Do you refer to Powell's self-absolving claim of silence from lower-ranking CIA officials, or do you rely on another source for their silence? *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
Three truths: your truth, my truth and the truth.
Even so, whether officials kept quiet, or alternatively, they did speak up but were simply by-passed or ignored (e.g. Joseph Wilson), both results from bad policy, put mildly. That's the main drive of my point: the responsibility for such policy lies at the feet of Rumsfeld. Correct me when I'm wrong, but I thought Powell as Secretary of State had very little to no involvement with the CIA. Cards on the table: I suspect he has been at least partly duped by Rumsfeld & co.
Colin Powell lied again last night. He very well knows that it was the White House who kicked back the proper research, not CIA underlings.
Furthermore, Powell not only made a case for WMD, but at the UN he cited a document written by a grad student from Monterey that was a complete pile of horseshit. This was a masters thesis published in a journal run by the NeoCons. The US Sec of State got up in front of the UN and cited a 24 year old dreaming of WMDs who had never been to Iraq.
Not only is Powell a liar, but he was incompetent.
The most bizarre thing about Powell's characterisation of what he did at the CIA before presenting the evidence to the UN is that no one asked him why he didn't do that a year earlier: after all, he was Secretary of State, making policy (beating the drums of war internationally) based on the same intel!
This was a political decision, not stupidity or being duped or incompetence. He too was looking for evidence to fit the policy (but evidence sounding convincing enough for the international community), not the truth. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
I'm not that surprised at that. If Powell wanted information from the CIA, he had people to get that for him. (Whether they did correctly is another question.) But for a big, deciding speech at the UN, you don't want to rely on underlings and the big boss comes over himself. Makes perfect sense to me. He would have been ridiculed even more if he hadn´t come then.
I won´t pass judgement on the man just yet, though. If the UN speech was purely political and he knew the information was flawed, it damages his integrity. If it was because not all the intel reached him correctly, it undermines his competence. It will always reflect bad on him.
Coming to think of that, no wonder he finds it a blot on his reputation...
It wasn't his first big, deciding speech at the UN. There was a certain Resolution 1441. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
