Former aide: Powell WMD speech 'lowest point in my life'

George Tenet's Responsibility Meltdown
Steven G. Brant
08.22.2005
George Tenet's Responsibility Meltdown

I was watching "Dead Wrong: Inside an Intelligence Meltdown" on CNN Sunday night and was struck by one of the truths that was revisited in this pretty good report. I'm referring to the very strange mental barrier "truth" on display when George Tenet talked about discussing his role in presenting intelligence information to Bush and his team during meetings at The White House in the run up to the Iraq War.

I'll sum it up for you here...(I'll look for a transcript of the Senate hearings later)

Tenet said he presented his WMD intelligence information, including that there was disagreement within

the intelligence community regarding whether WMDs existed or not, but he NEVER COMMENTED DURING THESE MEETINGS on what he knew the administration was saying publicly about WMDs to the American people. Did he ever say to President Bush "You, Condi, and Dick are talking publicly as if there's no debate going on, while you know that there is."??? No.

To me this is as if you've been hired to forecast the weather, and all you say is "The wind is blowing at 20 miles per hour today and will be blowing at 120 miles per hour tomorrow." but you never say "There's a danger coming tomorrow. You should take precautions to make sure you don't die."

What I learned...or was reminded of, because I probably heard all this when it first came out...is that George Tenet felt his job was to present the facts but NOT to add any commentary regarding the world in which those facts existed. "After all," (and now I'm paraphrasing what Tenet said in the Senate hearing) "such comments would get into making policy. And that wasn't my job."

RESPONSIBILITY MELTDOWN. It's fascinating to see how people can compartmentalize their thinking at the highest level of our government. This is the ultimate "Hey, it's not my job." moment.

The sad thing for me personally is that, during the 15 years I spent working for the government, I once wrote a memo entitled "What we need to do to keep the Williamsburg Bridge from falling down." I did this to bring to the attention of the higher-ups in the agency (the NYC Department of Transportation) the fact that things weren't being done fast enough to make sure a renovation contract one of NYC's huge East River bridges got let in time. And I stepped outside my normal personna in writing such a dramatically titled memo. But I felt I needed to get people's attention.

Oh well. I guess George Tenet and I have different opinions about what it means to work for the government.

No, Mr. Tenet. Your job wasn't to make policy. But as an American citizen working at the highest reaches of our government, I think your "job" also wasn't to watch people about to make a terrible mistake (or already making terrible mistakes) AND JUST LET THEM DO THAT AS IF YOU WERE SOME CHILD IN A ROOM FULL OF ADULTS WHO DIDN'T FEEL HE HAD PERMISSION TO SPEAK.

Oh...and then, of course, George Tenet went on to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom

What a crazy "Alice Through The Looking Glass" moment that was!!!

They say there are a number of little things that - if any one of them had happened differently - would have prevented the Titanic from hitting that iceberg. Well, George Tenet choosing to keep his mouth shut is one of a number of things that - if they had happened differently - would have prevented the American people from being misled into this war.

Personally, I am ashamed that George Tenet and I both share the title "former government employee". (Oh, and for the record I worked for the Federal government too - the Army Corps of Engineers - not just the City of New York. I met a lot of hard working and responsible people during my years in those two agencies. And the higher ups listened to what I wrote in that memo. We did prevent the Williamsburg Bridge from falling down.)

bm

Colin Powell: Still Craven after All These Years
Colin Powell: Still Craven after All These Years
By Norman Solomon
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Wednesday 30 November 2005

Newspapers across the United States and beyond told readers Wednesday about sensational new statements by a former top assistant to Colin Powell when he was secretary of state. After interviewing Lawrence Wilkerson, the Associated Press reported he "said that wrongheaded ideas for the handling of foreign detainees after September 11 arose from a coterie of White House and Pentagon aides who argued that 'the president of the United States is all-powerful,' and that the Geneva Conventions were irrelevant."

AP added: "Wilkerson blamed Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and like-minded aides. Wilkerson said that Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror assaults, because 'otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard.'"

Such strong words are headline grabbers when they come from someone widely assumed to be speaking Powell's mind. And as a Powell surrogate, Wilkerson is certainly on a tear this week, speaking some truth about power. But there are a few big problems with his zeal to recast the public record: (1) Wilkerson should have spoken up years ago. (2) His current statements, for the most part, are foggy. (3) The criticisms seem to stem largely from tactical critiques and image concerns rather than moral objections. (4) Powell is still too much of a cagey opportunist to speak out himself.

Appearing on the BBC's "Today" program Tuesday, Wilkerson said: "You begin to wonder was this intelligence spun? Was it politicized? Was it cherry-picked? Did, in fact, the American people get fooled? I am beginning to have my concerns."

So Wilkerson, who was Powell's chief of staff from 2002 till early this year, has started to "wonder" whether the intelligence was spun, politicized and cherry-picked. At the end of November 2005, he was "beginning" to have "concerns."

"Beginning to have my concerns" is a phrase that aptly describes the Colin Powell approach.

Overall, appearances remain key. And so, Wilkerson included this anecdote in his AP interview: "Powell raised frequent and loud objections, his former aide said, once yelling into a telephone at Rumsfeld: 'Donald, don't you understand what you are doing to our image?'"

Now there's a transcendent reason to begin to have concerns: torturing prisoners is bad for "our image."

