Colin Powell's UN Speech: A Pivotal Moment in the Lead-Up to the Iraq War

In the tense atmosphere following the September 11 terrorist attacks of 2001, the United States under President George W. Bush sought to confront perceived threats from rogue states. Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, became a focal point due to longstanding suspicions of its weapons programs. On February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered a landmark address to the United Nations Security Council, aiming to justify a potential U.S.-led invasion. This speech, lasting over an hour, represented the Bush administration's most concerted effort to garner international support for military action against Iraq.

Powell's presentation was meticulously crafted to build a case around Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). He repeatedly invoked the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" 17 times, emphasizing the grave danger posed by Saddam's regime. Drawing on declassified intelligence, Powell displayed satellite imagery purportedly showing Iraqi mobile biological weapons labs, chemical munitions bunkers, and efforts to conceal prohibited activities from UN inspectors. He held up a small vial of white powder to simulate anthrax, warning that a similar amount could cause mass casualties in a city like Washington, D.C. Powell also alleged ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda, claiming that Saddam harbored terrorists and provided them with training in poisons and explosives. He argued that Iraq had violated UN Resolution 1441, which demanded full disarmament, and that diplomacy had failed. "Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option, not in a post-September 11th world," Powell declared, framing the issue as an existential threat to global security.

The circumstances surrounding the speech were marked by intense internal pressures within the Bush administration. Powell, a respected former general and the first African American Secretary of State, was known for his cautious "Powell Doctrine," which emphasized overwhelming force and clear exit strategies only when vital interests were at stake. However, in the post-9/11 fervor, hawks like Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld pushed aggressively for regime change in Iraq, viewing it as unfinished business from the 1991 Gulf War. Ah, regime change, the American pastime. American as apple pie.

Intelligence reports, often cherry-picked or exaggerated by the administration's Office of Special Plans, painted a dire picture of Iraqi WMDs. Powell initially resisted, expressing skepticism about the evidence's reliability. He spent four days at CIA headquarters reviewing materials with Director George Tenet, who assured him of their solidity—famously calling the case a "slam dunk." 

Yet, behind the scenes, Powell faced immense pressure to align with the White House's agenda. As the administration's most credible figure—polls showed Americans trusted him on Iraq policy far more than Bush (63% vs. 24%)—he was essentially drafted to "sell" the war to a skeptical international community. 

In one of his books Powell shared the manner in which the President coerced him into making this speech: "Colin, you're the only one around here with any skin left on your nose." i.e., nobody trusted anyone else in the Bush administration at this point. Perhaps with good reason.  

Reports later revealed that the decision to invade had already been made by early 2003, rendering Powell's speech more of a justification than a deliberation. Dissenting voices within the State Department were sidelined, and Powell's own reservations were overridden by loyalty to the president and the weight of national security imperatives.

Despite its initial impact—bolstering U.S. public support for the war—the speech's claims unraveled as no WMDs were found after the March 2003 invasion. Powell's address, once hailed as persuasive, became a symbol of intelligence manipulation. In retrospect, Powell expressed profound regret over his role. 

In a 2005 interview, he called the speech a "blot" on his record, admitting it was based on flawed intelligence that represented a "great intelligence failure." He lamented being misled by the CIA and the administration's rush to war, stating in later reflections that it damaged his credibility and haunted him until his death in 2021. Powell's remorse underscored the perils of politicized intelligence and the human cost of decisions made under duress.

This story came to mind as I thought about one of my own weaknesses, unnecessarily caving in to pressure from others. Like a "fly in the ointment" this minor flaw of trying to please others has spoiled a number of otherwise pleasant, successful, or positive situations, tainting what ought to have been wonderfully sweet moments and memories.

There's a similar notion conveyed in this passage from the Song of Solomon: "Little foxes spoil the vines," implying that small, seemingly insignificant things--like bad habits--can cause significant damage if left unchecked, much like tiny foxes destroying a vineyard's tender, blossoming grapes.

Related Link

The Bus to Abilene 

It Worked for Me: In Life and Leadership

U.S. INTERVENTIONISM: 132 Years of Coups & Government Interference

U.S. soldiers: war in Iraq 

The United States has a long history of interfering with foreign governments, attempting (and executing) coups since 1893. It’s often driven by economic interests, anti-communism during the Cold War, or strategic geopolitical goals. Sometimes the rationales are indefensible, and frequently our activities are so clandestine we never even hear about them till years later, if ever.

