Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Powell's former chief of staff on Iraq intel: 'I participated in a hoax'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 11:19 PM
Original message
Powell's former chief of staff on Iraq intel: 'I participated in a hoax'

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Powells_former_chief_of_staff_on_0205.html

Powell's former chief of staff on Iraq intel: 'I participated in a hoax'


In an interview that aired on PBS on Friday, Feb. 3, Colin Powell's former chief of staff claimed that the speech Powell made before the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003, laying out a case for war with Iraq, included falsehoods of which Powell had never been made aware. He said, "My participation in that presentation at the UN constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council."

Colonel (ret.) Lawrence Wilkerson, a veteran of the Vietnam War, served for many years as Powell's consultant and advisor. He stated in the interview that he was "intimately involved in the preparation of Secretary Powell for his five February 2003 presentation at the UN Security Council" and that neither CIA Director George Tenent nor the CIA analysts involved in furnishing Powell with the information on mobile biological laboratories that he would use in his speech gave any indication that there were disputes about the reliability of the informants who had supplied this information.

Wilkerson still sees this lapse as the result of a profound intelligence failure, saying, "I have to believe that. Otherwise I have to believe some rather nefarious things about some fairly highly placed people in the intelligence community and perhaps elsewhere."

Wilkerson also agreed with the interviewer that Vice President Cheney's frequent trips to the CIA would inevitably have brought "undue influence" on the agency. When asked if Cheney was "the kind of guy who could lean on somebody" he responded, "Absolutely. And be just as quiet and taciturn about it as-- he-- as he leaned on 'em. As he leaned on the Congress recently-- in the-- torture issue."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
54anickel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. Didn't this come out last year? I'm having deja vu on that "lowest point
in my career" quote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peekaloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yes but I don't think it got too much attention TV- wise.
It's a good thing someone's speaking out but to call a war that has killed thousands the result of a "hoax" is criminal unto itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. I think Powell himself was quoted as saying the same thing. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 03:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. Yes--he gave a speech in October of last year. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tin Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. A hoax? More like a conspriracy to deceive...
Wilkerson still sees this lapse as the result of a profound intelligence failure, saying, "I have to believe that. Otherwise I have to believe some rather nefarious things about some fairly highly placed people in the intelligence community and perhaps elsewhere."

...You mean like the two nefarious guys pictured below?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mirandapriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Yes, I noticed the word "hoax" gets used for very significant
events lately. It sort of trivializes. Don't know if it's intentional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #2
17. Is that the Crusader of the Month Medal?
might as well be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
23. Yes, like those two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. Check out this counterpunch article/ DU thread from 01/26/06
Edited on Sun Feb-05-06 11:43 PM by stop the bleeding
Check my post on # 10 of the thread all is highlighted about certain State department officials take on things including people that worked closely with Powell. Could this guy be one of the officials in the article?

Look at what language these guys used by what is highlighted in post.

Next take the overall article into context doesn't this latest Rawstory article if this Dude is one of Leopold's sources in the Counterpunch article then wouldn't this article have more credibility and therefore more of an impact?

Please read article, post# 10 and thread.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=245067#245986


http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold01262006.html



on edit:

Makes the Conspiracy angle that much more enticing! Yum Yum!!

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 03:03 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. stb, that very well could be Wilkerson
who is one of Leopold's sources. Wilkerson has obviously been very vocal, but it might have been necessary for him to remain anonymous in that article because it was a discussion related to Fitzgerald's ongoing investigation (Leopold states in the article, "The State Department officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because some of the information they discussed is still classified...")

Here's a piece written by Wilkerson last October. It's pretty much the same info he's saying now, and that he said during that interview on PBS's NOW program Friday 2/3/06:

The White House cabal
By Lawrence B. Wilkerson, LAWRENCE B. WILKERSON served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell from 2002 to 2005.


IN PRESIDENT BUSH'S first term, some of the most important decisions about U.S. national security — including vital decisions about postwar Iraq — were made by a secretive, little-known cabal. It was made up of a very small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

~snip~

But it's absolutely true. I believe that the decisions of this cabal were sometimes made with the full and witting support of the president and sometimes with something less. More often than not, then-national security advisor Condoleezza Rice was simply steamrolled by this cabal.

Its insular and secret workings were efficient and swift — not unlike the decision-making one would associate more with a dictatorship than a democracy. This furtive process was camouflaged neatly by the dysfunction and inefficiency of the formal decision-making process, where decisions, if they were reached at all, had to wend their way through the bureaucracy, with its dissenters, obstructionists and "guardians of the turf."

