General Colin Powell

Good cop, bad cop and the selling of Bush's Peak Oil war

Colin Powell lying to the United Nations (and global television audience)
holding a vial of "simulated anthrax" as a prop for his propaganda to justify the attack on Iraq


Phony "Evidence" used to justify the attack on Iraq

Why did the Administration endorse a forgery about Iraq’s nuclear program?
Issue of 2003-03-31
May 22 / 23, 2004
A Political Obituary
Colin Powell, DOA
A Man for all seasons


Material that Colin Powell used in his UN speech was (a) plagiarized (including from student thesis) and (b) outdated (some of 12 years old, referring to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait).,,1-569669,00.html
Friday, 7 February, 2003, 13:14 GMT
Iraq dossier 'solid' - Downing StreetReports claimed some information was out-dated A dossier of evidence against Iraq is "solid", Downing Street has insisted after allegations that it included plagiarised material that was 12 years out of date.
The UK intelligence document released on Monday was designed to help win over sceptics by detailing Saddam Hussein's efforts to hide weapons of mass destruction.
But it emerged that some of the document was copied from three different articles, including one written by a postgraduate student.
Excerpts from a paper relating to the build-up to the 1991 Gulf War by Californian student Ibrahim al-Marashi were used in the intelligence document.
The paper was published in the Middle East Review of International Affairs.
Other sections in the dossier were apparently taken from defence journal Jane's Intelligence Review.
A Downing Street spokesman insisted the dossier was "accurate" and that the government had never claimed exclusive authorship.

US praise
"The report was put together by a range of government officials," he said. "As the report itself makes clear, it was drawn from a number of sources, including intelligence material.

"It does not identify or credit any sources, but nor does it claim any exclusivity of authorship."
Mr Blair's spokesman was pressed on the matter again on Friday, and acknowledged that Mr al-Marashi's work should have been credited.
He admitted that the second section of the report, on Saddam's regime, had included excerpts from the student's paper on Iraq's intelligence network.
But he said the document was "solid". "The overall objective was to give the full picture without compromising intelligence sources," he said.
He went on: "It was a pull-together of a variety of sources.
"In retrospect, we should, to clear up any confusion, have acknowledged which bits came from public sources and which bits came from other sources."

The UK document received praise from US Secretary of State Colin Powell this week as he outlined his country's case against Iraq.Shadow defence secretary Bernard Jenkin said the Tories were deeply concerned by the programme's report.
"The government's reaction utterly fails to explain, deny or excuse the allegations made in it," he said.Cosmetic changes
"This document has been cited by the prime minister and Colin Powell as the basis for a possible war. Who is responsible for such an incredible failure of judgment?"
Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell added: "This is the intelligence equivalent of being caught stealing the spoons.
"The dossier may not amount to much but this is a considerable embarrassment for a government trying still to make a case for war."
Mr Al-Marashi told the BBC Two Newsnight programme the government document was still accurate despite "a few minor cosmetic changes".
"The only inaccuracies in the UK document were that they maybe inflated some of the numbers of these intelligence agencies.
"The primary documents I used for this article are a collection of two sets of documents, one taken from Kurdish rebels in the north of Iraq - around four million documents - as well as 300,000 documents left by Iraqi security services in Kuwait."
Former Labour minister Glenda Jackson, MP for Hampstead and Highgate, was angry about the alleged plagiarism.
She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "If that was presented to Parliament and the country as being up-to-date intelligence, albeit collected from a variety of sources but by British intelligence agents..... it is another example of how the government is attempting to mislead the country and Parliament on the issue of a possible war with Iraq.
"And of course to mislead is a Parliamentary euphemism for lying."
Feb 7 2003
Former Labour minister Glenda Jackson today accused the Government of lying to the public over its Iraq dossier.
Ms Jackson said the file, which was supposed to prove Saddam's attempts to deceive the UN, is an example of how Downing Street is trying to mislead Britons.
Last night it emerged the dossier was partly based on 12-year-old information and included chunks lifted from a thesis by a student in California.
Ms Jackson told the BBC: "If that was presented to Parliament and the country as being up-to-date intelligence, albeit collected from a variety of sources but by British intelligence agents, and in fact as we now know they simply lifted it from a university thesis, it is another example of how the Government is attempting to mislead the country and Parliament on the issue of a possible war with Iraq.
"And of course to mislead is a Parliamentary euphemism for lying."
The student who wrote the thesis, Ibrahim al-Marashi, is furious the British Government used his work without giving him credit for his efforts.
"They never cited my article," Mr al-Marashi said. "Any academic, when you publish anything, the only thing you ask for in return is that they include a citation of your work. There are laws and regulations about plagiarism that you would think the UK Government would abide by."
Downing Street today admitted it was wrong to produce the document without crediting Mr al-Marashi.
But a spokesman for Tony Blair insisted the document was accurate.


