community was justified in backing the claim.
Doubts have been widely cast on the existence of the mobile labs, not least by the former US chief weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, who now says does not know whether Iraq ever had a mobile weapons programme.
It is the first time Mr Powell has acknowledged key evidence he used to make the case for war may have been wrong, says the BBC’s Jannat Jalil in Washington.
Previously, he has only said that he does not know if he would have backed the invasion had he believed Iraq did not possess banned weapons. US faked evidence on Iraqi WMDs!
these people like Bush and Colin Powell stood up in front of whole world including places such as the UN and said there is such and such biological weapons on mobile labs in underground bunker and then they had the gall to say iraqis have virtual reality labs !
We knew Bush & Co was lying and now after the invasion and killings in iraq the lies are being exposed daily!
The words he used were “may have been a mistake”. The topic starter changed it to “fake” :rotato:
Make a point, dude. Don’t fabricate your points. There is plenty of stuff flying around as it is to show that US really didn’t had anything substantial to support the war. You really don’t have to put words in the mouth of US Secy of State.
I see plenty of discussions here, where people are saying the same thing.. that US did not had any evidence of WMD's and therefore the war was unjustified. This particular discussion was started on the premise of the admittance by US Secy of State. The actual words used by the US Secy of State are a bomb-shell by themself, and there is really no need to fabricate on top of that. If the topic-starter does even have the integrity to stick to the right words, then the discussion can be merged with hundreds of other discussions.
Those who see the truth as it is, know that US used bogus claims of WMD to attack Iraq and kill tens of thousands of civilians. Those who are hell-bent on defending US will now say that WMD's are irrelevant and the injustices of Saddam are the main cause why US killed thousands of Iraqi civilians. Whichever way you look at it, its a terrible situation.
Everybody knows the Americans and its allies lied for there reasons to invade iraq and kill thousands.
If you want to side track the debate on the name of the topic that is pretty shallow.
Fake evidence is clear in its meaning when powell uses words like "not so solid ground" you tell me what that means because to me that is another political spin for the words we lied!
You HT guys have kept on doing this, people, probably lost interest in reading your articles just because you change words. Tell me, why did you guys have to change the words of the article title?
It would be big if Powell admitted the evidence (that was a basis of war)was fake, such a statement could have reprecussions, but he never said that, so whats the point in posting fake news?
Do you know what a murder trial is? When someone is let go by the court, as the evidence presented by the prosecution is not 'solid' enough, this does not mean that the prosecutor presented 'fake' evidence.
WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Sunday for the first time that Saddam Hussein’s alleged mobile germ factories and labs probably “did not exist,” and he criticized prewar U.S. intelligence about Iraq’s weapons.
Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., typically a backer of the CIA and the White House, said the administration’s use of flawed intelligence about the alleged mobile bioweapons labs is** “embarrassing for everybody.”**
Appearing Sunday on CNN’s Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer, Roberts said the CIA’s claims on the vehicles were “embarrassing to everybody who used the intelligence,” including members of Congress, officials in both the Clinton and Bush administrations and “especially Secretary Powell.”
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Spock: *
Ak47, once again you've changed the headline like you pleased :) Now dont tell me mistake and fake are the same things.
[/QUOTE]
He did no such thing - where did he state that he quoted the original headline? He's merely created a thread, with a topic title of his choice, and then posted an article.
I do that myself many times - if I do not believe a particular headline from an article is striking enough to grab attention when used as a thread title, I will not use the article's headline, and instead come up with an original title.
All that you've done is drag the thread off topic.
He did no such thing - where did he state that he quoted the original headline? He's merely created a thread, with a topic title of his choice, and then posted an article.
I do that myself many times - if I do not believe a particular headline from an article is striking enough to grab attention when used as a thread title, I will not use the article's headline, and instead come up with an original title.
All that you've done is drag the thread off topic.
[/QUOTE]
The Title of the News Article is:
"Powell admits Iraq evidence mistake"
Not only did AK47 fake the title of the article in his thread starting title, but he also faked the link he supplied to read "US faked evidence on Iraqi WMDs!" The article does not publish this highly inflamatory charge.
When I title a thread differently from the article linked to, 9 out of 10 times, the titles on my threads are changed by the MODS to mimic the title of the article I have linked to even if the discussion I want to have relates to a small portion of the article which may not directly relate to the title of the article.
In this case, AK47 titled a thread with a statement that is absolutely untrue and made up a title of the supporting link designed to mislead people as to the nature of the article.
By doing what he did, AK47 derailed his own thread. It's clear he couldn't have wanted to seriously debate the US claims on Iraqi WMD.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
He did no such thing - where did he state that he quoted the original headline? He's merely created a thread, with a topic title of his choice, and then posted an article.
I do that myself many times - if I do not believe a particular headline from an article is striking enough to grab attention when used as a thread title, I will not use the article's headline, and instead come up with an original title.
All that you've done is drag the thread off topic.
[/QUOTE]
There was not an 'on topic' to reply to. The thread title was not accurate to the article posted and since the only comment was "The lies keep on coming!" there was never a topic other than America bashing. It's one thing to change the headline but it's intellectualy dishonest to change the meaning to suit one's agenda.
The focus should be why the intelligence was faulty as claimed and/or presented the way it was. When the Iraqi intelligence commission comes out with their findings we should be able to conclude if 1, it was faulty intelligence or 2, if it was politicized intelligence.
Intelligence is by it's nature an educated guess. Frankly the whole approach of depending on WMD was highly flawed. No doubt about it, Saddam could have been indicted in a world court for genocide. That is the avenue that should have been pursued, except that there may or may not have been a "coalition" to back genocide. There certainly was none for Rwanda.
I personally believe that Colin Powell and Bush Sr. counseled the virtues of consensus, and the WMD was the only issue that could be presented to the UN with any hope of agreement. Everyone including Clinton believed there were WMD, and Saddams lack of openness tended to confirm those suspicions. Libya did it right, that option was open to Saddam.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
By doing what he did, AK47 derailed his own thread. It's clear he couldn't have wanted to seriously debate the US claims on Iraqi WMD.
[/QUOTE]
what debate there are no WMD's what is there to debate are you living in a fantasy land or something!
He did no such thing - where did he state that he quoted the original headline? He's merely created a thread, with a topic title of his choice, and then posted an article.
I do that myself many times - if I do not believe a particular headline from an article is striking enough to grab attention when used as a thread title, I will not use the article's headline, and instead come up with an original title.
All that you've done is drag the thread off topic.
[/QUOTE]
Read the article bro, and then read the topic of the thread. If you think they represent the same thing, then I rest my case. Had an Indian, or an American done that, these guys would have been on his throat by now.
