With all the brouhaha surrounding the Iraqui WMD, do you feel Powell and Rice's credibility are on the line? Have you noticed recently that these two have been dispatched to interpret Bush's policies re WMD to the American public? When the reports were positive Rumsfeld and Chaney monopolized the headlines. Now, when negative, it comes down to Powell and Rice. Recently, Rice was forced to admit that a statement Bush made regarding Saddam's development of nuclear weapons (supposedly uranium purchased from an African country) was incorrect. The CIA knew the statement to be false, but Ms. Rice stated that no one in the president's circle knew. How this could happen is totally unrealistic to me when "Newsweek" reported in an article prior to the war that the documents were forged. What think ye?

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2003

Answers

Since I am one of only a few discussants on this BB who has privately and publicly defended the Administration's correct decision on Iraq, let me respond first. The production and distribution of intelligence data is not always 100% foolproof. I speak from experience since I hold a special security clearance with DoD. Leaks often compromise the integrity of the intelligence gathering process thereby creating unwanted asymmetries. The credibility of Powell and Rice are not endangered by recent revelations about "ambiguous evidence of WMD" or the perceived threat of Iraq. Why? The crushing defeat of Hussein's regime and the subsequent evidence of Iraqi crimes against humanity perpetrated by Hussein vindicates the actions by the Administration. Calls by the Democratic leadership for Congressional hearings on this matter reflect politics as usual, pure and simple. Again, as I have mentioned several times before, when President Clinton prosecuted Slobodan Milosevic by force and personally watched over the destruction of Sarajevo and Kosovo, despite pleas from the opposition, Democrats were determined to win the war in the Balkans (correct choice I might add). The only reason the issue of WMD is currently being manipulated is because some political operatives see this as a vulnerable part of Bush's political armor. Just like Clinton apologists steadfastly believed in their "black President", despite prima facie evidence of how he disgraced the Oval Office, I happen to believe Bush, Powell, Rice & Rumsfeld. I know for a fact that even if ALL WMD are found it will not convince the Bush critics. Some of Bush's critics are driven by visceral personal hatred because of his occupancy in the Oval Office. This is truly sad. QED

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2003

Seems like business as usual to me. It also substantiates what many of us have always felt and believed to be true. In the area of racial equality and justice we still have a long way to do.

Although, I have pledged my support to the Democratic Party and the agenda they put forth, a choice on which I stand and make no apologies at all, I still recall that the Democratic Party did the same to Andrew Young.

When an Administration is in trouble and cannot explain where it has gone wrong, it is the minorities and especially the blacks in that Administration who must bear the brunt of burden the Administration then must face. All too often it is the blacks who are called upon to defend the wrong and the blacks who most often it seems are forced to go.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2003

Mr. Powell and Ms. Rice were selected for those positions because they are without a doubt the best qualified regardless of race. He is not the "Black" Secretary of State nor is she the "Black" Security Advisor. They certainly not selected to get the Black vote. No one has ever suggested any potential candidate better qualified. If credibility is an issue, it is the Bush Administration. All members of the team, most notability Powell, a career military officer, and Rice are team players. You don't get to be a four-star general withpout being a team player. You can bet that what they speak in piblic is blessed by the administration.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2003

Dear Sister Mary I have had questions on proof and probable cause from the beginning. I must first praise my esteemed Prof.QED for responding as his credibility is never in question for me. I have not agreed with him on this one and as a "Non- American" I certainly do not have the same perspectives as all of you.

I watched the very impressive presentation of General Powell to the United Nations. I believe it is only proper for him to be held accountable. He is after all the Secretary Of State. I cannot believe this has anything to do with colour. Cheney and Rumsfeld have battle in their histories. The use of them does not justify questioning the Administration on colour or bias in my opinion.General Powell made the case on behalf of the United States of America.

In short the administration should be held accountable. Prime Minister Blair is sure getting the mustard beaten out of him the President should be able to withstand the same if this brouhaha is just that. Remember whether we like it or not the United States declared war on a country (which most us knew was coming anyway), invaded and destroyed millions of dollars of property and killed thousands of its people. No Government should have the right to do this and not be accountable if the evidence was not correct. Iraqi families were destroyed and cannot be repaired because of a cruise missle attack.Without accountability the world and all of the good values of the United States become redundant.

There is no place for damage control here.Ooops is not an acceptable option when people are murdered because a Government wanted to remove their leader. Let us see the evidence!

P.S. Has anyone seen Osama lately or Sadam. Two questions that really concern me.

-- Anonymous, June 12, 2003

There are weapons of mass destruction...however, persons are looking in the wrong area. The Republican agenda has initiated a "financial meltdown" concerning the economy! However, I am not allowing the democrats off the hook, since they remain silent! Isn't it funny that lower income persons were paraded by the democrats as pawns for votes! I just hope that Rice and Powell are viewed as "players" and not used as "pawns."

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2003

Brother Powell's and Sister Rice's credibility most definitely has been compromised. Unfortunately, American credibility is also on the line. Unless weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq (which they still can be) we have lost credibility throughout the world since that was the initial premise of going to war. It was supposedly all about a preemptive strike. Public opinion had to be mobilized, so Saddam was tied into 9/11 and al- Qaeda. America never really cared if Saddam treated his people bad or not. Remember that he gassed the Kurds and America did absolutely nothing. In fact, the government at the time turned its back and accused Iran, when in fact they knew it was Saddam. It was expedient at the time for us to deal with Iraq so we merely ignored Saddam's little idiosyncracies and continued to deal with him. Donald Rumsfeld, along with other American senators and diplomats met with Saddam and deemed him a man America could "work with."

Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, told a reporter recently “For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.” Everyone meaning Colin Powell and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “Almost unnoticed but huge,” he said is another reason: “removing Saddam will allow the US to take its troops out of Saudi Arabia,” where their presence has been one of al-Qaeda’s biggest grievances. “Just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door” to a more peaceful Middle East.

(Interesting, is the fact that Wolfowitz, along with others in the White House follow a “Staussian philosphy.” So you better be careful who you are dealing with at all times.)

Condoleeza and Colin are bright and can handle themselves. They are not stupid people, and I am certain they understand the full weight of being in public service. I admire their careers and their success in life and I believe they are truthful and honest people. They are not saints, and like most people like positions of prominence. Whether they were duped or went along knowingly, I do not know. It is not a Republican or a Democrat thing. It simply happens in politics.

-- Anonymous, June 13, 2003