Wilkerson: Powell U.N. speech 'Lowest point'

[nakedemperor]

(CNN) -- A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state's presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "the lowest point" in his life.

"I wish I had not been involved in it," says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. "I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life."

Wilkerson is one of several insiders interviewed for the CNN Presents documentary "Dead Wrong -- Inside an Intelligence Meltdown." The program, which airs Sunday at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET, pieces together the events leading up to the mistaken WMD intelligence that was presented to the public. A presidential commission that investigated the pre-war WMD intelligence found much of it to be "dead wrong."

Powell's speech, delivered on February 14, 2003, made the case for the war by presenting U.S. intelligence that purported to prove that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Wilkerson says the information in Powell's presentation initially came from a document he described as "sort of a Chinese menu" that was provided by the White House.

"(Powell) came through the door ... and he had in his hands a sheaf of papers, and he said, 'This is what I've got to present at the United Nations according to the White House, and you need to look at it,'" Wilkerson says in the program. "It was anything but an intelligence document. It was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose."

Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says.

"There was no way the Secretary of State was going to read off a script about serious matters of intelligence that could lead to war when the script was basically un-sourced," Wilkerson says.

In one dramatic accusation in his speech, Powell showed slides alleging that Saddam had bioweapons labs mounted on trucks that would be almost impossible to find.

"In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator," says David Kay, who served as the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. That source, an Iraqi defector had never been debriefed by the CIA, was known within the intelligence community as "Curveball."

After searching Iraq for several months across the summer of 2003, Kay began e-mailing Tenet to tell him the WMD evidence was falling apart. At one point, Wilkerson says, Tenet called Powell to tell him the claims about mobile bioweapons labs were apparently not true.

"George actually did call the Secretary, and said, 'I'm really sorry to have to tell you. We don't believe there were any mobile labs for making biological weapons,'" Wilkerson says in the documentary. "This was the third or fourth telephone call. And I think it's fair to say the Secretary and Mr. Tenet, at that point, ceased being close. I mean, you can be sincere and you can be honest and you can believe what you're telling the Secretary. But three or four times on substantive issues like that? It's difficult to maintain any warm feelings."

I mean, we known that Dubya wanted to invade Iraq directly after 9/11 ("Iraq, Saddam, find the connection."). We know the administration launched a campaign of fear tactics meant to link Al Qaeda, 9/11, and Iraq in the public mind...

What strikes me in this article is the level of apparent data-mining that took place. The day after 9/11, Paul Wolfowitz authorizes the creation of the Office of Special Plans, which Rumsfeld says was created to "search for information on Iraq's hostile intentions or links to terrorists". The CIA couldn't give data that justified war. The OPS was created solely to stovepipe bad, faulty, unsubstantiated "evidence" directly to top administration officials, including the president. I don't buy this "we were given bad evidence" excuse-- they were streamlining the filtering process so they could hear what they wanted to hear!

The OSP and its rank-and-file neocon members, which included Elliot Cohen, Newt Gingrich, David Jeremiah, Kenneth Adelman, and James Woolsey, and Richard Perle, searched for information that "fit" pre-existing ideaolgy-driven assumptions about Iraq and its "intentions". Now, however, since their information came from the CIA and the DIA, they can stand aside and let the blame fall on the intelligence agencies. The fact remains now that these agencies provided only tepid threat assesments of Iraq, but when you ONLY review the information you want to see, you're going to come to the same conclusion every time!

I sure hope we're able to quell this insurgency soon and get a stable government up and running and get our boys home out of harms way, but man oh man do we know who is to blame... it was the people cooking information and giving Colin Powell shotty, data-mined information.

 

[dilloduck]

Congrats to them--- it was damn good effort to get America where it needs to be and doing what it needs to do......engage terrorism where it lives or where it will be welcome.

