Germany's Media In Full Swing Over Powell Remark

During his latest trip to the Afghanistan Donor Conference in Berlin, Secretary of State Colin Powell made some remarks on the intelligence leading to the Iraq invasion. Germany's media are in full swing:

Berliner Morgenpost: "Powell admits mistake..."

dpa: "Powell admits questionable statement ... obviously wrong..."

Sueddeutsche Zeitung: "in retrospect information was not reliable..."

This is what Powell actually said in a press briefing:

QUESTION: I’d like to go back to your UN speech from last year. One of the most dramatic elements of that speech was about the mobile biological labs. And in recent weeks it has emerged that one of those intelligence sources you cited was flagged as unreliable by U.S. intelligence and another source had never been interviewed by U.S. officials and that we didn’t even know his name. It turns out that he was a relative of the INC. So, in light of that, was this really the best intelligence the U.S. could have put forward at the time?

SECRETARY POWELL: It was presented to me in the preparation of that as the best information and intelligence that we had. And I looked at the four elements that they gave me for that one and they stood behind them. Now it appears not to be the case, that it was that solid. But at the time that I was preparing that presentation it was presented to me as being solid. Now, the commission that is going to be starting its work soon, I hope will look into these matters to see whether or not the intelligence agency had a basis for the confidence that they placed in the intelligence at that time. They certainly indicated to me as I was working on that, that it was solid. I’m not the intelligence community, but I probed and I made sure, and as I said in my presentation, these are multi-sourced. And that was the most dramatic of them and I made sure it was multi-sourced. Now, if the sources fell apart then we need to find out how we’ve gotten ourselves in that position. I’ve had discussions with the CIA about it.

So Powell admitted that there are doubts now whether some of the information he had received was "that solid". He doesn't say it wasn't solid - he just mentions the possibility of an error ("if the sources fell apart...").

It is quite telling that, in the German media, there was virtually no reporting or information provided on other meetings during his trip in which Colin Powell strongly defended the Iraq invasion:

Powell in a Berlin school:

QUESTION: Concerning the Iraqi war, how do you value the current opinion of the U.S. Americans towards the development of the war, for the troops haven’t found any WMDs yet?

SECRETARY: The American people still are supportive of what we did. They understood why we went into Iraq. When we made the decision to go into Iraq last year, it was in the belief that we had from our intelligence agencies and the intelligence agencies of other countries and a whole body of opinion, and the body of information and fact that had been accumulated over twelve years from the end of the last war, that Saddam Hussein was still in possession of weapons of mass destruction. That he had never lost the intent and desire to have such weapons; that he was maintaining the infrastructure to develop such weapons in his chemical industry and in other aspects of his industrial base. And so we also believed that he had stockpiles of these weapons. That was the evidence that was available to us. It was the best judgment we made. Since going into Iraq, we have found evidence of his continued intention to have such weapons. Remember, he used them twice against his own people and against Iran, so why should we assume that he no longer had an interest in having those kinds of weapons. So his intention was still there and we found evidence of the capability to produce such weapons.

Now, what we have not found are actual stockpiles of the weapons. We don’t know why we haven’t found stockpiles. We thought there would be stockpiles. We have not found those stockpiles. But the work continues. There is a great deal of documentation to look at and there are a number of people to be interviewed still who will have knowledge of this subject and there are a lot of places that are still waiting to be examined and looked at. But the solid basis of evidence that we had was that the stockpiles existed. One thing that there is no doubt in my mind about is that if he had not been dealt with, if he had just been allowed to ignore the international community yet again and the sanctions went away and nobody was paying attention to him again, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have tried to rebuild whatever capability he had lost over the years and continue to be a threat to his neighbors, continue to be a threat to his people.

And that is not a problem any longer. He is sitting in a jail. That regime is crushed. Remaining elements of that regime are causing us trouble. They will be dealt with. But now the Iraqi people have a new constitution that is emerging. It is called an administrative law, which will become a constitution. We are getting ready to turn sovereignty back over to the Iraqi people and we are getting the Iraqi people ready for elections. It is costing us lives, it is costing us money, but it is the right thing to be doing. It is a noble cause because when we are through, when the coalition has finished its work, there will be a country there by the name of Iraq that will be democratic and will not be a threat to anybody.

Interview with Maybritt Illner of ZDF German Television:

MS. ILLNER: Coming to Iraq, you know all those claims. Aleksander Kwasniewski, the premiere of Poland, who said: “We have been taken for a ride.” Prime Minister Zapateros of Spain said he wants to withdraw his troops unless there is a new resolution and because it is a useless war. As CIA Chief Tenet said: “I’ve never said that there is a threat in Iraq and I also pointed that out.” So do you also personally feel misled?

SECRETARY POWELL: No. Well first I have to correct you on some factual errors. Mr. Tenet never said he saw no threat in Iraq. He said ….

MS. ILLNER: concerning weapons of mass destruction.

SECRETARY POWELL: No, no, no. That’s not what Mr. Tenet said. Mr. Tenet said, he did not use the word imminent with respect to threat. The threat information that we used to decide to go into Iraq with our coalition partners was threat information provided by Mr. Tenet and the CIA. And so we went to war on the basis of CIA assessments, UN assessments, and the assessments of, frankly, other intelligence agencies that the threat was there.

What Mr. Kwasniewski said, the Polish President was that he believed he was misled as much by Saddam Hussein, not that he was misled by the United States. And with respect to Spain, yes, they said they are going to withdraw their troops, the new Prime Minister did, in the absence of a U.N. resolution that gives the U.N. political control. Well, let’s see what kind of U.N. resolution may be emerging over the next several months. Spain is a sovereign country. It can do as it chooses and we will respect its decision. Poland has said they will stay. (...)

MS. ILLNER: Everyone in Germany, of course, remembers your passionate case you made to the U.N. in front of the military intervention, sorry in Iraq”. However, to date nothing has been found of this proof things that the world sozusagen [so to say], beyond all doubts that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Many of your allegations you made in front of the U.N. have been proved false. How do you now think about your speech?