~snip~

I watched these dual decision-making processes operate for four years at the State Department. As chief of staff for 27 months, I had a door adjoining the secretary of State's office. I read virtually every document he read. I read the intelligence briefings and spoke daily with people from all across government.

I knew that what I was observing was not what Congress intended when it passed the 1947 National Security Act. The law created the National Security Council — consisting of the president, vice president and the secretaries of State and Defense — to make sure the nation's vital national security decisions were thoroughly vetted. The NSC has often been expanded, depending on the president in office, to include the CIA director, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Treasury secretary and others, and it has accumulated a staff of sometimes more than 100 people.

But many of the most crucial decisions from 2001 to 2005 were not made within the traditional NSC process.


cont'd here: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-wilkerson25oct25,1,2824203.story


From Wikipedia:

Wilkerson was responsible for the one-week review of information from the Central Intelligence Agency that was used to prepare Powell for his February 2003 presentation to the United Nations Security Council. His failure to realize that the evidence was faulty has been blamed on the limited time he had to review the data. The subsequent developments led Wilkerson to become disillusioned: "Combine the detainee abuse issue with the ineptitude of post-invasion planning for Iraq, wrap both in this blanket of secretive decision-making . . . and you get the overall reason for my speaking out."(Breaking Ranks, Washington Post, 19 January 2006)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wilkerson#_note-Breaking

And here's the interview with Wilkerson in the WaPo, January 19, 2006 that was cited in the above-noted Wiki comment:


~snip~

Wilkerson, as it turned out, became the point man for making the case for preemptive war against Hussein. He put together the task force that, during a week at CIA headquarters, vetted all the intelligence reports used for Powell's famous pro-war presentation in February 2003 to the Security Council, where he brandished a vial of fake anthrax, played excerpts of intercepted Iraqi military chatter, and warned of mobile bioweapon "factories" and other doomsday machines, none of which actually existed.

How did it happen?

"Larry thought they had cleaned out the obvious garbage, but it turned out there was more," says James A. Kelly, a former assistant secretary of state who's known Wilkerson for 20 years. "Larry felt that he let down the secretary, but the job was so big in cleaning out the misinformation."

Wilkerson won't say outright that he and Powell were deliberately snowed by intelligence reports tailored to fit a political push for war, but he has edged closer to that view, noting, "I've begun to wonder." It turns out that the administration relied on fabricators' claims about Hussein's illusory WMD programs and, in one case, an al Qaeda suspect whom the CIA turned over to alleged torturers in Egypt.

"I kick myself in the ass," Wilkerson says. "How did we ever get to that place?"

The speech tarnished Powell's gold-plated reputation, but he has never publicly pointed a finger at then-CIA Director George Tenet or the White House.

"Nothing was spun to me," Powell told David Frost in a BBC television interview last month. "What really upset me more than anything else was that there were people in the intelligence community that had doubts about some of this sourcing, but those doubts never surfaced up to us."

Why didn't the doubts reach Powell? Perhaps because then he wouldn't have given the speech at all?

"That's right," Wilkerson says, shooting a hard, solemn stare across the restaurant table. "That's right."

He also says, "I am prepared to entertain the idea that they used him."

~snip~


cont'd here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011802607.html

As to your question: "...wouldn't this article have more credibility and therefore more of an impact?"

Seems if Wilkerson is one of the The State Department officials who Fitzgerald interviewed, then Fitzgerald is getting an earful, no doubt.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 03:37 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Powell used the aluminum tubes story in his speech to the UN
Edited on Mon Feb-06-06 03:39 AM by Garbo 2004
as I recall. There were articles in the mainstream corporate media for months before his speech indicating that scientists in the gov't thought it was baloney and why they were not appropriate for the uses the Administration claimed. I think the IAEA also publicly said so at least a month before Powell's speech. Odd that Powell and apparently Wilkerson too evidently didn't know about any of that very public discussion.

