3 ms·
>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
by 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 agoYep. 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 agoDidn'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?