Colin Powell's Tape Shows Iraqis 'Evacuating' WMD's

[ProAmerican]

Monday, Nov. 14, 2005

Bush officials have done such a poor job defending themselves against charges they lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that even their supporters seem to have forgotten about some of the most compelling WMD evidence.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, for instance, keeps apologizing for his speech to the United nations on the eve of the Iraq war. But at least one chilling bit of evidence he introduced there has never been refuted.

Here's how Powell introduced his case on Feb. 5, 2003:

POWELL: Let me begin by playing a tape for you. What you are about to hear is a conversation that my government monitored. It takes place on November 26 [2002], on the day before United Nation's teams resumed inspections in Iraq.

The conversation involves two senior officers, a colonel and a brigadier general, form Iraq's elite military unit, the Republican Guard.

TAPE TRANSCRIPT:

IRAQI COLONEL: About this committee that is coming with [U.N. nuclear weapons inspector] Mohammed ElBaradei.

IRAQI GENERAL: Yeah, yeah.

COL: We have this modified vehicle. What do we say if one of them sees it?

GEN: You didn't get a modified...You don't have a modified...

COL: By God, I have one.

GEN: Which? From the workshop...?

COL: From the al-Kindi Company

GEN: Yeah, yeah. I'll come to you in the morning. I have some comments. I'm worried you all have something left.

COL: We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left. [END OF POWELL TAPE EXCERPT]

What type of "modified vehicle" do Iraq war critics think Saddam's general was worried about? A souped-up 1967 Mustang?

And what, pray tell, do they think Saddam's colonel was referring to when he said, "We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left?

LINK

 

[Voegelin]

The proves Jay Rockerfeller, Sandy Berger and Hillary Clinton did not lie. Saddam did have WMD.

 

[momalle1]

Finding WMD's would prove Saddam had WMD's.

 

[Smoke Screen]

I remember making a tape like that when I was a kid. We sat around a tape recorder and recorded our burps, etc. They we played it for our parents.

Powell's tape prooves nothing and is a weak reason to invade a country.

 

[MethodMan]

I remember making a tape like that when I was a kid. We sat around a tape recorder and recorded our burps, etc. They we played it for our parents.

Powell's tape prooves nothing and is a weak reason to invade a country.

That's right - Bush Lied - Buy in -Vote for Democrats - Impeach Bush

Did I leave anything out?

 

[Voegelin]

Yes. No blood for oil. Selected not elected. Free Mumia. Support the troops, not the war.

There are a few more.

 

[Smoke Screen]

That's right - Bush Lied - Buy in -Vote for Democrats - Impeach Bush

Did I leave anything out?

Yeah, focusing on the OP.

 

[Matthew777]

That's right - Bush Lied - Buy in -Vote for Democrats - Impeach Bush

Did I leave anything out?

Red herrings are the refuge of those with feeble intellect or a shameful disregard for truth.

 

[ProAmerican]

The proves Jay Rockerfeller, Sandy Berger and Hillary Clinton did not lie. Saddam did have WMD.

What is funny is how the Democrats keep changing the goalposts on this one.

First Bush lied, then he manipulated the intelligence, now he limited access to info concerning Iraq and WMD's.

They really need to give it up.

They couldn't even provide any proof the first time around that Bush knew that the intelligence concerning Iraq and WMD's was no good.

They still haven't provided any evidence where President Bush admitted before the war that the intelligence was no good.

This is going to come back and bite them. That is what you get when you lie about others, like they have lied about President Bush.

Even John McCain stated yesterday that the Democrats need to stop lying about President Bush.

 

[MethodMan]

That's right - Bush Lied - Buy in -Vote for Democrats - Impeach Bush -No blood for oil - Selected not elected - Free Mumia - Support the troops, not the war.

Any Others?

 

[zoink]

Red herrings are the refuge of those with feeble intellect or a shameful disregard for truth.

Red herrings are fallacies kinda like appeals to emotion and pity.

Sincerely,
zoink

 

[ballfan]

Red herrings are the refuge of those with feeble intellect or a shameful disregard for truth.

