Powell said that a white paper regarding UBL and 9/11 would be publicized.

That never materialized.

Am I right or am I right?

See:

Interview on Meet the Press
Secretary Colin L. Powell
Washington, DC
September 23, 2001

QUESTION: Will you release publicly a white paper, which links him and his organization to this attack, to put people at ease?

SECRETARY POWELL: [snip]
And I think, in the near future, we will be able to put out a paper, a document, that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking him to this attack.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2001/5012.htm

I don’t recall Powell’s resignation having anything whatever to do with honour, and I don’t remember hearing him take a scintilla of responsibility for anything at all. All I can recall is a lot of whining about him being the innocent victim who was deceived into making all those statements, and anyway he still thinks attacking Iraq was the right thing to do and America should stay the course. The guy is a whining, dishonourable loser.

And he never did have any honour. I seem to recall that he was involved in the My Lai coverup, so why so many people have been shocked - SHOCKED! - at his failure to be stand up over Iraq is beyond me. Once a cowardly whining weasel, always a cowardly whining weasel.

I recall the resignation all right, but I seem to have missed the mea culpa. When was this? Did he issue a statement of some sort?

If Waxman can get them under oath, and hit them hard, we might have a chance to save what they have not yet destroyed of our constitution and government. I can’t seem to see and end to any of this, unless we Impeach them all.

Chris, like you, I gave Powell the benefit of the doubt, at least initially, because of his strong military background. However, he was wrong from the moment he uttered those false words. I do give him some credit however, in that he came forward soon (not soon enought tho) and told the truth. And resigned. An honorable act there, and should serve as a role model for the rest of the PNAC and WHIG members who continue to run our country into the ground…

And I still hope they all rot in hell…

Well, that and the several other easily debunked lies, so no argument here.

I didn’t get a chance to see the presentation until the following weekend, so it was only after reading the MSM’s glowing reports of the presentation that my jaw– and respect for Powell– dropped lower, and lower, and lower as I watched.

I actually started laughing when he got to the allegation of mobile chemical weapon labs and buttressed his claim with an “artist’s conception” of what such a vehicle might look like.

“Good lord, what is this, one of Wile E. Coyote’s blueprints?” I recall wondering, and started hunting for an anvil to drop on the TV.

Powell saw himself, more than anything else, as a loyal soldier, and I suppose he gulled himself into believing that it was his duty to lie in service to his country.

Sadly, he neglected a higher duty to the truth, and he’s as culpable as the President himself for this obscenity. I’m long past wishing that any of them rot in hell, but it remains absolutely necessary, for the continued health of this country, that they be brought to book for what they have done.

HOWEVER….it is clear that NO country but the US and the neocons stated that Iraq….without even a nuclear institution anywhere(Iran has obvious and huge labs), with their previously purchased yellow-cake under UN seal and unuseable, had an”ongoing nuclear program” as Cheney and Condi…and all of the principles lied to us.

Aluminum tubes???utter bullsh..t, and it was pointed out at the time, but not publicized by the complicit MSM.

Does anyone think Condi or Tenet will testify under oath in front of Waxman. Ohhhh what a sight that would be. Only a little better than Val Plame’s testimony, but not the feast that Rove and Miers would provide.

NOW: Cheney in Saudi Arabia Seeking Iraq Help

Abdullah also has signaled that he sees al-Maliki as a weak leader with too many ties to pro-Iranian Shiite parties to be effective in reaching out to Iraqi’s Sunni minority. http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2007/05/13/ap/washington/d8p3ar3o0.txt

THEN: Message From Iran Triggered Bombing Spree In Kuwait, The Washington Post, February 3, 1984

Al Dawa, for example, is no household name in the United States.

But it is a name important to this story.

It leads us back to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the ruling figure in Iran; to Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, the militant Lebanese Shiite leader who has been implicated–despite his denials–in the Marine and French bombings in Beirut; to Hussein Musawi, Fadlallah’s strong-arm lieutenant; to the Hakim brothers in Iran and their connections to the Middle East terrorism industry.

THEN: 10 Pro-Iranian Shiites Held in Kuwait Bombings, The Washington Post December 19, 1983

Kuwait announced yesterday the arrest of 10 Shiite Moslems with ties to Iran in terrorist bombings that killed four people and wounded 66 last Monday at the U.S. Embassy and other targets.

“All 10 have admitted involvement in the incidents as well as participating in planning the blasts,” Abdul Aziz Hussein, minister of state for Cabinet affairs, told reporters after a Cabinet session, United Press International reported.