Powell's Evidence Unravels


Published on Monday, April 7, 2003 by the lnternational Herald Tribune
The Mystery of Saddam's Banned Arms
by Jon B. Wolfsthal
Even worse for the U.S. case against Saddam, however, is that as each day passes, conspiracy theories grow that any chemical or biological weapons found might well be planted by U.S. forces. With anti-American sentiment and suspicion of U.S. information and motives growing, especially in the Middle East and Europe, the international public relations battle to convince other countries that any weapons found are of Saddam's own making will be an uphill battle.
To undercut such allegations, the Bush administration should seek to reintroduce UN inspectors into Iraq as soon as any weapons are discovered to provide objective assessments of what is found. But given the strength of opposition to the UN among hardline elements in the Bush administration, such a development is very unlikely.
The worst case for the administration and U.S. credibility globally is if no weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq. In the runup to the war, key officials, including President George W. Bush himself, cited Iraqi weapons programs that turned out to be false leads or even outright forgeries. This has stretched U.S. credibility and added to international suspicion of American motives in attacking Iraq.
Failure to discover chemical and biological weapons in Iraq will be used by many groups and countries to vilify the United States. It will also reinforce claims that such weapons were only a pretext for America to remove Saddam's regime for other political or geostrategic reasons. Any attempt by America to allege that Iraq destroyed its weapons at the last minute or shipped them out of country are likely to be viewed with great skepticism.


Colin Powell - the "Good Cop" in the Bush regime's Good Cop / Bad Cop act
Powell Doctrine: Baghdad / Jenin / My Lai

Powell's Oil Quest


from 1995 - analysis of General Powell's notorious service to the empire


Questions the Media Won't Ask Colin Powell
written in 1995

General Colin Powell is being promoted by the establishment media as a "moderate" who would make a great "centrist" President, especially for those tired of Demican and Republicrat business as usual. But while Powell is not a fundamentalist theocrat like some Republicans, his involvement in mass slaughter of civilians and secret arms shipments to Iran should disqualify him for public office.

His Cover-up of the My Lai massacre

Powell's career began as an Army Ranger (special forces) during the Vietnam War. As Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations at a base in Vietnam, he was ordered to investigate claims of Army massacres at My Lai (where US forces murdered hundreds on March 16, 1968 - Powell had no involvement with that tragedy). Powell's cosmetic "investigation" of allegations by Tom Glen, who knew about the slaughter, claimed that his charges were false since Glen's superiors stated that he could not have witnessed abuses of Vietnamese. It wasn't until many months later that another soldier, Ron Ridenhour, complained to his Congressman, that serious inquiries into the My Lai massacre began within the Army, at Washington headquarters. -- The New Republic, April 17, 1995

When My Lai became public knowledge, many officers responded by resigning in protest or even joining peace demonstrations. Powell's response was to burrow further into the military establishment. He went to a higher post in the Pentagon, then to Nixon's Office of Management and Budget, where he met Weinberger and Frank Carlucci, who each commanded the Pentagon during the Reagan Administration. Powell kept silent for the rest of the war, the Watergate scandal, and Nixon's racist appeals for votes.

The Iran-Contra Scandal

Just before leaving office, President Bush pardoned Casper Weinberger, preventing any prosecution for his involvement in the illegal arms for hostages deals. This act was one of the best things for Powell's future political career, since he was deeply involved in the scandal. There will never be a trial of his former boss, Defense Secretary Weinberger, where he'd have to testify.

The US aided both Iran and Iraq during their 8 year long war, in which one million people died. No one knows how many thousands were killed with the 2,000+ missiles Powell helped send to Iran.

"Weinberger testified before the [Senate Select] Committee [on Intelligence] that later that day he received a call from Poindexter informing him of the President's action [to send weapons to Iran]. Weinberger ... instructed military aide, Major General Colin Powell, to arrange the transfer of the weapons ... to the CIA, and that the matter was to be closely held at the direction of thePresident.

"General Powell had had previous discussions with North about the program and about Israel's problems in getting replacement TOW's [missiles]. .... According to [Assistant DOD Secretary] Armitage and a CIA official, Powell worked with Major General Vincent Russo, of the Defense Logistics Agency to provide the material securely and without any loss of funds for the Army." -- The National Security Archive, "The Chronology: The Documented Day-by-Day Account of the Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Contras," Warner Books, 1987, p. 262

"Weinberger reluctantly [ha!] ordered his military aide, Major General Colin L. Powell, to arrange the sale of TOW's for North's new deal." -- Jane Mayer and Doyle McManus, "Landslide: The Unmaking of the President 1984-1988," p. 197

After Powell became Reagan's National Security Advisor, he threatened to cut off US aid to any Central American country that refused to support the US-backed Contra war against Nicaragua.

