Destino Posted May 16, 2004 Share Posted May 16, 2004 http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm BLEEP THE PRESS: CAMERA MOVED OFF POWELL DURING RUSSERT GRILLING; AIDE ATTEMPTED TO CUT OFF INTERVIEW Sun May 16 2004 10:45:35 ET **Exclusive Details** An aide to Sec. of State Colin Powell ordered a halt to a MEET THE PRESS interview and directed a camera to shoot a palm tree during provocative questioning by host Tim Russert! Powell was being interview by satellite from Jordan. State Department press aide Emily Miller fumed as Tim Russert went beyond the 10 minutes allotted for the NBC Sunday session. MORE 13 minutes in to the interview, Miller attempted to pull the plug. As Russert grilled Powell on his presentation at the UN of Iraq's alleged WMDs -- Miller moved the single remote camera off Powell. "You're off," Miller announced. "I am not off," Powell warned. "No. They can't use it, they're editing it..." Miller said on an open microphone. "Emily, get out of the way. Bring the camera back please," the secretary snapped. MORE Russert aired the exchange unedited. Powell was 45 minutes late to the taping, a top source explained. NBC's MEET THE PRESS joined in progress.... TIM RUSSERT: Finally, Mr. Secretary, in February of 2003, you placed your enormous personal credibility before the United Nations and laid out a case against Saddam Hussein, citing. (Camera moved off of interview subject) EMILY MILLER, STATE DEPARTMENT PRESS AIDE: You're off. SECRETARY POWELL: I am not off. EMILY MILLER, PRESS AIDE: No. They can't use it, they're editing it. SECRETARY POWELL: He's still asking the questions. EMILY MILLER, PRESS AIDE: He was not ... SECRETARY POWELL: Tim, I am sorry I lost you. MR. RUSSERT: I am right here Mr. Secretary. I would hope they would put you back on camera. I don't know who did that. EMILY MILLER, PRESS AIDE: He was going to go for another five minutes. SECRETARY POWELL: We've really scre... MR. RUSSERT: I think that was one of your staff Mr. Secretary. I don't think that's appropriate. SECRETARY POWELL: Emily, get out of the way. Bring the camera back please. (Camera returns to the interview subject) I think we're back on Tim, go ahead with your last question. MR. RUSSERT: Thank you very much, sir. In February of 2003, you put your enormous personal reputation on the line before the United Nations and said that you had solid sources for the case against Saddam Hussein. It now appears that an agent called "Curve Ball" had misled the CIA by suggesting that Saddam had trucks and trains that were delivering biological chemical weapons. How concerned are you that some of the information you shared with the world is now inaccurate and discredited? SECRETARY POWELL: I'm very concerned. When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully. We looked at the sourcing and the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate, and so I'm deeply disappointed. But I'm also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment, of the intelligence community, but it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that I'm disappointed, and I regret it. MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Secretary, we thank you very much for joining us again and sharing your views with us today. SECRETARY POWELL: Thanks, Tim. (END OF PRE-TAPE INTERVIEW) MR. RUSSERT: AND THAT WAS AN UNEDITED INTERVIEW WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, TAPED EARLIER THIS MORNING FROM JORDAN. WE APPRECIATE SECRETARY POWELL'S WILLINGNESS TO OVERRULE HIS PRESS AIDES' ATTEMPT TO ABRUPTLY CUT OFF OUR DISCUSSION AS I BEGAN TO ASK MY FINAL QUESTION. COMING NEXT ... (END) ----------------------------------------------------------- Filed By Matt Drudge Reports are moved when circumstances warrant http://www.drudgereport.com for updates ©DRUDGE REPORT 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted May 16, 2004 Share Posted May 16, 2004 Bully for Powell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKINtil8tin Posted May 16, 2004 Share Posted May 16, 2004 Emily's an idiot. She didn't help her boss out at all. Powell handled the situation the best he could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted May 16, 2004 Share Posted May 16, 2004 I don't know what's worse; the fact Powell's aide was trying to stop him from going any further, probably aware of the fact Powell was going to make a comment that would inflict serious damage to the Bush administration and CIA's credibility. Or the fact that the CIA was wrong. The CIA was wrong people, and now I for one feel down right embarrased. What good can come from this? Powell just scored a million respect points for not talking "political" and admitting he and the CIA were wrong. That's leadership, and even if joining the Bush administration hurt his image and possibility in running for president, this certainly helped. But that's just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted May 16, 2004 Share Posted May 16, 2004 I saw that today. I couldn't tell somebody did it on purpose...besides that's when a toughie was being asked. But.....kudos to Powell for answering. That was classy. Seems like while accepting the blame for bad information, he's creating distance between himself and the white house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 One problem. In Woodward's book, Tenet tells Bush the WMD case is a slam dunk. Thus the claim by many of "lies" leading us into the war are, at least, suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeaconBlue Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Wait isn't that what everybody else has said so far? So far everyone's placed the accountability for this squarely in the CIAs lap, including secretary Powell as qouted in this very interview. I don't see how this was either damaging to the white house or evidence of Powell distancing himself. I think there is some wishful thinking going on here. On the other hand I've had a pyschic premonition that Mrs/Ms Miller will be collecting unemployment soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Originally posted by Renegade7 I don't know what's worse; the fact Powell's aide was trying to stop him from going any further, probably