You may only read this site if you've purchased Our Kampf from Amazon or Powell's or me
• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show

"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket

"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming

February 05, 2013

Lie After Lie: What Colin Powell Knew Ten Years Ago Today and What He Said

Colin Powell made his Iraq presentation at the UN ten years ago today, on February 5th, 2003.

As much criticism as Powell has received for this—he calls it "painful" and something that will "always be a part of my record"—it hasn't been close to what's justified. Powell was much more than just horribly mistaken: he fabricated "evidence" and ignored repeated warnings that what he was saying was false.

Unfortunately, Congress never investigated Powell's use of the intelligence he was given, so we don't know many of the specifics. Even so, what got into the public record in other ways is extremely damning. So while the corporate media has never taken a close look at this record, we can go through Powell's presentation line by line to demonstrate the chasm between what he knew, and what he told the world. As you'll see, there's quite a lot to say about it.

Powell's speech can be found on the State Department website here. All other sources are linked below.

PUBLIC CERTAINTY, PRIVATE DOUBT

On that February 5 in front of the UN Security Council, was Colin Powell certain what he was saying was accurate? He certainly was:

POWELL: My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.

Later, regarding whether Iraq had reconstituted a nuclear weapons program, he said:

POWELL: [T]here is no doubt in my mind...

That's in public. What about in private? According to Larry Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff, here's what Powell was thinking at the time:

WILKERSON: [Powell] had walked into my office musing and he said words to the effect of, I wonder how we'll all feel if we put half a million troops in Iraq and march from one end of the country to the other and find nothing.

UNAMBIGUOUS LIES

This is some of what Powell said about the infamous aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq, supposedly meant for their covert nuclear weapons program:

POWELL: [I]t strikes me as quite odd that these [aluminum] tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets. Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so.

Powell's own intelligence staff, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), prepared two memos commenting on drafts of the presentation. They were later quietly released as appendices to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on WMD intelligence.

The second INR memo, written on February 3, 2003, told Powell this:

Our key remaining concern is the claim that the tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that "far exceeds US requirements for comparable rockets." In fact, the most comparable US system is a tactical rocket--the US Mark 66 air-launched 70mm rocket--that uses the same, high-grade (7075-T6) aluminum, and that has specifications with similar tolerances. Note that the Mk 66 specifications are unclassified, and the Department is planning to share them with the IAEA.

FABRICATED EVIDENCE

Powell played an intercept of a conversation between Iraqi army officers about the UN inspections. However, when he translated what they were saying, he knowingly embellished it, turning it from evidence Iraq was complying with U.N. resolutions to evidence Iraq was violating them. This appears in Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack:

[Powell] had decided to add his personal interpretation of the intercepts to the rehearsed script, taking them substantially further and casting them in the most negative light...Concerning the intercept about inspecting for the possibility of "forbidden ammo," Powell took the interpretation further: "Clean out all of the areas... Make sure there is nothing there." None of this was in the intercept.

Here's the conversation as Powell presented it at the UN. As Woodward reported, the underlined sentences were simply added by Powell:

POWELL: "They're inspecting the ammunition you have, yes.''

"Yes."

"For the possibility there are forbidden ammo."

"For the possibility there is by chance forbidden ammo?''

"Yes."

"And we sent you a message yesterday to clean out all of the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there.''

Powell then explained:

This is all part of a system of hiding things and moving things out of the way and making sure they have left nothing behind.

According to the official State Department translation (and confirmed for me by Imad Khadduri), the Iraqi soldier merely said:

"And we sent you a message to inspect the scrap areas and the abandoned areas."

And it's no surprise the Iraqi said this. Here's what the Duelfer report found about what was going on within the Iraqi government just before the January 30th intercepted conversation:

The NMD director met with Republican Guard military leaders on 25 January 2003 and advised them they were to sign documents saying that there was no WMD in their units, according to a former Iraqi senior officer. Husam Amin told them that the government would hold them responsible if UNMOVIC found any WMD in their units or areas, or if there was anything that cast doubt on Iraq’s cooperation with UNMOVIC. Commanders established committees to ensure their units retained no evidence of old WMD.

