April 7, 2004
POWELL'S 'EXTRAORDINARY ADMISSION' ON IRAQ WMD
REFUTES WAR 'PRETEXTS'
** The admittedly
"flawed data" on Iraqi WMD exposes the U.S. as a "naked
** The comments lodge a
"direct accusation" against U.S. intelligence agencies.
"self-criticism on WMD" should spur the U.S. to rethink its Iraq
** Some Euros hail Powell's
honesty and "greatness to concede."
The U.S.' 'real intention' in Iraq was 'regional dominance'-- Euro critics said Secretary Powell's confession
"completes the picture of a great Iraq lie"; Turkey's sensationalist Posta
declared all of the pretexts" for the war "have proven to be
false." Germany's right-of-center Mittelbayerische
Zeitung blasted the "professionally organized campaign of lies"
and "dilettantish falsifications and systematic disinformation" used
to justify the war. Outside Europe,
papers saw Powell's comments as proof the U.S. "made the decision to
invade Iraq" first and "then looked for evidence of WMD to justify
it." Center-right Pakistan
concluded that "America is interested only in the oil of Iraq, and its
'Intensified scrutiny' of the CIA-- Some outlets claimed this was the "first
time" a senior U.S. official had "publicly criticized the spies"
who provided "probably wrong" data on Iraqi WMD, casting doubt on the
"caliber of the security services" in the U.S. Belgium's Christian-Democrat De Standaard
opined that U.S. agencies were "so blinded by their belief that Saddam had
bad intentions that they did not see the correct picture." Others labeled Powell's "confession...a
blow" to the credibility of the White House as it enters "full
election campaign mode."
'Setting the record straight' will help 'resolve
the Iraqi conflict'-- Left-leaning papers
urged the U.S. to "do some real soul-searching" following Powell's
comments. Portugal's influential Publico
stressed the "heartbreaking" results of the war: "a ruined country, a white-hot fire of
deaths and mutilations without optimistic scenarios." The elite Jordan Times hoped the
"admission of having erred" would accompany a "genuine interest
in seeing Iraq and its people on the road to peace, democracy and
prosperity." Pakistan's populist Khabrain
concluded that "after this admission" the U.S. lacks "any
justification to keep its control over Iraq."
'Powell's reputation is at stake'-- Writers split over the reasons for Powell's
"critical self-reflection" regarding the "dramatically powerful
and persuasive" WMD claims he made at the UNSC. Sympathetic German columnists said his
remarks prove "he has scruples," calling "Powell's step an
appeal to the whole U.S. administration to become honest." Critics countered that Powell "cannot
avoid responsibility" for his UNSC presentation, because he allowed
"others to misuse him."
Jordan's center-left Al-Dustour assailed Powell's attempt to
"exonerate himself," labeling his "belated admission...an opportunistic
move, not a sign of courage."
EDITOR'S NOTE: Media
Reaction reporting conveys the spectrum of foreign press sentiment. Posts select commentary to provide a
representative picture of local editorial opinion. This report summarizes and interprets foreign
editorial opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S.
Government. This analysis was based on
26 reports from 14 countries over 2 - 7 April 2004. Editorial excerpts from each country are
listed from the most recent date.
"Secretary Powell’s Confession"
Jean-Louis Turlin in right-of-center Le
Figaro (4/5): "Just when President Bush’s credibility is suffering
over the motives for waging war on Iraq and over the terrorist threat before
9/11, the U.S. President could have done without Secretary Powell’s comments on
his trip back from Brussels.… But the good soldier was eager to protect his own
credibility and so Secretary Powell finally confessed that the ‘proof’ that WMD
existed in Iraq was not as ‘solid’ as presented by the CIA.… Secretary Powell
is distancing himself from the Agency. His confession is a blow to Vice
President Cheney’s own credibility, and indirectly to the President’s.”
"Secretary Powell Takes a Step Back"
Fabrice Rousselot in left-of-center Liberation
(4/5): “Secretary Powell’s remarks, even if made to a handful of journalists in
the middle of the night, mark the first direct accusation by a member of the
Bush administration against the work accomplished by American intelligence
agencies on Iraq.”