SECRETARY POWELL: The presentation I gave was based on the best evidence and intelligence information that we had. What we have now found is that, one, he still had the intention to have such weapons. He had the programs.

MS. ILLNER: Are you sure?

SECRETARY POWELL. He had the programs to develop such weapons, that I am sure. That’s been established by Dr. Kay and Mr. Dolfer who was briefing our Congress earlier this week. Also confirms that. What we have not found...

MS. ILLNER: You have no such...

SECRETARY POWELL: What we have not found are actual stockpiles. We thought we would find stockpiles, weapons ready to use, existing. We haven’t found that. And that was a surprise to us. But it wasn’t that we knew they wouldn’t be there when I made that presentation. When I made that presentation, it was the agreed judgment of our whole intelligence community, as well as the belief of U.N. inspectors over a number of years, as well as the belief of most of the sophisticated intelligence agencies in a number of countries.

MS. ILLNER: But you know what Hans Blix, the U.N. weapon inspector was told and wrote down in his books, and what Dr. Kay has said now, that there was no threat of mass destruction weapon in and out of Iraq. So do you think on the whole that it was a really useful war?

SECRETARY POWELL: It’s a useful war. Do you think it is good for Saddam Hussein to be gone or not gone? I think it is good for him to be gone. No more mass graves will be filled. No more wasting of the oil treasure of Iraq. A democracy is going to be created. And so I think the world is a lot better off. Iraq is a lot better off. The region is a lot better off with a new regime coming into power. A new democratic regime that will be elected by the people, With a constitution that will make sure we will never have to raise the question or talk about weapons of mass destruction again.

This was a man who had rape rooms, mass graves, totalitarian regime, destroyed the environment in the south, oppressed the Shias, oppressed so many people in his own country. All of that is gone.

The obsession of Germany's media to - at the expense of truthful reporting - "prove" faults in the justification of the Iraq invasion can only be explained in psychological terms. Knowing what have learned after the invasion about mass graves in Iraq, about the "Oil for Food" scam that was responsible for the malnutrition and the death of thousands of children, about the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Arab world, and all the evil of the Saddam family: how can one possibly not applaud the decision to go to war?

(Translation by Ray D.)

Comments

[SAndy P.]

And AJ by the Seine buries on page 32 that W did not lie about Saddam's WMD.

Via Erik Svane.

[N. Hale]

It is good to see that there is one constant in the German media. Bias against the United States of America. Well, we see again that any society that takes the values of its leaders, courts and its mass media, it is being led down the wrong path.

It is better to call attention to the ADVENTURES of another country, than to focus on the quagmire of the home front.

"If we hide behind the headlines, maybe we will not look so bad here at home." said the Chancellor to his Foreign Minister.

"Perhaps you have something there." replied the Foreign Minister.

"Let's try it!" cried the Chancellor. "The masses must be kept stupid." he added.

So let it be written. So let it be done. And it came to pass that the German masses, who were desperately looking for anything, that would make their country look less messed up, bought this charade lock, stock and barrel.

Dear German people, while you are buying what the media is selling, I have a bridge in New York City I would like to sell. It would be the perfect "conversation piece" for any retired Colonels in Germany.

"And here is the photo of MY bridge in New York City. And now here is the Empire State Building, I wanted to buy that, but I could only afford the bridge." (overheard at a slide show in a private home in Germany)

[cbrown]

I recently purchased a high-quality computer sleeve from a small boutique manufacturer. I was checking if it could be washed. The photo is the attached tag with the washing instructions in both English and French. The English is exactly what you would expect and so is the French, for the first 6 lines. The last three lines of French are most interesting. "We are sorry that our President is an idiot. We didn't vote for him." Given recent strained relations between our two countries, it's good to see that not all Americans agree with the current administration

http://atbash.net/blog/archives/000046.html

[RealAmerican]

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public
- Theodore Roosevelt -

Well it is surely good to know that someone likes the french besides themselves and just the Germans. I have to assume this is why one would expect this same group to love Kerry, as he looks so french too. In fact, not only does he look french but he acts french too. Viva la france!

[goofy]

Amihasser, who micturates in your cornflakes everyday?

[Sandy P]

I believe the company in question is located in Oregon.

Parts of the state are quite lala, but even they weren't stupid enough to raise taxes to pay for total state health care.

[Joe]

I want to insure I understand what you meant by your comment. If I am correct you consider Doctor Friedbert Pfüger an imbecile. Further you imply that President Bush is also an imbecile. So as the American people elected President Bush then they or at least those who voted for him and support the war on terror must also be imbeciles. Is that correct?

I would further assume from your comments that you do not support the idea of competing viewpoints. Therefore may one ask just what you do support?

@Sandy

I do not think it was Oregon. I mean you did say they did not vote for state funded health care.
That sure does not sound very french to me. Medical care should soley under the control of the central government and funded by the government. If you do not believe me ask the french. They will tell you not only that but not to get sick in August too. This sounds more like Vermont.

[Joe]

INTELLIGENCE SERVICES
'That Came From Us'
By GEORG MASCOLO and HOLGER STARK,
Der Spiegel

Published: April 5, 2004

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/05/international/europe/05SPIEGEL2.html

Would some please read this and tell me if it appeared anyplace in Spiegel or was picked up anyplace else by the German media.

[Gabi]

Joe:
I read about this in SPIEGEL and NETZEITUNG.

[Joe]

@Gabi,

Thank you! I am now wondering how this is playing? It would seem SEC Powell did not comment on this during the interview. Is this story getting any coverage with the Powell comments or is it being ignored?

[Col. Klink]

@Joe
NY-Times and SPIEGEL have a cooperation - they frequently have articles from the other appear in translation on their site. And Powell did not respond on this IMO perhaps because other sites like CNN reported Powell had relied on 4 first-hand sources on these mobile labs - which would sound more credible than SPIEGEL's version. (Powell would have gotten suspicious to rely only on evidence which even the source doesn't believe in). No idea which is true in the end.