Again: Powell took evidence of the Iraqis doing what they were supposed to do—i.e., searching their gigantic ammunition dumps to make sure they weren't accidentally holding onto banned chemical weapons—and doctored it to make it look as if Iraq were hiding banned weapons.

Since the State Department was questioned about this by journalist Gilbert Cranberg, the translation at variance with Powell's version has disappeared from its site. It's now available only via archive.org.

DECEPTION BY OMISSION

Powell's presentation left out extremely important information, as here:

POWELL: Iraq's record on chemical weapons is replete with lies. It took years for Iraq to finally admit that it had produced four tons of the deadly nerve agent, VX. A single drop of VX on the skin will kill in minutes. Four tons.

The admission only came out after inspectors collected documentation as a result of the defection of Hussein Kamal, Saddam Hussein's late son-in-law.

As far as this went, this was accurate. However, Kamel, the head of Iraq's WMD programs, defected in 1995. Iraq had produced this VX before the Gulf War, in 1991—and according to Kamel, Iraq had secretly destroyed it soon after the war. Then they lied about ever producing it (until his defection). But according to Kamel, they weren't lying when they said they no longer had it.

Indeed, in the UN's notes from Kamel's debriefing, he says Iraq had no remaining WMD of any kind:

KAMEL: All chemical weapons were destroyed. I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons -- biological, chemical, missiles, nuclear were destroyed.

And if that weren't enough, Kamel also said this in an interview on CNN:

SADLER: Can you state here and now -- does Iraq still to this day hold weapons of mass destruction?

KAMEL: No. Iraq does not possess any weapons of mass destruction. I am being completely honest about this.

But in 1996 Kamel returned to Iraq, where he was killed by Saddam's regime. Thus the U.S. could safely take a witness who truthfully had said Iraq had no remaining banned weapons, and pretend his testimony indicated the exact opposite.

Did Powell know what he was doing at the time? It's unclear. Here's a transcript of an exchange between Powell and Sam Husseini in Washington in December, 2006, with video below:

HUSSEINI: You cited Hussein Kamel in your U.N. testimony. Did you know he said there were no WMDs?

POWELL: I only knew what the intelligence community told me.

HUSSEINI: But did you know that fact?

POWELL: Of course not!

HUSSEINI: You didn't know that, even though it was reported?

POWELL: I've answered your question!

As you can see in the video, Powell was not happy to explore this line of questioning. (He's also never shown any inclination to find out who purportedly steered him wrong; when asked by Barbara Walters asked who was responsible for the mistakes in the overall presentation, Powell stated "I don't have the names.")

IGNORED WARNINGS

As mentioned above, the State Department's intelligence staff, called the INR, prepared two memos on the presentation. They directly contradicted Powell on the aluminum tubes issue, but also warned him many of his claims were "weak," "not credible" or "highly questionable." Here are some (amazingly enough, not all) of the examples the memos give.

Powell at the UN:

POWELL: We know that Saddam's son, Qusay, ordered the removal of all prohibited weapons from Saddam's numerous palace complexes.

The first INR memo, from January 29, 2003, flagged this claim as "WEAK":

second bullet. WEAK. Qusay order to remove prohibited items from palaces.

Powell at the UN:

POWELL: [K]ey files from military and scientific establishments have been placed in cars that are being driven around the countryside by Iraqi intelligence agents to avoid detection.

The first INR memo:

last bullet. WEAK. Sensitive files being driven around in cars, in apparent shell game. Plausibility open to question.

This claim was again flagged in the second INR memo, from February 3, 2003:

Page 4, last bullet, re key files being driven around in cars to avoid inspectors. This claim is highly questionable and promises to be targeted by critics and possibly UN inspection officials as well.

Powell at the UN:

POWELL: [W]e know from sources that a missile brigade outside Baghdad was disbursing [sic] rocket launchers and warheads containing biological warfare agents to various locations, distributing them to various locations in western Iraq.

January 29, 2003 INR memo:

last bullet. WEAK. Missiles with biological warheads reportedly dispersed. This would be somewhat true in terms of short-range missiles with conventional warheads, but is questionable in terms of longer-range missiles or biological warheads.

February 3, 2003 INR memo:

Page 5. first para, claim re missile brigade dispersing rocket launchers and BW warheads. This claim too is highly questionable and might be subjected to criticism by UN inspection officials.

At the UN, Powell described a satellite picture this way:

The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions...

The truck you [...] see is a signature item. It's a decontamination vehicle in case something goes wrong.

January 29, 2003 INR memo:

***/WEAK. We support much of this discussion, but we note that decontamination vehicles--cited several times in the text--are water trucks that can have legitimate uses...

...Iraq has given UNMOVIC what may be a plausible account for this activity--that this was an exercise involving the movement of conventional explosives; presence of a fire safety truck (water truck, which could also be used as a decontamination vehicle) is common in such an event.

Powell at the UN:

POWELL: These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries.

February 3, 2003 INR memo:

Numerous references to humint as fact. (E.g., "We know that...) We have been told that some are being adjusted, but we gather some others--such as information involving multiple-corroboration--will stay...In the Iraq context, "multiple corroboration" hardly guarantees authenticity of information.

Powell at the UN:

POWELL: [I]n mid-December weapons experts at one facility were replaced by Iraqi intelligence agents who were to deceive inspectors about the work that was being done there.

January 29, 2003 INR memo:

last bullet. **/WEAK. Iraqi intelligence officials posing as WMD scientists. Such claims are not credible and are open to criticism, particularly by the UN inspectorates.

Powell at the UN:

POWELL: A dozen [WMD] experts have been placed under house arrest, not in their own houses, but as a group at one of Saddam Hussein's guest houses.

January 29, 2003 INR memo:

second bullet. WEAK. 12 experts reportedly under house arrest... Highly questionable.

Powell at the UN:

POWELL: UAVs outfitted with spray tanks constitute an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons.

January 29, 2003 INR memo:

...the claim that experts agree UAVs fitted with spray tanks are "an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons" is WEAK.
• • •

Now, with that for context, it's useful to look back at what Powell said in a November, 2005 interview with Barbara Walters:

There was some people in the intelligence community who knew at that time that some of these sources were not good and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up. That devastated me.

That can be contrasted with this October, 2003 exchange from 60 Minutes II with Greg Thielmann, who headed the office of Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Affairs in the INR until September 2002:

PELLEY: If the secretary took the information that his own intelligence bureau had developed and turned it on its head, which is what you're saying, to what end?

Mr. THIELMANN: I can only assume that he was doing it to loyally support the president of the United States and build the strongest possible case for arguing that there was no alternative to the use of military force.

Clearly, Powell's loyalty to George Bush extended to being willing to deceive the world: the United Nations, Americans, and the coalition troops about to be sent to kill and die in Iraq. He's never been held accountable for his actions, and it's extremely unlikely he ever will be.

—Jon Schwarz

Posted at February 5, 2013 10:56 AM
Comments

Good work, well presented. This takes me back. Has it really been ten years? Back then I was blogging against the war at AntiWar.com and it all seemed so hopeless when they went forward with all these lies. I'm glad you're sticking with it.

Posted by: TexMac at February 5, 2013 12:04 PM

The Washington Post had something on this recently, along with comments by others involved.

In a just world, they'd all be hanged for war crimes.

Posted by: liberal at February 5, 2013 12:22 PM

Ever see that movie "Mars Attack"?

Ya know, WE Americans aren't pretty, gots lots-o-warts. AND, 'cause WE raise 'em that way, ANY President WE elect is open to start a war, folks. Its to PROVE, mas macho, exceptionalism, projected American Power to the world, WE can kill, burn and loot at will, OR just because The President can (shits&grins). WE ALL LIE ABOUT IT, though, to OURSELVES and others as a nation at some point. Oh, a few are smart enough to not go along but the VAST MAJORITY of this nation are genuinely willing for the nation to go to war. That's why most ANY LIE, no matter how "weak", passes with flying colors.
Those folks, at the U.N., have their own intelligence services, who may, or may not know and tell the TRUTH about their suspicions to their representatives at the UN, yet the vote went through. They must have looked on their own at some point, must have had deep reservations on the matter, weighed the costs of a LIE, yet they jumped right in.
AND SO, in closing, I recommend---

POWELL FOR PRESIDENT 2016!!! Although not as good a speachifyer as President Obama, not as young or good looking, he's STILL a much more convincing liar therefor a more ABLE leader for this nation.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at February 5, 2013 12:53 PM

i wanna see Schwarz v powell on meet the press! (preferably with War Pigs playing in the background)

Posted by: frankenduf at February 5, 2013 01:21 PM

I am so disgusted and fed up with all the "lies", "torturing and renditions" ( Open Society Foundation report ), absolutely morally repugnant, could never be justified "justifiable targeted killings", I need to go on a "citizen" sabbatical, away from it all and live in a "state of denial" for a while, for a break.....
I am not sure "Ignorance is Bliss" is true or not but it would not hurt to find out!

here

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper.pdf

continued....

Posted by: rupa shah at February 5, 2013 03:09 PM

continued......

Open Society Foundation report..

here

http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/20-extraordinary-facts-about-cia-extraordinary-rendition-and-secret-detention

Posted by: rupa shah at February 5, 2013 03:17 PM

It would be a lot quicker to list wars started by telling the truth than by lying.

Posted by: N E at February 5, 2013 06:52 PM

I see where 54 nations helped with TORTURE&renditions. Sweet!!! NO WONDER no one gets prosecuted or even badmouthed in The World Court, a FULL HALF are guilty of war crimes too. I guess WE ain't the only ones with warts.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at February 5, 2013 06:57 PM

I see everyone who promoted or supported this war on Iraq as an accessory to mass murder.

And torture, kidnapping, secret prisons, rape and murder are not "warts". They are horrible, massive sins against the world.

Posted by: Susan at February 6, 2013 01:01 AM

Politics is so corrupt in all countries that we simply should execute any politician who calls for or prosecutes a war, once the war is over. What?!

Put it this way, if you and were politicians, would we risk our lives for the Pax Americana? No. Would I have done so to save a few million Jews, Slavs, Romany, homosexuals and others? Hell yes!

Isn't that all you'd need to know about who you're voting for?

Posted by: Ἀντισθένης at February 6, 2013 07:47 AM

Look on the bright side Susan. A FULL HALF of the worlds nations LOVES OUR MONEY and just maybe, US too.(maybe)
On a more sober note---Yes Susan, "warts" is an understatement, those ARE horrific war crimes and crimes against humanity, with absolutely no shortage of examples in OUR portfolio.
WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT?
U&I are the perpetraters, WE PAY for this to go on. OUR MONEY. Should WE attack the government and shoot the politicians, become JUST LIKE US, do the same evil things that WE DO as alluded to above?
What to do? What to do?

What to DON'T DO------Don't PAY for it. With OUR DOLLARS the government will try to conquer the world, WITHOUT OUR DOLLARS they can't even drive the limo across the street. It isn't easy, isn't pretty, but look at what WE are buying now.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at February 6, 2013 09:27 AM

Didn't the last president start a couple wars while cutting taxes?

Posted by: godoggo at February 6, 2013 11:43 AM

godoggo: Yeah, warfare on credit. A hooker won't let me do it on credit, yet I can get a couple of wars on credit, go figure.

Voter Initiative on BUDGETS&TAXES, Folks. I'm positive I'd vote against borrowing money for wars, how's about U?

Posted by: Mike Meyer at February 6, 2013 02:07 PM

RAISING TAXES for wars is a different point entirely.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at February 6, 2013 02:10 PM

Well, first I'm just going to type what I was going to type before I saw Mike's last couple comments even though they make part of it moot because what the hell:

Did Johnson's tax cuts make us less warlike? Nixons? Reagan's? Also, bearing in mind that I'm not long on history, I'm thinking starving the beast seemed to work pretty good to make England more peaceable, but maybe not so good for Germany, so I guess it depends. Surely somebody out the tallied up examples and come to some sort of supportable conclusion?

Anyway, considering that the president seems to go to war when he wants regardless of the existing law, it seems hard to picture him saying, "Uh-oh, hold that drone strike, we're out of funds." Let's just say I'm not against your idea.

Posted by: godoggo at February 6, 2013 03:45 PM

And, as usual, nothing is meant as metaphor. It's hard enough trying to say things that make sense without concerning myself with that nonsense.