Hussein said the seven Iraqis and three Lebanese were members of the Al Dawa party, a radical Iraqi Shiite Moslem group with close ties to Iran.

It has not even reached parliament, but the oil law that U.S. officials call vital to ending Iraq’s civil war is in serious trouble among Iraqi lawmakers, many of whom see it as a sloppy document rushed forward to satisfy Washington’s clock.

[snip]

The problems of the oil bill bode poorly for the other so-called benchmarks that the Bush administration has been pressuring Prime Minister Nouri Maliki’s government to meet. Those include provincial elections, reversing a prohibition against former Baath Party members holding government and military positions and revision of Iraq’s constitution.

[snip]

But Iraqi lawmakers show little sign of bending to accommodate Bush on an issue as crucial as oil.

[snip]

The objections are as vast and technical as the measure itself and reflect the wider problems facing Iraq: regional distrust of the Shiite-led central government; wariness of foreign interest; and anger toward the United States, which many Iraqis believe invaded Iraq solely to get its hands on the oil.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-oil13may13,1,755681.story?track=rss

I rant on…

Too all the mothers out there, I wish you my best. May the love you show to others as either a Mother, a Daughter, a Sister, be returned to you a thousand times… To those special women in our military, my heart is especially heavy for you if you are separated from those you love at this special time. May God’s Light shine on you and protect you until you return to those you love, and love you.

I want to thank you Susan, esp for the articles on food contamination, both in our pet as well as food supply itself. It is indeed scary, and the more I read and study about it, the more angry I am becoming…

So very much these days it seems I am angry about… I diverse… anyway, I found a great new website, new to me at least, with a bunch of great videos most two to 3 minutes… here is a link, hope some others will try going green a bit more. if everyone starts doing a little something more each day, we might still save the environment, and perhaps the world… it has lots of info.

http://www.sundancechannel.com/greenguide

Incidentally, FYI, anodization is a coating– an electroplating process, actually, and could of course be stripped though abrasive or corrosive process, but again, what’s the point of requesting anodized aluminum, as Saddam did when specifying requirements to potential vendors, if you require unplated stock?

And Colin actually presented the argument at the UN gig that the tubes were inappropriate for use as missile components because the specs for the tubes and the anodization were so demanding (Saddam is supposed to have reverse engineered an existing conventional rocket, so he wouldn’t really know what was crucial and what wasn’t).

Again, this is my point. An expert would be someone familiar with the process, not someone who agrees with you that Saddam has to go. If you don’t know a photon from a futon, you ask a physicist about the requirements of the process.

Why they no do that?

You might well ask.

According to the information I have the Aluminum tubes would still have been useless for uranium enrichment even after extensive (and very expensive) remachining because they were made of anodized aluminum, which, according to my information cannot be used in uranium enrichment. If my information is correct, then not only is this the case, Colin Powell’s own experts told him this before his ridiculous U.N. dog and pony show.

I did not see his show - could not force myself to listen silently to the lies - but I do recall reading parts of the speech, and noting that he actually said the exact opposite - that the fact that the tubes were anodized aluminum was proof positive that they were intended for uranium enrichment.

If anyone has information about this that either confirms or disputes what I have, I would appreciate hearing about it.

Well, they _say_ it often enough…

That’s rich, coming from the woman who said that the aluminum tubes Iraq was attempting to purchase were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs.”

To revisit the incident, in actuality the tubes were not suited for use in centrifuges (they were apparently perfect for use as missile body replacements for Iraq’s aging and corroded quiver of 81mm rockets).

It was conceded that it would be technically possible that the tubes could be made to serve as uranium enrichhment centifuge parts, but only by remachining them extensively, under which logic you could argue that a hammer might be a wrench.

The White House was asked about this and said it had other intelligence which supported their contentions but never said what that was, and it’s fair to assume that they never had any.

My point is that this isn’t something over which reasonable people might diasagree; Condi’s claim is one only a fool or a liar could make, and characteristic of the entirety of the argument– if you can call it that– which the administration employed to present its case that Saddam was an imminent danger sufficient to justify invasion of Iraq.

And these are facts which were known well before the invasion and the argument cannot be made that they were “wrong” or “mistaken.”

They were lying. They “knew or should have known,” to use the polite language which would surely be heard if and when they stood in the dock at the ICC in the Hague.

Were I the ICC, I’d convict the lot of them in absentia and be done with it.