Join 3,555 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


So who exactly is Colin Powell?
February 11, 2003 2:39 AM   Subscribe

So who exactly is Colin Powell? thememoryhole.org's Russ Kick investigates in this May 2001 piece.
posted by skallas (39 comments total)

 
He's the black guy.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 2:46 AM on February 11, 2003


No, the OTHER black guy.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 2:46 AM on February 11, 2003


Ooops
posted by magullo at 4:17 AM on February 11, 2003


I thought he was the drummer in Whitesnake.
posted by psmealey at 4:41 AM on February 11, 2003


Whatever credibility Powell might have been granted by the media has been squandered by the recent conversion to lying sycophant to Bush. At least in my eyes Powell's true colors are now obvious.
posted by nofundy at 4:54 AM on February 11, 2003


The other white meat.
posted by LouReedsSon at 5:38 AM on February 11, 2003


The other white meat.
and we have a weiner!
posted by quonsar at 6:33 AM on February 11, 2003


Why, that's easy -- he's just a house slave, smilin' for the massa, doin' what he's told.

Or, you know, not.

And thanks for the nearly two-year-old story written an ideologue. Very relevant to the current situation.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:41 AM on February 11, 2003


And thanks for the nearly two-year-old story written an ideologue. Very relevant to the current situation.

You know, you're right pardonyou? Powell's involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, and his deceptive testimony before Congress, and his shameful response to the My Lai massacre don't reflect on his credibility at all, not since the facts were dug up two years ago! Sheesh! I should've remembered that after two years, history gets erased, tried-and-true liars are washed white as snow and their sins cast away.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:52 AM on February 11, 2003


Nice try, but I never suggested or implied that Powell was "white as snow," or free from sin. Instead, I merely stated that it's not particularly relevant to the current situation. I think this post -- and other recent attempts to malign Powell -- are indicative of the left's desperate attempt to deflect attention from the powerful substance of Powell's presentation by trying to impugn his character. If you can't attack the message, why not attack the messenger?
posted by pardonyou? at 7:09 AM on February 11, 2003


Dude, the message is so not convincing, except to the rabid Right here in the U.S.A. No one else in the world is buying it. 80% of Americans aren't buying it.
I still don't understand, however, that if it's been demonstrated that Powell is a liar, why that's not relevant here. If he has a history of syncophantery, then it's reasonable to expect him to be a syncophant in this case too.
posted by eustacescrubb at 7:33 AM on February 11, 2003


"Dude," if by the "rabid Right" you mean the editorial staff of The New York times, and several liberal op-ed columnists, then maybe you have a point. And although I was impressed by the presentation and have never voted for anything other than a Democrat in 13 years, I must be part of the "rabid Right." Also, where do get that 80% statistic?
posted by pardonyou? at 7:54 AM on February 11, 2003


quonsar holds up a vial of the type which could contain crack cocaine.
the DEA duly declares war on george bush.

see the connection? it's as plain as the anthrax on your face.
posted by quonsar at 8:00 AM on February 11, 2003


pardonyou,

The "message" has been thoroughly discredited as well and by many. I will not waste my time rehashing the many ways the "message" was both totally wrong and in the best cases very misleading. Try reading up on it and come back so we can have a real discussion. The credibility of the messenger is fair game as well when considering the impact of the message. After all, we're not talking about a little bj here. Don't like it? Get over it.
posted by nofundy at 8:01 AM on February 11, 2003


indicative of the left's desperate attempt to deflect attention from the powerful substance of Powell's presentation

Over half of the member states of NATO are lefties? And what substance are you talking about (hint: click on my "oops" post further up?

If you can't attack the message, why not attack the messenger?

Errr, if the messenger has a proven track record of deception, why not?
posted by magullo at 8:06 AM on February 11, 2003


Yes, you are right. Iraq has disarmed. It is not being deceptive. It is fully cooperating. It has no intention of developing chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. If it did develop such weapons, it would have no intention of using them. Evidence to the contrary is a facade built by the "President" of the United States and his prevaricating henchmen.

quonsar has a point, too -- I'm giving undue credit to Powell's claims. After all, that anthrax bit was obviously just a scare tactic. Hell, next thing you know, they'll be trying to convince us that a bunch of people could hijack airplanes and fly them into 100-story buildings! Fucking fear-mongers.

Funny how some are willing to contort themselves into a pretzel in order to label the U.S. claims "lies," and at the same time are willing to give unexamined carte blanche credibility to Hussein's claims. If you want to talk about a messenger with a "track record of deception," you might want to start with Exhibit A -- Hussein himself.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:43 AM on February 11, 2003


*pokes nose in*
Last night I watched a news report from inside the compound [found a link now, so no need to type any more]
'Journalists have visited the alleged chemical weapons site in Kurdish-held northern Iraq that US Secretary of State Colin Powell says is run by an Islamic group linked to al-Qaeda.'

The only people who think of it as a threat are the PUK, who are in control of the local area around....

Just read the link.

Another great thing I saw last night was the Korea edition of 'Holidays in the Axis of Evil'. The Northern Koreans came across as pretty relaxed people, for an oppressed mass.
It seems North Korea has made a fair amount of mileage out of defining itself against the 'bloody bad imperialist bastards'* (USA), and if they didn't have that background they might have more positive things to sing about.

BBC Four: Do you feel any optimism about the fate of North and South Korea?
BA: No. What's incredible about North and South Korea is the anti-Americanism is almost as rampant in the South as it is in the North, certainly in the younger generation. When we were there two girls were run over by an American tank and the South Koreans were convinced that the Americans did it on purpose. Thousands of people demonstrated outside the US Embassy. Both North and South live for nothing else but reunification. Both sides think that it is being blocked by the US military. I really can't see it being unified while Kim Jong-il is in power and there is an American military presence. The American and North Korean soldiers hate each other too much. But the Americans have said that even if there was reunification the troops would stay there anyway because it offers access via land to Russia and China so strategically it's very important.

* This is a quote from the programme, not a troll ; )
posted by asok at 8:43 AM on February 11, 2003


pardonyou? - 'Iraq has disarmed. It is not being deceptive. It is fully cooperating. It has no intention of developing chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. If it did develop such weapons, it would have no intention of using them.'

12 years of almost constant bombing by the US/UK and they haven't kept this under conrol? They need better intel! I don't feel any more threat from Iraq now than I did in 1995, say.

- 'that anthrax bit was obviously just a scare tactic'

Designed to scare the population of the US, where anthrax attacks go unpunished. Tends not to work on the rest of the world so well.

-' unexamined carte blanche credibility to Hussein's claims'

Politians lie, independent of ideology. It even happened to Saddam Hussein:
' He asks the American ambassador what the US will do if he invades Kuwait. She makes a phone call, comes back and tells him, famously, "Nothing."'
posted by asok at 9:24 AM on February 11, 2003


I still like Colin Powell, but I was disapointed to learn of the plagarism and out-of-date nature of his speech to the UN. However he just has that thing that makes you trust him. Personally I am glad he is there, he seems to be the least ideological of Bush's people. He may not have the cleanest record, but who does?
posted by cell divide at 9:34 AM on February 11, 2003


The central question of this FPP link seems to be should we trust Colin Powell?

Some would say not, despite the glowing accolades he's received from the mainstream press. From My Lai to Iran-Contra to Desert Storm the man has a less than stellar history when it comes to prevaricating in favor of his own advancement. Has the person who is admittedly the most trusted person of the Junior Administration once again capitulated for his own self-interest?
posted by nofundy at 9:39 AM on February 11, 2003


I should've remembered that after two years, history gets erased, tried-and-true liars are washed white as snow and their sins cast away.

how long ago was that whole election stealing thing again?