Besides, it's not as if war hadn't happened without those labs, is it? ;-)

And re: Pflüger (of whom I am no big fan, btw): He is in tomorrow's paper (German language article), now using this mobile-lab-story as means to attack the Government and the BND, at the same time questioning his own pre-war determination which was critically based upon such evidence. Pflüger demands a publication of the briefing-protocols to show that the BND allegedly did not fully inform the parliamential members like him on the apparent vagueness of the source.

[Dirk RW]

Knowing what we have learned after the invasion about mass graves in Iraq, about the "Oil for Food" scam that was responsible for the malnutrition and the death of thousands of children, about the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Arab world, and all the evil of the Saddam family: how can one possibly not applaud the decision to go to war?

Please.
Look at this poll:

"Do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong decision in using military force against Iraq?"

Seems like it's not exactly that obvious to everybody at all.

More than a third of Americans dissent.

As an aside (scroll down a little on that page):
"Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?"

Certainly the answers to that question reveil the omniscience of your average American, don't they?

[Dirk RW]

Knowing what we have learned after the invasion about mass graves in Iraq, about the "Oil for Food" scam that was responsible for the malnutrition and the death of thousands of children, about the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Arab world, and all the evil of the Saddam family: how can one possibly not applaud the decision to go to war?

Please.
Look at this poll:

"Do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong decision in using military force against Iraq?"

Seems like it's not exactly that obvious to everybody at all.

More than a third of Americans dissent.

As an aside (scroll down a little on that page):
"Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?"

Certainly the answers to that question reveil the omniscience of your average American, don't they?

[Joe]

Yes, I am aware of the linkage between the NYT and SPIEGEL. Just as the IHT is part of the NYT media empire. What is interesting concerning the NYT/IHT is the same story can and often does appear in both. The significant difference is the story in the IHT is almost always more liberal, more pro European and slanted to better fit the views of the editorial board of the NYT. On many stories the NYT would never dare to use what they publish in IHT in the US. The firestorm of criticism would be too great for them. They already have a string of creditability problems.

You are probably true about the linkage of the war and the mobile lab reports as a go/ no go piece of information. At the same time I think these reports added to the whole picture of what the intelligence community was seeing. The German report only added validity to the other reports on this same topic. The mobile labs only added validity to the rest of the assessment. This is and always is the problem with intelligence. There is never enough information or clear information to make a 100% assessment. Also remember much of what is wanted is a prediction of future actions and intents along with an assessment of current capabilities. So in many cases you are taking 100 pieces of a 1000 piece jig saw puzzle and trying to determine the picture.

As to the quality of the intelligence shared, I would want to believe it was the best the Germans had to offer. It also in some ways proves the point I was trying to make above. This is most difficult to do. I would think and hope that a review of how this took place in Germany is under way, just as there are several efforts under way in the US to try to figure out what failed and why.

These reviews and their results along with the actions to improve the timeliness and accuracy of the intelligence are critical for the war on terror and for all of our safety.

[Ambrose Wolfinger]

If there were a major attack in Germany on the scale of Sept. 11, what would the majority of Germans want their government to do in response? What would the majority of Germans expect the United States to do? And if you believe that such an attack will just never happen (which is what almost all of our family and friends in Germany say when I ask them these questions), why do you believe that?

[Col. Klink.]

@Ambrose Wolfinger
If there were a major attack in Germany on the scale of Sept. 11, what would the majority of Germans want their government to do in response? What would the majority of Germans expect the United States to do? And if you believe that such an attack will just never happen (which is what almost all of our family and friends in Germany say when I ask them these questions), why do you believe that?

I think we could be hit by a big attack. El Qaida doesn't act with our Western reasoning.

But I don't think Germany would pick a secular dictator in a far away country to have an easy black-n-white scapegoat for our certainly huge anger then - terrorism is more complex than that and requires more differentiated responses than a uni-lateral action. Also to not breed more terrorists in the future instead of only targeting those existing.

Dirk RW gave an interesting polling-URL, amongst them the question (apparently from CBS), which illustrates well the gap between US and EU on Iraq:

"Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?"

Americans answered Yes with 53% in early 2003.

[Ambrose Wolfinger]

To Col. Klink:

Your answer, with all due respect, does not respond to the questions I posed. What do you think Germany actually do in response to an attack, beyond burying the dead, caring for the wounded and rebuilding the destroyed property? And what would she expect the United States to do? These are not trick questions. I am genuinely curious to know what you think.

[Joe]

@ Amihasser

My comment on competing viewpoints was not written about this forum. Actually, to be honest with you, I had not even considered the forum when I wrote it. What I was referring to was public discourse and debate. By this I meant in the media, in parliament and other forums of public discussion.

It very much sounds as if you are the one who wants to limit these differencing views. You imply that the CDU has nothing to offer. In your eyes they might not have anything to offer. But that was the reason I thought there were elections so that competing views and visions could be presented to the voters and they would decide by their vote which vision the preferred.

By the way you write, the words you chose and the tone, it would seem the only acceptable viewpoint is the one you chose to believe. History is replete with examples of where decent has been suppressed and the results have always ended poorly. A review of your own nation’s history would support how this serves no one not even the suppressor. I truly hope this is not what you are saying or what you believe.

[Joe]

@ Ambrose

Keep up. To a European everything is too complex. You are seeking a simple straightforward answer. By expecting that you are ignorant, arrogant and simple minded.

The answer you got is big on theory with no course of action. You could expect another meeting by the EU leaders, another commission, more laws, and less funding. There would be debate in the UN. As Germany again Chairs the UNSC, I would expect some resolution condemning Israel for not playing nice with the PA and the PLO. The media would blame the US because of its actions in Iraq. Pretty much standard response I would say.

As I said you just have to love Klink. He is European and German and represents what is to admire, what is confusing and what is to be disliked.

Transnational terrorism exists because we do not understand these people and their grievances against the West.

[Ambrose Wolfinger]

To Joe: I am highly confident that Col. Klink, Gabi, Mathesar and the other German correspondents here will be glad to share their best thoughts on these questions. I am truly interested in knowing their views, so I'm optimistic that they would not think I'm "ignorant, arrogant and simple minded."

Your comment, though, does remind me of a rather fascinating interchange between my German wife and me shortly after we married and she joined me here. I told her that a fundamental of life in these United States is that "it never hurts to ask." She was shocked by my statement and debated the proposition with me vigorously. Now having lived here for a long time, Mrs. Wolfinger agrees that in the US it never hurts to ask, but she assures me that such a belief would cause me a great deal of trouble if we ever lived in Germany. I'm sure she's right; Mrs. Wolfinger is always right

[Sandy P.]

As an aside (scroll down a little on that page):
"Do you think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?"--

Inquiring minds still want to know about WTC #1 and Oklahoma City.

Lots of unanswered questions.

Google Laurie Mylroie and Jayna Davis. Don't know if this link works.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/18/news-crogan.php

...The Weekly interviewed two of those four witnesses. Only one of them still works there. The third, a female clerk, has died, and the fourth, her husband, declined to speak. Both told Davis that McVeigh and a group of Middle Eastern––looking men were at the motel on April 18. ““I was with [the motel owner] when that third vehicle came back,”” says the maintenance man. ““We watched them go to the end of the property, get out and throw something in the ditch. Then they left. [The owner] sent me to see what it was. I found the Arizona plate and gave it to him.””
This witness says he saw the Ryder truck and McVeigh with some Middle Eastern––looking men, on April 18. The truck made a vivid impression. ““It smelled real bad, and I kept walking around it looking for a leak. I was real concerned because diesel is hard to clean up and it would have been my job.”” He says he was willing to talk to the FBI. ““My boss gave them my name, but they never called.””
The second witness, an ex-employee, says he phoned the FBI several times after the attack before he finally set up an appointment. The motel owner was already being questioned when this second witness arrived at the FBI’’s office for his interview. ““They left me waiting,”” he says. ““I told the receptionist I had to go. But she asked me to stay. Finally, after three hours, I told her, ‘‘Tell the agents to call me when they want me back.’’ But they never did.””
This witness is also sure he saw the Ryder, McVeigh and a group of ““Middle Easterners”” at the motel the morning of the attack. At 7:30 a.m., he began his trash detail. ““That’’s when I was overwhelmed by diesel smell from the truck. I worked seven years in oil fields, so I know diesel.””
He walked around the Ryder twice, looking for the leak. ““Then I saw McVeigh and the Arabs head toward the truck.”” And he insists, ““I didn’’t see someone who looked like McVeigh. I saw McVeigh. I was 10 feet away and recognized him when I saw him on TV.””...

[Sandy P.]

--But I don't think Germany would pick a secular dictator in a far away country to have an easy black-n-white scapegoat for our certainly huge anger then - terrorism is more complex than that and requires more differentiated responses than a uni-lateral action. Also to not breed more terrorists in the future instead of only targeting those existing.--

Then why was America's 1st stop in WWII Morrocco, CK?

[Sandy]

Also, terrorists are finite. Takes 9 months to breed them and a couple of years to indocrinate them, look at the Paleos and Saudis.

We'd better not make them mad cos there'll be more of them.

You can't run and you can't hide.

Don't do something - they're going to kill US, do something, they're going to kill US. Haven't you been paying attention? Hornets nest needed to be stirred. It's working.

Another damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Joe]

To Ambrose

When I was small I used to ask Santa Claus for a pony. I never got one. I hope you get the answer you are seeking. For some reason,however; think it is going to be like my pony!

And of course you would like an answer. We all would like some type of answer. All I have read is that you are doing it all wrong. Once you get past that, there is not much more. Kerry is the same way but he looks french. Actually he acts french too! Hopefully he will win.

[WhatDoIKnow]

Joe: To a European everything is too complex. You are seeking a simple straightforward answer. By expecting that you are ignorant, arrogant and simple minded.

100% right on :-(( I understand there is a different mentality on the two continents and I learnded to live with that.

I just don't understand one thing: WHY in the world do most Europeans firmly believe that their position is superior ??? (I'm not talking only about Iraq).

In the many years I spent in the US I can say that I haven't met one single person who believed that Americans are better than Europeans. They were aware of the differences and they preferred the US, but they had no problem with the 'European way' and Europeans.

What drives Europeans to this ideological and blind belief that the US and Americans are actually ... somewhat inferior ??? Is this attitude really a sign of the wisdom Europeans claim to possess ?

[Col. Klink]

Ambrose
What do you think Germany actually do in response to an attack, beyond burying the dead, caring for the wounded and rebuilding the destroyed property? And what would she expect the United States to do?

It depends on the attack. Let's assume a big one. A likely reaction would be a whole new wave of anti-terror-laws. Germany would expect the US to be cooperative and if not, introduce more measures also against Americans at the borders, like fingerprinting, photo-IDing, etc.

But it seems absurd to me to make the jump from anti-terror-measures to Saddam. These men live often in our midst. Aghanistan was good because terrorists were directly trained there and we have very solid evidence on this, Iraq is still beyond me. (and please no fishy documents from Daily Telegraph, found "by surprise" in the rubble of Bagdad already in April 2003, naming personal links between Osama and Saddam. Have seen those articles, don't believe them)

And don't forget: Making the wrong uni-lateral invasions without solid evidence on this issue might trigger much more fundamentalism than we already have to handle. It is a convenient PR-tool in the Mosques, as also moderate Muslims watch us.

I am highly confident that Col. Klink, Gabi, Mathesar and the other German correspondents here will be glad to share their best thoughts on these questions. I am truly interested in knowing their views, so I'm optimistic that they would not think I'm "ignorant, arrogant and simple minded."

Oh, rubbbish, don't you play a martyr now. I didn't mean you.