Dietrich Alexander noted in an editorial in
right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (4/5): "Colin Powell had prepared his
withdrawal. In January, he expressed
doubts that Iraq ever had WMD, in February he said he would not know whether he
would have ordered Iraq's invasion if it had been clear that Saddam did not
have banned weapons. And with his latest
remark, the last stone of the U.S. argumentation has fallen. Powell's remarks are outlining the new
defense line of the U.S. administration in this election year. Its credibility is still suffering but it
cannot be accused of deliberately deceiving the public because it relied on the
intelligence services. The question will
now be whether the intelligence services will accept playing the role of the
bogey man. And it will be a different
question whether the world wants to believe this."
Right-of-center Mittelbayerische Zeitung of Regensburg
argued (4/5): "The Iraq war was
legitimized with dilettantish falsifications and systematic disinformation.
America's omniscient intelligence service CIA allowed others--probably contrary
to better knowledge--to use it for a propaganda campaign. The first victim of every war is always the
truth. In this question, we should never
harbor any illusion. But when preparing
the Iraq war, the U.S. administration used a high degree of criminal energy to
fool billions of people. With a
professionally organized campaign of lies the image of democracy was
discredited exactly in those countries whose societies they wanted to enthuse
for this model."
"Question Of Credibility"
Matthias Arning said in an editorial in
left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau (4/5): "[The latest statements] question
Secretary Powell's credibility. The U.S.
secretary of state shares this skepticism, which has now been shown to him,
with the former Aznar government in Spain...that used the...UN Security Council
for its interests, risking the loss of its own credibility and the damage of
the UNSC's reputation. This shows the
significance which Powell and Aznar have attributed to this body, which others
in the international community of nations still consider a moral but also
political corrective. The conservative
Spanish leader footed the bill for his deceptions, an experience he has as an
advantage over Powell."
Centrist Der Tagesspiegel of Berlin
opined (4/4): "At least one U.S.
top politician is showing the greatness to concede that one of the key
evidences of the past was none...but German delight at the confession is
probably limited, since U.S. sources are now blaming the German Bundesnachrichtendienst
for having supplied false information.
Such accusations can hardly been verified, but it is certain that
working groups that were set upon in Washington systematically played up
evidence against Iraq before they were passed on to the highest levels. This is why Powell's step is an appeal to the
whole U.S. administration to become honest.
This could be useful not only for the election campaign, but could strengthen
again the allies' confidence in Washington."
"Powell Used As Front Man"
Center-right Nordkurier of Neubrandenburg
(4/5): "Colin Powell was used as a
front man to change global opinion in favor of the campaign, and Powell
probably allowed others to misuse him by believing in the infallibility of
intelligence services. Loyalty to the
White House was at that time his prime goal.
His most recent statement, however, demonstrates critical
self-reflection, and even allows to assume that he has scruples, a
characteristic that is not frequently visible in Bush's surroundings. This confession is not sensation, since it
only completes the picture of a great Iraq lie that is linked to the name of
the chief in the White House."
"Iraq, A Blood-Stained Post-War"
Cesare De Carlo opined in conservative,
top-circulation syndicate Il Resto del Carlino/La Nazione/Il Giorno
(4/5): “Paul Bremer announced the nomination of a defense minister and a secret
service chief. Both should work to
defeat the guerilla and terrorism in view of the transfer of powers to local
authority.... But the Americans are the
first ones to question whether the tormented post-war can effectively evolve
toward normalization.... The Iraqi army
and police are not capable of guaranteeing security. And without security any
attempt at self-government will fail within a few weeks.... Therefore, Bremer’s announcement is nothing
more than ‘wishful thinking’--not so much because of the endless attacks...but
because of the strategy that guides them: to strike out against the coalition’s
weak link, new Socialist Spain and to convince Zapatero not to give in to
Washington and to not go back on its promise to withdraw from Iraq. It’s not a
coincidence that the worst attack yesterday was against Spanish
headquarters.... This confirms that
Zapatero’s victory was dictated by anger and fear and not by voter
disaffection. And it’s not an accident that this violence coincides with Bush’s
troubles and with Powell self-criticism on WMD. Once again, al-Qaeda seems to
obey a political command. It is improbable that it will be able to turn Iraq
into another Taliban Afghanistan--at least not as long as Bush is in the White
"Colin Powell Fights For Reputation"
Foreign editor Evita Neefs held in
Christian-Democrat De Standaard (4/2): "Powell's main 'most
dramatic' evidence (for the war in Iraq) were the mobile--and easily
concealable--labs for the production of biological weapons.... Doubts about those labs are not new, but
Powell is the first member of the U.S. administration who openly admitted that
the information was probably wrong....
Earlier the Secretary had admitted that there was disagreement among the
intelligence experts, but it was the first time that he publicly criticized the
spies. Indeed, Powell's reputation is at
stake--just like all the other parties'....
It was in many people's interest that the world believed that Saddam had
WMD: exiles of all kinds who wanted Saddam to go; the Bush administration which
also wanted Saddam to go and Saddam himself who wanted his neighbors and his
own people to believe that he was dangerous and powerful. According to David Kay, the intelligence
services--which began to search for Saddam's weapons after the war--were so
blinded by their belief that Saddam had bad intentions that they did not see
the correct picture."
"Powell Admits Intelligence On Labs Was 'Not Solid'"
Conor O'Clery wrote in the center-left Irish
Times (4/5): "The U.S.
Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell, told the UN Security Council last year,
when making the case for war against Iraq, that four sources had given US
intelligence ‘detailed and accurate’ descriptions of mobile labs to make
biological weapons. Mr Powell has now conceded for the first time that the
intelligence was not ‘solid'.... Mr Powell
told U.S. reporters on a plane carrying him back to the US after a meeting of
NATO in Brussels recently that he was given flawed data.... Mr Powell's presentation to the Security
Council was the central element in his appeal for a resolution directly
supporting a US-led invasion of Iraq. The US failed to convince council members
but, given Mr Powell's prestige at home, it did much to bolster domestic
support for war.... Mr Powell told
reporters that he had pressed intelligence officials before addressing the
Security Council to make sure their analysis from four alleged sources was
"Essay About Lies"
Influential moderate-left Público's
deputy editor-in-chief Nuno Pacheco commented (4/5): "Colin Powell
lied. It's not an admission of
guilt.... It is an admission of
guilt.... It is not his fault, certainly, but they are still lies, at any
rate.... One little detail: When A spoke
to B, he exaggerated, amplified, lied, told the story like he wanted it to be
told. B believed [the whole story]. The result is heartbreaking: A toppled dictator...a ruined country, a
white-hot fire of deaths and mutilations without optimistic scenarios for
calming down the most reticent ones [enough] to accept the messianic
salvations.... How will A be prevented
from lying again, putting more guns and armies into action? George W. Bush, President and candidate to
the Presidency of the USA, should worry about answering. Instead of this, in a video that is supposed
to be funny, he looked for WMD under the carpets and behind the curtains of the
Oval Office. He didn't find any, as he
didn't find them in Iraq. Slanderous
voices will say that it is for this very same reason that he stays in the White
House: because he can't find the exit door."
Madalina Mitan stated in financial-oriented Curentul
(4/5): “For the first time Colin Powell
admited that the information that motivated him to support the invasion of Iraq
might have been false.... This
acknowledgement might represent a difficult moment for Bush administration, in
a time when the incumbent White House leader is in full election campaign
“Invasion Of Iraq Takes The World Backwards 100 Years”
Hakan Celik argued in mass-appeal sensational Posta
(4/6): “It is the anniversary of Iraq’s
invasion, yet after more than a year there is zero gain with regard to
stability. Not only Iraq, but the whole
Middle East region has fallen into a spiral of terrorism. This situation can be interpreted as the
world being sent backwards for 100 years....
All of the pretexts for invasion of Iraq have proven to be false. However, the unstable atmosphere helped
terrorist organizations a great deal in carrying out their bloody actions in
the name of vengeance. The terrorists
are using religious motives to justify their actions, and the whole process is
leading to a war between religions....
Recent clashes between American troops and the Shiites pose a serious
threat for the future of Iraq. President
Bush might sincerely regret the invasion someday, but the fact of the matter is
that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq would not solve anything at
this point. The chaos in Iraq is growing
by the day.”
Jedda's pro-government moderate Saudi Gazette
declared (4/5): "The extraordinary
admission by...Colin Powell that evidence he submitted to the UN to justify war
on Iraq may have been wrong is certain to bring about intensified scrutiny of
the role played by the security services in the run up to the invasion of
Iraq. In February of last year, Powell
told the UN Security Council that Iraq had developed mobile laboratories for
making biological weapons.... This was a
key claim used by US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony
Blair to justify the invasion of Iraq....
The underlying argument was that if the international community was
unwilling to act, faced with such clear evidence of Iraq's willingness to
ignore UN resolutions, then this justified the United States and Britain acting
unilaterally. It also bolstered the argument that those who refused to act
under such circumstances (the French surrender monkeys) were nothing more than
appeasers. Secretary Powell has now
conceded the information appears not to be...that solid.... He also indicated he had held discussions
with the CIA about the subject without amplifying on the substance of those
discussions. The claim about biological weapons, although it failed to persuade
the Security Council to back the war, had a bearing on US and British public
opinion. Powell's admissions really allow only two interpretations of events.
One is that the intelligence information was wrong, which would be a commentary
on the caliber of the security services.
The other is that the Bush administration chose to adopt a particular
understanding of the information to justify a partisan political agenda. Recent
claims made by former White House security coordinator Richard Clarke suggest
the latter option.... The Security Council
chose not to follow the logic of Powell's presentation about Saddam's mobile
biological laboratories and it now appears it was right to have done so. It
seems unlikely that the US security agencies will simply roll over and accept
that they were at fault. With the presidential election due later this year
stand by for further revelations."
A commentary in elite English-language Jordan
Times noted (4/5): "U.S.
Secretary of State Colin Powell said it all when he admitted that the
information he presented to the UN Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, to justify
the war against Iraq, was flawed. During
that internationally broadcasted meeting, Powell went to great pains to show
that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that the photos of mobile
biological weapons laboratories were genuine. Now we all know better.... Now, under pressure from Congress to come up
with the truth, the Bush administration will have to admit that it nurtured an
erroneous policy on Iraq, and by that remove the onus from the intelligence
community, which has been taking a beating for doing its job. It will have to face a majority of the
American public who put its trust in the government, believing, once again,
that it would do the right thing. Setting
the record straight would help resolve the Iraqi conflict too, if with the
admission of having erred comes a genuine interest in seeing Iraq and its
people on the path to peace, democracy and prosperity. That the U.S. government admits that its justification
for waging war on Iraq was not prompted by new information demonstrates how a
democratic system of checks and balances works to the public's interest. It is
perhaps just this sort of democratic principle that the Iraqi people themselves
aspire to. The U.S. government must do some real soul-searching and take Iraq
policy back to the route it promised to follow at the onset of the war. We can expect even more 'revelations' about
how the intelligence gathered on Iraq 'appears,' as Powell put it, no longer
"Powell's Confession Or Pilate's
George Haddad maintained in center-left
influential Arabic-language Al-Dustour (4/4): "U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell
admitted two days ago that his presentation to the UN in February 2003 in which
he accused Iraq of possessing WMD was based on flawed intelligence
information. Powell found out that the
evidence he presented was unreliable. He expressed his hope that the inquiry
commission, which investigates the US intelligence authorities' information on
the alleged WMD, will reach a conclusion on why the US intelligence agencies
depended on unreliable information....
Like Roman procurator Pilate who sought to exonerate himself from the
crucifixion of Christ, Powell justified his lies by saying he was told that his
presentation was based on confirmed information. As for his excuse that he went along with
this fraud because he was not member of the intelligence community, it would
have been acceptable, had he come to the State Department straight from the
Nebraska fields or from Texas horse farms and had not served as national
security adviser in the White House before he became the U.S. army's chief of
staff. As a matter of fact, this
unexpected admission by Powell does not show a desire for expiation. Rather, it
indicates a desire to continue the deception and a determination to practice
more fabrication and falsification....
When a congressional commission asked him whether the Jewish gang that
operates under the title 'neo conservatives' had a strong influence on the Bush
administration, Powell replied by saying that the plan for the invasion of Iraq
was laid down and endorsed by the Clinton administration.... Besides, during his discussions and rows with
Secretary Rumsfeld and the Pentagon's Jewish gang, Powell knew very well from
where the fabricated information came....
The Jewish gang badly needed someone who would present it with
justifications and information, regardless of whether this information was true
and reliable or false and fabricated.
Indeed the gang achieved its goal when it set up a special intelligence
unit in the Pentagon, called the special policy office. Douglas Feith, the son of a Jewish woman, was
in charge of this office, which was tasked with fabricating information
separate from the CIA.... Silence and
pretense fitted the desire of the president who was obsessed with carrying out
aggression against, and occupying, Iraq to appear as a war hero who achieved
victory over terrorism. With regard to
Powell's belated admission, however, it is an opportunistic move, not a sign of
courage or guiltlessness."
UAE: "Powell's Confession"
The independent English-language Gulf Today
editorialized (4/5): "Last year's
presentation that U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell made in the United
Nations on Iraq's alleged WMD to justify toppling Saddam Hussein was
dramatically powerful and persuasive.
There were satellite imageries and recordings of intercepted
conversations among Iraqi officials to back up claims Baghdad had posed a
terror threat. A year later the failure
to find the WMD has not stirred the U.S. and its major ally Britain to make an
apology to the Iraqi people and a misled world.
But as pressure mounts...Powell had to acknowledge that his prewar
intelligence might have been flawed. He
admitted that intelligence went wrong over two Iraqi trailers, whose satellite
photos were shown to support claims they were used for making WMD.... Even before bombing Afghanistan's Taliban
regime and taking on the Al Qa'ida, Bush had kept Baghdad in his gunsight. This reinforces claims of former U.S.
counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke, who testified last week before the 9/11
congressional panel, that Bush did not consider Al Qa'ida an urgent threat
despite repeated warnings. These
revelations have put Blair under renewed pressure.... With National Security Adviser Condoleezza
Rice, whom Bush initially disallowed to appear before the Sept.11 panel,
preparing to appear before it on Thursday, more disclosures might be on the
way.... With the Anglo-American Iraq
plan discredited, cracks in the war coalition are widening.... On Sunday Australia's opposition Labor Party
asked PM John Howard to admit he had deceived the Australians on Iraq and
apologise to the nation in light of Powell's confession. Whatever fragile ground Washington built to
justify the invasion is gone. Even
Rice's defence is unlikely to help cover the cracks in the coalition and the
real intention to occupy Iraq: Regional
"What Next After Admitting?"
Pro-government Arabic-language Al-Ittihad
said (4/5): "The most important
issue about the admission by Colin Powell regarding Iraq's WMD...is for the
coalition to hasten the successful handing over of power to its owners [Iraqis]
as scheduled on 30th June."
MALAYSIA: "Not Amusing"
Government-influenced English language New Straits Times
ran the following editorial (4/5):
"President George W. Bush made a public joke about not finding
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Now the joke's on him since his Secretary
of State has admitted that evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq was based
on information that 'appears not to be...that solid.' Colin Powell went before the UN Security
Council last February with data to show that Iraq had developed mobile
laboratories for making biological weapons. He had then said evidence included
first-hand accounts from four sources. Some UN weapon inspectors had doubts
from the beginning. Former U.S. chief weapons inspector David Kay, among
others, said most of the evidence came from an Iraqi defector, code-named
'Curveball', said to be connected to Ahmad Chalabi, a member of the Iraq
Governing Council. American and British intelligence have conceded that
misinformation provided by exiles had led to misjudgments about Iraq's weapons
programmes. Powell's admission and
former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke's allegations support the
contention that Bush and his team made a decision to invade Iraq, then looked
for evidence of WMD to justify it. Sir Christopher Meyer, former British
Ambassador to Washington, reveals in a soon-to-be-published article that Bush
and Tony Blair agreed to remove Saddam Hussein nine days after Sept 11, 2001.
Bush, however, is unlikely to agree that the war on terror had given him a
pretext for military adventurism. He would be content to spin the same old line
that Iraq was invaded to destroy the non-existent WMD, liberate the Iraqi
people, and make the world safe for democracy to enhance his chances for
Democracy In Iraq"
The nationalist Hindustan Times contended (4/7): "The Iraq saga is dealing U.S. prestige
a heavy blow. Now even Secretary of State Colin Powell is saying that the
intelligence assessments that led up to the war were bogus. His reasons may have
to do with internal US politics. But
the larger issue is the social and political mess created by the invasion, the
economic breakdown and the collapse of the country's security system. In other
words, America has done a terrible job running Iraq for a year. Much of this is becoming apparent as
Washington plans to hand back Iraq its sovereignty by June 30.... While debate is rife about procedures to be
followed for the handover, a new bush-fire has been lit. The U.S. forces have
declared war on Moqtada al-Sadr.... The
moderate sections of the majority Shia community led by the venerable Ayatollah
Ali al-Sistani, with whom the mode of U.S. withdrawal was being discussed, have
been rendered mere spectators.... The
trouble with al-Sadr started when the Americans closed down his newspaper last
week--not a very democratic act when the professed U.S. goal is to bring
democracy to Iraq. But an armed Shia rebellion has long been brewing. The
Sunnis, the keenest defenders of Saddam Hussein, in Iraq's central parts are
already in revolt. What a shambles on the eve of the supposed restoration of
The Calcutta-based independent Telegraph opined (4/5): "There are situations when being
speechless is the most serious of condemnations. Mr Colin Powell's announcement that the
intelligence on Iraq's accumulation of WMD was flawed is one such
instance. The acknowledgement can only
leave everybody aghast. Whether Mr
Powell...and his president, Mr George W. Bush, likes it or not, this admission
on Mr Powell's part makes the U.S. a naked aggressor. The central public plank of the war that the
US declared on Iraq was 'the fact' that Mr Saddam Hussein had been building up
an arsenal of WMD. That fact has now
been publicly acknowledged to be fiction.
No such arsenal has been found. Mr Bush thus destroyed Iraq on flimsy
and unsubstantiated--some might even say manufactured--evidence. Mr Powell made
his presentation to the UN on the basis of evidence given to him by the
CIA. He is now trying to distance himself
from that evidence by saying that at that point in time, the evidence seemed
convincing.... This is disingenuous,
since Mr Powell cannot deny responsibility for the evidence that he brought
into the public domain by presenting it to the UN. He could not have been unaware that on this
evidence depended the destruction of Iraq and thousands of lives. Since the emergence of a unipolar world and
the unofficial coronation of the U.S. as the world's sheriff, the U.S. has
tried to claim for itself a moral high ground.
It has projected itself as standing for a new world-order, which is
different from the one represented by Mr Hussein and Mr Osama bin Laden. It has advocated a world free from terror and
totalitarianism. But the U.S. action in
Iraq and the fact that it was bereft of any reason have only revealed the
hollowness of its own claims. The U.S.
rode roughshod over all democratic opinion, including that of the UN, against
the invasion and proceeded to unleash a reign of terror against the people of
Iraq. 'Might is right' cannot be the
basis of a new world-order, as the logical extension of that is a descent into
a state of nature. It has been the
argument of some that the U.S. is actually involved in the 21st-century version
of the great game in west Asia. This
might well turn out to be true once the real reasons for the invasion are
PAKISTAN: “Admittance Of
Guilt By U.S. Secretary Of State”
An editorial in the Karachi-based, right-wing, pro-Islamic unity
Urdu Jasarat (4/5): "The U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has
admitted that he had provided faulty information to the UN regarding Iraq’s
biological and chemical arsenal....
President Bush who is confronting an internal resistance wants to clear
his record before the impending presidential elections. That’s the reason why one admission after the
other is coming to the fore from his camp.
But the point is that mere admission of guilt is not enough. The need is to lodge a war crime case against
the entire U.S. leadership and they be asked to pay ransom for ransacking
"Colin Powell's Admission"
Populist Urdu-language Khabrain declared (4/5): "U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell
has admitted that he had provided wrong information to UN regarding Iraq
chemical and biological weapons mobile laboratories.... After this admission the U.S. administration
is not left with any justification to keep its control over Iraq. Retreat would be a difficult preposition for
America. The other honorable way of
getting out of Iraq is that America should immediately hold elections in Iraq
and hand over governance to the elected representatives of the people of
"Unjustifiable Attack On Iraq: Colin Powell's Open
Center-right Urdu-language Pakistan held (4/5): "It is surprising that while America
admits having attacked Iraq without justification, it goes on with the efforts
to strengthen its hold over the country....
America is interested only in the oil of Iraq, and its geo-strategic
importance, and a guarantee for the protection of Israeli frontiers. However, America does not have the strength
of purpose as it had one year ago....
Sooner or later America would have to shun its aggression and let the
world become fit for human habitation."
"In Order To Justify Iraq War Wrong Report Was Presented
Before UN: Powell"
Independent Urdu-language Din judged (4/4): "U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell
has admitted the report he had presented before the UN for justifying war on
Iraq was based on wrong and imperfect details.
Speaking with newsmen while flying from Brussels to Washington, he said
that the dramatic part of his report in UN on mobile chemical and biological
weapons laboratories in Iraq was based on unreliable information."
"Data Given to UN Was Not Solid, Admits
Karachi-based center-left national
English-language Dawn stated (4/4):
"U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged on Friday that
information he gave the UN on Iraq's mobile biological weapons laboratories to
justify last year's invasion did not appear 'solid' any longer. Before the invasion, Mr. Powell presented
the UN with data proclaiming to prove that Iraq was engaged in the development