If you want to talk about a messenger with a "track record of deception," you might want to start with Exhibit A -- Hussein himself.

therefore, he and a couple thousand of his people must die!

anyways, does anyone have any idea when we're gonna get some good guys in the white house?
posted by mcsweetie at 9:53 AM on February 11, 2003


'Journalists have visited the alleged chemical weapons site in Kurdish-held northern Iraq that US Secretary of State Colin Powell says is run by an Islamic group linked to al-Qaeda.'

Here's another article with more details of the camp. Keep in mind that the existence of this camp was reported last August, so there has been plenty of time for any biological or chemical materials to have been relocated.
posted by homunculus at 10:00 AM on February 11, 2003


Powell Ties 'bin Laden' Message to Iraq
posted by homunculus at 10:10 AM on February 11, 2003


I have one question about Colin Powell. Why doesn't he pronounce his name "Koh-lin", with a short o, as its meant to be???
posted by Orange Goblin at 10:20 AM on February 11, 2003


Ok I heard about Powell discussing the reported Osama Bin Laden message claiming ties with Iraq and Colin Powell drawing attention to it is really creeping me out. If you paid attention to the last screed from OBL you would know that it is his stated intention to start world war III around israel and the US (christian and jewish crusaders) against all of the islamic world.

So for Powell to draw attention and credibility to OBL's blatant attempt to manufacture such a reality could be an incredible propaganda alliance between the current administration who wants the war for their own reasons, with Osama Bin Laden, who wants the war for his own reason.
posted by mikojava at 10:23 AM on February 11, 2003


Powell said he read a transcript of "what bin Laden — or who we believe to be bin Laden" will be saying on the Al-Jazeera Arab satellite station later Tuesday, "where once again he speaks to the people of Iraq and talks about their struggle and how he is in partnership with Iraq."

"This nexus between terrorists and states that are developing weapons of mass destruction can no longer be looked away from and ignored," Powell told the Senate Budget Committee.

But Al-Jazeera chief editor Ibrahim Hilal told The Associated Press his station has no such tape.


I bet Colin's next step is to argue that the absence of the tape is actually proof of its existence, since it means the Iraqis have stolen it. He'll have a satellite photo of a guy running in the desert holding something squarish and book-sized.
"Our experts have determined that this is an Iraqi operative running from Saudi Arabia to Iraq with the stolen tape."
posted by eustacescrubb at 10:47 AM on February 11, 2003


eustacescrubb: Dude, the message is so not convincing, except to the rabid Right here in the U.S.A.
NYT: The president will take us to war with support — often, I admit, equivocal and patronizing in tone — from quite a few members of the East Coast liberal media cabal. The I-Can't-Believe-I'm-a-Hawk Club includes op-ed regulars at this newspaper and The Washington Post, the editors of The New Yorker, The New Republic and Slate, columnists in Time and Newsweek.

Historians, analysts, pollsters and members of Congress contacted by the Los Angeles Times also gave Powell rave reviews. "A tour de force," pronounced Yale University presidential historian Fred Greenstein.

Canada: Foreign Minister Bill Graham said Colin Powell set out a "convincing" account of Iraq's efforts to thwart the inspection process for the UN Security Council.

Mary McGrory: “I don't know how the United Nations felt about Colin Powell's "J'accuse" speech against Saddam Hussein. I can only say that he persuaded me, and I was as tough as France to convince.”

Slate: But after seeing Secretary of State Colin Powell make his case to the U.N. Security Council, Chatterbox no longer believes these two arguments outweigh the argument for toppling Saddam. Reluctantly and somewhat belatedly, Chatterbox follows Mary McGrory into what the New York Times' Bill Keller calls the "I-Can't-Believe-I'm-A-Hawk Club."

