According to the signs I followed, I should be on the trail of Ice cream and margaritas. If there happens to be truth along the way, we'll pick some up.
And last, if Trump hates him, he must have been on the trail of finding his way to truth. After all, isn't that what we're all trying to do? Otherwise...
According to the signs I followed, I should be on the trail of Ice cream and margaritas. If there happens to be truth along the way, we'll pick some up.
While the Mintwood article is interesting, it's not clear how much influence the State Dept's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) had. The piece also does not make clear what evidence the INR had to make its assessments that many points of Powell's speech (in draft at the time of the INR report) were "weak." As I write below, the US intelligence community (16 agencies) had published a National Intelligence Estimate stating that Iraq had WMDs.
Check out this 2016 Frontline interview with Powell for his take on the speech and the conditions he worked under. He was given about 4 days by the White House to prepare for the UN speech. President GW Bush had already made up his mind to invade Iraq and had obtained Congressional approval to do so. There were MANY people in Congress who thought there was sufficient evidence and cause to invade btw. The White House had given Powell a speech to use (IIRC prepared by Cheney's staff) that Powell thought was wholly inadequate and filled with claims that "did not track." I don't know if Powell read or considered the INR assessment of the points of his speech in its draft state. Powell said he felt comfortable drafting a new speech based on the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's apparent WMD programs as well as his consultations with the CIA about the NIE in the four days before the UN speech. Powell went to the UN to gain support from the UN member states for possible invasion but mostly to pressure Iraq to allow UN inspections for WMDs and thus PREVENT war. Powell persuaded Bush to go to the UN because he knew Iraq could be a quagmire for occupying US troops. Powell used the "Pottery Barn rule" analogy to persuade Bush: if you break it (invade Iraq), you own it. Powell's words, from the Frontline interview linked to above:
You have to remember that at the time I gave the speech on Feb. 5, the president had already made this decision for military action. The dice had been tossed. That’s what we were going to do. The Congress had passed a resolution three months before that speech that essentially gave the president the authorization to do it. Overwhelmingly they voted for it, and it was on the basis of that National Intelligence Estimate. The president had been using these very significant points about biological vans and chemical weapons in his speeches and in the State of the Union address. There was really nothing in my speech that hadn’t already been covered in the State of the Union or other speeches.
The reason I went to the U.N. is because we needed now to put the case before the entire international community in a powerful way, and that’s what I did that day.
Of course walking into that room is always a daunting experience, but I had been there before. And we had projectors and all sorts of technology to help us make the case. And that’s what I did. I made the case with the director of central intelligence sitting behind me. He and his team had vouched for everything in it. We didn’t make up anything. We threw out a lot of stuff that was not double- and triple-sourced, because I knew the importance of this.
When I was through, I felt pretty good about it. I thought we had made the case, and there was pretty good reaction to it for a few weeks. And then suddenly, the CIA started to let us know that the case was falling apart — parts of the case were falling apart. It was deeply disturbing to me and to the president, to all of us, and to the Congress, because they had voted on the basis of that information. And 16 intelligence agencies had agreed to it, with footnotes. None of the footnotes took away their agreement.
Powell put his trust in the US intelligence community and it failed him. The intelligence community had been under tremendous pressure to link Saddam to WMDs and Al Qaeda and thus justify invasion. Cheney was the leader of that.
In slight defense of Cheney, I'll note that I saw another Frontline special that shed light on Cheney's thinking. Cheney was SecDef during the Gulf War and was deeply shocked by the post-war revelation that Saddam had a well-advanced nuclear weapons program. The US intelligence community did not know about this at all IIRC. The memory of that revelation and the failure of President GW Bush and VP Cheney's administration to prevent 9/11 (despite CIA Director Tenet's frantic warnings during the spring and summer of 2001) led Cheney to wrongly believe Saddam was cooperating with Al Qaeda and presented a viable post-9/11 threat to the US.
Perhaps relative to this, here's what an op/ed from toward the end of '04 had to say upon his anticipated (somewhat disillusioned) departure from The Bush Administration as Secretary Of State for a second term...
And last, if Trump hates him, he must have been on the trail of finding his way to truth. After all, isn't that what we're all trying to do? Otherwise...
While the Mintwood article is interesting, it's not clear how much influence the State Dept's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) had. The piece also does not make clear what evidence the INR had to make its assessments that many points of Powell's speech (in draft at the time of the INR report) were "weak." As I write below, the US intelligence community (16 agencies) had published a National Intelligence Estimate stating that Iraq had WMDs.
Check out this 2016 Frontline interview with Powell for his take on the speech and the conditions he worked under. He was given about 4 days by the White House to prepare for the UN speech. President GW Bush had already made up his mind to invade Iraq and had obtained Congressional approval to do so. There were MANY people in Congress who thought there was sufficient evidence and cause to invade btw. The White House had given Powell a speech to use (IIRC prepared by Cheney's staff) that Powell thought was wholly inadequate and filled with claims that "did not track."
I don't know if Powell read or considered the INR assessment of the points of his speech in its draft state. Powell said he felt comfortable drafting a new speech based on the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's apparent WMD programs as well as his consultations with the CIA about the NIE in the four days before the UN speech.
Powell went to the UN to gain support from the UN member states for possible invasion but mostly to pressure Iraq to allow UN inspections for WMDs and thus PREVENT war. Powell persuaded Bush to go to the UN because he knew Iraq could be a quagmire for occupying US troops. Powell used the "Pottery Barn rule" analogy to persuade Bush: if you break it (invade Iraq), you own it.
Powell's words, from the Frontline interview linked to above:
You have to remember that at the time I gave the speech on Feb. 5, the president had already made this decision for military action. The dice had been tossed. Thatâs what we were going to do. The Congress had passed a resolution three months before that speech that essentially gave the president the authorization to do it. Overwhelmingly they voted for it, and it was on the basis of that National Intelligence Estimate. The president had been using these very significant points about biological vans and chemical weapons in his speeches and in the State of the Union address. There was really nothing in my speech that hadnât already been covered in the State of the Union or other speeches.
The reason I went to the U.N. is because we needed now to put the case before the entire international community in a powerful way, and thatâs what I did that day.
Of course walking into that room is always a daunting experience, but I had been there before. And we had projectors and all sorts of technology to help us make the case. And thatâs what I did. I made the case with the director of central intelligence sitting behind me. He and his team had vouched for everything in it. We didnât make up anything. We threw out a lot of stuff that was not double- and triple-sourced, because I knew the importance of this.
When I was through, I felt pretty good about it. I thought we had made the case, and there was pretty good reaction to it for a few weeks. And then suddenly, the CIA started to let us know that the case was falling apart â parts of the case were falling apart. It was deeply disturbing to me and to the president, to all of us, and to the Congress, because they had voted on the basis of that information. And 16 intelligence agencies had agreed to it, with footnotes. None of the footnotes took away their agreement.
Powell put his trust in the US intelligence community and it failed him. The intelligence community had been under tremendous pressure to link Saddam to WMDs and Al Qaeda and thus justify invasion. Cheney was the leader of that.
In slight defense of Cheney, I'll note that I saw another Frontline special that shed light on Cheney's thinking. Cheney was SecDef during the Gulf War and was deeply shocked by the post-war revelation that Saddam had a well-advanced nuclear weapons program. The US intelligence community did not know about this at all IIRC. The memory of that revelation and the failure of President GW Bush and VP Cheney's administration to prevent 9/11 (despite CIA Director Tenet's frantic warnings during the spring and summer of 2001) led Cheney to wrongly believe Saddam was cooperating with Al Qaeda and presented a viable post-9/11 threat to the US.
It means I missed my calling and rather than think for myself I should defer to all things demonstrably toothsome...
At that young age, I was torn und unwissend, as all young men of the age are, I guess. Finally decided to consciencE obJect. For me, it was seeing my Grandma, perhaps living with her... the lady who raised me by the sea (where I live now), or follow closer ideals - staying near parents and girlfriend. Makes me an Angsthase, Pfeffernase?
LOL. Don't get bogged down in my sediment. Wait, I mean sentiment! I can master disaster with but a thought; often misunderstood...
Gosh I should have readMintpress News for the true scoop. My bad...
What's your suggestion? Not sooo much differing from the MSM, are they?
MintPress News is an ostensibly left-leaning American online news website founded and edited by Mnar Adley (née, Muhawesh) which was launched in January 2012 and employs many Russia Today affiliates. (Wikipedia)
They could be more American in distributing 'sensitive issues'? ...sensitivity and all, remembering the phalanx appearing in the western media back then, to me C.P. appeared much less demonized (i.e. obsessed by demons), as compared to others brightly shining in the limelight, too.
*Cheers* bud.
It means I missed my calling and rather than think for myself I should defer to all things demonstrably toothsome...
Powell was misled about the intelligence but he should have known that his case on WMDs was circumstantial. I can't remember whether Powell supported invading Iraq instead of pressing for inspections.
However, Powell only contributed to war with Iraq. He did not cause it and wasn't even a primary cause of it. Powell provided a fig leaf of respectability and some hazy rationale to the war. Dick Cheney was far more responsible, ignoring the American intelligence community's assessment that Saddam likely did not have WMD stockpiles or a working alliance with Al Qaeda. Instead, Cheney told lie after lie to push the US into war with Iraq. He was also one of the major promoters of our torturing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.
I don't see how Powell was misled unless he more incompetent than I believe he was. The Department of Energy is the US agency that deals with nuclear non-proliferation and you heard nothing attributed to them in the lead up to the war. I think it is clear they didn't believe Iraq had an active nuclear weapon development program of any consequence and were sidelined.
No, he didn't cause the war, but he was trusted by even Democrats and he squandered that trust. I expect he knew full well that was going to be the end of his political career.