Posted by: godoggo at February 6, 2013 04:36 PM

Powell got Bush elected. Without the presumption that Powell would be SOS or otherwise was on board with Bush then Bush would have lost. I heard many times and read quotes from ordinary Republicans that they thought Bush wasn't really up to speed but that he would be OK because he had "good advisers". Then Cheney tried to dump him but Bush did hold fast there. Then Cheney and Rumsfeld and the neocons running through the administration cut off Powell nuts and treated him with total contempt.

So what did Powell do? What he always did, his duty to, to the Army before and to Bush and the Party later. He is the quintessential organization man. Which is why he is still loved for nothing is more revered than a good company man. (The opposite of a whistle blower, the most hated persons of our elites)

Posted by: rapier at February 6, 2013 06:59 PM

godoggo: A WHOLE ENTIRE CARRIER GROUP ain't going to the Middle East because of lack of funding. Yes, it works.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at February 7, 2013 11:48 AM

I was going to ask you for a link, but then I found a few. Here's one (Spencer Ackerman):
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/iran-aircraft-carrier/

Posted by: godoggo at February 7, 2013 05:20 PM

Better one:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/usa-budget-pentagon-idUSL1N0B6ME520130207

I imagine there are even better ones but I'll stop at two.

Posted by: godoggo at February 7, 2013 05:30 PM

Hello Web Admin, I noticed that your On-Page SEO is is missing a few factors, for one you do not use all three H tags in your post, also I notice that you are not using bold or italics properly in your SEO optimization. On-Page SEO means more now than ever since the new Google update: Panda. No longer are backlinks and simply pinging or sending out a RSS feed the key to getting Google PageRank or Alexa Rankings, You now NEED On-Page SEO. So what is good On-Page SEO?First your keyword must appear in the title.Then it must appear in the URL.You have to optimize your keyword and make sure that it has a nice keyword density of 3-5% in your article with relevant LSI (Latent Semantic Indexing). Then you should spread all H1,H2,H3 tags in your article.Your Keyword should appear in your first paragraph and in the last sentence of the page. You should have relevant usage of Bold and italics of your keyword.There should be one internal link to a page on your blog and you should have one image with an alt tag that has your keyword....wait there's even more Now what if i told you there was a simple Wordpress plugin that does all the On-Page SEO, and automatically for you? That's right AUTOMATICALLY, just watch this 4minute video for more information at. Seo Plugin

Posted by: Neida Kahanaoi at February 7, 2013 09:57 PM

Anyways, the current situation isn't really typical of how the government works, and won't last forever. I wouldn't generalize from it too much.

Posted by: godoggo at February 7, 2013 10:46 PM

Hello Web Admin, I noticed that your On-Page SEO is is missing a few factors, for one you do not use all three H tags in your post, also I notice that you are not using bold or italics properly in your SEO optimization. On-Page SEO means more now than ever since the new Google update: Panda. No longer are backlinks and simply pinging or sending out a RSS feed the key to getting Google PageRank or Alexa Rankings, You now NEED On-Page SEO. So what is good On-Page SEO?First your keyword must appear in the title.Then it must appear in the URL.You have to optimize your keyword and make sure that it has a nice keyword density of 3-5% in your article with relevant LSI (Latent Semantic Indexing). Then you should spread all H1,H2,H3 tags in your article.Your Keyword should appear in your first paragraph and in the last sentence of the page. You should have relevant usage of Bold and italics of your keyword.There should be one internal link to a page on your blog and you should have one image with an alt tag that has your keyword....wait there's even more Now what if i told you there was a simple Wordpress plugin that does all the On-Page SEO, and automatically for you? That's right AUTOMATICALLY, just watch this 4minute video for more information at. Seo Plugin

Posted by: Stevie Humason at February 9, 2013 04:44 AM

With havin so much written content do you ever run into any problems of plagorism or copyright violation? My site has a lot of completely unique content I've either written myself or outsourced but it seems a lot of it is popping it up all over the web without my authorization. Do you know any methods to help prevent content from being ripped off? I'd definitely appreciate it.

Posted by: these at February 10, 2013 11:35 PM