In a response to a charge cited by The BRAD BLOG on Tuesday that then Sec. of State Colin Powell “knowingly lied” during his infamous February 5, 2003 presentation of false intelligence to the U.N. Security Council about the need to attack Iraq, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell’s Chief of Staff at the time, characterizes the allegation as unfair.
He says points made in support of that claim are “misleading and even spurious” and “not supported in the surrounding narrative.”
“I have admitted what a hoax we perpetrated,” says Wilkerson in his reply today, sent in response to our request for comment. “But it actually spoils or desecrates a fair condemnation of what is already a bad enough set of misstatements, very poor intelligence analysis, and — I am increasingly convinced, outright lies — to take the matter to absurdity with one man, in this case Powell.”
David Swanson, who authored the charges in question, as cited earlier this week by The BRAD BLOG, disputes Wilkerson’s response. The full remarks by both men are posted in full at the end of this article.
On Tuesday, we ran Swanson’s critique of Hubris: Selling the Iraq War, a new NBC News documentary based on the book of a similar name
While Swanson lauded the project for helping to “prolong Americans’ awareness of the lies that destroyed Iraq,” he offered a number of worthy criticisms as well, including the fact that MSNBC, which aired the documentary, failed to acknowledge its own participation in propagating many of those same lies to the American people.
Featured in the film are several new pieces of information and commentary that have come to light since the original publication of Corn and Isikoff’s 2007 book.
Some of those revelations come by way of Wilkerson, a retired U.S. Army Colonel and, more to the point, Powell’s Chief of Staff at the time of his February 5, 2003 presentation to the U.N. Security Council on the supposed chemical, biological and nuclear threats posed by Saddam Hussein. That presentation by, perhaps, the most well-respected official in the Bush Administration at the time, is widely credited with turning the tide of public opinion in favor of the invasion of Iraq which would commence just weeks later, ten years ago next month.
Unfortunately, virtually every piece of evidence presented by Powell at the U.N., said to have been culled from various intelligence agencies, turned out to be completely false. Some years later, Powell would describe the speech as a “painful” “blot” on his career. As Hubris details, Powell’s evidence was not only wrong, but known to be wrong by many in the intelligence community by the time that it was presented to the public as fact by the well-respected Secretary of State.
“Though neither Powell nor anyone else from the State Department team intentionally lied,” says Wilkerson in the film, “we did participate in a hoax.”
Swanson’s critique, however, takes that point further, charging that “The Hubris version of Colin Powell’s lies at the United Nations is misleadingly undertold.”
“Powell was not a victim. He ‘knowingly lied.’,” wrote Swanson, including a link to his own 2011 op-ed at Consortium News headlined “Colin Powell’s Disgraceful Lies”.
Given the serious nature of the charges cited by Swanson, as detailed in his 2011 piece — all well-documented with direct quotes from the State Department’s own January 31, 2003 Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) assessment repeatedly describing most of the claims Powell would offer the following week at the U.N. as “WEAK” at best, and “implausible” in many cases — it seemed appropriate to given Wilkerson the opportunity to respond to the direct allegation that Powell was outright lying during his U.N. presentation.
In his response, Wilkerson draws a line in the sand, if you will, against the contention that his former boss “knowingly lied”…
He says he believes that Swanson’s “use of INR’s assessment of ‘weak’ repeatedly, is weak itself.”
“INR was at the time one of 15 intelligence entities in the US intelligence architecture at the federal level. (Add Israel France, the UK, Jordan, Germany, et al, and of course you get even more),” writes Wilkerson. “INR’s assessments were often viewed — indeed still are — as maverick within that group (and were particularly so viewed by [the CIA’s Director of Intelligence] George Tenet and his deputy John McLaughlin. Indeed, INR’s insistence on putting a footnote in the October 2002 NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] with regard to its doubts about Saddam’s having an active nuclear weapons program was only grudgingly acknowledged and allowed by Tenet.)”
“In truth,” Wilkerson continues, “INR itself concurred in the overall NIE’s finding that chems and bios existed (and the NIE was the root document of Powell’s 5 Feb presentation).”
Swanson contests Wilkerson’s response. He says in reply that “Powell’s own staff, the INR…told him the claims were weak and questionable and even implausible.”
He notes that Hubris highlights the fact that even claims that had been rejected by Powell and Wilkerson as “bullshit” about flimsy claims of ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda “were put back in” to the speech, after insistence from the CIA.
“That is a moment to resign in protest,” Swanson notes in his reply, “not to move forward and dismiss the INR, the State Department’s own experts, as ‘maverick.'”
“When the Pentagon and the White House build a transparently fraudulent case for war, rejected by countless experts, many nations, and much of the public, the State Department’s job is to support fact-based analysis regardless of whether it is ‘maverick,'” Swanson contends.
In their dueling replies, the two also exchange thoughts on the use of intelligence that came from “Curveball”, the code-name given to Iraqi defector Rafid Ahmed Alwan Al-Janabi, who later admitted to blatantly lying to Germany’s intelligence agency about the existence of mobile bioweapons labs used by Saddam.
Wilkerson says Powell was never warned about the dubious nature of “Curveball” and, “in fact quite the opposite.” He says that while the now-discredited anti-Saddam operative was Tenet’s “strongest weapon,” in pushing the case for war internally, “the title ‘Curveball’ was never heard until well after the 5 Feb presentation.”
Finally, for all his admissions, Wilkerson still seems to allow room for both himself and Powell off the biggest hook. “One must realize that whether Powell had given his presentation or not, the President would have gone to war with Iraq. That doesn’t relieve Powell or me or any of us who participated in preparing Powell of responsibility; it simply places the bulk of that responsibility squarely where it should rest.”
“I don’t believe blame works that way,” replies Swanson. “Blaming Bush more doesn’t blame Powell or you less. It just blames Bush more.”
In his last thought in reply to Swanson, Wilkerson is generous, even while acknowledging that he, Swanson and other anti-war voices like former CIA analyst Ray McGovern “will never reach accord on this I’m certain.”
“But I must say that just as I may have biases from my long association with Powell, I believe both of you [Swanson and McGovern] should examine your biases with regard to the man. Just as it was very difficult for me to face the fact I had participated in a hoax, it probably is just as difficult that you two admit you may be too aggressively critical of Powell. Both our conditions are recognizably human and yours more forgiveable than mine to be sure.”
The full responses from both Wilkerson and Swanson follow below. We sought a response from McGovern as well, since he is invoked by Wilkerson, but we have yet to hear back. UPDATE: McGovern’s response is now also included below…
Wilkerson’s complete Wednesday, 2/20/13 response:
Several misleading and even spurious bullets and headlines that make strong claims that are not supported in the surrounding narrative. For example, no one ever DID warn Powell about Curveball, in fact quite the opposite. This particular source — billed as an Iraqi engineer who had defected — was George Tenet’s — the DCI’s — strongest weapon. And incidentally, the title “Curveball” was never heard until well after the 5 Feb presentation.
Your use of INR’s assessment of “weak” repeatedly, is weak itself. INR was at the time one of 15 intelligence entities in the US intelligence architecture at the federal level. (Add Israel France, the UK, Jordan, Germany, et al, and of course you get even more). INR’s assessments were often viewed — indeed still are — as maverick within that group (and were particularly so viewed by George Tenet and his deputy John McLaughlin. Indeed, INR’s insistence on putting a footnote in the October 2002 NIE with regard to its doubts about Saddam’s having an active nuclear weapons program was only grudgingly acknowledged and allowed by Tenet. And in truth, INR itself concurred in the overall NIE’s finding that chems and bios existed (and the NIE was the root document of Powell’s 5 Feb presentation).
I have admitted what a hoax we perpetrated. But it actually spoils or desecrates a fair condemnation of what is already a bad enough set of misstatements, very poor intelligence analysis, and — I am increasingly convinced, outright lies — to take the matter to absurdity with one man, in this case Powell.
To see my point dramatically, one must realize that whether Powell had given his presentation or not, the President would have gone to war with Iraq. That doesn’t relieve Powell or me or any of us who participated in preparing Powell of responsibility; it simply places the bulk of that responsibility squarely where it should rest.