Boston Phoenix: Powell’s presentation “powerful”
I guess the "rabid right" is a lot less rabid and a lot less right than I thought.
posted by pardonyou? at 10:48 AM on February 11, 2003


Wow pardonyou, that really got under your skin, huh? So some members of the establishment media are writing hawkish columns now. To war then, to war!
posted by eustacescrubb at 11:09 AM on February 11, 2003


And now pardonyou proves for us all that the mainstream media are a bunch of lazy assed sycophantic whores. As has been stated earlier, most of Powell's "convincing" proofs have been very effectively discredited. Any comments on all the links in this thread about those?
posted by nofundy at 11:14 AM on February 11, 2003


But Al-Jazeera chief editor Ibrahim Hilal told The Associated Press his station has no such tape.

Al-Jazeera is now saying that the tape exists. Bin Laden (assuming it's him) is a predictable opportunist. Of course he will try to spin the war with Iraq as a clash of civilizations.
posted by homunculus at 11:45 AM on February 11, 2003


May 21, 2001: "Powell owns $13.3 million in AOL stock"...Feb. 11, 2003: "Powell sells AOL stock, uses proceeds to purchase a Big Mac and medium Fries".
posted by Mack Twain at 11:46 AM on February 11, 2003


Al-Jazeera is now saying that the tape exists.

Link? Linky Link?
posted by eustacescrubb at 11:51 AM on February 11, 2003


Wow pardonyou, that really got under your skin, huh? So some members of the establishment media are writing hawkish columns now.

In an effort to be even remotely consistent, you might want to re-read your statement that "Dude, the message is so not convincing, except to the rabid Right here in the U.S.A. No one else in the world is buying it. 80% of Americans aren't buying it." That's the point I was refuting. Of course, maybe in your world the New York Times is a hawkish member of the "establishment media."

Link? Linky Link?

Here you go. My treat.
posted by pardonyou? at 12:39 PM on February 11, 2003


Oops. Mistype. That was supposed to be: That's the point I was refuting. Of course, maybe in your world the New York Times is a hawkish member of the "establishment media rabid Right."
posted by pardonyou? at 12:41 PM on February 11, 2003


Here you go. My treat.

Why thank you. Anyone have a complete transcript? Yahoo hardly provides the details. Where does bin Laden say he's working for/with Iraq/Hussein? All Yahoo offers is a mix of solidarity statements and religious stuff.


maybe in your world the New York Times is a hawkish member of the "establishment media rabid Right."

Not as a whole, but they employ members of the rabid Right as columnists.
posted by eustacescrubb at 1:15 PM on February 11, 2003


pardonyou, maybe you can help me address some questions that are bothering me.

What are we supposed to base our evaluations of Powell's evidence on, other than his credibility? Does being elected to a position make you above reproach? Are his past actions no longer indicators of future performance? Do we want someone who has a "shoot first and ask" questions later policy as the head of foreign relations?

Also, where is the hard proof that Iraq is a threat to our country (WMD, Terrorist, Iraqi Macarena, whatever)?

In another thread Slithy_Tove told me that our current plans to attack are "[...] based on spy plane photos and intercepted radio transmissions"

None of which we've seen or heard. The problem here is that every piece of verifiable evidence that's been presented has been flawed, misrepresented, or fabricated. However every time something new is debunked, we're supposed to believe that the "real evidence" is out there, and we should just place faith in our leaders?

Do you seriously want the president to have the ability to go to war without presenting strong proof to the people of the United States? Is it wrong to question why this target? Why now? Is it wrong to expect truthful and logical explanations to those questions?
posted by betaray at 2:28 PM on February 11, 2003


Anyone have a complete transcript?

Here it is.
posted by homunculus at 5:33 PM on February 11, 2003


Now it all makes sense.
posted by homunculus at 5:35 PM on February 11, 2003


I wonder if Bush will now clarify his position on bin Laden.
posted by homunculus at 5:47 PM on February 11, 2003


« Older Is the currency that oil is denominated in the rea...  |  Photobloggies... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments