Transcript of Wilkerson interview

BBC NEWS
Transcript of Wilkerson interview
Col Lawrence Wilkerson, the chief of staff to former US Secretary of State Colin Powell, was interviewed by Carolyn Quinn for the BBC's R4 Today programme. Here is a transcript of the interview.

I asked Colonel Wilkerson why he felt the post-war planning had been so inadequate.

The post-invasion planning for Iraq was handled, in my opinion, in this alternative decision-making process which, in this case, constituted the vice-president and the secretary of defence and certain people in the defence department who did the "post invasion planning", which was as inept and incompetent as perhaps any planning anyone has ever done.

It consisted of largely sending Jay Garner and his organisation to sit in Kuwait until the military forces had moved into Baghdad, and then going to Baghdad and other places in Iraq with no other purpose than to deliver a little humanitarian assistance, perhaps deal with some oil-field fires, put Ahmed Chalabi or some other similar Iraqi in charge and leave.

This was not only inept and incompetent, it was day-dreaming of the most unfortunate type and ever since that failed we've been in a pick-up game - a pick-up game that's cost us over 2,000 American KIAs [killed in action]and almost a division's worth of casualties.

Now you call this alternative decision-making as a process and you seem to be laying the blame pretty fairly and squarely at the door of Dick Cheney. Am I correct in assuming that?

Well in the two decision-making processes into which I had the most insight - the detainee abuse issue and this issue of post-invasion planning for Iraq - I lay the blame squarely at his feet.

I look at the relationship between Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld as being one that produced these two failures in particular and I see that the president is not holding either of them accountable, or at least up to this point he is not, and so I have to lay some blame at his feet too.

But you're talking about the abuse - the alleged abuse - by American forces aren't you?

I am, and I concluded that we had had an impassioned debate in the statutory process. And in that debate, two sides had participated: one that essentially wanted to do away with all restrictions and the other which said no, Geneva should prevail and the president walked right down the middle.

He made a decision that Geneva would in fact govern all but al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda look-alike detainees. Any other prisoners of course would be governed by traditional methods, international law, Geneva and so forth.

Who was calling for doing away with all the normal practices if you like?

Who is right now very publicly lobbying the congress of the United States, advocating the use of terror? The vice-president of the United States.

There was a presidential memo ordering that detainees be treated in a manner consistent with the Geneva Conventions that forbid torture. Are you saying that Dick Cheney ordered that to be ignored?

Well my critics have said that the president's continuing phrase in what you just quoted, "consistent with military necessity", was an out, under which almost anything could be done.

If I'm a soldier in the field - I'm an NCO [non-commissioned officer ] or I'm a private or a corporal - and I need to shoot even a detainee who might be threatening to kill one of my buddies or even me then I can do that.

It does not mean that I can go into a darkened cell with a detainee shackled with his hands above his head to the wall and beat him so that eventually he dies, and the army coroner declares it homicide, and two years later when the army quits obfuscating and throwing obstacles in the way of the investigations, people are actually punished for having murdered two individuals in Bagram, Afghanistan in December 2002.

And there were more than 70 such deaths - questionable deaths - of detainees under US supervision when I left the state department and I have people who are now telling me that the death toll was up to around 90.

And that question of detainee abuse - are you saying that the implicit message allowing it to happen was sanctioned by Dick Cheney - it came from his office?

Well you see two sides of this debate in the statutory process. You see the side represented by Colin Powell, Will Taft, all arguing for Geneva.

You see the other side represented by Yoo, John Yoo from the Department of Justice, Alberto Gonzales - you see the other side being argued by them and you see the president compromising.

Then you see the secretary of defence moving out in his own memorandum to act as if the side that declared everything open, free and anything goes, actually being what's implemented.

And so what I'm saying is, under the vice-president's protection, the secretary of defence moved out to do what they wanted to do in the first place even though the president had made a decision that was clearly a compromise.

It is quite difficult to believe though that Colin Powell wasn't aware of what was going on - if this alternative decision-making process was happening as you say - why didn't he do something?

Well you don't know that it's happening.

If what you say is correct, in your view, is Dick Cheney then guilty of a war crime?

Well, that's an interesting question - it was certainly a domestic crime to advocate terror and I would suspect that it is - for whatever it's worth - an international crime as well.

You've got also John Kerry recently accusing President Bush of orchestrating one of the great acts of deception in American history, and saying that flawed intelligence was manipulated to fit a political agenda. Now Colin Powell would be tarred with that same brush wouldn't he? Did he feel that he had correct information about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction when he outlined the case against Saddam?

He certainly did and so did I. I was intimately involved in that process and to this point I have more or less defended the administration.

I have basically been supportive of the administration's point that it was simply fooled - that the intelligence community, including the UK, Germany, France, Jordan - other countries that confirmed what we had in our intelligence package, yet we were all just fooled.

Lately, I'm growing increasingly concerned because two things have just happened here that really make me wonder.

And the one is the questioning of Sheikh al-Libby where his confessions were obtained through interrogation techniques other than those authorised by Geneva.

It led Colin Powell to say at the UN on 5 February 2003 that there were some pretty substantive contacts between al-Qaeda and Baghdad. And we now know that al-Libby's forced confession has been recanted and we know - we're pretty sure that it was invalid.

But more important than that, we know that there was a defence intelligence agency dissent on that testimony even before Colin Powell made his presentation. We never heard about that.

Follow that up with Curveball, and the fact that the Germans now say they told our CIA well before Colin Powell gave his presentation that Curveball - the source to the biological mobile laboratories - was lying and was not a trustworthy source. And then you begin to speculate, you begin to wonder was this intelligence spun; was it politicised; was it cherry-picked; did in fact the American people get fooled - I am beginning to have my concerns.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4481092.stm

Published: 2005/11/29 12:07:38 GMT

© BBC MMV

30K jobs to be cut by GM.

Business should not be the provider of services, like schools, police or health care.

Another hilarious misadventure starring Larry, Curly, and...GW in "Moe meets Mao!"

For Thousands of Years...

Now I am not commenting on the value of what they have to say or the validity behind reasons they do these things. I think people should investigate things with an open mind. None-the-less, the promo for the "Tributaries" radio show below is, well, funny.



10/30/05 : Ray Kong discusses the reasons why he has eaten clay everyday for the past 27 years. This timeless practice by humans and other animals alike provides nutrients and detoxification. Find more information on our guest by clicking here.



Listen to this program. :: Read more about this program.

Know anyone like this?

"It is the specific brand of faith that devalues reason and confers the mantle of infallible, absolute authority upon a leader or a book. "

You can call me conservative...

But call me a Republican and there is going to be a fight...

Stop the "re-writing" of history

Sent to: WebEditors@newsweek.com

Dear Newsweek Editor:

In your online article titled “Autumn of Discontent” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10013594/site/newsweek/) you have the sentence: "a leader who rode comfortably to reelection just a year ago" in reference to President Bush. This is down right wrong! The man barely won a very close election. The closest for a sitting president since 1918! Why do you feed us this "re-writing" of history?

Beware: use of English may present an unseen hazard

Dems Didn't Know What Bush Knew:
They knew that he said.
They did NOT have the same information that was available to him, and that is totally for sure. That's a lot of executive priviledge in there.
Not that knowing what Bush knows is any great goal to reach for, unless you're in a football pool or such.

FEMA struggle to stay on course without Brownie

Bush provides the necessary continuity. All hail.
Here, we see cronyism effectively deployed.

Tell me a bad joke.

OK: Kansas.

Consider this thoughtful mans words...

"The long-term effect of US culture as it spreads to every nook and cranny in every desert and every mountain valley will be the end of mankind. Our extraordinary greed for material possessions, the ways we go about nurturing that greed, the lack of balance in our lives, and our cultural arrogance will kill us off within a century unless we learn to stop and think. It may be too late."
Wilfred Thesiger

That is some heavy shit!
Now, think: if such were true, and there is some truth to much, wouldn't it be reasonable to fight to the death too contain such a culture, to maintain another culture, other cultures, separate and protect them?

blogblogblog

too bad, it's taken. but then it's rather good.

Creationists refuse vaccination

Mutation, shmutation, it's just another word for evolution and we're not buying it," said some unidentified spokesperson/schmuck speaking outside a Kankas court.

Just kidding, but....

Apple Shape Predicts Heart Attack Risk Better than BMI

"Dr. Sharma and colleagues showed last year with Interheart data that abdominal obesity accounts for about 90% of the risk for myocardial infarction around the world, with eight other risk factors -- including cigarette smoking, diabetes, poor diet, and lack of exercise -- accounting for the rest."

American Express to be the sole advertiser on sundays live west wing

"American Express to Be Sole Advertiser On Sunday's Live 'West Wing' Episode " WSJ reports. (article for paid subscription viewers only)

On the basis if this alone I would invest in Amex. Fully invested now, all I can do is just use their card some more, which I will do: first card played at the cashier.
First, I like their politics: it is American.
Second, I am absolutely captivated by their management decision.
You wait: this is one American Corporation.
And with them I'll put Google and Apple.

Want 'War and Peace' Online? How About 20 Pages at a Time? - New York Times

If I can buy a piece of a book, why do I have to subscribe to the NY Times?
"Here's a penny: I'd like to see Krugman today"
And then, how about getting my money back on stuff that wasn't true? Heck, I'd be willing to pay extra up front for information that had some guarantee to it.
And how about this: you pay me to read some of the stuff you write. Or I bill you if you just wasted my time with some garbage. Doesn't even have to be money: just a simple vote.
Put in that context, the incredible value of friends and family and conversation (where it's all free and guaranteed and really really valued) comes into focus.

Bush's Integrity Is Questioned, According to Post-ABC Poll

If you can trot out Bush's integrity numbers, pages of them, and never compare them to say, Clinton, I'd say you've got an elephant in the room you're not talking about.
That's like discussing racing speeds in furlongs. That's like talking about big buildings and neglecting the empire state building and anything bigger.
Tell me when the needle goes into the red zone... until then, I think I've got an ingrown hair that needs attention.

Democratic Judge Is Removed From DeLay Case

Hey, man, like it's Texas. What'd you expect?
You want something really scarey? what if one of them were president?

I'm for Alito

Unless and until someone comes up with something besides he's conservative.
Like, he lacks judicial temperament, like Scalia. Or he lacks a mind of any sort at all, like Thomas. Or she's a good lawyer but oh my god we are talking about the supreme court of the United States, George Bush notwithstanding*, like Harriet: that was one of the most obscene gestures I've been exposed to, and that's including the roped off section in the porn shops in Time Square.
Here's what Edwards (who, alas, is supposed to be reasonable says):
Alito is a far-from-moderate judge in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia. His record is troubling: he has tried to sharply restrict a woman's right to choose and to eliminate protection for unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. He has regularly worked to cut back on protections for the victims of discrimination based on race and sex. Just imagine how he might restrict other essential freedoms if he is allowed to sit on the Supreme Court.
First, we want a person with a mind. And then we hand that person the constitution, and we bring cases before that person and they work with all sorts of other legal minds and 8 others on the bench but mostly, they have the constitution and bring their own brilliant minds to bear. That's all I ask.
If they can find that there can be no abortions unless the wife pays the rapist 3 times her annual salary, if they can find the all the Jews have to be roasted at 350 degrees and then served on toast to Arabs, if they should find that big lips and dark skin really do render a person sub-human, if they can really do that, the constitution and the executive branch and the legislative branch and the rest of the world notwithstanding, then this is a crap shoot: put your bets down, shooter has the dice, and lets get on with the game. Just keep all the mumbling praying down to a whisper so we can hear the points.
You cannot break something by adding or subtracting one twit, not if it was not already broken, and badly broken at that.
Now, could we please get Alito on the bench and do something sensible, like arrest and prosecute Bush for war crimes?
*How the f**k can anyone take us seriously with George Bush as the president? Really. Why don't we all just strap on great big day glow luminescent dildos and whatever and just wander the streets like open house at the asylum day?