How does Powell's expertise in covering up weapons shipments to Iran qualify him to lead a democracy?

Panama: the News Not Fit to Print

In December 1989, while Powell was Joint Chiefs of Staff -- the top military leader for all US forces -- George Bush invaded Panama in an attack condemned by almost every other country on Earth. Portrayed as a "surgical strike" on Manuel Noriega, it did virtually nothing to stem the flow of drugs into the US. (Noriega's replacements installed by the US Southern Command were also linked to the profitable drug trade.) An investigation by Codehuca (Central American Human Rights Commission) concluded:

* "The U.S. Army used highly sophisticated weapons--some for the first time in combat--against unarmed civilian populations.

* "The human costs of the invasion are substantially higher than the official figures. Conservative estimates indicate that civilian fatalities were at least 10 times greater than the U.S. figure of 220.

* "The actual death toll has been obscured through U.S. military practices including: 1) Incineration of corpses prior to identification; 2) Burial of remains in common graves prior to identification; and 3) U.S. military control of administrative offices of hospitals and morgues, permitting the removal of all registries to U.S. military bases.

* "A thorough, well-planned propaganda campaign has been implemented by U.S. authorities to ... deny the brutality and extensive human and material costs of the invasion."

Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark reported a "conspiracy of silence" regarding civilian dead and former U.S. Ambassador to Panama Ambler Moss stated that his "gut instinct is that there is an awful lot of parties around there that have an interest in covering up numbers" (New York Times, 1/10/90). Catholic priest Diego Caffley, working in Panama reported that the invasion killed 3,000 people and that the main obstacle to learning how many people were killed was the US Army Southern Command (La Republica, Costa Rica, 11/01/90). After visiting Panama, Clark estimated that 4,000 died.

Many of the victims lived in the El Chorrillos slum next to Panamanian military headquarters. This neighborhood was leveled by US bombs, and the number of dead remains unknown. Most were of African descent and among the poorest in Panamanian society. The Black, mestizo, and Indian populations suffered most of the destruction and misery wreaked by U.S. forces. Establishment media sources generally cited only the mostly white, elite elements tied to Panamanian banks. Panamanians opposing the invasion, even those also opposed to Noriega, were ignored by US journalists.

The Panama invasion, which occurred just weeks after the fall of the Berlin Wall, helped prevent efforts to cut the military budget.

"it's really clear ... that the military action in Panama violates international law, designed to maintain peace, and the laws of the [US] which are designed to keep the [US] out of war and from committing unlawful military aggressions." -- Ramsey Clark, 12/27/1989

How does General Powell's involvement in the illegal invasion of Panama and the massacre of civilians qualify him to work for world peace?

The Gulf War

"Every Black soldier ought to say, `I am not going to fight. This is not my war.'" -- Martin Luther King, III, January 18, 1991

Powell, as Joint Chiefs of Staff, presided over the bloody Persian Gulf war. John Lehman, Reagan's first Navy Secretary, reportedly confided in 1991 at a gathering at the "Bohemian Grove" (an all-male retreat for corporate and political leaders in northern California) that 200,000 people were killed in the Gulf War.

US forces bulldozed Iraqi draftees into mass graves, bombed retreating forces on the "Highway of Death," set oil refineries on fire (not all oil spills were caused by Saddam Hussein), dropped uranium tipped shells across the desert (over 40 tons of radioactive uranium was scattered), and threatened to use nuclear weapons before the conflict started. But since strict Pentagon censorship prohibited virtually any photographic documentation of the slaughter, Americans who only watched TV never learned what happened in the desert.

Powell claims that he never received an illegal order during his military career, but orders to bomb civilians in Iraq and Panama (among many other locations) certainly could be classified as war crimes, which Powell should have refused to carry out under both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (which mandates that soldiers refuse illegal orders) and the Nuremberg Principles. Instead, Powell's only documented opposition to any policy was about Clinton's efforts to end anti-gay witchhunts in the military -- Powell urged military men to resign if they also opposed Clinton's policies.

Powell for President?

Why is the mass media virtually unable to look at Powell's inglorious past? Arms to Iran, mass graves in Panama and the Kuwaiti "highway of death" are more important than his ostensible beliefs that his handlers devised for public consumption.