You, Ray McGovern, and I will never reach accord on this I’m certain; but I must say that just as I may have biases from my long association with Powell, I believe both of you should examine your biases with regard to the man. Just as it was very difficult for me to face the fact I had participated in a hoax, it probably is just as difficult that you two admit you may be too aggressively critical of Powell. Both our conditions are recognizably human and yours more forgiveable than mine to be sure. lw
Swanson’s complete, same-day reply in turn:
Thanks for this response. I’m CCing Brad Blog which posted my commentary and might want to post your reply. Here’s my reply to your reply (also available to publish) 🙂
Whether or not anyone told Powell of Curveball’s reputation, Powell’s own staff, the INR, told him the claims were weak, the claims that came from Curveball and from numerous other sources. The INR told him the claims were weak and questionable and even implausible.
Powell used fabricated dialogue. He used evidence from a source who had admitted all the weapons had been destroyed years ago, but failed to mention that bit. Again, here is the catalog of bogus claims: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/021811a.html
You yourself in Hubris state that claims you’d rejected were put back in. That is a moment to resign in protest, not to move forward and dismiss the INR, the State Department’s own experts, as “maverick.”
When the Pentagon and the White House build a transparently fraudulent case for war, rejected by countless experts, many nations, and much of the public, the State Department’s job is to support fact-based analysis regardless of whether it is “maverick.”
You recently accused Norman Solomon on DemocracyNow! and all other truth tellers of that time of having failed to warn you — as if we weren’t shouting into every available microphone. If word had slipped through to you, it seems you would have rejected it as “maverick.”
This is highly discouraging. If analysis within our government consciously engages in groupthink, where will we find the whistleblowers necessary to prevent the next war?
Please do not imagine that any of us suppose the President wasn’t intent on going to war at all costs. It was the transparency of that intention that created the largest public protest in world history. But to suggest that Powell and you did no harm by supporting a war that might have gone ahead even if you’d resisted is a complete breakdown in morality.
I don’t believe blame works that way. Blaming Bush more doesn’t blame Powell or you less. It just blames Bush more. Blame is not a finite quantity born of a drive for vengeance and distributable to a limited number of people. Blame is what we each deserve when we fail to take the best actions available, as explained here.
UPDATE 8:58pm PT: Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA analyst turned staunch anti-war activist following his years personally delivering the CIA’s Presidential Daily Briefings to Presidents George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, replies to our request for comment in response to Wilkerson’s response with the following tonight:
There are very few people still around with the kind of integrity that leads me to give them virtually implicit trust (allowing for the fact that all of us are nonetheless human). One such person is Larry Wilkerson.
It seems to me that a lot hinges on whether Powell and Wilkerson could bring themselves to believe that Tenet and McLaughlin would lie to their faces about Curveball. Tenet is the mother of all con men, and one can argue that Powell and Wilkerson should have been quite aware of that.
Still, I can readily believe that Powell and Wilkerson found it difficult to conclude that Tenet was making stuff up on such a critical issue — that, assured of backing by Cheney, Tenet and McLaughlin would feel free to let Powell dangle softly in the wind….for the greater cause, of course.
Sizing up Powell, Tenet and McLaughlin might well have concluded that, as long as Cheney was around to protect them (and that he would badmouth Powell to the President if Powell stepped out of line), Powell would not dare accuse them of outright lying. If that was part of their calculation, they appear to have been right.
What incredible fear Cheney inspires — still! Let’s see what Powell says if Cheney ever dies!
I looked into all this at some length earlier this month. For what it’s worth, this is how I came out: “Colin Powell: Conned or Con-Man?”
feel free to share my comments, if you wish.
Best regards,
ray
raymcgovern.com
• Watch the entire NBC News documentary, Hubris: Selling the Iraq War now online here.
In 1991 the government told us they had destroyered 90% of Iraq’s weapons. In the following six years they told us they destroyed another 90% of the weapons they had left. Bush and his cronies murdered at the least 110,000 people.When I saw Shock & Awe bombing in Iraq I thought of the people killed on 911. I wonder what Bush and his people are going to say to Jesus when they meet him. Aparently they are not going to be any other judgement
(proofreading comment–Brad, did you mean to write–
?
The “as” reads funny. Like it should be either “points….are(instead of as)..” or “he ‘characterizes'(instead of says)…as..”
