In honor of the 5-year anniversary of the Iraq War, PBS'
Frontline presented a fantastic 2- part special on the issue this past Monday and Tuesday. It is now available in it's entirety online along with interview transcripts from senior officials, a video timeline of the war, and battlefield stories from soldiers.
Bush's War
posted by auralcoral
on Mar 26, 2008 -
100 comments
In an interview with American ABC TV news to be broadcast on Friday (US time), Colin Powell , former Secretary of State, describes
his speech to the UN Security Council on Iraq's WMD capabilities as
"a blot" on his record. "I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and (it) will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now," [Powell] said. Finally, some recognition of this fact, albeit two years too late.
posted by Effigy2000
on Sep 8, 2005 -
61 comments
The shift from Colin Powell to Condoleeza Rice at the State Department could have important implications for the future of American foreign policy. Some of the commonalities and differences between them are revealed in
Powell's essay, and
Rice's essay. (via Foreign Affairs)
posted by semmi
on Jan 19, 2005 -
14 comments
The United States has lost Iraq. "Even Secretary of State Colin Powell, a former general who stays in touch with the Joint Chiefs, has acknowledged [the insurgents winning] privately to friends in recent weeks. The insurgents have effectively created a reign of terror throughout the country, killing thousands, driving Iraqi elites and technocrats into exile and scaring foreigners out."
posted by four panels
on Oct 31, 2004 -
29 comments
In policy reversal, US signals possible acceptance of theocracy in Iraq Bringing democracy to the area...Ladies: do we have some surprises in store for you. Is Iran to be the model? "The United States signaled its readiness to put up with an Islamic theocracy in future sovereign Iraq, with Secretary of State Colin Powell saying the US administration "will have to accept" any government created as a result of free and fair elections there. ..."
posted by Postroad
on May 16, 2004 -
25 comments
Now
GQ magazine isn't one I'd normally turn to—for anything, really, let alone a serious story such as this. But a writer has interviewed Colin Powell, Condi Rice, various Pentagon insiders and some unnamed friends of Powell, and they all (save Condi, whom one of the GQ writer's sources calls "a jerk") agree:
Colin's tired.
posted by emelenjr
on May 4, 2004 -
18 comments
Breaking the silence Last night ITV1 in the UK ran a documentary that is unlikely to be shown in the USA. It is by a respected journalist called John Pilger and amongst other tidbits it shows Colin Powell saying in 1991 that Iraq poses no threat and also Condoleeza Rice confirming the same thing. It also quotes some US officials that the current bunch who seem to be running US foreign policy were known during the administration of Bush senior as "the crazies". Plus much more.
posted by donfactor
on Sep 23, 2003 -
101 comments
Dissent in the ranks. US Secretary of State Colin Powell was under persistent pressure from the Pentagon and White House to include questionable intelligence in his report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction he delivered at the United Nations last February, source:
US News and World Report Magazine.
According to the report, the draft contained such questionable material that Powell lost his temper, throwing several pages in the air and declaring,
"I'm not reading this. This is bullshit."
posted by CrazyJub
on May 31, 2003 -
76 comments
Did Bush know? An article in today's New York Times (link to mirrored site with no reg. req.) pieces together data that the author claims proves that Bush and his inner circle were well-aware that they were using false "evidence" of Iraqi WMD. Sy Hersh from the
New Yorker is also
chiming in, as is Salon's
Joe Connason and
Katha Pollitt of
The Nation. A pretty decent subsection of media is finally descending on this story. If Bush or Powell or Rumsfeld are proven to have been knowingly deceitful, will the American public be even half as angry as the rest of the world?
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly
on May 6, 2003 -
59 comments
Colin Powell and the Marketing of Uncle Sam is an idiosyncratic rant by Afnan Fatani, professor of stylistics at King Abdul Aziz University, in the English-language Saudi journal
Arab News, arguing the sinister implications of Colin Powell's employment of advertising experts to put the American message to the world. Starting with Nelson Mandela's
recent comments, among them that the U.S. is disregarding the U.N. because its leader, Kofi Annan, is black, Prof. Fatani achieves some rhetorical fireworks from the observation that "Uncle Ben is not Uncle Sam."
During the days of slavery in America, white men discovered the powerful singing voices of their black slaves. Today, judging from the sleek performance of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, American leaders have apparently discovered and successfully utilized the articulate skills of their black citizens. Too bad the message these black politicians are promoting is Zionist war and destruction, and not Christian peace and goodwill. Too bad that Powell and the Bush administration have between them tainted the white wholesome goodness of Uncle Ben’s Rice.
According to a December 2002 story in
Salon, Powell had
said, upon hiring ad mogul Charlotte Beers at State, "Hey, she got
me to buy Uncle Ben's rice."
Interestingly,
Richard Lyons posted an op-ed based on a very similar conceit in February 2002 — though without the bizarre racial overtones. Didn't German soldiers taunt black GIs with the fact of their second-class citizenship during WWII?
Stylistic it is, a mishmash of apocalyptic scriptural interpretation and Internet antiwar rhetoric. Fellow Netizens, I give you our Saudi allies on this, 12 Muharram 1424, the eve of war.
posted by hairyeyeball
on Mar 15, 2003 -
14 comments
War as national therapy- revisiting the Gulf War: (scroll down 5 paragraphs to "Powell and the Persian Gulf War")
Some 100,000 retreating Iraqi troops were incinerated, blown to bits, etc. (Schwarzkopf's estimate) with unexpectedly light US casualties (383 from all causes). “Even in Vietnam I didn’t see anything like this.
It’s pathetic.“ said Major Bob Nugent, Army intelligence officer. But the stunning victory - and the ensuing US euphoria - were almost sabatoged by a Russian peace plan....
"The President's problem was how to say no to Gorbachev without appearing to throw away a chance
for peace"(wrote Colin Powell in
American Journey) “We have to have a war,” Bush told
his inner circle of Secretary of State James Baker, national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and Powell" (narrates Bob Woodward)...."Fear of a peace deal at the Bush White House [wrote columnists Evans and Novak] had less to do with oil, Israel or Iraqi expansionism than with the bitter legacy of a lost war. 'This is the chance to get rid of the Vietnam Syndrome,' one senior aide told us."
Peace threatened, but Colin Powell had a plan......
posted by troutfishing
on Feb 16, 2003 -
31 comments
powell flip flop [via rc3]
on top of citing flimsy, plagiarized, out of date reports as evidence against iraq. powell cant make up his mind if osama is in cahoots with iraq. osamas statement appears to show support for the iraqi people -yet labels
"Saddam's Baath party as "infidels." " are powell and the administration grasping at straws?
posted by specialk420
on Feb 12, 2003 -
57 comments
Powell's address to the UN. In a direct, long and rich presentation, Colin Powell has laid the cards on the table, and presented what's likely to be our most explicit case for war. While it's difficult to separate the larger issue of War on Iraq from just this presentation, I'm interested in other takes on Powell's speech. Anything substantially new? Truly irrefutable? Strong enough to justify immediate action? Does this have more heft coming from Powell (considering
he's more trusted than Bush on this issue), or is he acting as a mouthpiece? Or, to be succinct, did Colin change anyone's mind? At the very least, he satisfied my need to know more about why our administration is acting so urgently.
posted by kokogiak
on Feb 5, 2003 -
227 comments
There goes Colin Powell, pissing off the far right again. This time the Family Research Council and folks like Gary Bauer demand to know how dare he go on MTV and, in response to a teen's question about AIDS,
tell kids to USE CONDOMS! (And for that matter, what
is the secretary of state doing appearing on that smut-filled network in the first place, and what kinds of parents allow their children to listen to satanic rock music and hip-hop, and how
dare insolent children raise filthy questions with government officials about
SEX?!)
posted by jellybuzz
on Feb 15, 2002 -
56 comments
Colin Powell has a vision: "We have a vision of a region where Israelis and Arabs can live together in peace, security and dignity. We have a vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders. We have a vision of a region where all people have jobs that let them put bread on their tables, provide a roof over their heads and offer a decent education to their children. We have a vision of a region where all people worship God in a spirit of tolerance and understanding. And we have a vision of a region where respect for the sanctity of the individual, the rule of law and the politics of participation grow stronger day by day."
posted by kliuless
on Nov 19, 2001 -
30 comments
There's something unsettling about this story, something about General Colin Powell being responsible for the establishment of a progressive government in Afghanistan, some kind of question like 'Under whose authority... how is he qualified... whose interests is he repres...." floating in the back of my mind, but it's the strangest thing, I just can't articulate it. All that bile must be hindering me somehow.
posted by saladin
on Oct 24, 2001 -
30 comments
Powell vs. The Pentagon. According to CNN, Colin Powell is "pushing for a limited military component," and wants to place more emphasis on financial, legal, political and diplomatic tools. But (as you might expect), the Pentagon wouldn't mind taking down Saddam Hussein while we're in the neighborhood. In other CNN news, the US appears sensitive to the need to support its decisions, and will be
making the case for bin Laden's guilt to the Pakistanis. I find both of these items somewhat encouraging. How about you?
posted by pardonyou?
on Sep 21, 2001 -
21 comments
Colin Powell in cabaret performance in Viet Nam. "As Powell acted out his death throes at the end of the song, [Japanese Foreign Minister Makiko] Tanaka - in traditional Vietnamese dress - flung her arms around his prostrate body and kissed him on the cheek." Apparently these kinds of performances are regular occurences at these things.
posted by donkeymon
on Jul 27, 2001 -
16 comments
Powell won't serenade his peers at Asian meeting The U.S. Secretary of State has finally found something that's above and beyond the call of duty. And it's a shame, really. I mean, what would his singing voice sound like? I must know! Would it put Vietnam Foreign Minister Nguyen Dy Nien's folk song to shame? Would he have a dusky, husky Barry White purr or a silky Harry Belafonte rasp?
posted by allaboutgeorge
on Jul 20, 2001 -
7 comments
Sensible policy toward Cuba developing, or the beginning of the end for Colin Powell? "He's done good things for his people," Powell told Rep. Jose E. Serrano, D-N.Y., who called the embargo of Cuba senseless. For most of his 42 years in power Castro has fomented revolutions and insurgencies, "but he is no longer the threat he was," Powell said.
This certainly breaks with what appears to be a fairly hawkish international stance by the administration, but maybe it's punishment aimed at Florida for not delivering a decisive victory? Poor Jeb.
posted by shagoth
on Apr 27, 2001 -
22 comments
Colin Powell to become the secretary of state, which seems ok on the surface, but after looking at the
functions of the position, wouldn't he make a better
secretary of defense instead? I can't say I'm comfortable with the thought of the leading US diplomat and negotiator being someone so closely tied with military force (side question: would a war man negotiate peace treaties or get us into more bombing missions?). I also find it odd that in the acceptance speech, he can speak of the horrors of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" and in the same breath talk about how the US should build up a missile defense system (our missiles aren't capable of mass destruction?). What do you think about the appointment?
posted by mathowie
on Dec 16, 2000 -
35 comments
