3 ms·

Except…Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN did not lead to the invasion of Iraq. He was there to persuade the UN to pass a second resolution supporting milita

Except…Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN did not lead to the invasion of Iraq. He was there to persuade the UN to pass a second resolution supporting military action against Iraq and at that he failed. George Bush was going to invade Iraq either way, and he did. Of course, Powell’s speech did not help the credibility of the US.

clarge1120 5y ago
> George Bush was going to invade Iraq either way, and he did. Which is why I wince at the fact that I ever supported this crime. It had nothing to do with the American interests, but that didn’t stop the bloodshed. Now they’re determined to do it all over again, saying the same malarkey they said back then about protecting freedom or something.
yucky 5y ago
>Powell’s speech did not help the credibility of the US. That is revisionist, and 100% incorrect. Bush did not have much credibility on the world stage or even at home. Powell did. When he co-signed what Bush and the other warmongers were saying, the public became willing to accept the necessity of the war. I vividly remember the speech and the absolute difference it made in most people's minds about the pending invasion, not just globally but among the US general public as well. He was one of the few people with credibility on both sides of the aisle and on the world stage.
- errcorrectcode 5y ago
  Yep. And in doing so, he ruined his rep and career because he didn't have the balls to go against "President" Cheney and the neocon hawks. Powell showed his true colors that he was an obeyer and purveyor of lies, neither a teller of truths nor a leader, and beat the drums to war at the UN based on "facts" like WMDs that didn't exist. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it had everything to do with Cheney seizing a crisis to pocket money. W was a feckless, Idiocratic pot smoker riding daddy's coat tails.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- wolf550e 5y ago
  Didn't Powell build his career in part on lying about the My Lai massacre because he was told to? I'm too young to know, but did he really have a reputation as someone who would refuse to lie if the White House told him to lie?
BLanen 5y ago
I guess he only tried to invade. That's fine then /s
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN did not lead to the invasion of Iraq. He was there to persuade the UN to pass a second resolution supporting military action against Iraq and at that he failed. Powell knew it was going to fail, because he knew the contrary information available from UN inspectors that was going to be presented at the same meeting and which was already broadly available to decision-makers. The target of the UN speech wasn't the UN, it was domestic public opinion. And many who were not ideologically aligned with the President or previously committed to the war were, if not actually sold on the war, at least made afraid of Iraq’s potential by that speech (I had a lot of people say report their personal response along those lines to me at the time.) It was an important, key part of the domestic propaganda campaign, despite the venue.

clarge1120 5y ago

> George Bush was going to invade Iraq either way, and he did. Which is why I wince at the fact that I ever supported this crime. It had nothing to do with the American interests, but that didn’t stop the bloodshed. Now they’re determined to do it all over again, saying the same malarkey they said back then about protecting freedom or something.

yucky 5y ago

>Powell’s speech did not help the credibility of the US. That is revisionist, and 100% incorrect. Bush did not have much credibility on the world stage or even at home. Powell did. When he co-signed what Bush and the other warmongers were saying, the public became willing to accept the necessity of the war. I vividly remember the speech and the absolute difference it made in most people's minds about the pending invasion, not just globally but among the US general public as well. He was one of the few people with credibility on both sides of the aisle and on the world stage.

errcorrectcode 5y ago
Yep. And in doing so, he ruined his rep and career because he didn't have the balls to go against "President" Cheney and the neocon hawks. Powell showed his true colors that he was an obeyer and purveyor of lies, neither a teller of truths nor a leader, and beat the drums to war at the UN based on "facts" like WMDs that didn't exist. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it had everything to do with Cheney seizing a crisis to pocket money. W was a feckless, Idiocratic pot smoker riding daddy's coat tails.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
wolf550e 5y ago
Didn't Powell build his career in part on lying about the My Lai massacre because he was told to? I'm too young to know, but did he really have a reputation as someone who would refuse to lie if the White House told him to lie?

BLanen 5y ago

I guess he only tried to invade. That's fine then /s

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN did not lead to the invasion of Iraq. He was there to persuade the UN to pass a second resolution supporting military action against Iraq and at that he failed. Powell knew it was going to fail, because he knew the contrary information available from UN inspectors that was going to be presented at the same meeting and which was already broadly available to decision-makers. The target of the UN speech wasn't the UN, it was domestic public opinion. And many who were not ideologically aligned with the President or previously committed to the war were, if not actually sold on the war, at least made afraid of Iraq’s potential by that speech (I had a lot of people say report their personal response along those lines to me at the time.) It was an important, key part of the domestic propaganda campaign, despite the venue.