But yes, I believe the notion "Saddam personally was behind 9/11" was a simplistic emotional leverage for a _lot of the American people, not all_ (53% to be precise) as a good reason for themselves to "let's go after this bastard". And we Europeans didn't see this like Americans did - this is one of the roots of the rift IMO.

So instead of blaming me to see "the Americans" only as a stereotype, perhaps care to explain to me why 53% of Americans saw evidence to believe Saddam was personally involved in 9/11 and also why this number now suddenly dropped significantly? What made those millions of Americans change their mind _after_ the war? (And certainly being convinced of this before the war played a big emotional role)

And do you believe - since Germany's recent weak-evidenced terror-convictions were an issue - that Saddam's personal involvement in 9/11 will be one of the issues by the prosecutors in the upcoming trial against him, as many Americans used to think that he was? That Saddam will be convicted for his personal involvement in 9/11?

And disclaimer: I mean here 53% of the American people and their personal conclusions, not the motives from the administration. The decision to attack Iraq is a multi-facetted one from the Bush-administration, a strategic one for the Middle East. Neither WMDs nor humanrights nor "Saddam's personal involvement behind 9/11" were THE reason. But these 'Saddam and 9/11'-emotions from a large part of the American people played a role in the run-up to the war and in divisions between continents. Which also explains IMO why resolution 1441 was much more important for Blair to reach than it was for Bush to convince their own people.

[Gabi]

Amihasser:
I read your postings before David deleted them. Sie waren menschenverachtend! I don't know the English word.
And you posted 100times the same. I found it disturbing. So please don't lie here.

[Joe]

To Ambrose:

Being both simple minded, ignorant, and arrogant, I think your question is really complex because it deals with more than a single topic. In fact, I can see two separate issues immediately. The first is a question of will. The second is a question of capability.

If you would get your Mrs. Ambrose to read you the news releases from the German MOD you would know that in many ways your question is much more hypothetical than you realize.

Germany spends as a percent of GDP less than what was required of the new nations who just became members of NATO.

Capability is also a complex question as it contains more than a single element. Some of these would be composition, equipment, and force projection. If you are to believe the German MOD then the less than 10,000 members of their defense force deployed out of country has stretched to the maximum there ability to sustain operations. They could request additional forces from the other core members of the European Defense Force, France, Belgium, and Luxembourg. This presents a bit of a problem in that Luxembourg really does not have an army, France’s best forces are already deployed on adventures to their former African colonies, and Belgium would have to renegotiate the current labor contract they have with their armed forces. Still with these combined forces they would not be acting unilaterally and would in fact be an axis of the willing.

Their equipment for the most part has not been updated since before the fall of the wall. They lack C3I (command, control, communications and Intelligence) capabilities to mount operations and are all but void of the ability to fight at night. Making this an 8 to 5 war surely would help the Belgium government with their union negotiations.

The ability to project this force would be another challenge facing Berlin. This could be solved as we saw in the deployment to Afghanistan where much of their force went by rail and on planes leased from a former Soviet republic.

The response of picking a secular dictator in a far away country is a bit of a “red herring.” It really would not matter by whom or where this attack came from because the ability to use “hard power” is not a viable option, discounting of course an attack by or from Luxembourg.

This only leaves “soft power” and the “Germany way”. There is much debate about how effective “soft power” actually is in combating transnational terrorism. Spain appears to be taking the lead in determining this. The “Germany way” has not been clearly defined by Berlin but given time I am sure it will be.

So this really leaves the question of will to be answered. Given this is too a complex question, I am sure it will never be answered. Back to bar and discussion of important things like “Agenda 2010” and the prospects of Germany winning a World Cup in Germany.

[Col. Klink]

@Joe
The response of picking a secular dictator in a far away country is a bit of a “red herring.” It really would not matter by whom or where this attack came from because the ability to use “hard power” is not a viable option, discounting of course an attack by or from Luxembourg.

You made a quick argumentative switch now to evade the real issue behind it the perception gap of 9/11-Saddam between continents. So to use your train of thought in the opposite, this would also mean:

53% of the US-public chose to blame personally Saddam for 9/11, only because the US had the military power to kick his butt? (And it still does not answer where this 9/11-evidence is, if Saddam will now be convicted over his alleged 9/11-involvement and why the rapid drop of linking 9/11 to Saddam between early 2003 and early 2004)

It's quite cynical to argue over the choice of "revenge-targets" merely on the basis of military strength and not on the basis whether there really was the kind of hard evidence of a 9/11-connection which 53% of Americans had seen for themselves.

[Sandy P]

--It depends on the attack. Let's assume a big one. A likely reaction would be a whole new wave of anti-terror-laws. Germany would expect the US to be cooperative and if not, introduce more measures also against Americans at the borders, like fingerprinting, photo-IDing, etc--

Which is what we should have been doing all along, but we're too nice, it's still politically sensitive. We have a 4000 mile-long border w/Canada, CK, what do you think we should do?

Can't put a fence up, we'd hear from the environ**** that it would stop migration of bear and cougar and wolves and baby chicks, ducks, fuzzy bunnies - can't have that.

Britain's talking about a biometric national ID card and was before 9/11, IIRC.

I still want to know about WTC #1 and Oklahoma City. We can tie Iraq to either one, doesn't matter.

[Sandy p.]

Don't worry about Amihasser - it's not that it's anti-war, it's just that it's on the other side.

Comes w/the territory.

[Joe]

My comments were more in response to the question Ambrose asked and in no way addressed the comment of 53% of Americans. It was in response to what would and could Germany do having suffered an attack along the lines of 9 11.

So you want to turn this back into what America would do and to avoid answering what the Germans would do. This is an interesting way to avoid facing this question.

Personally on the morning of 9 11, which by the way I know exactly where I was and what I was doing. I heard two sock jocks on the radio talking about a plane hitting a building in NYC. At the time it was not clear what type of plane or what building or the damage done. A few minutes later the second plane hit. Later in the day there were reports of a plane going down in PA and another plane hitting the pentagon.