Are you accusing anyone here of this?

 

[ballfan]

I remember making a tape like that when I was a kid. We sat around a tape recorder and recorded our burps, etc. They we played it for our parents.

Powell's tape prooves nothing and is a weak reason to invade a country.

It seems clear its not about burps. What do you suppose they were so interested in hiding? Can you make a serious guess?

 

[butterfoot]

Finding WMD's would prove Saddam had WMD's.

Kind of hard to find them when the inept U.N. took their time getting into Iraq.


-cw

 

[Matthew777]

Red herrings are fallacies kinda like appeals to emotion and pity.

Sincerely,
zoink

It is not an appeal to pitty but a dose of reality. People have died for Bush's lies.

Peace.

 

[nvxplorer]

What type of "modified vehicle" do Iraq war critics think Saddam's general was worried about? A souped-up 1967 Mustang?

And what, pray tell, do they think Saddam's colonel was referring to when he said, "We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left?

Okay, I’ll bite. What was the modified vehicle? The short transcript is extremely vague. Why does the article conclude with questions? Was any determination made as to the use of the vehicle in question? In responding to the closing questions, I’ll say, “I have no idea, but please, tell us.”

 

[Voegelin]

What is funny is how the Democrats keep changing the goalposts on this one. They really need to give it up.

It has been fascinating to watch. From 1997 (at least) until the second week in January in 2003, they said exactly what Republicans said. Then the Democratic primaries loomed on the horizon and the Worker's World Party held the first antiwar protest (months before the war began).

It was as if someone had thrown a switch. Democrats either stopped taking about WMD or began to hint the war was a mistake. By the time the 2004 campaign was under way, they all reversed themselves on WMD and started calling Bush a liar.

Thought it would end or at least be toned down after Kerry's defeat but nope. For a few months they tried to convince everyone the voting machines were rigged and when that didn't work, went right back to the slogans that failed to elect John Kerry.

Surreal. Its like the spring, summer and fall of 2004 all over again.

 

[whatbogsends]

It has been fascinating to watch. From 1997 (at least) until the second week in January in 2003, they said exactly what Republicans said. Then the Democratic primaries loomed on the horizon and the Worker's World Party held the first antiwar protest (months before the war began).

It was as if someone had thrown a switch. Democrats either stopped taking about WMD or began to hint the war was a mistake. By the time the 2004 campaign was under way, they all reversed themselves on WMD and started calling Bush a liar.

Thought it would end or at least be toned down after Kerry's defeat but nope. For a few months they tried to convince everyone the voting machines were rigged and when that didn't work, went right back to the slogans that failed to elect John Kerry.

Surreal. Its like the spring, summer and fall of 2004 all over again.

Aww, come on, Voeg - don't you have any recollection of what the debates from this forum were like throughout all of 2003? Those of us "on the left" were analyzing the questionable "intelligence" about Iraq's WMD capabilities, and Bush supporters, consistantly reassured us, in unison, that WMD would be found. As 2003 went on, and those on the right continued to present false positives of WMD ("look, they found WMD in Iraq"..."oh, it was just a toaster oven"), they slowly shifted the goalposts such that finding WMD wasn't even necessary to the war in Iraq being justified.

While Democratic politicians certainly "fell in line" during the run-up to the war - remember, when slogans like "you're either with us or against us" were prevalent, and any disagreement to the war was labeled treason - the majority of those on the left, politically, were questioning both the intelligence as presented by the Bush administration, as well as the motives for war. Fast forward to November 2005, and it's becoming more and more apparent that we were spot on with our pre-war analysis. Yet, somehow, those in the Bush camp are trying to make it seem like it is those opposed to the war that have moved goalposts.

What is surreal is how Bush supporters are either oblivious to the truth or don't seem to care about any wrongdoings by the Bush adminstration.

 

[Matthew777]

What is surreal is how Bush supporters are either oblivious to the truth or don't seem to care about any wrongdoings by the Bush adminstration.

So much for restoring honor and dignity to the White House...

Peace.

 

[sinner/SAVED]

Vehicles of Mass Destruction?