In August 2003, six months after the US invaded Iraq, I visited Texas and was telling a relative there that I had marched a couple of times in hopes of stopping the war. He gave me a slightly pained, "my crazy east coast kin" look, sighed, and said, "I just have to believe the government has access to information we don't have, and they wouldn't have done it if wasn't the right thing." And he's not even a Republican. Well, D___, this is for you. I was right and you were wrong, and I hope next time I see you you'll admit it.Powell's Former Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson Calls Pre-War Intelligence a 'Hoax on the American People' Tonight on PBS Program 'NOW'
NEW YORK, Feb. 3 /PRNewswire/ -- In an interview airing tonight on the PBS weekly newsmagazine NOW, Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson makes the startling* claim that much of Powell's landmark speech to the United Nations laying out the Bush Administration's case for the Iraq war was false.
"I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community, and the United Nations Security Council," says Wilkerson, who helped prepare the address.
The NOW report, which airs days before the third anniversary of Powell's speech, examines the serious doubts that existed about the key evidence being used by the American government at the very time Powell's speech was being planned and delivered.
"I recall vividly the Secretary of State walking into my office," Wilkerson tells NOW. "He said: 'I wonder what will happen if we put half a million troops on the ground in Iraq and comb the country from one end to the other and don't find a single weapon of mass destruction?'" In fact, no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. *startling if you've been living in a box since 1999.
so timely, colin(s surrogate), but i think leadership requires more than sending your boy out to almost be honest three years after the fact. that impression might have been useful, say, prior to the last election, or, you know, about the time somebody at the un was waving a vial of fake anthrax in the worlds face. probably would have been too hot for the new york times to handle anyway. were at war, you know, must support dear leader.
True, Powell is gutless. I wonder if his boy is off the reservation, though, now, saying all this stuff while dear leader still reigns Supreme.
I think Wilkerson started saying this stuff a few months ago, didn't he?
That's what I meant by "saying all this stuff," I wasn't clear. He must feel like he's not being heard (perhaps because he isn't) because using the words "hoax on the American people" for the entire Powell speech seems like a significant ramp-up in rhetoric.
Since October 2005 at least.
(edit: right, I wasn't trying to say you were wrong - just trying to remember it for myself.)
im pretty sure he is speaking for powell. i dont hear powell denying it.
He didn't use the word hoax in that speech--I think he's freaking out that people (hello--Hillary?) are ignoring this.
Ask Powell a direct question on national TV and he'll deny it.
He'll say "That UN speech was a low point for me, but hoax is a strong word."
"Well, Timmeh, 'festering swamp of mendacity' seems to overstate the case. I prefer the term 'truthiness administration'."
|
In August 2003, six months after the US invaded Iraq, I visited Texas and was telling a relative there that I had marched a couple of times in hopes of stopping the war. He gave me a slightly pained, "my crazy east coast kin" look, sighed, and said, "I just have to believe the government has access to information we don't have, and they wouldn't have done it if wasn't the right thing." And he's not even a Republican. Well, D___, this is for you. I was right and you were wrong, and I hope next time I see you you'll admit it.*startling if you've been living in a box since 1999.
- tom moody 2-05-2006 5:53 pm
so timely, colin(s surrogate), but i think leadership requires more than sending your boy out to almost be honest three years after the fact. that impression might have been useful, say, prior to the last election, or, you know, about the time somebody at the un was waving a vial of fake anthrax in the worlds face. probably would have been too hot for the new york times to handle anyway. were at war, you know, must support dear leader.
- dave 2-05-2006 6:31 pm
True, Powell is gutless. I wonder if his boy is off the reservation, though, now, saying all this stuff while dear leader still reigns Supreme.
- tom moody 2-05-2006 6:33 pm
I think Wilkerson started saying this stuff a few months ago, didn't he?
- jim 2-05-2006 6:41 pm
That's what I meant by "saying all this stuff," I wasn't clear. He must feel like he's not being heard (perhaps because he isn't) because using the words "hoax on the American people" for the entire Powell speech seems like a significant ramp-up in rhetoric.
- tom moody 2-05-2006 6:45 pm
Since October 2005 at least.
(edit: right, I wasn't trying to say you were wrong - just trying to remember it for myself.)
- jim 2-05-2006 6:49 pm
im pretty sure he is speaking for powell. i dont hear powell denying it.
- dave 2-05-2006 6:50 pm
He didn't use the word hoax in that speech--I think he's freaking out that people (hello--Hillary?) are ignoring this.
- tom moody 2-05-2006 6:52 pm
Ask Powell a direct question on national TV and he'll deny it.
- tom moody 2-05-2006 6:53 pm
He'll say "That UN speech was a low point for me, but hoax is a strong word."
- tom moody 2-05-2006 6:55 pm
"Well, Timmeh, 'festering swamp of mendacity' seems to overstate the case. I prefer the term 'truthiness administration'."
- mark 2-06-2006 12:08 am