As this information was being reported I felt in order those nations who would and could carry out such an attack were Iran followed by Iraq or surrogates acting in their behalf. There was and there is still good reason to believe this is as true now as it was on 9 11 as both are sponsors of terror. It was the cumulative assessment on my part of 20 years of observation of these two nations.

Because then as well as now Europe is not the focus of this terror does not make this any less believable.

It has become more apparent with each posting I read here that the Europeans in general chose not to accept this or to believe this. I strongly feel, while I do not agree with this assessment, this is your right. It is also apparent that Europeans have no concept what so ever of the effects of weapons of mass destruction. If they did they would have an entire different attitude about Iraq and Iran.

For me personally I do have a concept of the effects of these weapons. If one were to believe that flying planes into buildings could occur and it did, then it is very believable that if weapons of mass destruction were to fall into the hands of these same type of people that they would be used. All indications at the time, and regardless of what has been reported to date, that Iraq possessed these weapons.

What you are asking me to accept and the American people to accept is that some how the weapons in Iraq would not find there way into the hands of a transnational terrorist organization.

I am prepared to accept your belief if it is one you are willing to make and support with some offer of protection. An acceptable offer being that Europe is willing to guarantee the safety of America and to protect it from terrorist attacks. I woud add to this that should an attack occur under this European guarantee there would be a price to pay for failure which would apply to Europe.

Until such time that these weapons are used against a nation, I do not see this attitude changing on the part of the Europeans. My only prayer is that when the attack with these weapons comes the target is some place in Europe and not in the US. We have had our lesson in taking this seriously while it seems that Europe has not.

While many may chose to disagree with this “amusing” position and the idea that weapons of mass destruction will be used against a Western nation, I have no fear that these same people were shocked at what happened on 9 11.

So this attitude of Europe saying “No To War” is about as rational as saying “NO to Illness” “No To Medicine”

[Mathesar]

The Situation in Irak developed as expected. Al-Sadre is a little suburban Islamist, but he encourage a lot of Iraki people to fight against the occupying troops. Ther are no Irakis on the street with flowers in the hand to welcome the troops as liberators, as some describe that in this blog. This is a dream never happend.

When Germany was defeated and the american helped to install a democratic political system, the germans have had a democratic tradition since 1848. The idee of democracy was in his minds. This tradition did not exist in Irak or in other arabian Nations. This is why you cannot compare Germany in 1945 and Irak in 2004.

Besides the legitimacy for this war, is the most likely development for Irak the conversion in an islamistik political system. This will be lead to an new platform for terrorism and to a additional destabilizing of the near east. It will lead to more terorism, more suicide assasins, to a greater base of people who are willing to fight against our western principles.

I am really sure, that irak II will change the world as we they know. but it is my persuasion that we will not be happy with this change.

The actual body count is approximately:

800 allied troops
10.000 civilians

and some people count a ration from 1:50 or 1:100 dead iraki fighters, what means at least 40.000 casualitis.

50.000 deads....and for what?

[WhatDoIKnow]

Klinik's answer to what would Germany do if attacked was that would probably first create a "new wave of anti-terror-laws"... Oh, I see, that's what it's missing. I didn't know that there aren't any laws yet in the German judicial system that can deal with murder (whether there is one or three thousand victims).

So first thing, in his view (and he represents the view of the majority in Germany), is to sit and talk about some new laws. Of course, the whole society should be consulted on those laws. After all, they will affect us all, and they are serious business ... Such important laws would also need considerable time to be created, passed and implemented. I guess you all can see that, don't you ?

Once in a while Klinik (and his former aliases) allows accidentally a slip-up appear in his posts. How was that saying ? "Ye shall know them by their words", if I'm correct.

... boy, we should pass some more laws ... Otherwise, everything is OK, I'll get my Brötchen every morning, chat with the neighbour, watch soccer, get mad about Big Brother on TV. The world is (almost) as it should be(if the Americans woldn't stirr up things UNNECESSARILY) ...

I might be exagerating a little. Black humor aside, new laws ARE indeed needed for dealing with the islamist threat. Klinik is right here. But I am convinced that the existing laws are more than enough to deal with a terrorist attack.

What should follow a terrorist attack is not debating new laws, but applying the existing ones !!

Here we have it, plain and simple, expressed in just a few words. We'll have to thank Klinik for (once again) revealing so clearly the 'European way'.

==========================

Now, let's say Saddam is Threat 1 and Al Qaida (as a general term) is Threat 2.

1 and 2 don't really get along well, they have different agendas.

1 and 2 have nevertheless a common MAIN enemy: the US. They have proved it (not even Greenpeace could deny that).

1 and 2 speak the same language.

1 and 2 come from the same part of the world, from the same culture.

Let's leave it like this, for now. So Europeans forcefully claim that Threat 1 and Threat 2 would NEVER get together. Why ? Well ... they just don't like each other. For Europeans 1 and 2 might as well come from different planets.

What can one say to that ? If one tries to make a (very probable) connection between 1 and 2, he is arrogant, cowboy etc.

'Sleep well Europe and Europeans, sleep well, all is fine...', says the wolf.

[Mathesar]

Yes...the american way is much faster and less complicated: abolish human rights (Home World defense act)

[Col. Klink]

@WhatDoIKnow
Klinik's answer to what would Germany do if attacked was that would probably first create a "new wave of anti-terror-laws"... Oh, I see, that's what it's missing. I didn't know that there aren't any laws yet in the German judicial system that can deal with murder (whether there is one or three thousand victims)....Once in a while Klinik (and his former aliases) allows accidentally a slip-up appear in his posts..

Uuuh, no. Big attacks will always trigger yet more responses. It was a rather trivial factual observation by me.

Sandy argued earlier the CA-US-border can not be monitored. But if New York would be hit tomorrow with a big dirty bomb which had been smuggled across that Green border, shall you and me make bets that even the "perfect" US would make yet more measures on top of the existing ones throughout the country? As I said: A trivial conclusion from me.

And you then argued that Saddam and Osama spoke the same language. No, they didn't. That is the big misunderstanding.

But Al-Sadr and Osama speak a similar ... dialect.

Mathesar
While you are right in your general layout, I would use the phrase "the situation develops as feared", not "expected".

I had hopes that I would be proven wrong and all those conservatives who predicted the only trouble ahead amongst Sunnite Saddam-followers could prove me wrong. (And so far, I still have not given up my hopes - Al-Sadr is a force amongst Shiites to trigger something else, but not enough to make a different only by himself)

[WhatDoIKnow]

Klinik, you don't have to convert ME on this forum and I don't try to convert you, but, with all respect, your response this time is sooo lame. Sorry...

Mathesar , you rascall, I'm happy they let you out for Easter ;-) I hope you didn't forget to take the medication with you, did you ...

[Mathesar]

@Col. Klink
U are right..."feared" is much more that what i wanna say...

@WhatdoIKnow
I am also an MD, so i should have my medication with me always...and i am looking forward to an very nice and relaxing Weekend in the "Buehlerhoehe"...may you have an look for... ;)

http://www.buehlerhoehe.com

[Mathesar]

Peacefull....a peacefull weekend...thats the right word to name it...

[Daniel]

An interesting thread. Finally.
May I collect the reasons mentioned here for going to war.

* 53% of Americans say, because of Saddams involvement in 9/11. Apparently the American members of this forum are to embarassed to comment on it. Was it the biased American media? ;-)

* Sandy says, there was a possible connection between Oklohamo and Saddam? Did I get this right?

* WhatDoIKnow and Joe say, there could have been a connection between Saddam and Osama arising in the future. This was too dangerous to risk it.

I do understand the last one. On the other hand, Iraq in chaos is even more fertile land for terrorists. Obviously which side you see, depends on the continent. While Americans are sure to win, Europeans fear that it might not work.
This difference was brought up in this thread, and it is quite true. For example I am really annoyed about endless European (and German) discussions in social and economic respects. But I have to admit I agree with respect to war. So my opinion is: the risk was too high to bring chaos to Iraq and worsen the situation. (Lets hope there had really been no WMDs in Iraq. Otherwise Osama found them meanwhile.) But given the present situation I would like Germany and France to participate in Iraq under a new UN mandate. I know, this would be rather moral help then military help, but this could prove to be important. We can't risk to fail in Iraq. After all, we could soon have a common border with Iraq (if we follow the American wishlist).

[Col. Klink]

@Joe
It has become more apparent with each posting I read here that the Europeans in general chose not to accept this or to believe this. I strongly feel, while I do not agree with this assessment, this is your right. It is also apparent that Europeans have no concept what so ever of the effects of weapons of mass destruction. If they did they would have an entire different attitude about Iraq and Iran.

You gave me now nice generalities on a big WMD-scare instead of bringing evidence for Saddam and his personal 9/11-involvement and why the world is now safer (I heard "financing Hamas" before - I don't see that Hamas today is weaker than a year ago, more the opposite).

While we all agree that terror (including things like "dirty bombs, etc.) is a big coming challenge, our differences appear to boil down to:

Bush-supporters believe the world is safer by heavily relying on military might, if necessary used uni-laterally. Aside from the clumsy path into Iraq, one hears theorizing of pounding Syria, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, possible Pakistan (should they turn). Sometimes in discussion forums even talk of "let's nuke them".

What I always miss from Bush-supporters is at least a weighing balance of reality, a pragmatist view: At which point might brute force be counter-productive and breed more terrorism in the long run? US is a huge power, but it is far too weak to hold entire Muslim regions over long periods - over a billion people. You have to at least look at the possible negative effects of a propaganda-backlash when arguing only for the "iron fist"-solution.

And I firmly believe we will see in several years from now a new generation of young terrorists, whose biographies will tell us in hindsight the tale how it was the clumsy Bush-handling of pre-Iraq that drove them into the hands of fanatics Muslim preachers. As I said earlier: Al-Sadr knows Osama's language, Saddam did not. (but no, merely "nuking" Sadr City now will also be counter-productive. Brute force is not the silver bullet).

I can well see what Bush is trying to do with his prior stubbornness over Iraq, against many Allies and UN. But I think it is a high-risk gamble by Bush with bad odds and I am baffled that Bush-supporters apparently completely blank out the huge potential risk for future generations - that clumsy pre-Iraq might have ultimately done more bad than good amongst moderate Muslims all over the world.

And of course: The price for Bush's politics will be felt by all of us. The effect will hit Europe as well, be it bad or (hopefully) good. (Sadly it'll hit even more likely in Europe, as a large ocean is a bit of a better border)

[Mathesar]

@Col. Klink

I am aware of the concepts of WMD. I am also aware, that every better physician or biologists can produce them in the kitchen at home (especially when ist is a suicide Bomber). Go in a normal hospital, get a normal, muti-resistent bacterium, treat them a little bit with Vancomycin (to get an resistance) and breed some interesting phyla with it. Use the outcome on a large international airport.

To win this war with an iron fist you have to genocide at least the half of the mankind, maybe more. Otherwise you can try an more peacefull way of interrelationsship...at first sight it may be a more ethically way.

[Joe]

@ Daniel

At least someone in Europe is prepared to admit there is little that either France or Germany can do militarily to support the US.

The German Chancellor’s loud speeches played well to the Germans when he said Germany would not send combat troops to support the US. This implied that German had troops to send. My question was what troops. Has Germany build an army much like they did prior to WW2 that the US did not know about?

I hope I was able to address some of the American public’s perception (53%) of why they felt a link existed between Iraq and 9 11. I find this conclusion as justified as the Germans believing they were not going to send combat troops to support the Americans because it was an option. The truth was they had no troops to send.

