September 23, 2003
Journo claims proof of WMD lies
John Pilger says he has evidence the war against Iraq was based on a lie that could cost George W. Bush and Tony Blair their jobs and bring Prime Minister John Howard down with them. Pilger uncovered video footage of Powell in Cairo on February 24, 2001 saying, “He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.” Pilger claims this confirms that the decision of US President George W Bush - with the full support of British Prime Minister Blair and Howard - to wage war on Saddam because he had weapons of mass destruction was a huge deception.
UPDATE: The tape is very likely real, the U.S. Dept. of State website has the interview online with the same quote (click this article’s read more link for just the question and quote in context). This is the smoking gun that proves Saddam did not pose a threat conventionally or with WMDs, even before 9/11.
The quote(s) in question are in bold:
QUESTION: The Egyptian press editorial commentary that we have seen here has been bitterly aggressive in denouncing the U.S. role and not welcoming you. I am wondering whether you believe you accomplished anything during your meetings to assuage concerns about the air strikes against Iraq and the continuing sanctions?SECRETARY POWELL: I received a very warm welcome from the leaders and I know there is some unhappiness as expressed in the Egyptian press. I understand that, but at the same time, with respect to the no-fly zones and the air strikes that we from time to time must conduct to defend our pilots, I just want to remind everybody that the purpose of those no-fly zones and the purpose of those occasional strikes to protect our pilots, is not to pursue an aggressive stance toward Iraq, but to defend the people that the no-fly zones are put in to defend. The people in the southern part of Iraq and the people in the northern part of Iraq, and these zones have a purpose, and their purpose is to protect people -- protect Arabs -- not to affect anything else in the region. And we have to defend ourselves.
We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.
[...]
QUESTION: (summarized) Minister Moussa, how big a threat is Iraq right now? It seems that the Secretary is trying to have it both ways. Either the country has been diminished by ten years of sanctions or it's still threat that we have to worry about.
FOREIGN MINISTER MOUSSA: For us, I don't see that threat, but if you ask the Gulf regions and countries of that area they will they would continue to feel that and they say it publicly. The question is not rhetorical. The question is not to have some headlines. It's a very serious situation. We will continue to deal with that situation in a way that ensures stability and justice. Therefore, we will have a lot to say after the round of talks ...
SECRETARY POWELL: May I just add a p.s. that if I was a Kuwaiti and I heard leaders in Baghdad claiming that Kuwait is still a part of Iraq and it's going to be included in the flag and the seal, if I knew they were continuing to try to find weapons of mass destruction, I would have no doubt in my mind who those weapons were aimed at. They are being aimed at Arabs, not at the United States or at others. Yes, I think we should...he has to be contained until he realizes the errors of his ways.
The saving Israel argument just went up in flames. Heck, the whole lie just went up in flames and this is the gasoline that will get the big media's attention. The irony is that Powell is the one who went to the UN to say that Iraq had WMDs and was a threat.
My only speculation at this time is: will Powell take the fall alone or will it bring the whole administration down?
Posted by Stephen VanDyke at September 23, 2003 03:04 PMIf the video tape can be confirmed for date and no tampering, this is the smoking gun that could end the nightmare of this administration.
But who is going to validate the information? Certainly not the FBI or CIA or any House select committee. It is doubtful any reputable agency in Britain would be allowed to do the verification.
Perhaps the U.N. Security Council, but, not sure they have the infrastructure for such forensics.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 23, 2003 05:04 PMRelease the video to the public. Send a copy to every major news network and paper. Keep the original in escrow somewhere and let independent verification occur.
If this is as big as he claims, news stations would pay for independent auditing and it would stay out of government hands. This might also be an interesting litmus test to see who’s side some larger networks are on (who denounces the tape from the start, calls it a fraud without verification or otherwise, etc.).
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at September 23, 2003 05:30 PMAstute observation regarding media and litmus test. It certainly sounds credible, I mean it is in character for Colin Powell at that time who was seeking a diplomatic solution to Iraq. Nothing to do now though, but wait and see as you pointed out.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 23, 2003 06:39 PMYeah… this sounds real fair. Do a story accusing government officials of something, but never ask Rice or Powell to respond. Yep… no bias there… so where is this amazing piece of video?
Posted by: CJ at September 23, 2003 06:52 PMAnd have you seen this guy’s website??
Yeah… he’s not biased at all.
He once wrote:
“The recent statements of British Ministers about the “vindication” of the “outstanding success” in Afghanistan would be comical if the price of their “success” had not been paid with the lives of more than 5,000 innocent Afghani civilians…”
Of course, as of May 2003, that study he’s talking about estimates that the “high count” of civilian deaths is 3590. (That study’s conclusions are in dispute, but that’s for another day). Apparently, the 3590 deaths wasn’t a shocking enough statistic, so Pilger had no problem throwing an additional 1500 deaths on top. A real great “journalist.”
Posted by: CJ at September 23, 2003 07:18 PMCJ: I agree with you on the bias factor; he’s certainly partisan, but then so is the paper he works for; he’s the “anti-war, anti-globalization reporter for the London Daily Mirror” (taken from his site).
The Mirror is staunchly against the Iraq war, and has been throughout. As a comparison, the Sun, the biggest selling paper over here, is staunchly pro-war. Oh, and they also have naked women on page 3, that might have something to do with the popularity. (I love this country.)
But my point is that if the tape is genuine, *then the reporter’s bias is not relevant to the argument* - Powell admitted Saddam does not have WMDs. There’s no way to argue out of that.
I’m inclined to believe the tape is genuine, because ITV has a huge amount at stake - if it’s fake, then it’ll end their reputation as a serious news entity at a time when they’re trying to launch their own news channel.
Posted by: Thomas Scott at September 23, 2003 07:30 PMFrom the State Department website:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/931.htm (transcript of a press briefing from Sec. Powell on the plane to Cairo the day before the tape would have been made)
“It’s an army that’s only one-third its original size. And even though they may be pursuing weapons of mass destruction of all kinds, it is not clear how successful they have been.”
-Sec. Powell
The day after the tape, arriving in Kuwait City on Feb 25:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/964.htm
“SECRETARY POWELL: I am sure that it is something we will talk about tomorrow. And it is at the top of the agenda to make sure that we continue to contain Iraq so that it does not develop the kind of weapons that it is trying to develop. We have been successful for the last ten years in keeping him from developing those weapons and we will continue to be successful.”
These remarks do paint a picture of a government that is not particularly worried about WMDs coming out of Iraq. They know they’d been trying, but they’re also pretty sure that he’s been totally unsuccessful at doing so.
However, there is also plenty of documentation of the post-9/11 paradigm shift, in which the government declared that it would no longer rely on containment as a policy.
Posted by: Jason Lauborough at September 23, 2003 07:47 PMJason: that was amazing, I just got the information myself and was updating. Good research or reading (if you also read wrh).
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at September 23, 2003 07:59 PMNah, I wasn’t reading anything except the article in question, and I figured it might be a good idea to at least go make sure that Powell was, in fact, travelling there at that time. I also figured that there might be some documentation of a similar quote from a day on either side of the tape, since many things in politics never get said just once.
Just a bit of good luck and coincidence.
Posted by: Jason Lauborough at September 23, 2003 08:03 PMWell, now that the quotes have been put in context, I hardly see the smoking gun you believe exists. All these words come pre-9/11. That was a different world where we didn’t talk about the possibility of the U.S. as a target of terrorist attacks.
Do you honestly believe that these words from 2001 will “cost George W. Bush and Tony Blair their jobs and bring Prime Minister John Howard down with them?” I mean, really?
Posted by: CJ at September 23, 2003 08:42 PMCome on CJ, now it’s just obvious, Saddam was able to build a nuke and tons of gallons other WMDs in under a year?
Add to this the fact that Bush acknowledged Saddam did not have ties to 9/11 and the whole charade begins to fall apart. Powell himself says the sanctions are working. I bolded and put it in red, did you miss it? He even says Saddam is only a threat to arabs (Kuwait or Saudi Arabia), how obvious is that?
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at September 23, 2003 08:51 PM“He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.”
1)these two quotes are obviously abbreviated and taken out of context.
2)Nowhere, does Secretary Powell say…
“US Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice confirmed in early 2001 that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had been disarmed and was no threat.”
as the article you referenced states in paragraph 2
That is classic journalistic manipulation.
Pilger is a propagandist, not a journalist. He is about as far left as one could be, hates GWB and hates America as is evidenced here…
As the West prepares for an assault on Iraq, John Pilger argues that ‘war on terror’ is a smokescreen created by the ultimate terrorist … America itself
in this piece of trash, America bashing article full of empty rhetoric
This is unfounded and this is a joke. Show me the money….in context please. Show me the video and please make me a martini…I am a little parched.
How to win a debate through clever deception:
rule #1) When confronted with facts, attack the messenger (John Pilger).
rule #2) Ignore the facts, even when they are bolded, red, and possibly blinking (“And frankly they have worked.” - Colin Powell on Iraq sanctions).
rule #3) Take the facts but target specific words, call the original “out of context” (btw, that quote you hit on and called “abbreviated and out of context” that’s actually in the extended entry and on the State Dept. site I linked to)
rule #4) Make up quotes, then attack them as false (your example #2 is not a quote… it’s a line in the article, until you made it a quote, which should attributed to to the article’s author). In this case the quote validity is unknown, I concede that to you, but that’s a token gesture considering the magnitude of this.
rule #5) Re-read the article (not the blurb, the extended) and find out that you are actually wrong this time. I’ll leave you with this scathing rebuttal to all your arguments:
And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. -Colin Powell talking about Iraq sanctionsPosted by: Stephen VanDyke at September 23, 2003 10:54 PM
So what? In 2001, Powell said he didn’t have any “significant capability.” He did not say, “He has no capability.” And you’re asking us all to believe that nothing changed between then and 2003 when we went to war.
He also said he couldn’t “project conventional power against his neighbors.” Where does Powell say he can’t use unconventional weapons… like biological or chemical weapons?
He doesn’t. These quotes prove nothing. They show one man’s opinion in 2001. It’s irrelevant. If these words were so dangerous, why are they still on the State Department website?
Posted by: CJ at September 23, 2003 11:35 PMCJ
because there is obviously a massive conspiracy to fool the public? (cue x-files theme song here)
It’s not a conspiracy, it’s lying and getting caught. But I’ll remember that when you guys go on the offensive next time. I’ll be sure to call your proof conspiracies and I’ll make lots of allusions to Mulder and Scully.
I’m not denying that 9/11 happened, I know it changed America. What I ask is why it changed facts such as this? How does saying “And frankly they have worked.” in regards to sanctions and containment turn into a need for war. How can “He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.” turn into an argument for preemptive invasion and intelligence on tons of WMDs (WHICH ARE STILL F**KING NOWHERE).
Jan 2001 - no significant capability
Sep 2002 - holy crap, nukes
Sep 2003 - not a damned thing found
How can you guys say “So what?” and believe a lie when I point out the truth. You guys are freaking me out worse than 1984.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at September 23, 2003 11:59 PMA reasonable person in a dispute will always concede the possibility that their opponent in debate could be proved right if certain conditions are met. However, a person of faith, cannot be reasoned with because their alliance to their view is not based on reason, but, on faith, which requires no reason.
Those of faith can be found on all sides of any political debate, but, I am quickly learning here at WatchBlog, how to recognize those whom can be reasonably debated with, and those of faith, for whom reason is as useful a tool as feathers hurled from a slingshot.
Religion can actually be debated, but, only among reasonable persons. Religion can never be debated reasonably with the faithful. Which is why I found the philosophy of religion a marvelous experience which could never be duplicated in a church, synagogue, temple, or mosque.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 24, 2003 02:00 AMCJ: They’re still there because no-one thought to, or wanted to, tamper with them. No other media source has noticed this quote up ‘til now, why should the State Department?
In case it’s ever changed, by the way, the Internet Archive has a copy from this February at their site.
And yes, CJ, we’re asking you all to believe that nothing changed between then and now. It’s not that hard to believe. In fact, it’s very easy.
Surely, if the getting of WMDs happened that fast, it would have left more traces for the UN weapons inspectors, or for the satellite photography and spy planes?
And are we really to believe that Saddam went all out to get WMDs… then, as President Bush claimed in an interview on Monday, “dispersed them … hid them” when the time came that he might actually want to use them? (Source)
Posted by: Thomas Scott at September 24, 2003 08:13 AMDavid: I agree with you, but please, let’s not get into a religion debate. It’ll drag us off topic, and it was bad enough last time.
Posted by: Thomas Scott at September 24, 2003 08:30 AMDavid,
I don’t know if I’ve ever seen the problem with certain debates (or debators) put so succinctly. Nice work.
To demonstrate, I am unquestionably progressive and anti-Bush, but I will concede that Powell’s comment regarding “conventional power” is useless for the conversation on WMDs. What is more important is his assertion that Iraq had made no significant progress in WMDs thanks to containment, and it is unreasonable to think that Iraq could go from not having “significant capability”, to being able to kill thousands or millions of people in the West, in a matter of months.
Posted by: Ber-tube-zzi at September 24, 2003 11:17 AMThe war was based on claims of WMD “data” that pre-exists 2001. In otherwords, the “missing” WMD and the fugres Powell used at the UN were all at least as old as 1998.
If those 1998 figures were not a problem in 2001 when Powell made these quotes, then they were not a problem in 2003.
The lie is revealed. Again.
Posted by: Repugnant at September 24, 2003 11:24 AMCJ,
In reference to your uncited and likely non-contextual quote of Pilger, where he alleges that 5,000 Afghani civilians were killed in the U.S. led war there:
I did not investigate the alleged quote, nor will I cite what I am about to refer to, but I seem to remember estimates put forth by those filthy journalists over at the Post and the Times, which initially surmised that some 60,000 people were killed in the WTC attack. A number which slowly was revised downward to its present figure of just under 3,000.
Could it be that Pilger’s comment came under similar circumstances? I would like to know, but you don’t provide any reference which would allow that to be determined.
Pilger is very biased, yes. he ended the documentary by comparing the Bush administration to Nazis, and saying that we should be very afraid of them. The guy goes too far.
But Rice and Powell said those things on camera. Bias doesn’t come into it, it’s fact.
What I want to know is why in hell did no-one dig up this footage before the war? It should have been looped on big TV screens in public places, during marches and suchlike. The pro-war argument would have died on its arse! Either that or it would have had to shift to something HONEST.
Posted by: Ryan at September 25, 2003 08:47 AMPilger’s investigation has been vindicated by the major news media. They are now covering the story he revealed. So much for killing the message by killing the messenger. Next time try killing the messenger before the message is delivered.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 26, 2003 07:24 AM