Powell is an opportunist interested in POWER, not reactionary ideology. He partially resembles Chief Buthelezi of South Africa, who worked secretly on behalf of the Apartheid regime. Buthelezi didn't work for apartheid for ideological reasons, but because he wanted to increase his power base and the oppressors were willing to help him do it. Likewise, Powell has furthered his own career through involvement in bloody wars, not out of reactionary ideology but rather a desire to help perpetuate U.S. military power and dominance over the planet.

Every oppressed group throughout history has had members willing to aid the oppressors to further their own positions, either out of misguided self-interest or by identifying with the oppressors. Even the Nazi ghettos in Poland had Jews willing to help the Germans round up their victims.

Powell claims that he supported (and benefitted from) the civil rights movement, but Martin Luther King and other leaders worked from a non-violent perspective, and strongly condemned the Vietnam War. King, if he had not been killed, would certainly protest Powell's actions in Central America and the Middle East.

It is also curious how Powell's media blitz has been much more successful than the other African-American Presidential candidate: Republican Alan Keyes of Maryland. Keyes, unlike Powell, is a fundamentalist Christian ideologue who worked for UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick at the United Nations in the early 1980's, where he helped politically support South Africa. However, Powell's hands are far bloodier than Keyes's.

When the Air Force allowed women to become "missileers" (who are ready to launch nuclear armageddon 24 hours a day), this decision was not an advancement for feminism and gender equality. Likewise, Powell's involvement in illegal invasions and mass murder, not to mention his control of the nuclear doomsday machine, merely proves that the military is not strictly racist--they're willing to allow a black face as the public manifestation as long as that face conforms to the program.

Affirmative action is not about being the first person of non-European descent to plot the murder of thousands of non-whites from within the bowels of the Pentagon. Powell's rise to the top of the Pentagon did not advance the cause of racial equality--just his own personal lust for power.

Opposition to General Powell is not based on the fact of military service, since there is a big difference between people who join the military due to the "economic draft" and a General who ordered the massacre of defenseless civilians in Panama City's slums and their burial in secret mass graves.

Powell is well qualified to perpetuate obscene levels of military spending and to plan invasions of virtually unarmed countries like Panama and cover up the resulting civilian carnage. casualties. He's also expert at covering up weapons sales to ultra-dictatorships like Iran. But it's doubtful that he's thought much about environmental sustainability, improving education to teach critical thinking, reducing extreme inequality and reviving a sense of community (ie. it's different than pure jingoist nationalism) in this country.

Powell's career is not that of a great leader in fights for social equality, justice, human rights, sustainable economy, etc. When Senator Bradley (D-NJ) announced his retirement this summer, he quoted the playright Bertold Brecht, who said "Unhappy is the land that needs a hero."

While Powell's involvement in Iran-Contra, the illegal Panama massacre and last, but not least, the Gulf War, qualifies him to run the world's largest military industrial complex, it does not qualify him to supervise the transition to a better, more equitable, sustainable society not predicated on mass murder and limitless resource exploitation. Voting for Powell would be no different than voting for Lockheed or General Dynamics for President.

Colin Powell should spend his days planting trees in Haiti or clearing mines in Angola, undoing the tremendous damage he's helped create, not trying to create a second Republican party. The world needs a remote island--preferably Bikini Atoll, ravaged by US nuclear tests--where war criminals from around the world could spend the rest of their days and not hurt anyone else again. Colin Powell could join Gen. Schwartzkopf, George Bush, Saddam Hussein, Saudi King Fah'd, Yitzhak Shamir, the Argentine Generals, Idi Amin, the Rwandan army, Pol Pot, Suharto (dictator of Indonesia), China's Li Peng, Russia's Boris Yeltsin, nuclear warmonger Edward Teller, ad nauseam.

We need more non-violent soldiers such as those on the international flotilla of politicians and grass roots activists who sailed to Tahiti and Muroroa atoll this summer to block French nuclear tests. It takes more courage to be a non-violent activist like the Greenpeace campaigners in the Pacific, the Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, or the "White Rose" resistance group in Nazi Germany, than to order mass slaughters thousands of miles away.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic process." - Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell speech, January 17, 1961

Eisenhower also remarked that every dollar spent on weapons was a theft from the poor, who would suffer greatly as a result of military spending. By that criteria, Colin Powell makes Michael Milken seem honest in spending other peoples' money. In 1981, the federal deficit was about $1 trillion, now it's about $5 trillion. Doubling of the military budget during the Reagan era wasted nearly $5 trillion in military spending to date. Budget Director David Stockman admitted after leaving the White House that the deficit was intentionally raised to force desired social spending cuts.

Haven't we had enough presidents who get our country involved in secret, bloody, disgusting wars?