Feel free to delete this comment after you read it)
Excellent and thoughtful presentation, Brad. Anyway you can get David Swanson and Col. Wilkinson to address this further during The BRAD Cast?
I’d love to, Ernie. Unfortunately, KPFK is on fund drive for the next coupla weeks, so I won’t be back on the air there for a bit. 🙁
Thanks, David! Fixed! The hazards of working without a net (editor).
So what happened to the “just war” theory and the “war as a last resort” theory? With all of the doubts floating around at the time, everyone associated with this sordid affair (including Powell and Wilkerson)should have called a halt and demanded verifiable answers to their questions or resigned on the spot. It’s hard for me to see how George Bush would have been able to continu with his pack of lies if Powell and his aid had both resigned in protest at being forced into lying the nation into an unneccessary war.
Don’t buy this re-write of history. Powell supports endless wars for Israel, it all started a decade ago after a false flag attack.
9/11, US and Israel:
http://www.amazon.com/America-Deceived-II-Possession-interrogation/dp/1450257437
I see Wilkerson as spewing nonsense. Other people who worked in the State Department have come forward. One did so before Wilkerson felt the need to be ‘honest.’ Yesterday’s Iraq Snapshot at The Common Ills
http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2013/02/iraq-snapshot_20.html
quoted from the 2003 60 Minutes II broadcast “The Man Who Knew: Former Powell Chief of Intelligence and Others Disagree With Evidence Presented to UN for War In Iraq.” The man who knew, Greg Thielmann, makes the case stronger and more convincingly than Wilkerson that Powell lied and did so to give the administration the backing they wanted.
After reading Ray McGovern’s analysis, including his vouching for the integrity of Wilkerson, I would have a follow up question for Wilkerson: “Does he believe he (and Powell) were lied to by Tenet and McLaughlin?” Admitting that is the only way to make any case for Powell being a dupe instead of con man. If Wilkerson can’t even go that far, then he is exposed as an apologist for ALL his superiors and loses all credibility.
Overall a very interesting debate. I agree with Swanson that a very useful companion report to the summary of the lies told would be documenting how the lies were challenged and debunked (at the time) — but that those who challenged the official line were ignored or lost their jobs (e.g., Donahue, Maher).
In Colin Powell: Conned or Con-Man?, Ray McGovern wrote:
It remains unfortunate that the Bush administration was followed by another which failed to comply with the solemn Presidential oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed.
If we had anything resembling the words above the portico of the U.S. Supreme Court — “Equal Justice Under Law” — instead of a two-tiered justice system with a harsh criminal code for ordinary citizens and near complete impunity for elites, this entire sordid affair would have been thoroughly sorted out within the Justice Department and our courts years ago.
At this point, instead of relying upon his former subordinate to defend him, Powell himself should step forward to provide the American public with a full accounting for his actions.
I’ll have a lot more respect for Col. Lawrence Wilkerson when he stops covering ass and starts talking about the motives these people had to start the war in Iraq. Was it merely oil, was it the PNAC plan for a new American century. What was the motive for all this lying. Until he starts confronting the evidence of 9/11, the anthrax, and the Gulf of Tonkin and discusses the ways and means of starting these wars and the motives for why these wars are waged in the first place, I’ll dismiss him as a simpleton lightweight Powell supporter and apologist.
Here you go Larry… What’s up?
http://rememberbuilding7.org/7-facts-about-building-7/
http://911blogger.com/news/2009-10-06/facts-speak-themselves
http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
Where’s the White Paper Colin Powell promised?
And if the prisoners in Guantanamo are innocent, then who the hell is guilty?
Wilkerson and his former boss have become experts at word parsing. Weasel words flow like honey from their mouths.
There can be no justification for their willful professed ignorance in the lead up to the war. It was Vietnam all over again with the lies and coverup with all the actors walking away to enjoy promotions, speaking engagements, talk show appearances, and lucrative book deals. Shame on them and on us for falling for their bullshit.
What Wilkerson conveniently leaves out is the famous scene where Powell threw the material he was given to present to the UN on the floor. He knew it was bad but then turned around and pretty much presented to the UN the material that he had earlier tossed on the floor as garbage. That circle cannot be squared. Also, several of the items Powell presented had leaked, been investigated and found to be not credible by the time Powell presented it to the UN as solid, casting doubt on his whole presentation. That history cannot be revised.
[Ed Note: Racist, disinformation post deleted. – BF]
Or as our French PM Chretien said.(Have a listen, it’s better with the french accent)
“No, a proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It’s a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have a good proof, it’s because it’s proven.” – Jean Chretien (When discussing what type of proof Canadians wanted from the US before assisting in a war with Iraq)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6XMIldkRU
“Artillery balloons are essentially balloons that are sent up into the atmosphere and relay information on wind direction and speed allowing more accurate artillery fire. Crucially, these systems need to be mobile.”
General Powell must have known that artillery balloon launchers were used by Iraq.
The sickening truth is that the purchase of these trucks was IN PRINT in The Guardian BEFORE the war started!!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/28/iraq.politics1
How £1bn was lost when Thatcher propped up Saddam
“In 1987 Marconi Command & Control got a bank loan of £10m, backed by a taxpayer guarantee to sell Amets – the Artillery Meteorological System – to the Iraqi army. Crucial for accurate artillery fire, AMETS uses weather balloons linked to radar to measure wind speeds.
The ECGD (Export Credits Guarantee Dept)ended up writing a cheque for £8.2m when Marconi failed to get its money.”
British taxpayers paid for the AMETS.
From June 2003 The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jun/08/iraq.foreignpolicy
“Instead The Observer has established that it is increasingly likely that the units were designed to be used for hydrogen production to fill artillery balloons, part of a system originally sold to Saddam by Britain in 1987.
But chemical weapons experts, engineers, chemists and military systems experts contacted by The Observer over the past week, say the layout and equipment found on the trailers is entirely inconsistent with the vehicles being mobile labs.
Both US Secretary of State Colin Powell, when he addressed the UN Security Council prior to the war, and the British Government alleged that Saddam had such labs.”
“He told The Observer ‘I am concerned about the canvas sides. Ideally, you would want airtight facilities for making something like anthrax. Not only that, it is a very resistant organism and even if the Iraqis cleaned the equipment, I would still expect to find some trace of it.’
His view is shared by the working group of the Federation of American Scientists and by THE CIA,”
His view is shared by the working group of the Federation of American Scientists and by THE CIA,”
Lying to the nation was the rule then. The object lesson to be learned is now, how can you trust the press. They have held themself above the conflict as the arbritrator of truth, they forgot to fact check, and call BS, when it was necessary. Are they calling bs on the tea party? On the Republican theory of government? Or on the Supreme court on the person and freedoms of the person? or lastly on regaining our freedoms?
I’m uncomfortable with a lot of the Wilkerson bashing in this comment thread.
I would agree that there are gaps in Wilkerson and Powell’s narratives. I share the anger and frustration of the continuing themes in this country of no accountability for those in power, whether the issues are war and death, financial collapse and suffering, or the constant lying and gross misrepresentation of history and reality that we’re subjected to every day by most politicians and the bulk of the corporate media.
ON THE OTHER HAND, regarding the Iraq War–
Wilkerson, more than any of the other key players, stopped drinking the cool-aid and began copping to the bullshit. Okay, it’s not a perfect copping, but it’s distressing to see how many commenters here are so focused on what’s missing and acknowledge so little the magnitude of what Wilkerson has done by coming forward as he has AND by being available for further discussion as he continues to be.
It sounds to me like his critics here are doing very little imagining of what it was like FOR HIM to be in that treacherous inner circle. The way I see it, it is just this inability to understand, or even bothering TRYING to understand, someone else’s experience/worldview that is at the core of so much of what is wrong in this country.
I would offer that the process of vilifying Wilkerson, as demonstrated in comments above, is a process related to the type of vilification of the “enemy” that so tragically confines and distorts the thinking of all our pro-war players whose nightmarish, illegal, immoral decisions resulted in all the death and devastation that we all decry and that fuel the Wilkerson bashing.
I’m saying that we, the critics, need to offer a different way of BEING if we’re serious about trying to derail the madness.
I share the pain, distress, and desire for truth of all those critical of Wilkerson and Powell’s narratives. It’s beyond maddening what continues to be done in our name and the continuing obfuscation and lack of accountability surrounding our continuing unjustified, cruel, murderous policies.
But continuing vilification of Wilkerson, besides being, in my opinion, an unattractive, perhaps less obvious relative of the mindset/process that leads to war in the first place is, I suspect, particularly counterproductive here.
The point is to learn how to get out of the fucking lemming leap of mindless destruction that nations insanely indulge in again and again.
Regarding our current disasters, Wilkerson, more than anyone else, opened the door to the process of how the fuck these things happen. It appears to me that he feels really bad about his part in it all. Wouldn’t it be more likely to bear fruit to engage him in creative discussion of how it all happened than demanding more of the truth as WE see it? Why not help him unravel it all as a sympathetic partner in dialogue? Might not a more empathetic method be more likely to further our understanding and reveal more of the unconscious aspects of this dysfunctional process we repeatedly fall into than hammering away at the guy and triggering a natural defensiveness cuz he’s being attacked?
I guess it sorta matters what your objectives are. If it’s just blowing off steam, go at it. If it’s really doing the painful examination of how as individuals and groups we fool ourselves into war again and again; if our purpose is to learn and become more conscious of what these unconscious processes are so that we can stop doing them and start exploring other ways of interacting with the world, I think a more conciliatory attitude might be helpful. To say the least.
Please, do not misinterpret my exhortations here as a cousin to the “coddling terrorists” meme. I’m not excusing or endorsing terrible mistakes. I am very much for a more productive, humane method of examining them.
Well said David. You sound like you understand the anger inherent to this situation and also the need for a solution based mindset. Pretty impressive there. I should look at Lawrence Wilkerson as an ally in this, instead of as an enemy.
There’s times and places for each I suppose. But this situation and lack of honesty really brings about anger in me.
Good though perspective and it was good to read your words. Thanks for saying it clearly. Peace.
Thanks so much for the acknowledgment and kind words, Orangutan. I worked so hard trying to get that(at least near) right. Your response actually choked me up. And unless I’m very much mistaken that’s what so many people of so many differing worldviews are so hungry for–being heard. Thanks again.
David Lasagna is right on about Wilkerson-bashing being counterproductive, should they turn him from an ally to hostile. I don’t see anyone else saying “I will testify” against what Cheney, McGlaughlin and Tenet did.
David’s point about Wilkerson not being the “perfect” whistleblower is well made – nobody else this high up the food chain has come forward. Wilkerson has been like the tortured conscience of Powell who remains a wishy-washy spectator in the aftermath of Hubris.
I admire Mr. Swanson, but we do “blame Bush less” if we expend time writing faulting Wilkerson instead of Cheney. Melvin Goodman of Consortiumnews.com for example, recently wrote about the failure of the Washington Post to spot the Iraq Team “bullshit” in recent coverage.
Also food for thought:
– from the start of his whistleblowing, Wilkerson has always said Powell believed WMD could be found in country, which effectively could have made moot the idea that he “knowingly lied”. Powell might have been banking on this as he cowered from Cheney’s onslaught…
– the statement above that Powell’s presentation “is widely credited with turning the tide” in favor of invading Iraq might speak to public support, but operationally speaking, this is just an afterthought. Judith Miller’s NYT article of 9/8/02 predated Powell’s speech by about 5 months and got much of Congress on board. See this timeline at MotherJones for more.
– Wilkerson, who eventually did step down in protest, could have had defensible reasons. Suppose he wanted to gather documentation first without blowing his cover. Maybe he felt he was still going to be able to do something good from inside one of the nation’s senior most foreign policy positions. He also had to consider his resignation at any time would have a coffin nail for his boss. It was effectively the end of Powell when Wilkerson did finally come out…
Mr. McGovern reminds us Wilkerson has earned credibility where Powell has not, seemingly been dragging Powell as he’s gone public with the story. But in continuing to give Powell the benefit of the doubt, Wilkerson is undermined by Powell himself.
Wilkerson made his charges on PBS seven years ago already. Powell has left him in limbo throughout. But even when Powell said something with teeth, the US media failed to cover it. In February 2011, as Curveball was all over US media (NYT, 60 Minutes, etc.) confirming he’d lied all along, Powell was questioned by The Guardian about his role, replying:
“It has been known for several years that the source called Curveball was totally unreliable…[t]he question should be put to the CIA and the DIA as to why this wasn’t known before the false information was put into the NIE sent to Congress, the president’s state of the union address and my 5 February presentation to the UN.”
Yes, that sounded like a call for an investigation, but we never heard this in our media – indeed, when Powell published his memoir in May 2012, he blamed the VP and CIA for bad intel but didn’t call for action of any kind.
Continuing to have it both ways as he tours the lecture circuit, Powell’s bio is aptly named “It Worked For Me”.
I too think David Lasagna’s point @ 18 is well taken. So much so that I’ve elevated his thought to its own thread right here.
I think David hit on an important point “But the production of programs like this one that prolong Americans’ awareness of the lies that destroyed Iraq are the best hope Iran has right now. MSNBC should be contacted and applauded for airing this and urged to follow up on it.”
One thing hubris glaringly omitted as a MISSING piece of the puzzle is Cheney’s top-secret “Energy Task Force”. In a murder investigation they look for Motive, no?
Where’s Colombo when ya need him?
MAPS AND CHARTS OF IRAQI OILFIELDS: CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE Judicial Watch Mon Apr 11, 2005
And also YURICA REPORT Group: Cheney Task Force Eyed on Iraq Oil
By H. Josef Hebert Associated Press Friday 18 July 2003
WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force appeared to have some interest in early 2001 in Iraq’s oil industry, including which foreign companies were pursuing business there, according to documents released Friday by a private watchdog group. Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, obtained a batch of task force-related Commerce Department papers that included a detailed map of Iraq’s oil fields, terminals and pipelines as well as a list entitled “Foreign Suitors of Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The papers also included a detailed map of oil fields and pipelines in Saudi Arabia and in the United Arab Emirates and a list of oil and gas development projects in those two countries. The papers were dated early March 2001, about two months before the Cheney energy task force completed and announced its report on the administration’s energy needs and future energy agenda. (WAY BEFORE 911 – Mr. Halliburton had his eyes on Saddam’s oil going in …… -Ed.) Judicial Watch obtained the papers as part of a lawsuit by it and the Sierra Club to open to the public information used by the task force in developing President Bush’s energy plan. ….
Maybe what David “urged to follow up on it” might have in mind.
@23 I don’t think anyone is forgetting how central oil was to the decision to invade, but you remind us how “hubristic” those energy meetings were because they were illegal at the time.
Any policy meetings with non-government personnel present required transparency. After the CEOs lied about being there, enviro groups like Sierra sued. But Cheney invoked “executive privilege” when taken all the way to the Supreme Court.
SCOTUS ruled in his favor despite calls for Scalia to recuse himself after it was discovered he had also met secretly with Cheney while duck hunting.
Ironically, US firms ended up with a smaller share of Iraq’s oil, in part because of anti-American spite. Particularly in the Kurdish regions north of Baghdad’s control, US oil companies are so unwelcome, violent clashes are forcing ExxonMobil to sell their oil rights to the Chinese.
There were also several other documents declassified by NSA late in 2010 (not included in Maddow’s special) that show clear intent to invade Iraq as soon as Bush took office. See this great piece at Crooks & Liars.
I have a lot of respect for Wilkerson for being blunt about what we are really doing in Central Asia and the Middle East at other times, but his defense of Colin Powell and apology for his own role leaves one question unanswered:
Did he or Colin Powell really believe that Saddam Hussein would be any kind of threat to us even if he had all the weapons the Bush administration claimed?
Anyone old enough to remember the Cold War knows we have THOUSANDS of nuclear weapons, and if anyone detonated one here, we would not hesitate to burn that country off the map, and the leader of every country around the world knows that.
Remember the narrative, Professor. We have the most awesome, fiercest, most invincible military on the planet, BUT every tinpot dictator and non-state actor who might possibly at some point get his hands on any kind of weapon poses an existential threat to the holy United States, which must be met by destroying lots and lots of stuff and killing lots and lots of people, including those inconvenient civilians who had the bad taste to be in the vicinity.