Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday September 16 2016, @12:57PM   Printer-friendly
from the need-better-pipes? dept.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37364189

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has reportedly called Republican nominee Donald Trump a "national disgrace," according to leaked emails. The Republican retired four-star general's comments were revealed in a hack on his personal emails. The emails were posted on DCLeaks.com, which has reportedly been tied to other recent high-profile hacks. Mr. Powell, who has been quiet during the election, said he had "no further comment" but was "not denying it".

[...] Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who crossed party lines in 2008 to endorse Democratic [candidate] Barack Obama, has tried to float above this year's tendentious presidential election. So much for that. First the government released his note to Democrat Hillary Clinton advising her on how to use personal email for back-channel communications while secretary of state. Now - in an ironic twist - his personal email has been hacked, revealing sweeping denunciations of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and some sharp criticisms of Democrat Hillary Clinton.

[...] "Yup, the whole birther movement was racist," the email read. "That's what the 99% believe. When Trump couldn't keep that up he said he also wanted to see if the certificate noted that he was a Muslim." But the leaked emails also revealed Mr Powell's frustrations with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and her handling of her use of private email while at the State Department. "Sad thing... HRC could have killed this two years ago by merely telling everyone honestly what she had done and not tie me into it," the email read, referring to Mrs Clinton. "I told her staff three times not to try that gambit. I had to throw a mini tantrum at a Hampton's party to get their attention."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @01:37PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @01:37PM (#402761)

    Yet another secretary of state whose career rightly ended after serving in that position. He was one of the key figures in the construct of lies that got us into the Iraq war, and he used a private server for official email.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Friday September 16 2016, @01:49PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday September 16 2016, @01:49PM (#402772) Journal

    The history [wikipedia.org] of how he helped get us into Iraq is pretty interesting. The TL;DR of it is that he was opposed to an Iraq war, came around, persuaded President Bush to take the case to the UN, was given false intelligence to present to the UN, and became one of the Administration's first fall guys:

    Powell came under fire for his role in building the case for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. In a press statement on February 24, 2001, he had said that sanctions against Iraq had prevented the development of any weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein. As was the case in the days leading up to the Persian Gulf War, Powell was initially opposed to a forcible overthrow of Saddam, preferring to continue a policy of containment. However, Powell eventually agreed to go along with the Bush administration's determination to remove Saddam. He had often clashed with others in the administration, who were reportedly planning an Iraq invasion even before the September 11 attacks, an insight supported by testimony by former terrorism czar Richard Clarke in front of the 9/11 Commission. The main concession Powell wanted before he would offer his full support for the Iraq War was the involvement of the international community in the invasion, as opposed to a unilateral approach. He was also successful in persuading Bush to take the case of Iraq to the United Nations, and in moderating other initiatives. Powell was placed at the forefront of this diplomatic campaign.

    Powell's chief role was to garner international support for a multi-national coalition to mount the invasion. To this end, Powell addressed a plenary session of the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003, to argue in favor of military action. Citing numerous anonymous Iraqi defectors, Powell asserted that "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." Powell also stated that there was "no doubt in my mind" that Saddam was working to obtain key components to produce nuclear weapons.[49]

    Most observers praised Powell's oratorical skills. However, Britain's Channel 4 News reported soon afterwards that a UK intelligence dossier that Powell had referred to as a "fine paper" during his presentation had been based on old material and plagiarized an essay by American graduate student Ibrahim al-Marashi.[50][51] A 2004 report by the Iraq Survey Group concluded that the evidence that Powell offered to support the allegation that the Iraqi government possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) was inaccurate.

    In an interview with Charlie Rose, Powell contended that prior to his UN presentation, he had merely four days to review the data concerning WMD in Iraq.[52]

    A Senate report on intelligence failures would later detail the intense debate that went on behind the scenes on what to include in Powell's speech. State Department analysts had found dozens of factual problems in drafts of the speech. Some of the claims were taken out, but others were left in, such as claims based on the yellowcake forgery.[53] The administration came under fire for having acted on faulty intelligence, particularly what was single-sourced to the informant known as Curveball. Powell later recounted how Vice President Dick Cheney had joked with him before he gave the speech, telling him, "You've got high poll ratings; you can afford to lose a few points." Powell's longtime aide-de-camp and Chief of Staff from 1989–2003, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, later characterized Cheney's view of Powell's mission as to "go up there and sell it, and we'll have moved forward a peg or two. Fall on your damn sword and kill yourself, and I'll be happy, too."[54]

    In September 2005, Powell was asked about the speech during an interview with Barbara Walters and responded that it was a "blot" on his record. He went on to say, "It will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."[55]

    Wilkerson said that he inadvertently participated in a hoax on the American people in preparing Powell's erroneous testimony before the United Nations Security Council.[56]

    He's no angel, but I at least feel sorry for the guy. He also seems the most likely to spill Bush's beans in his memoirs or on his deathbed.

    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday September 16 2016, @01:59PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Friday September 16 2016, @01:59PM (#402778)

      Another part of the story: When they first brought Powell a draft of his speech, his reaction was to toss it into the air and say "I'm not reading this, this is bullshit. [theguardian.com]"

      Which it was, of course. They then fed him new information and told him that no, really, they weren't lying this time.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday September 16 2016, @02:14PM

      by bradley13 (3053) on Friday September 16 2016, @02:14PM (#402787) Homepage Journal

      I also feel a bit sorry for him, being used like that. However, he was in a position to know that he was being fed bullshit. It was obvious to many ordinary people at the time that many of the claims could not be true - he was in a position where he should have already had correct information. So I don't feel too sorry for him after all.

      I still want to see people in jail, for this incident. Who, exactly, decided to push for a war based on false information? Cheney was certainly in it up to his eyebrows. Bush may have just been a patsy. Whoever was involved in that decision has a lot of blood on their hands.

      --
      Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 16 2016, @03:01PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 16 2016, @03:01PM (#402815) Journal

        In 2001, while they were still talking about invading, I went on line, and typed in a simple search. "Who's who in Iraq nuclear research". Or, very similar words. Even a backwoods nobody was able to see that Sadman's nuclear aspirations had been canned. Almost all of the people involved in nuclear research were in the private sector, or in academia - and many of those were outside of the country. There was pretty much no one left to research weapons.

        You're right, Colin and every other government connected buffoon should have known that Iraq was out of the nuclear race.

        The rest of the crap took a little more research, but it wasn't hard to find the lies in all the rest of those "WMD".

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 16 2016, @03:53PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday September 16 2016, @03:53PM (#402843) Homepage Journal

          Right, because totalitarian governments routinely put their military aspirations online for google searches to find. Dude...

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 16 2016, @06:00PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 16 2016, @06:00PM (#402888) Journal

            Iraq never was a super-secretive state. Yeah, they had lots of secret stuff, but unlike some other states - some of them Western aligned - every detail of a citizens life wasn't considered a secret. We KNEW who was in charge of this or that research, we knew who the experts were. There was little question about who did what in Sadman's nuclear weapons field. Some details may have escaped our intelligence communities, but we knew what was happening.

            Find any or all of those names, and you can look to see where they were in late 2001, early 2002. Most were easy to find, because they were no longer engaged in nuclear weapon research.

            There were a few that still worked for the government, or simply couldn't be located. But the megolithic nuclear research program had been dismantled.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 16 2016, @11:14PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 16 2016, @11:14PM (#402977) Journal

              Iraq never was a super-secretive state. [etc...]

              I disagree. I think your characterization here is complete bullshit.

              Find any or all of those names, and you can look to see where they were in late 2001, early 2002. Most were easy to find, because they were no longer engaged in nuclear weapon research.

              Two things to note. First, you have no reliable sources and are basing your opinion on whatever bullshit Iraq and those intelligence agencies choose to feed you. Second, just because Iraq wasn't engaged in a nuclear weapons program in late 2001 when an obvious nuclear weapons program would have been detrimental to its political goals of lifting sanctions, doesn't mean that it would stay that way once sanctions had been lifted a few years later. I think this lack of a long term disincentive to keep Iraq from developing nuclear weapons was a key impetus for the later invasion - not just for the US, but also for the many allies who were suspiciously easy to convince to invade Iraq once their political butts were covered.

  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by tisI on Friday September 16 2016, @02:14PM

    by tisI (5866) on Friday September 16 2016, @02:14PM (#402790)

    And you're a complete fucking retard.

    I've observed Mr Powell's public conduct for going on 30 years now, since that waste of a life george herbert walker bush started the first Iraq invasion over Saddam's occupation of Kuwait late 80s.

    He's the only republican in the country I've seen that isn't afraid to cross party lines to do what is good and right for the benefit of the country and the american people, and leave the political game playing for all the other republican sodomites.

    The country and people should always come first. Our elected scum no longer do that. The corporate money holders are now who those faggots work for. Fuck the people & Fuck 'em hard.

    --
    "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."
    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @04:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @04:00PM (#402846)

      The gay vegan Sodomites are gonna getcha! And turn your kids into gay vegan mooooooooslims, too!

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @03:08PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @03:08PM (#402822)

    he used a private server for official email

    No. He used a private email address, not a private server. The difference is that if you use a private server and the government comes demanding the official government records you are storing on your server, you can delete them and know that there are no backups floating around. If your email is on AOL, gmail, or some other service, you cannot guarantee that you can scrub away all of your sleazy behavior.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @08:03PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 16 2016, @08:03PM (#402922)

    I can guaran-fucking-tee whoever wrote this libelous shitpost is a Bush admin crony.

  • (Score: 2) by snufu on Saturday September 17 2016, @12:36AM

    by snufu (5855) on Saturday September 17 2016, @12:36AM (#402998)

    If you speak before the United Nations on something as serious as justifying a pre-emptive war, you better be right. Period. If you say these words in front of the world with the purpose of using these words to justify your actions, they are your words for eternity. You are Secretary of State. No blaming subordinates. No claiming "Well, I kind thought there was a chance it may be true at the time and we really wanted a reason to invade Iraq..."

    Trump may be acting disgraceful on a national scale. Secretary of State Powell is, and will always be, an international disgrace.