Rest assured that if the war had gone well by Washington's lights, we'd be hearing none of this from Powell's surrogate. The war has gone bad, from elite vantage points, not because of the official lies and the unrelenting carnage but because military victory has eluded the US government in Iraq. And with President Bush's poll numbers tanking, and Dick Cheney's even worse, it's time for some "moderate" sharks to carefully circle for some score-settling and preening.

In its account of Wilkerson's BBC appearance, the British Guardian newspaper reported Wednesday: "Asked whether the vice president was guilty of a war crime, Mr. Wilkerson replied: 'Well, that's an interesting question - it was certainly a domestic crime to advocate terror and I would suspect that it is ... an international crime as well.' In the context of other remarks it appeared he was using the word 'terror' to apply to the systematic abuse of prisoners."

Strong stuff, especially since it's obvious that Wilkerson is channeling Powell with those statements. But Powell was a team player and a very effective front man for the administration that was doing all that politicizing and cherry-picking - and then proceeding with the policies that Wilkerson now seeks to pin on Cheney as possible war crimes.

White House war makers deftly hyped Powell's "moderate" credibility while the Washington press corps lauded his supposed integrity. Powell was the crucial point man for giving "diplomatic" cover to the Iraq invasion fixation of Bush and Cheney. So, typically, Powell proclaimed three weeks into 2003: "If the United Nations is going to be relevant, it has to take a firm stand."

When Powell made his dramatic presentation to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, he fudged, exaggerated and concocted, often presenting deceptions as certainties. Along the way, he played fast and loose with translations of phone intercepts to make them seem more incriminating. And, as researchers at the media watch group FAIR (where I'm an associate) pointed out, "Powell relied heavily on the disclosure of Iraq's pre-war unconventional weapons programs by defector Hussein Kamel, without noting that Kamel had also said that all those weapons had been destroyed." But the secretary of state wowed US journalists.

Powell's televised UN speech exuded great confidence and authoritative judgment. But he owed much of his touted credibility to the fact that he had long functioned inside a media bubble shielding him from direct challenge. It might puzzle an American to read later, in a book compiled by the London-based Guardian that Powell's much-ballyhooed speech went over like a lead balloon. "The presentation was long on assertion and muffled taped phone calls, but short on killer facts," the book said. "It fell flat."

Fell flat? Well it did in Britain, where a portion of the mainstream press immediately set about engaging in vigorous journalism that ripped apart many of Powell's assertions within days. But not on the western side of the Atlantic, where Powell's star turn at the United Nations elicited an outpouring of media adulation. In the process of deference to Powell, many liberals were among the swooners.

In her Washington Post column the morning after Powell spoke, Mary McGrory proclaimed that "he persuaded me." She wrote: "The cumulative effect was stunning." And McGrory, a seasoned and dovish political observer, concluded: "I'm not ready for war yet. But Colin Powell has convinced me that it might be the only way to stop a fiend, and that if we do go, there is reason."

In the same edition, Post columnist Richard Cohen shared his insight that Powell was utterly convincing: "The evidence he presented to the United Nations - some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail - had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool - or possibly a Frenchman - could conclude otherwise."

Inches away, Post readers found Jim Hoagland's column with this lead: "Colin Powell did more than present the world with a convincing and detailed X-ray of Iraq's secret weapons and terrorism programs yesterday. He also exposed the enduring bad faith of several key members of the UN Security Council when it comes to Iraq and its 'web of lies,' in Powell's phrase." Hoagland's closing words sought to banish doubt: "To continue to say that the Bush administration has not made its case, you must now believe that Colin Powell lied in the most serious statement he will ever make, or was taken in by manufactured evidence. I don't believe that. Today, neither should you."

On the opposite page the morning after Powell's momentous UN speech, a Washington Post editorial was figuratively on the same page as the Post columnists. Under the headline "Irrefutable," the newspaper laid down its line for rationality: "After Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction."

Also smitten was the editorial board of the most influential US newspaper leaning against the push for war. Hours after Powell finished his UN snow job, the New York Times published an editorial with a mollified tone - declaring that he "presented the United Nations and a global television audience yesterday with the most powerful case to date that Saddam Hussein stands in defiance of Security Council resolutions and has no intention of revealing or surrendering whatever unconventional weapons he may have."

By sending Powell to address the Security Council, the Times claimed, President Bush "showed a wise concern for international opinion." And the paper contended that "Mr. Powell's presentation was all the more convincing because he dispensed with apocalyptic invocations of a struggle of good and evil and focused on shaping a sober, factual case against Mr. Hussein's regime."

Later, in mid-September 2003, straining to justify Washington's refusal to let go of the occupation of Iraq, Colin Powell used the language of a venture capitalist: "Since the United States and its coalition partners have invested a great deal of political capital, as well as financial resources, as well as the lives of our young men and women - and we have a large force there now - we can't be expected to suddenly just step aside."

Now, after so much clear evidence has emerged to discredit the entire US war effort, Colin Powell still can't bring himself to stand up and account for his crucial role. Instead, he's leaving it to a former aide to pin blame on those who remain at the top of the Bush administration. But Powell was an integral part of the war propaganda machinery. And we can hardly expect the same media outlets that puffed him up at crucial times to now scrutinize their mutual history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article includes an excerpt from Norman Solomon's new book War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. For information, go to: WarMadeEasy.com.

So THAT's how Craven did so well with his predictions -- he's actually Colin Powell!

Soz


You are so baaaad!

BBB