aware of the fact Powell was going to make a comment that would inflict serious damage to the Bush administration and CIA's credibility. Or the fact that the CIA was wrong. The CIA was wrong people, and now I for one feel down right embarrased. What good can come from this? Powell just scored a million respect points for not talking "political" and admitting he and the CIA were wrong. That's leadership, and even if joining the Bush administration hurt his image and possibility in running for president, this certainly helped. But that's just my opinion. I do agree with you about both points. I have always liked Powell and I still do. He seemed like the voice of reason in the Bush Admin. post 9-11, unfortunately, they made him do their dirty work and then pushed his cabinet position aside. He is acting like a leader and taking the questions like a man. He gets bonus points in my book. He's probably #2 on my list of favorite politicians right now, right behind McCain. He's very moderate and he's also a great leader. One thing that was good about affirmitive action. We got some great leaders in Powell and Rice. I don't care for Condi much, but I do respect her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
du7st Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Mr. President please please please fire George Tenent .... I'll be your best friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Is it possible to ask for an apology from Americans who berated the UN for not sanctioning the war on Iraq.... and all the countries who elected NOT to join the US on its mission in Iraq because it wasn't sanctioned by the UN and the mission itself wasn't deemed an extension of the War on Terror? Seriously. I'm not going to name names.... but there were a great plenty of members here berating the likes of Canada and France for not simplying following along with US proposals. Now, we're beginning to see the reservation about invading Iraq - on the premise that it had WMD - was indeed justified. Let me be clear, I fully support the US in its invasion of Iraq... it's for the benefit of the world in the long run. Even if the reason why the US originally invaded was incorrect. But the UN should regain some legitimacy and credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 quote: Is it possible to ask for an apology from Americans who berated the UN for not sanctioning the war on Iraq.... and all the countries who elected NOT to join the US on its mission in Iraq because it wasn't sanctioned by the UN and the mission itself wasn't deemed an extension of the War on Terror? Actually NO! The UN and France and Germany and Russia had Sweetheart Deals with IRAQ (PROVEN) No matter if there 17+ Resolutions or anything else... They never would have gone in. THEY thought he had WMD also.. So to say they did the right thing is a HORRIBLE misconception of the Facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 How can you say the UN has credibility: They are Judge Jury and liberator of their own corruption and nepitism.... Countries that take millions of barrels of Oil (for food) and then say lets not invade. AND SAY its a WAR for oil are correct.. Only agains the wrong side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Originally posted by Thiebear THEY thought he had WMD also.. So to say they did the right thing is a HORRIBLE misconception of the Facts. I thought attempting to convince the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction exemplified a HORRIBLE misconception of facts. And then calling treating those nation's which didn't support the American's theory as a betrayers. Americans generally view themselves like Cowboy fans. They can do no wrong. And when they do, they're not going to apologize for it. You can question the motivations of those countries all you like about "sweatheart" deals. If the UN was convinced there was reasonable evidence to use military means to invade Iraq.... it would have sanctioned it. And if they had... Germany, France and Russia would have been obligated to provide support for the war. The UN didn't have a sweet heart deal for oil. So let's not begin to question their motivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Originally posted by Thiebear How can you say the UN has credibility: They are Judge Jury and liberator of their own corruption and nepitism.... Countries that take millions of barrels of Oil (for food) and then say lets not invade. AND SAY its a WAR for oil are correct.. Only agains the wrong side. The motivation to invade Iraq was strictly because Iraq posed a threat with weapons of mass destruction which violated the rules agreed upon at the conclusion of the first Gulf War. That was how Colin Powell presented it to the UN and the world. You can argue all you want about Oil for Food, terrorism, liberation... all those excuses are to convince yourselves and justify your presence in Iraq. But BEFORE you initiated that war with Iraq, it would founded on the principle of WMD. Nothing else. Americans attempted to convince the world of it. It failed. And now it looks like the world was correct. You can question the motivation of the world all you like. They still got it right. Colin Powell admitted he was wrong. He acted on misinformation. I can appreciate that. "Intelligence" is difficult to acquire and I can't disagree with a person who makes the best judgment on the best information he has available to him. He wasn't talking about Food for Oil. He is a made of good character. You can learn something from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 It's truly pretty amusing when the man who ultimately made the pitch to his council and American citizens to invade Iraq is now admitting his decision may have ultimately been incorrect - but a right decision based on the information he had at the time -.... and even though HE has gone so far as to admit he may have made a mistake.... some Americans aren't yet convinced?!?! Seriously, what does it take for some of you people? The only information you had originally was given directly from Powell. And now he himself has admitted possible error. And now some Americans are coming up with their own agendas for the war.... and have convinced themselves they were mandated from the top? Crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Originally posted by Die Hard It's truly pretty amusing when the man who ultimately made the pitch to his council and American citizens to invade Iraq is now admitting his decision may have ultimately been incorrect - but a right decision based on the information he had at the time -.... and even though HE has gone so far as to admit he may have made a mistake.... some Americans aren't yet convinced?!?! Seriously, what does it take for some of you people? The only information you had originally was given directly from Powell. And now he himself has admitted possible error. And now some Americans are coming up with their own agendas for the war.... and have convinced themselves they were mandated from the top? Crazy. I think what sucks is that according to Woodward's book. Powell wasn't told about the choice to attack until 2 days after the Ambassador from Saudi Arabia. I don't know about anybody else but it makes me wonder if Powell was presented with the full data that say, the VP was. They sent him to the UN because he's a respected man and leader. If he had any reason to believe the information was bad, he wouldn't of done it. The admin needed him to go up there and make that presentation. I'm not saying that Powell was kept out of the loop for sure. It just seems unfortunate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Originally posted by Bufford 3.3 I think what sucks is that according to Woodward's book. Powell wasn't told about the choice to attack until 2 days after the Ambassador from Saudi Arabia. I don't know about anybody else but it makes me wonder if Powell was presented with the full data that say, the VP was. They sent him to the UN because he's a respected man and leader. If he had any reason to believe the information was bad, he wouldn't of done it. The admin needed him to go up there and make that presentation. I'm not saying that Powell was kept out of the loop for sure. It just seems unfortunate. As a Canadian, I don't know much about Powell. The media presents him as a military man of great honor and distinguishment. I would think as an icon, if you were EVER going to sell the American public and world council on a plan, Powell is your best personality to do so. He doesn't give the impression of a war-monger... but rather a good solider. He could've been made the fall-guy intentionally. Who knows. I'm certainly not going to fault ANYBODY for making the best decision with the information you had avaiable at the time... at any level for any person I know. But when you're ultimately wrong you should be able to admit it. And honestly, in this particular situation, you can do it with pride and integrity. He made the best decision possible - I'm going to give him and Bush the benefit of the doubt that EVERY decision they make is made with the best intentions for the US in mind. But at some point, some people have to quit deluding themselves. But are these people capable of admitting their viewpoints where wrong given the information they were provided? Doesn't seem so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 I think the point about this is that some believe that the admin was looking for a reason to go after Iraq....especially right after 9/11. They needed proof and perhaps what they used this time wouldn't of been enough if 9/11 hadn't happened. For Powell who went through Iraq once before, it wasn't something he wanted to do. It almost looked like the admin convinced him....so he would go up to NYC and convince them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Originally posted by Bufford 3.3 I think the point about this is that some believe that the admin was looking for a reason to go after Iraq....especially right after 9/11. I'd given it some thought. But I don't even want to entertain the possibility. I'd hate to imagine someone abusing their power so blatantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Originally posted by Die Hard I'd given it some thought. But I don't even want to entertain the possibility. I'd hate to imagine someone abusing their power so blatantly. You'd hope that even if a leader is leaning towards that, he's surrounded himself with the right people.....those people shouldn't support that route. You know what I mean. We hope that isn't the case.......it would be quite unfortunate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 I hope it isn't too, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck . . . . . . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thew Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 I've always liked Powell. He proved last weekend he's still a stud. It's unfortunate that he's failed the country and allowed his name and reputation to be used by the unreputable to take our country to war. Powell didn't agree with going to war. Powell should have resigned when it became clear that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and even Wolfowitz had more control over the nations foreign policy and more influence with the President than he did. Powell quotes George Marshal who disagreed with Truman and still did his bidding as his model. "The President was elected, I was not". I'll never forgive Powel for choosing his loyalty to the administration over the obligation he had to the country. He saw this train wreck coming and should have been more assertive in publisizing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted May 18, 2004 Share Posted May 18, 2004 I think it is rather suspect that Powell rejected the idea of war in Iraq the November before the war started and said there was no proof etc....and then a couple of "administrative meetings" later, he was all gung-ho about it. Not to mention now the Bush Administration has said they will leave if the new Iraq government asks them too, when for the past year or so, we have heard how we aren't leaving until the job is done. If troops start coming home at the end of summer, in time for the election, yet Iraq is still a filthy mess, I would be HIGHLY SUSPECT of anyone and everyone involved in this administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.