 

[kharlowe]

Well, forgive me for being this blunt, but don’t we all know by now that this whole thing is a lie? That Powell delivered faulty info doesn’t surprise me as much as that he managed do so with some force and a straight face. I imagine that he suffers the twin burdens of intellect and integrity, which is why he’s no longer there. Now, the only intellect they have is Rice, and she’s so blinded by slavish adoration for Dubya that she can’t see straight.
I’m interested in how this will play out now. With support for the war sinking, Dubya has to do something quickly. Two choices appear obvious: one is to the Vietnam stratagem, declare a victory and withdraw. If this were done before the 2006 congressional elections, it would have the obvious advantage of lessening any republican losses in Congress, where dissatisfaction will be most immediately manifest.
On the other hand, Dubya, being a manly man, would probably consider that, well, un-manly. The more logical scenario is a force reduction, to lets say half, for the sake of argument. He would then be able to declare that he’s at least bringing the troops home , although they’re now being killed on the way out, instead of while in place. It would reduce casualties by giving the insurgents fewer targets, and allow the Iraqis to fumble about a bit longer, trying to comprehend the meaning of alien concepts like democracy.
It would also allow us to direct our forces against real threats, like North Korea, for example. They really have those mythical wmds and have even threatened quite bluntly to use them. Their leader is a foaming at the mouth lunatic who let around a quarter of a million people starve. (And did the right wing invoke “human suffering” to justify invading Korea? No. Not surprising-Koreans aren’t white, Christian, or fetuses, so they don’t give an airborne intercourse about them.) And it would reduce pressure on the military. In that context, forget the idea of a draft. We won’t see that again, barring WW III, and even then it would have to be a nasty world war!!!
But, we’re still stuck with the situation Moynihan predicted just before his death, that the war would be an easy win; it was the 10 year occupation that would be the problem. He was right about most other things, why not this? The Iraqis seem to think democracy is the process by which you elect the members of the Taliban who will oppress you; they want an Islamic republic, they can’t address the underlying tensions between disparate groups and have no ability to provide their own security. We’ll have a significant force in Iraq for decades, and it will become so advantageous to them that they will eventually come to see it’s virtues—let big daddy Uncle Sam do it. And we’re so stupid that we’ll probably go along with it because our leaders are incapable of removing their hands from their genitals long enough to employ their brains.
Anyone read the Shaw play “The Devil’s Disciple?” There’s a line in there worth remembering. When General Burgoyne is faced with the prospect of doing battle with 15,000 continentals at Saratoga without reinforcements, he asks his aide, Swindon, what will happen. Swindon replies with a cliché—come what will ,the British soldier will give a good accounting of himself. Burgoyne is outraged, “Therefore, the British officer need not know his business, the British soldier will get him out of all his blunders with a bayonet. In the future, sir, I must ask you to be a bit less generous with the blood of your men and a bit more generous with your own brain.”
That last line should be tattooed on the foreheads of every politician and military officer in this country. And if they still don’t get it, it should be branded to their asses, where they’re far more likely to see it anyway, as they remove their heads to come up for air.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Well, forgive me for being this blunt, but don’t we all know by now that this whole thing is a lie? That Powell delivered faulty info doesn’t surprise me as much as that he managed do so with some force and a straight face. I imagine that he suffers the twin burdens of intellect and integrity, which is why he’s no longer there. Now, the only intellect they have is Rice, and she’s so blinded by slavish adoration for Dubya that she can’t see straight.
I’m interested in how this will play out now. With support for the war sinking, Dubya has to do something quickly. Two choices appear obvious: one is to the Vietnam stratagem, declare a victory and withdraw. If this were done before the 2006 congressional elections, it would have the obvious advantage of lessening any republican losses in Congress, where dissatisfaction will be most immediately manifest.
On the other hand, Dubya, being a manly man, would probably consider that, well, un-manly. The more logical scenario is a force reduction, to lets say half, for the sake of argument. He would then be able to declare that he’s at least bringing the troops home , although they’re now being killed on the way out, instead of while in place. It would reduce casualties by giving the insurgents fewer targets, and allow the Iraqis to fumble about a bit longer, trying to comprehend the meaning of alien concepts like democracy.
It would also allow us to direct our forces against real threats, like North Korea, for example. They really have those mythical wmds and have even threatened quite bluntly to use them. Their leader is a foaming at the mouth lunatic who let around a quarter of a million people starve. (And did the right wing invoke “human suffering” to justify invading Korea? No. Not surprising-Koreans aren’t white, Christian, or fetuses, so they don’t give an airborne intercourse about them.) And it would reduce pressure on the military. In that context, forget the idea of a draft. We won’t see that again, barring WW III, and even then it would have to be a nasty world war!!!
But, we’re still stuck with the situation Moynihan predicted just before his death, that the war would be an easy win; it was the 10 year occupation that would be the problem. He was right about most other things, why not this? The Iraqis seem to think democracy is the process by which you elect the members of the Taliban who will oppress you; they want an Islamic republic, they can’t address the underlying tensions between disparate groups and have no ability to provide their own security. We’ll have a significant force in Iraq for decades, and it will become so advantageous to them that they will eventually come to see it’s virtues—let big daddy Uncle Sam do it. And we’re so stupid that we’ll probably go along with it because our leaders are incapable of removing their hands from their genitals long enough to employ their brains.
Anyone read the Shaw play “The Devil’s Disciple?” There’s a line in there worth remembering. When General Burgoyne is faced with the prospect of doing battle with 15,000 continentals at Saratoga without reinforcements, he asks his aide, Swindon, what will happen. Swindon replies with a cliché—come what will ,the British soldier will give a good accounting of himself. Burgoyne is outraged, “Therefore, the British officer need not know his business, the British soldier will get him out of all his blunders with a bayonet. In the future, sir, I must ask you to be a bit less generous with the blood of your men and a bit more generous with your own brain.”
That last line should be tattooed on the foreheads of every politician and military officer in this country. And if they still don’t get it, it should be branded to their asses, where they’re far more likely to see it anyway, as they remove their heads to come up for air.

You are forgiven.
Being blunt isnt the problem, being wrong is.

You think the thing can be done overnight? ha !

So, which are the Iraqis? White, Christian or fetuses?

"Slavish" adoration. I see you are a racist pig in disguise. FY and your opinions. I hate bigots, but I hate racists even more.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I mean, we known that Dubya wanted to invade Iraq directly after 9/11 ("Iraq, Saddam, find the connection."). We know the administration launched a campaign of fear tactics meant to link Al Qaeda, 9/11, and Iraq in the public mind...

What strikes me in this article is the level of apparent data-mining that took place. The day after 9/11, Paul Wolfowitz authorizes the creation of the Office of Special Plans, which Rumsfeld says was created to "search for information on Iraq's hostile intentions or links to terrorists". The CIA couldn't give data that justified war. The OPS was created solely to stovepipe bad, faulty, unsubstantiated "evidence" directly to top administration officials, including the president. I don't buy this "we were given bad evidence" excuse-- they were streamlining the filtering process so they could hear what they wanted to hear!

The OSP and its rank-and-file neocon members, which included Elliot Cohen, Newt Gingrich, David Jeremiah, Kenneth Adelman, and James Woolsey, and Richard Perle, searched for information that "fit" pre-existing ideaolgy-driven assumptions about Iraq and its "intentions". Now, however, since their information came from the CIA and the DIA, they can stand aside and let the blame fall on the intelligence agencies. The fact remains now that these agencies provided only tepid threat assesments of Iraq, but when you ONLY review the information you want to see, you're going to come to the same conclusion every time!

I sure hope we're able to quell this insurgency soon and get a stable government up and running and get our boys home out of harms way, but man oh man do we know who is to blame... it was the people cooking information and giving Colin Powell shotty, data-mined information.

No, we dont "know" those things.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

nakedemperor

If they were lacking evidence and it was so obvious to everyone, then why were the Democrats saying he had WMD and why did they vote to authorize the war?

It would reduce casualties by giving the insurgents fewer targets, and allow the Iraqis to fumble about a bit longer, trying to comprehend the meaning of alien concepts like democracy.

Or you'd be pretty much handing it to the terrorists.

It would also allow us to direct our forces against real threats, like North Korea, for example. They really have those mythical wmds and have even threatened quite bluntly to use them. Their leader is a foaming at the mouth lunatic who let around a quarter of a million people starve. (And did the right wing invoke “human suffering” to justify invading Korea? No. Not surprising-Koreans aren’t white, Christian, or fetuses, so they don’t give an airborne intercourse about them.)

And just what would you do about NK? Even if you were not concerned about their nuclear capability, they could still do a lot of damage to South Korea with conventional artillery (they have thousands of pieces aimed at the south).

 

[ekrem]

Well, forgive me for being this blunt, but don’t we all know by now that this whole thing is a lie? That Powell delivered faulty info doesn’t surprise me as much as that he managed do so with some force and a straight face.

most European countries like german Intelligence BKA knew this was lie to dramtic the situation...
Remember Hans Blix, former Iraqi UN-WMD-Inspector... He wrote a book about this faulty dramatization. He knew it, but nobody wanted to hear to him.

With support for the war sinking, Dubya has to do something quickly. Two choices appear obvious: one is to the Vietnam stratagem, declare a victory and withdraw.

American People 50 to 50 with current approval of IRAQ-Policy... maybe I'm wrong... But you are patriotic people, too.

The more logical scenario is a force reduction, to lets say half, for the sake of argument. He would then be able to declare that he’s at least bringing the troops home , although they’re now being killed on the way out, instead of while in place. It would reduce casualties by giving the insurgents fewer targets, and allow the Iraqis to fumble about a bit longer, trying to comprehend the meaning of alien concepts like democracy.

America now wants to sum up troops with a further 1.500 Soldiers... But i do not think this will make a dramtic change in security in Iraq... It is lack of soldiers there missing. And american people want their soldiers returning.
But this is dangerous. When US-Soldiers go there will be CHAOS, maybe swapping also to border-countries...
When Sunnites and Schiites clash themself, this will definetly swap to other muslim countries as well.

It would also allow us to direct our forces against real threats, like North Korea, for example.

i do not think, Bush is going to do anything against North-Korea. they are Potent, have the Bomb, and testing Missiles through firing them over Japanese Territory.

The Iraqis seem to think democracy is the process by which you elect the members of the Taliban who will oppress you; they want an Islamic republic, they can’t address the underlying tensions between disparate groups and have no ability to provide their own security.

There will be never western-style democracy in Iraq...
Kurds elect Kurds. SCHIItes elect shiites... and when Sunnites will join this so-calles "democracy"-game, as i dont think they will, they will of course will elect Sunnites.

We’ll have a significant force in Iraq for decades, and it will become so advantageous to them that they will eventually come to see it’s virtues—let big daddy Uncle Sam do it. And we’re so stupid that we’ll probably go along with it because our leaders are incapable of removing their hands from their genitals long enough to employ their brains.

perhaps American foreign policy wants to stay for decades in IRAQ, as a neighbouring country to IRAN to pressure them.
Ok, this is truely not reality objective.




IN the end up.,... this speech based on false material did harm american Image much... and this was not only ressponsible to POWELL... George Tenet just sit behind him... Powell was the Messenger only.
But i did always Respect Powell much, as he was an ex-General doing Politics

 

[Gunny]

WOW! Another "Powell lied" thread! What a shock.

Gonna rehash Abu Ghraib tomorrow?

 

[ThomasPaine]

died? Or is it still Bush lied people died. You guys don't want to fight the WOT? What a surprise. I've yet to hear a lib EVER REPEAT EVER be in favor of military force. Unless, of course, a lib President can deflect criticism of oval office blowjobs by lobbing a few cruise missiles to Afgani.. Just face it libs we had to invade the Islamic world somewhere and Iraq was as good a choice as any. Fear, intimidation, and good old GI boots on the ground have got Mr. Jihadi Muslim boy busy in his backyard and not in ours. Getting any of this global political logic or is it lost on your pea sized lib minds?

 

[ekrem]

died? Or is it still Bush lied people died. You guys don't want to fight the WOT? What a surprise. I've yet to hear a lib EVER REPEAT EVER be in favor of military force. Unless, of course, a lib President can deflect criticism of oval office blowjobs by lobbing a few cruise missiles to Afgani.. Just face it libs we had to invade the Islamic world somewhere and Iraq was as good a choice as any. Fear, intimidation, and good old GI boots on the ground have got Mr. Jihadi Muslim boy busy in his backyard and not in ours. Getting any of this global political logic or is it lost on your pea sized lib minds?

i do not know to whom this reply goes... BUT

I think, Iraq was not a good choice for hunting Jihadists... Saddam was member of BAATH-Party. The founder of this Party was a Christ... In Saddams Cabinet there were Christs...
But now takeing these SHIITES to power and SHIITES implementing laws, that no future LAW can deviate from ISLAMIC view, Christs for example will have a harder living in IRAQ as in SADDAM-times. This is obvious.
Nevertheless, these Days in Bagdad there is an Christ-Socitey established. I do only habe a turkish link for proof.


But you can be sure as American Soldiers are now in Iraq, that Iraq will be a magnet for Jihadists/Terrorists as American Soldiers are in the country.

SAddam was a bad guy. He financed Palestinians Families who dies in Suicide bombings...
But Saddam was no Jihadist. He was a Terrorist anyway... But not Jihadist

 

[ThomasPaine]

i do not know to whom this reply goes... BUT

I think, Iraq was not a good choice for hunting Jihadists... Saddam was member of BAATH-Party. The founder of this Party was a Christ... In Saddams Cabinet there were Christs...
But now takeing these SHIITES to power and SHIITES implementing laws, that no future LAW can deviate from ISLAMIC view, Christs for example will have a harder living in IRAQ as in SADDAM-times. This is obvious.
Nevertheless, these Days in Bagdad there is an Christ-Socitey established. I do only habe a turkish link for proof.


But you can be sure as American Soldiers are now in Iraq, that Iraq will be a magnet for Jihadists/Terrorists as American Soldiers are in the country.

SAddam was a bad guy. He financed Palestinians Families who dies in Suicide bombings...
But Saddam was no Jihadist. He was a Terrorist anyway... But not Jihadist

that was just as good as any other to be exorcised. I know ole Hussein wasn't a jihadist hell he wasn't much of a Muslim period. The point was to induce fear and intimidate the region into change. Bring arabic Islam into the 20th let alone 21st century. Maybe it was a stretch, but I think not. Now Muslims know that things can change if they will it. And mostly what they know for certain is that the United States will kick some ass if you screw with us. That alone is lesson enough.. Oh and let the Muslim Jihadi boys come.. but tell them to fight like men not like old women....

 

[ekrem]

that was just as good as any other to be exorcised.

hmm, you did not go to the roots of the problem by entering IRAQ... but the problem is comeing anyway from other countries... Iraq is central and has long boarders with many states. Long boarders which aren't to be secured with only 150.000 US-Soldiers...

The point was to induce fear and intimidate the region into change.

Terrorists willing to die, who think after-death is more valuable then lifetime aren't to be feared

Now Muslims know that things can change if they will it. And mostly what they know for certain is that the United States will kick some ass if you screw with us.

yes, this is important... USA has to stop feeding Dictators in Middle East...
Most Dictators are fed by USA for decades although this Dictators are tyranateing the People... If USA wouldn't tand behind those Dictators people would have taken the Power many years ago.
Bringing democracy with Weapons ain't good because of this...
USA has to stop feeding Dictators and stand behind moderate People, Reformists, which are in Jail ordered through this Dictators...
This would be a huge step.

Oh and let the Muslim Jihadi boys come.. but tell them to fight like men not like old women....

i can tell nobody you want me to tell, wrong address.

 

[ThomasPaine]

hmm, you did not go to the roots of the problem by entering IRAQ... but the problem is comeing anyway from other countries... Iraq is central and has long boarders with many states. Long boarders which aren't to be secured with only 150.000 US-Soldiers...





Terrorists willing to die, who think after-death is more valuable then lifetime aren't to be feared




yes, this is important... USA has to stop feeding Dictators in Middle East...
Most Dictators are fed by USA for decades although this Dictators are tyranateing the People... If USA wouldn't tand behind those Dictators people would have taken the Power many years ago.
Bringing democracy with Weapons ain't good because of this...
USA has to stop feeding Dictators and stand behind moderate People, Reformists, which are in Jail ordered through this Dictators...
This would be a huge step.



i can tell nobody you want me to tell, wrong address.

course to oppose the Soviets during the cold war.. Any one would do just oppose communism,, hence the Shah in Iran. But right now we are mostly about obtaining oil from stable areas. While this isn't my idea of good global policy it works.. i.e. We unfortunately support the princes of the House of Saud. It is my firm belief that the House of Saud is the true problem. The problem in the region is Saudi Arabia. In religion it dominates Islam being home to Mecca and Medina. It also is a autocratic monarchy which limits the freedom and liberty of it's people. Question which is unanswered is what do the saudi people want? They sit on a lake of petroleum which will insure wealth onto the foreseeable future but what do they want as a people.? Wealth through oil? Freedom, liberty, and a western society? Or an archaic Islamic republic that hides it's head in the sands of the Seventh Century?