colin and the silly lies

Sources, foreign intelligence sources, 'our sources,' defectors, sources, sources, sources. Colin Powell's terror talk to the United Nations Security Council yesterday sounded like one of those government-inspired reports on the front page of The New York Times – where it will most certainly be treated with due reverence in this morning's edition. It was a bit like heating up old soup. Haven't we heard most of this stuff before? Should one trust the man? General Powell, I mean, not Saddam.

Certainly we don't trust Saddam but Secretary of State Powell's presentation was a mixture of awesomely funny recordings of Iraqi Republican Guard telephone intercepts à la Samuel Beckett that just might have been some terrifying little proof that Saddam really is conning the UN inspectors again, and some ancient material on the Monster of Baghdad's all too well known record of beastliness. I am still waiting to hear the Arabic for the State Department's translation of 'Okay Buddy' – 'Consider it done, Sir' – this from the Republican Guard's 'Captain Ibrahim', for heaven's sake – and some dinky illustrations of mobile bio-labs whose lorries and railway trucks were in such perfect condition that they suggested the Pentagon didn't have much idea of the dilapidated state of Saddam's army.

It was when we went back to Halabja and human rights abuses and all Saddam's old sins, as recorded by the discredited Unscom team, that we started eating the old soup again. Jack Straw may have thought all this 'the most powerful and authoritative case' but when we were forced to listen to Iraq's officer corps communicating by phone – 'yeah', 'yeah', 'yeah?', 'yeah...' – it was impossible not to ask oneself if Colin Powell had really considered the effect this would have on the outside world.

From time to time, the words 'Iraq: Failing To Disarm – Denial and Deception' appeared on the giant video screen behind General Powell. Was this a CNN logo, some of us wondered? But no, it was CNN's sister channel, the US Department of State.

Because Colin Powell is supposed to be the good cop to the Bush-Rumsfeld bad cop routine, one wanted to believe him. The Iraqi officer's telephoned order to his subordinate – 'remove 'nerve agents' whenever it comes up in the wireless instructions' – looked as if the Americans had indeed spotted a nasty new little line in Iraqi deception. But a dramatic picture of a pilotless Iraqi aircraft capable of spraying poison chemicals turned out to be the imaginative work of a Pentagon artist.

And when General Powell started blathering on about 'decades'' of contact between Saddam and al-Qa'ida, things went wrong for the Secretary of State. Al-Qa'ida only came into existence five years ago, since Bin Laden – 'decades' ago – was working against the Russians for the CIA, whose present day director was sitting grave-faced behind General Powell. And Colin Powell's new version of his President's State of the Union lie – that the 'scientists' interviewed by UN inspectors had been Iraqi intelligence agents in disguise – was singularly unimpressive. The UN talked to scientists, the new version went, but they were posing for the real nuclear and bio boys whom the UN wanted to talk to. General Powell said America was sharing its information with the UN inspectors but it was clear yesterday that much of what he had to say about alleged new weapons development – the decontamination truck at the Taji chemical munitions factory, for example, the 'cleaning' of the Ibn al-Haythem ballistic missile factory on 25 November – had not been given to the UN at the time. Why wasn't this intelligence information given to the inspectors months ago? Didn't General Powell's beloved UN resolution 1441 demand that all such intelligence information should be given to Hans Blix and his lads immediately? Were the Americans, perhaps, not being 'pro-active' enough?

The worst moment came when General Powell started talking about anthrax and the 2001 anthrax attacks in Washington and New York, pathetically holding up a teaspoon of the imaginary spores and – while not precisely saying so – fraudulently suggesting a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 2001 anthrax scare.

When the Secretary of State held up Iraq's support for the Palestinian Hamas organisation, which has an office in Baghdad, as proof of Saddam's support for 'terror'' – there was, of course, no mention of America's support for Israel and its occupation of Palestinian land – the whole theatre began to collapse. There are Hamas offices in Beirut, Damascus and Iran. Is the 82nd Airborne supposed to grind on to Lebanon, Syria and Iran?

There was an almost macabre opening to the play when General Powell arrived at the Security Council, cheek-kissing the delegates and winding his great arms around them. Jack Straw fairly bounded up for his big American hug.

Indeed, there were moments when you might have thought that the whole chamber, with its toothy smiles and constant handshakes, contained a room full of men celebrating peace rather than war. Alas, not so. These elegantly dressed statesmen were constructing the framework that would allow them to kill quite a lot of people, the monstrous Saddam perhaps, with his cronies, but a considerable number of innocents as well. One recalled, of course, the same room four decades ago when General Powell's predecessor Adlai Stevenson showed photos of the ships carrying Soviet missiles to Cuba.

Alas, today's pictures carried no such authority. And Colin Powell is no Adlai Stevenson.

While defending you elsewhere, I will say that two lengthy posts from the same person regarding the war with Iraq coming just three hours apart on a newsgroup that is not centrally focussed on war or politics is perhaps overdoing it a bit. It also does not help to list nonexistent newsgroups like alt.politics.republican as if such crossposts give legitimacy to the post contained herein. Bring up this topic, relate it to music at least to some extent, but don't indulge in saturation posting, even though the Shrub is likely soon to be indulging in saturation bombings.

As a fellow traveler you are excessively polite to a possible person whose ignorance is exceeded only by the strength of his conviction that he is omniscient.

it does too exist. anyway, the posts are about the quality of scum running the usa since the coup, but i appreciate your point and your other posts. sorry.

Hear that, y'all? We don't exist! Why, I feel just like an Iraqi chemical

This was the information provided by my newsgroup provider, that alt.politics.republican was not the name of an existing group. If such a group does not exist, it probably should. And I'm 100% in agreement that the US has no business going it alone against Iraq and that the motivations of the Bush administration should be held highly suspect

the war with Iraq if he were still alive. He died after Saddam had invaded Kuwait but before Kuwait was retaken. One might complain that the 1991 effort was more about oil than morality, but there was considerable moral haziness that time: he did need to be shown that he couldn't just walk in, take over Kuwait, and get away with it. This time there is no such haziness at all.

Yes, he would be marching shoulder to shoulder with Huey Newton.

: This time there is no such haziness at all.

Alas, the U.S. woke up about 20 years too late to the notion that the only thing worse than Saddam Hussein with a nuclear weapon is the Iranians with a nuclear weapon. The Germans (who, in a fit of irony, sold Saddam the machinery for making chemical weapons), the Russians (who sold the Iranians the machinery for making nuclear weapons), and the French (who are probably sorry that they missed out on the money-making opportunity) still seem to think that the technique developed in the 1970's

I agree that 'he did need to be shown that he couldn't just walk in, take over Kuwait,' but I would argue that there is even more moral haziness this time. After all, the problem seems to be contained and the beast is in a box, so to speak. This war, like the previous one, is still about oil.

Neither compares to Harry Truman.

The Germans (who, in a fit of irony, sold Saddam the

How is not starting a war equivalent to paying blackmail?

Yeah, it'd probably be better if he'd just posted a link to the London Independent newspapers website he cut'n'pasted it from in the first place. Saves bandwidth, abides by copyright laws, doesn't annoy people on unreleated newsgroups so much etc.