Wilkerson may be sincere although still somewhat uh, unenlightened about the folks he worked for. But Powell's been shoveling face saving BS on the matter IMO and still not coming clean. He and Tenet were instrumental in providing info to the Congress before the votes on the IWR. They prewsented the aluminum tubes and Niger yellowcake stories as solid info to the Congress. Which is interesting considering that the State Department's own staff the previous year had already said the Niger yellowcake story was BS. Guess Powell didn't know about his own dept's intel reports either?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Powell and his aids fought the WHIG when Powell was preparing
his speech for the UN - see http://cooperativeresearch.org/ for further deatails on this - I can post the summary later but it is here under Iraq War Timeline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. Otherwise I have to believe some rather nefarious things about some fairly
highly placed people in the intelligence community and perhaps elsewhere."

So you'd rather stay with your delusion? More comfortable than the truth, huh? Thanks for nothing, dip shit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-05-06 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
7. fraud would be a better term....
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
9. prison time for Cheney would not be enough ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
10. Powell who has been politically ruined by Bush & Cheney
then left to rot ... is scrambling to get his credibility back...

but its too late...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. I never trusted Powell when he gave the speech before the UN...

there was something about his presentation of the evidence, and it seemed like he had betrayed those who felt that he was the voice of moderation to the Administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unmarked Poster Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. "Voice of moderation"
In some ways, people like Powell and McCain are potentially more dangerous than Bush, Cheney, Condi and Rummy, since they put a respectable face on extreme policies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 01:48 AM
Response to Original message
11. It's Time To Start Believing!
Otherwise I have to believe some rather nefarious things about some fairly highly placed people in the intelligence community and perhaps elsewhere.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 05:43 AM
Response to Original message
16. Wilkerson: But suppose we get a dumb man?
You can read the transcript to NOW via this link:
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/wilkerson.html

http://www.pbs.org/now/

I thought this dialog at the end was interesting as he continues on the dangers of a dictatorship by insinuating Bush* is a dumb strongman that has WH lawyers who are a-historically interpreting the law.

LAWRENCE WILKERSON: Ferdinand Eberstadt now, remember that history. Ferdinand Eberstadt writes to Walter Lippmann and he write-- he writes I believe in 1953 if I recall Walter Lippmann being-- that columnist who didn't mind commenting on anything. And Ferdinand says to Lippmann, "I understand that this may be a more effective process, that a few men making a decision maybe a more effective process, a secretive process may be very efficient." But suppose we get a dumb man?

Suppose we get people who can't make good decisions as FDR was pretty good at. I'm worried and I would rather have the discussion and debate in the process we've designed than I would a dictate from a dumb strongman. And that dumb strongman is his felicitous phrase.

DAVID BRANCACCIO: You're worried that we not have come to that but that we're heading down this path of--

LAWRENCE WILKERSON: Oh I think it's come to that. I think we've had some decisions at this administration that were more or less dictates. We've had a decision that the Constitution as read by Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and a few other very selected administration lawyers doesn't pertain the way it has pertained for 200-plus years. A very ahistorical reading of the Constitution.

And these people marshal such stellar lights as-- Alexander Hamilton. They haven't even read Federalist Six. I'm sure they haven't. Where Alexander Hamilton lays down his markers about the dangers of a dictate-issuing chief executive. This is not the way America was intended to be run by its founders and it is not the interpretation of the Constitution that any of the founders as far as I read the Federalist Papers and other discussions about their views would have subscribed to. This is an interpretation of the constitution that is outlandish and as I said, clearly ahistorical.

DAVID BRANCACCIO: And if the system were shown to work that might be one thing. But-- in the case of recent US for--

LAWRENCE WILKERSON: Dictatorships work on occasion. You're right. Dictatorships do work but I-- I'm like Ferdinand Eberstadt. I'd prefer to see the squabble of democracy to the efficiency of dictators.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-06-06 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Thanks for the link - I almost almost always miss NOW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I_Make_Mistakes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 03:38 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. I personally think a key point in this discussion was when
it was said that Powell required Tenent to be in camera shot of him (not sure the direct term used) during his testimony at the UN. This showed that Powell was CYA'ing and if you look at the NOW footage, George's body language showed it all. You could see that he was uncomfortable with what Powell was saying.

I am not justifying what Powell did, just that, he knew there was a problem, and tried to tie Tenent to it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msgadget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-07-06 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
22. Read the PBS transcript and what he says about
Edited on Tue Feb-07-06 04:53 PM by msgadget
the 'historic' interpretation of the constitution. Taken along with references to decisions made outside the oval office and dictatorships... makes me wonder why this guy isn't being used more, why he's being interviewed by seemingly everyone except the politicians who could use this information right this very minute to put limits on a strongman...

Edited to add PBS link! http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/wilkerson.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC