R-E-S-P-E-C-T for Colin Powell

Listening to Colin Powell endorse Barack Obama, I had the same divided feelings I did last spring, when I heard him speak at my daughter's high school graduation.

He had come because he knew the family of another senior in the class well enough to accept the invitation. An hour before the students processed in, he graciously posed for a photo with each of them. When he spoke, he was warm, witty and inspirational. The story of his rise -- from the South Bronx to four-star general, National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of State -- held a classic commencement moral: If a screw-up like me could make it, you privileged and accomplished kids will make it, too, and you'll have a responsibility to give back to society.

Yet I couldn't help recalling that this was the same Colin Powell whose United Nations speech five years earlier had convinced me that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. And not only me, but journalists and columnists and editorial writers around the country, many of whom I respected for their gimlet-eyed sobriety.

As assembled by former Des Moines Register editorial page editor Gilbert Cranberg, here are the conclusions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that the nation's editorial pages drew from Secretary Powell's speech:

"a massive array of evidence," "a detailed and persuasive case," "a powerful case," "a sober, factual case," "an overwhelming case," "a compelling case," "the strong, credible and persuasive case," "a persuasive, detailed accumulation of information," "the core of his argument was unassailable," "a smoking fusillade . . . a persuasive case for anyone who is still persuadable," "an accumulation of painstakingly gathered and analyzed evidence," "only the most gullible and wishful thinking souls can now deny that Iraq is harboring and hiding weapons of mass destruction," "the skeptics asked for proof; they now have it," "a much more detailed and convincing argument than any that has previously been told," "Powell's evidence . . . was overwhelming," "an ironclad case . . . incontrovertible evidence," "succinct and damning evidence . . . the case is closed," "Colin Powell delivered the goods on Saddam Hussein," "masterful," "If there was any doubt that Hussein . . . needs to be . . . stripped of his chemical and biological capabilities, Powell put it to rest."

Yet as we now know, it wasn't true. Did Secretary Powell know it at the time? As he spoke to the UN Security Council, to the world and to me, did he realize back then that his case was built on falsehoods, exaggerations and rhetorical sleights of hand? Or was it rather (as Condoleezza Rice later put it) that "no one could have known" it was wrong from top to bottom, or (as John McCain later put it) that "every intelligence agency in the world and every assessment" said Iraq had WMD?

It's the Rice/McCain denial that Powell gave Tom Brokaw on "Meet the Press" on Sunday: "I thought the evidence was there.... I regret a lot of the information that the intelligence community provided us was wrong."

But investigations since his UN speech suggest that Secretary Powell misrepresented the intelligence he had and discounted conflicting intelligence he knew about. Some examples:

Bioweapons: Secretary Powell said at the UN, "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 Kamel, Saddam Hussein's late son-in-law." But Kamel had told both CIA analysts and UN inspectors in 1995 that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles.

Bioweapons factories: Secretary Powell said, "We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails," which could make enough anthrax or botulinus toxin "in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people." What he didn't say was that the CIA knew that the only firsthand source for this was "Curveball," a defector believed by the German intelligence agents who interviewed him to be a fabricator. Nor that the CIA knew that the two corroborating accounts came from Iraqis who had never had direct contact with the biowarfare trucks and had not claimed to have seen them. Nor that CIA files contained information about another Iraqi defector, an engineer who had worked with Curveball, who specifically denied that they had worked on such facilities. Nor that the only American intelligence official ever to actually meet Curveball, when asked to vet this portion of the upcoming speech, warned his CIA boss that Curveball might not know what he was talking about.

Nuclear weapons: Secretary Powell said "most United States experts" believe aluminum tubes sought by Iraq were intended for use as centrifuge cylinders for enriching uranium for nuclear bombs. "Most?" In 2001, the Energy Department had argued - contrary to the CIA -- that the tubes were too narrow, too heavy, and too long to be used in a gas centrifuge, a dissent reported by the Defense Intelligence Agency. Two days before his speech, Powell's own State Department intelligence experts had specifically warned him not to say that the tubes were manufactured to a tolerance ''that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets," but say it he did.

WMD concealment: Secretary Powell played a recording of an intercepted conversation, in Arabic, between two Iraqi military officers. The English translation he showed on a slide said this: "Clean out all of the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas... Make sure there is nothing there." Yet this is the official State Department translation: On "the possibility there is, by chance, forbidden ammo... inspect the scrap areas and the abandoned areas." The doctored version in the speech is incriminating, but "clean out" is not the same as "inspect," and "make sure there is nothing there" is invented out of whole cloth.

Yes, despite immense pressure from Vice President Cheney and his enforcer, "Scooter" Libby, Powell succeeded in purging the speech of dozens of canards. But the speech he delivered is the same speech that, on the eve of his UN appearance, he reportedly threw into the air and declared, "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit!"

Why did he do it? Was it obedience to his commander-in-chief? Duty? If he knew that arguments remaining in the speech were fatally compromised, and if he knew (as Bush had told him) that putting his own honor on the line was the reason that the country and the world would believe what he said, why didn't he resign instead of delivering it?

I don't know the answer. I also don't know how Dana Perino can look herself in the mirror every morning before going into the White House, or how John McCain can tell David Letterman with a straight face that yes, should there be another 9/11, and McCain were unable to discharge his duties, Sarah Palin would be completely qualified to lead our country as president. The only explanation that comes to mind is a line in that Aretha Franklin song, "Respect": "I ain't lyin' (just a little bit)."

I'm glad that Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama, and that in doing so, he said much that needed saying, by someone as credible as him, about John McCain and his campaign. But just as I felt on graduation day last spring, I'm sad that his credibility is compromised by the little bit of lyin' he did for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney at the UN. And I'm furious at myself for falling for it.

(This is my column for the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, where you can email me if you'd like.)

Follow Marty Kaplan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/martykaplan

Comments

[Garretto]

I had the same disheartening feeling watching him speak on MTM. But I never really did buy the UN speech, and felt he sold his soul as so many have, to Bush/Cheney. He was eloquent in his reasoning for backing Obama and took it a step further than he needed to in regards to "What if Obama were Muslim"? Didn't sound like any Republican I've heard lately, for sure.
But, unfortunately he's tainted, and badly.

He failed his country when he could have been the one to save it. He knows it. It's kind of tragic, but I don't feel sorry for him in the least. His endorsement will only sway on the fence Republicans, not any tuned in Democrats. I'm glad he did it.

[aofh]

If you were pulled in by Powell's U.N. speech, it was because you wanted to be. Certainly, the American press and the majority of the public wanted to be. At the time the American press praised the speech to high heaven, but the gathering in the chamber to whom the speech was delivered was clearly not impressed. Nor were many in the foreign press. Don't forget that the purpose of going to the U.N. in the first place was to try to divert the Bush Administration from taking rash action, and that, in the end, Bush took rash action without the sanction of the U.N. just as the inspectors had about exhausted the list Powell gave then without finding the alleged weapons. Which the American press failed to report at the time.

I'm not convinced that Powell was ever for this war, but he lacked the standing within the Administration that he had everywhere else. I can imagine that part of the reason for giving that speech was to gain some credibility within the Administration so as to become a real force in shaping policy. If so, the speech failed. I think Powell has responsibility in this mess, but it is not of the same order magnitude as that of the American press.

[egal]

Don't feel bad for falling for it. For civilians, in a time when Powell's credibility was yet untainted and none of us could possibly have foreseen the degree of venal evil present in our leadership, it was hard to imagine those claims were lies. Wat was available to the public offered no certitude of such weapons, but also no surety of their nonexistence.

It is those at the top who need to be ashamed, whether at their disastrous credulousness or their willingness to lie. The Intelligence operations, the military, and several other agencies to include those of our allies revealed, with very nearly 100% surety, that the claims which drove us to war were fabricated, discounted, outdated, or simply utterly wrong. Our leaders bear the fault because they knew the truth, or should have, as the evidence against WMDs was both comprehensive and verified, while any support for the claims they presented us was dubious or disproven, at best--entirely made-up without knowledge of the harm that would cause, more likely.

[Krikkit]

Marty, I listened to his UN speech too, and it didn't convince me that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. It only convinced me that the Bush administration had better FIND those WMD or it would lose all legitimacy. But your piece has given me some insight, I believe, into why it is that people are so damn sore at Powell that they'd rather hang him in effigy along with Bush than even entertain the idea that he was also duped by the people who cherry-picked the intel for Bush.

Maybe, just maybe folks are projecting their anger at themselves onto Powell for letting themselves be duped about the war. I was one of the few lucky skeptics throughout, so maybe that's why I don't feel the same anger toward Powell that others do.

[GiveUsFree]

Powell is a patriot who made a mistake. He's not perfect. He was against the war at first. He was against the strategy and he warned the Bush team. They treated him like a pariah. They only marched him out when they needed a scapegoat. Also, don't forget his relationship with Daddy Bush. Powell must have been conflicted as to not embarrass the office of the Presidency. I can imagine some of the crap they said to him to make him feel like he owed his country to do what he did or owed the Bush family.

So, please don't denigrate Powell's reputation, because of your high minded hindsight. Powell did what he felt was best for the country at the time and I do not fault him for that. I do fault Cheney and the CIA chief at the time who knowingly lead us into this crap of a war.

[radmul]

I am glad to see a little bit of intellectual honesty from the left.

[elghergo]

Thank you, Mr. Kaplan, for bringing back the memories. Mr. Powell betrayal of public trust was appalling and beyond excuses or explanations. He opened the doors for the carnage and destruction of the Iraqi nation and for the sacrifice of thousands of his own compatriots. Powell acted then --as brilliantly put by Harry Belafonte on Democracy Now!-- as a "house slave". That is, as the slave that has won the confidence of his masters and is allowed to live in their house. His endorsement of Barak Obama is a liability for someone that promises change and wants to restore hope to a country that has fallen so low in the eyes of the world.

[JLR519]

Powell was not ALONE!!

[truthforme]

I don't have the education credentials that you do sir, but even I knew the whole thing was a lie. Maybe next time the journalists can do their job of checking facts and listening to ALL the sources. Too bad they were all screaming "unpatriotic" to anyone who questioned the legitimacy of the build up going into the war.

Maybe you should take a good long look in the mirror.

[BarackMarley]

Here's why the GOP pundits are racist for racializing Powell's endorsement
http://newsone.blackplanet.com/elections/gop-pundits-question-powells-integrity-on-race/

Here's a video of Powell criticizing Michelle Bachman for Her Anti-America Comments
http://newsone.blackplanet.com/elections/powell-criticizes-bachmann-over-anti-america-comments/

[CactusTom]

The great tragedy of America was that Colin Power did not fully commit himself politically by running for president when his time had come. His wife said please no, so he declined. But then he compounded the pain of America by joining an intellectually corrupt Republican administration and allowing it to use his good name for devious purposes. Though he eventually fought the good fight against the Neocons, it was too late.

We can only dream of how much better thing would have been regarding the lose of life and billions upon billions of dollars wasted had Powell been elected president in 2000 instead of Junior. It is quite likely that the warnings from the Clinton administration about Ben Laden would have been taken seriously by a president Powell, and 9/11 totally derailed. But failing that, there should be little doubt that the response to 9/11 would have been swift and decisive, having nothing to do with getting bogged down in a nation unrelated to the events of 9/11.

So, yes, Colin Powell brings to me feelings of mixed emotions of things that might having been done right and things that were done wrong.

[sand252]

I completely agree. I agree just because I wondered if other people who look at him and listen to him think the same thing. To watch his full-throated endorsement of GWB and then watch this one (of Obama's), gives me a little bit of a chill. I am a FIRM supporter of S. Barack Obama, but I find it curious that supporters of GWB are now breaking ranks and supporting the challenger. I also find it telling. I find it telling because GWB and Cheney have damaged the republican brand so badly that it appears that many are choosing to support the more intelligent, competent candidate rather than follow party lines, because following party lines is what brought us to the disaster that we are currently facing. Sidenote: I feel personally disrespected by any suggestions that Powell is voting for Obama because he is black. Although I want to volunteer more than I have, I am not canvassing or calling people (I support in other ways, donated $ and time to register voters) because of the accusations and assumptions that I support S. Obama because he is black. If it were Powell running, I am 99.9% sure that voted for the democrat. The fact is that most black americans vote for democrats. And most black americans that do vote republican probably still will. The challenge would have been if there were a black republican running for president.

[Pupadup4oBama]

Yes, he supported Bush, and yes he is now supporting Obama - i'm happy he is doing so. He made mistakes..­.I commend him for leaving the administration. As they say better late than never. We can all say what we'd do in hindsight, but we honestly don't know what happened behind closed doors. We don't know how he was strong-armed. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt - we need to move on and we need his help to do so.

[racom]

Leaving the administration was not his call, he was told to pack it in. Essentially he had served his purpose and bush didn't need him any longer, he was compromised. Unlike Rice, Powell was not viewed as a team player, could not be counted on to faithfully carry the water. He has been called 'the closer' for selling the war to the world but he never was an acceptable fit in the bush administration.
I will not now play nice and say all is forgiven, people are still dying nearly 6 years later and Powell had a big hand in this immoral, illegal rush to war.
Many, millions, knew it was a war of choice. Powells UN speech was not convincing, the rest of the world understood that any dissension was not going to stop the US.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"many are choosing to support the more intelligent, competent candidate rather than follow party lines, "

Maybe. Or maybe they just intend to influence the Democratic Party through infiltration and by diluting Democratic policies with their own.

[Johnagain]

"Yet I couldn't help recalling that this was the same Colin Powell whose United Nations speech five years earlier had convinced me that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. And not only me, but journalists and columnists and editorial writers around the country, many of whom I respected for their gimlet-eyed sobriety."

What nonsense. The only people who were 'convinced' that Powell's lies at that time were true were those who wanted a war, those who wanted to believe the Bush Administration BS. I remember that speech well, and I remember the mountains of refuting evidence that were available to anyone with an internet connection. That group includes all reporters and media people. There was no excuse then, or now, for ever having swallowed the warmongering lies.

[looseisnotlose]

Thank you for this comment. Conventional wisdom would have it that the masses are easy to dupe, but the march to war with Iraq proved that the most gullible saps are the people we've entrusted with the workings of our government and media. Congress and the press have demonstrated that they are suckers for a type of manipulation that we can't do much about except HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE AFTER THE FACT.

Sorry to shout, but this type of failure is hard to let go. (Many) Thinking people knew the war was wrong from the beginning. The fact that W was re-elected in 2004 was not only a complete confirmation of the failure of our press, but proof that our system of government is poisoned by this failure. If you can defraud, plunder, and terrorize your constituents with impunity, what does an election mean?

If we don't remember the facts, and continue to demand better, then we are the suckers they take us for.

[magicwanz]

I think folks find his endorsement meaningful because he's a black Republican (call me a racist, but I always thought that was an oxymoron like "gay Republican" or "compassionate conservatism"). Gee, if Republicans trust him, he must be a notch up from all those other black folks, i.e.: not trustworthy. He's black but he's trustworthy. "He's not Arab, he's a good, decent family man." What passes for rational thought in Amerika mytifies me. Who cares what Colin Powell thinks. I don't.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

Your analysis provides a strong contrast to some of the commentators who openly admire Powell without question.

For some, it is clear that it is sufficient to judge Powell's character on the basis that he has given great performances on the neocon-enabling talk shows. He gives an excellent impression of being a thoughtful person, and no doubt he is. In contrast, like the good Germans in WW II, he chose to compromise good principles in favor of following his leader. He acted as a good shill. One of the best.

Now he his going to be rewarded with a position in the upcoming Obama Administration. Why? Aren't there other generals who were knowledgeable and who actually resigned without compromising their principles? Is it because Powell had so much face-time on the talk shows?

Are we seeing a genuine change? Or just more of the same?

[WmC]

Why would Powell insist that George Tenet sit right behind him--in full view of the camera--during the UN speech, unless he knew Tenet had been blowing smoke up his axx? Powell knew it was smoke, but like a good neocon soldier, he made the case for war, absent which it never would have occured.