I would present to you that there was a direct link between 9 11 and Iraq was not a position of the current Administration. What was the link between 9 11 and Iraq was the fact that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that these could be transferred to any number of transnational terrorist organization. These organizations would then use them.

The idea that WMD’s have not been found is a bit scary. It is scary not because not finding then in some ways undermines the position of the US. The french and Germans did that long before the first shot was ever fired. It is where else they could possible be. The options of where is not something very pleasant to consider.

Why would the Europeans care if Iraq works or not? Remember Iraq is not part of the war on terror.

If I am to understand your position correctly if the risks are great the position of the Europeans is to do nothing. But you really did not say what nothing was. For nothing could in fact be many things. It could be everything from retaining the no fly zone and food for oil program to suspending all UNSCR as they pertain to Iraq and welcoming it back into the community of nations as a member in good standing.

Still doing nothing with the hopes that some how this will all just go away is a policy option. It seems the best policy option for the EU. I suggest you review this and develop it in greater detail as in the near future you will be able to apply it again to Iran. I do hope your elite have a second policy ready to implement should this fail.

As far as Germany and france working in Iraq under some form of UN mandate, just what would they add to the process? Surely it is not going to be boots on the ground? So the only purpose I could see would be for their self-economic gain.

And you totally lost me about the common board with Iraq. I have not heard that before.

[Col. Klink]

@Joe
Why would the Europeans care if Iraq works or not? Remember Iraq is not part of the war on terror.

Iraq is not part of WOT, but part of the Muslim world. And a bad handling in those parts will breed more terrorism in future decades.

And you totally lost me about the common board with Iraq. I have not heard that before.

Border, not board.

If Turkey is EU-member, as Bush wants it, and the Schengen-treaty is in full effect in all EU (assuming Bulgaria and Romania join soon), how many border-checks will one have to make in a car-drive between Paris and Bagdad? The dangers of the ME are closer to Europe than to Washington.

[Mathesar]

@Joe

Ok...and now the US is going to nuke out all States who are able to hand out WMD to terrorists???

Then you have a lot to do...

[Ambrose Wolfinger]

This discussion makes me wonder about something else. In the war on terrorism, who exactly does the German public think the enemy is?

To Col. Klink: You may be interested in Christopher Hitchens' thoughts about Iraq. He is certainly no conservative. Click on http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004903

I'd be very interested in reading your responses to the questions Hitchens asks at the end of his article.

[Sandy P]

--Ok...and now the US is going to nuke out all States who are able to hand out WMD to terrorists???

Then you have a lot to do...''

No Mathesar, that's the easy part.

We're taking the hard way.

[Pato]

@klink-
you're WRONG on all points once again. Your pathetic cynicism and doubt for a positive outcome is a sign of a mentally depraved and welfare soaked fool.
you spew this nonsense- >And of course: The price for Bush's politics will be felt by all of us. The effect will hit Europe as well, be it bad or (hopefully) good. (Sadly it'll hit even more likely in Europe, as a large ocean is a bit of a better border)> NO imbecile- the price for euro foolishness is being felt by all you small minded flea.
You in the nanny states of the "eu", cushioned with your social crutches by your welfare host govt, have watched your fellow welfare soaked fools head over for training in Afghanistan for the last decade. You watched them as they took their welfare money, bought plane tickets, and headed to the land of jihad monkeys. They come back and are now lying among you like flies at a picnic waiting to blow the head off delusional souls like you.
It seems the size of your brain would best be measured against that of a summer bee. You seem to forget the attempt at blowing up the Strasburg market- an attack that was planned before a fool like you even knew who G Bush was. Strasburg cathedral bombing specifics- http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,911481,00.html
They were let off of 10 yrs of the sentence after saying they planned to bomb an EMPTY synagogue.
That makes it easier for you to swallow, I know that. Same with the tunisian mosque bombing of germans who just happend to be jewish.
Now your courts release this freak who was given a paltry 200 days in prison for each of the 3000 americans he helped kill. These jihad monkeys, while walking among the germans at the market while filming for the attack stated- "these are all infidels, just look at them". Are you going to blame a bungling Bush or a foolish American for that, or will you blame your govt for allowing these fools to be brought in to prop up your dying and economically besieged country?
You in germany have shown your true modern face, and you have shown your true modern ideologies and you have proven to the US that not one damn thing has changed for you asswipes since 1930.
One short decade after the US effort brings down the wall, re-unites germany under the security blanket of blood and money of the US men and woman, and just 60 years after the US SHOWS YOU DEMOCRACY and a constitution we are once again, re-introduced to the crusty german minds identical to yours.
Neither of you seem to be aware of the immense amounts of WMD all across the middle east the Iraq war has exposed. Why is that so difficult for you? Are you even aware of germany's role in these weapons you imbeciles?
You are in some type of psychotic state of denial to current times and with regard to history.
This time this psychosis will kill you again and the US will stand back and 300 million people will laugh out loud at your pathetic selves as your country goverend by those with your flintstone/neanderthal mind set collapses.
The burden of proof of any non-alignment with terror was upon Saddam and he failed. Saddam was chased from power and then found un-shaved in a little rat hole. Germany played no role in the toppling of the 21st century's greatest dictator, a guy one notch below the german leader Hitler. The German contribution to his fall was simply petty obstructionism and cheap child-like comments that your's mirror so well. That is fact and something that should be hard to swallow for most germans. It is time for germany to show the WORLD that IT can take care of itself and has the ability to follow-through and repair the GERMAN internal crises created by the 1 million potential jihadi cowards among you. Or will you and your kind continue to massage their prostrates until they behave like good little immigrant refugees?
You would show that you possess an active neuron or two in your head if you would simply shut down your keyboard, close your damn mouth, and permit the US to bring to the middle east the same conditions it brought for a constitution and a democracy after your country germany brutalized YOUR continent for one century. Though after 50 years of democracy in Iraq I can assure you the Iraqi GDP and economic output (like japans' vs germany's)will far surpass your meager output in germany. That is what seems to scare clowns like yourself.

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/