Below is a list of notable instances where the U.S. is known to have interfered, either directly or indirectly, in coups or government changes, based on historical records and declassified documents. This list focuses on successful regime changes, attempted coups, and significant interventions, but it is not exhaustive due to the covert nature of many operations and ongoing debates about U.S. involvement.

U.S. Interventions in Coups and Governments Since 1898

1890s

•            Hawaii (1893): The U.S. supported a coup led by American plantation owners and businessmen, including Sanford Dole, to overthrow Queen Liliʻuokalani. U.S. Minister John L. Stevens called in Marines to "protect American interests," effectively aiding the coup. The Hawaiian Kingdom was replaced by the Republic of Hawaii, which was annexed by the U.S. in 1898. 

1900s

•            Philippines (1899–1902): After the Spanish-American War, the U.S. annexed the Philippines, leading to the Philippine-American War. The U.S. suppressed the First Philippine Republic under Emilio Aguinaldo, effectively overthrowing the nascent government to establish colonial rule 

•            Panama (1903): The U.S. supported Panama’s secession from Colombia to secure rights to build the Panama Canal. U.S. naval forces prevented Colombian troops from intervening, ensuring the success of the rebellion and the installation of a pro-U.S. government under Philippe Bunau-Varilla.  

•            Honduras (1903, 1907, 1911, 1912, 1919, 1924, 1925): During the Banana Wars, the U.S. intervened multiple times to protect American business interests, particularly those of the United Fruit Company. Notable actions include supporting Manuel Bonilla’s coup in 1903 and defending his regime against a Nicaraguan-backed coup in 1907.  

•            Nicaragua (1909–1912): The U.S. supported a rebellion against President José Santos Zelaya, who opposed American interests. U.S. Marines intervened, leading to Zelaya’s resignation, and the U.S. installed Adolfo Díaz as president, maintaining control through occupation until 1933.  

•            Cuba (1906–1909): Following the Spanish-American War, the U.S. occupied Cuba after President Tomás Estrada Palma’s government collapsed amid a rebellion. The U.S. established a provisional government, effectively controlling the island until 1909 

1910s

•            Dominican Republic (1914, 1916–1924): The U.S. intervened militarily to stabilize the country amid political unrest, occupying it from 1916 to 1924. U.S. forces installed a military government, controlling key institutions and suppressing opposition.  

•            Haiti (1915–1934): The U.S. occupied Haiti after the assassination of President Vilbrun Guillaume Sam, driven by concerns over German influence and debt repayment to American banks. The U.S. installed a pro-American government, dissolved the Haitian legislature, and maintained control for nearly two decades.  
•            Mexico (1913): U.S. Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson supported the Ten Tragic Days coup, which overthrew President Francisco I. Madero. Wilson’s actions, including encouraging General Victoriano Huerta’s rebellion, led to Madero’s assassination and Huerta’s rise to power. 

1940s

•            Panama (1941): The U.S. supported the coup that ousted President Arnulfo Arias, who was seen as pro-Axis during World War II. The U.S. backed Ricardo Adolfo de la Guardia, ensuring a pro-Allied government.  

•            Syria (1949): The CIA facilitated a coup against President Shukri al-Quwatli, who opposed the Trans-Arabian Pipeline. Colonel Husni al-Za’im, with CIA support, overthrew the government, aligning Syria with U.S. interests. 

 

1950s

•            Iran (1953): The CIA, in collaboration with British intelligence (Operation Ajax), orchestrated the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh after he nationalized Iran’s oil industry. The coup reinstated Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, securing Western oil interests.

•            Guatemala (1954): The CIA’s Operation PBSuccess overthrew President Jacobo Árbenz, whose land reforms threatened the United Fruit Company’s interests. Carlos Castillo Armas was installed as a military dictator, leading to decades of repression.  

•            Egypt (1952): The U.S. had extensive contact with the Free Officers Movement after their coup against King Farouk I. While direct involvement is debated, the CIA supported the new regime under Gamal Abdel Nasser to counter Soviet influence.  

•            Indonesia (1959): The CIA supported an attempted coup against President Sukarno, providing arms and funding to rebel groups. The attempt failed, and it strained U.S.-Indonesian relations.  

•            Lebanon (1958): The U.S. intervened militarily to support President Camille Chamoun’s government against internal unrest, deploying troops to prevent a potential coup and stabilize the pro-Western regime.  

•            Iraq (1959): The CIA attempted to overthrow the government of Abd al-Karim Qasim after his neutral stance in the Cold War. The coup failed, but Qasim was later overthrown in 1963 with U.S. support (see below.)

•            Cuba (1952–1958): The U.S. backed Fulgencio Batista’s regime, providing military and economic support against revolutionary forces. After Fidel Castro’s 1959 victory, the U.S. attempted to overthrow him in the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, which failed. Over a period of several years schemes were devised to assassinate Castro.

1960s

•            Democratic Republic of Congo (1960): The CIA supported the overthrow and assassination of Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, fearing his pro-Soviet leanings. Joseph Mobutu, with CIA backing, neutralized Lumumba, leading to Mobutu’s eventual rise to power.

•            Laos (1960, 1961): The CIA backed coups and counter-coups to install anti-communist governments, supporting General Phoumi Nosavan against neutralist and communist forces. The U.S. also organized Hmong forces to fight the Pathet Lao.  

•            Dominican Republic (1961, 1963): The CIA supplied weapons for the assassination of dictator Rafael Trujillo in 1961. After Juan Bosch’s election in 1962, the U.S. supported a 1963 coup against him and intervened in the 1965 civil war to prevent the democratically elected Bosch’s return.  

•            South Vietnam (1963): The U.S. supported a coup against President Ngo Dinh Diem, orchestrated by ARVN generals. The CIA provided funding and assurances of non-interference, leading to Diem’s overthrow and assassination.

•            Iraq (1963): The CIA supported the Ba’ath Party’s coup against Abd al-Karim Qasim, providing intelligence and support. The coup succeeded, and Qasim was executed, though the Ba’athists were later purged . 

•            Brazil (1964): The U.S. backed a military coup against President João Goulart, fearing his leftist policies. The CIA provided support, including fuel and arms, to Humberto Castello Branco’s forces, leading to Goulart’s ouster

•            Dominican Republic (1965): The U.S. intervened militarily during the Dominican Civil War to prevent supporters of deposed President Juan Bosch from regaining power, ensuring a pro-U.S. government.  
•            Indonesia (1965): The U.S. supported a military coup against the Sukarno government, providing lists of communists to the Indonesian army. The coup led to the massacre of up to 1 million people and the rise of Suharto’s regime. 

1970s

•            Chile (1973): The CIA, under President Nixon’s orders, destabilized President Salvador Allende’s government through economic warfare and propaganda. The U.S. supported General Augusto Pinochet’s coup, which overthrew the democratically elected Allende and established a brutal dictatorship. 

•            Argentina (1976): The U.S. supported the military coup against President Isabel Perón, with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger endorsing the junta. The regime committed widespread human rights abuses, including the deaths of up to 30,000 people.  

•            Bolivia (1971): The U.S. supported General Hugo Banzer’s coup against President Juan José Torres, who was seen as too left-leaning. Banzer’s regime repressed opposition and aligned with U.S. interests.

•            Nicaragua (1979–1980s): After the Sandinista revolution overthrew the U.S.-backed Somoza dictatorship, the U.S. funded and trained the Contra rebels to destabilize the Sandinista government, leading to a decade-long conflict.

•            El Salvador (1979–1980s): The U.S. supported a military junta that overthrew the reformist government in 1979, backing the regime against leftist rebels. The U.S. also intervened to prevent right-wing coups, fearing instability. 

 

1980s

•            Grenada (1983): The U.S. invaded Grenada (Operation Urgent Fury) after a military coup deposed Prime Minister Maurice Bishop. The invasion ousted the new regime, installed a pro-U.S. government, and held elections.

•            Panama (1989): The U.S. invaded Panama (Operation Just Cause) to depose Manuel Noriega, who had been a U.S. ally but became a liability due to drug trafficking. Guillermo Endara, a U.S.-backed leader, was installed as president. 

1990s

•            Haiti (1991): The CIA is alleged to have supported the coup against the democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, with coup leaders Raoul Cédras and Michel François having received U.S. military training. The U.S. later reinstated Aristide in 1994 via Operation Uphold Democracy.  

 

2000s

•            Venezuela (2002): The U.S. supported a failed coup against President Hugo Chávez, providing funding and encouragement to opposition groups. The coup briefly ousted Chávez, but he was reinstated after mass protests.

•            Honduras (2009): The U.S. tacitly supported the coup against President Manuel Zelaya, who was ousted by the military after aligning with leftist leaders like Chávez. The U.S. recognized the new government despite international condemnation. 

•            Iraq (2003): The U.S.-led invasion overthrew Saddam Hussein’s government, replacing it with a U.S.-backed interim government. The operation aimed to establish a democratic regime but led to prolonged instability. 

•            Libya (2011): The U.S., with NATO, supported a military intervention that led to the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi. The operation began as a humanitarian mission but resulted in Gaddafi’s death and a power vacuum.  

 

2010s

•            Paraguay (2012): The U.S. is alleged to have supported the impeachment of President Fernando Lugo, seen as a rapid coup by his allies. The U.S. quickly recognized the new government under Federico Franco.  

•            Ukraine (2014): The U.S. is alleged to have played a central role in the overthrow .

•            Brazil (2016): The U.S. is accused of supporting the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff, viewed by some as a “soft coup.” Declassified documents show U.S. interest in her removal due to her leftist policies.  

•            Venezuela (2018–2019): The U.S. backed opposition leader Juan Guaidó’s attempt to oust President Nicolás Maduro, recognizing Guaidó as interim president and imposing sanctions to destabilize Maduro’s regime. The effort has not succeeded.  
•            Bolivia (2019): The U.S. supported the ouster of President Evo Morales after disputed elections, backing Jeanine Áñez’s interim government. Critics argue the U.S. encouraged the military’s role in forcing Morales to resign. 

* * *

I shared this list with a friend who replied, "The list might include the Clinton/NATO bombing of Bosnia.... Also, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen.... Not sure what your requirements are lol... Where haven't we intervened might be a better list."

* * *

From 1898 to 1994 alone, the U.S. intervened in Latin America at least 41 times, averaging once every 28 months, often citing security or economic interests like those of the United Fruit Company. Many interventions, especially during the Cold War, aimed to counter perceived communist threats, though these claims were often exaggerated to justify action. 

* * *

Related Link
Orwell Castigates Wells, Defends Patriotism

* * *

Note how many of today's contemporary trouble spots have dark roots deep in the past.  Note also that America's bad behavior abroad is not isolated to the bad behavior of a single ruling party.  And note how many times our interventions were aimed a overthrowing a democratically elected leader. So much for our belief in Democracy with a capital D. 

As Dylan has written:

Democracy don’t rule the world

You’d better get that in your head

This world is ruled by violence

But I guess that’s better left unsaid

--Union Sundown, Infidels 1983

Photo credit: Encyclopædia Britannica

The Tillman Story, A Cover-Up Revisited

I remember well when NFL football hero Pat Tillman was killed while serving as a Ranger overseas. The reason I remember is because the night before the story broke, I was working late and had a problem occur on my laptop that I tried to resolve without calling a technical expert. Instead I tried to play tech medic and accidentally wiped clean my hard drive. I was devastated and in a state of shock.

The very next day the news broke regarding the death of Pat Tillman, killed during a sniper attack in a remote ravine in Afghanistan. The news of his death put my own loss in perspective. I hadn't lost a son like his parents had. 

The event made an impression though and years later I wrote about it here. I also remember that several weeks later news broke that he had been killed by "friendly fire." In other words, he died at the hands of a fellow soldier. This seemed doubly painful.

* * * 

This week while looking through documentaries at the library I came across The Tillman Story. Because of my experience I felt I had a special connection to this unfortunate event and was interested in seeing why someone had gone through the trouble of doing a full-length documentary on it. It quickly became apparent that this was a disturbing story that needed to be told. Here's a re-cap.

What interests me most, and why I share it here, is how it dovetails with a recurring theme that I've observed and sometimes written about: the lengths people in power go to control a narrative. It's nearly always about spin. This is why many people are suspicious of nearly everything told by those in power.

The Tillman Narrative vs. the Reality

What's agreed upon is that Pat Tillman was a professional NFL football player who was making a name for himself with the Arizona Cardinals. After 9/11, he and his brother Kevin were moved to make a decision to enlist in the armed forces. They first served in the Iraqi Freedom conflict after which they returned to the U.S. and completed Ranger training. They were re-deployed in Afghanistan where Tillman was ultimately shot and killed. 

First Narrative. Pat Tillman, a poster boy for serving his country in the army, was a hero who led his men to take out Taliban snipers. He was shot and killed by the enemy.

That is the "official story" that the Pentagon fed the media initially. For this he was awarded a Silver Star for heroism. The government attempted to have him buried at Arlington Cemetery with full military honors, but his family objected because this was not what Pat Tillman would have wanted. Pat, in advance, had signed papers saying he did not want that, did not want to be used for PR purposes. 

Second Narrative. There were problems with that first narrative because there were people there who saw it and it didn't correspond to the truth. Five or so weeks later, a new story was released that Pat was "killed by an errant U.S. bullet during a chaotic ambush." That is, it was an unfortunate accident.

There were a number of things that didn't add up. For example, why did the military give him a Silver Star if there had been no encounter with the Taliban?

Pat's widow Marie: "It felt like the world had stopped, yet everything goes on like normal." She also described the indignities one is subjected to in these situations. "The day after he was killed there were cameras on my front lawn, which was bizarre."

The documentary went into a little of how Pat and his brothers were raised. They did not watch television. His father was an attorney. They boys were quite active and he became a star football player despite his size. (He was not as large as you'd expect for someone who tackled so hard and was so fast and strong.) 

While in Iraq Tillman had seen things that disturbed him. One of these was the rescue of Jessica Lynch.* Lynch was in a convoy that had been ambushed during the Battle of Nasiriyah in Iraq. Tillman was part of a special unit call on to perform a rescue mission. Supposedly Lynch had fired her weapon until it was out of ammo, was captured and now being tortured. 

Just as Tillman and company prepared to go in, the mission was inexplicably delayed. When it resumed, Tillman saw that the delay was for the purpose of getting a camera crew present for the media sound bytes. As it turns out she never fired her weapon nor was she tortured. The whole thing was a film production. It seemed to him that the army had a narrative to project and the media was complicit. "Everything gets turned into a morality play."

When Pat and Kevin came back from Iraq they said, "This is just 100% bulls%@t." It was a war they no longer believed in.

The Tillman brothers did a lot of thinking and comparing notes while in the States. They completed Ranger training and began a 2nd tour of duty in April 2004 when they were sent to Afghanistan.

April 22 his unit was out on patrol in some narrow passes with high rock walls. One of the HumVees broke down and a decision was made to split the platoon, which some thought was quite unusual. Because of steep canyon walls, the two groups lost contact with one another. Tillman was in the lead group, Serial 1.

The Army later reported that the Rangers were attacked by 20 enemy Taliban. No one who was there actually saw any people attacking them. Nor were there any bullet holes in any equipment.

Some kind of explosion was heard by the second group, Serial 2, and they fully discharged their firepower in the direction of the noise. (Trivia: A 50 caliber gun can shoot 900 rounds a minute.)

The story they told was that Pat was shot from 200-300 yards away, that the second unit was just firing wildly while they were driving.

The reality is that they were much closer, 30 to 40 yards away, the distance of a medium-length pass by Aaron Rodgers. 

Pat Tillman was looking at them as they approached. They were not driving, they were stopped. They took aim and blew his head away.

His brother Kevin arrived on the scene 10 minutes later. The rest of the team was ordered not to tell Kevin what happened.

* * * 

After Pat's death, his mother Dannie was initially moved at how they military came and comforted them. Then, as she learned how much they lied to promote the war, and concealed the facts of his shooting, she felt a need to know what really went on.

The five soldiers who fired at Pat never gave an explanation for their actions. When the facts emerged, it became apparent that the deception went much higher than the soldiers on the ground. 

The army destroyed Pat's clothes, his body armor, his diary.... every piece of evidence that could be used to explain what happened. 

Pat Sr. wrote a very direct letter to the military expressing what he felt. Because he was an attorney, the army considered the wording of his letter to be "a formal accusation of criminal misconduct." This led to another investigation by the inspector general. 

In a press conference, the retired General Kensinger was blamed for what happened and stripped of his third star. The Army believed this would settle the matter and ought to satisfy the family. It was as if this general had ordered the cover up of the fratricide on his own.

Well, two days later, a secret memo was forwarded to the Associated Press that showed how high up the chain of command this really went. With the identity redacted, the memo stated that the president should be aware of what happened in case the circumstances of Pat's death become public. While the public was being told about Pat Tillman's valor, this memo showed that the entire chain of command was aware of its falsehood, and its implications.

As a result of this new information a 2007 Congressional hearing was conducted. The first witness was Pat's brother Kevin. The defense team then had a long list of generals give their stories. Though but a blip in time, The Tillman Story has been assembled to ensure that its lessons not be forgotten. 

*Initial official reports on Lynch's capture and rescue in Iraq were incorrect. On April 24, 2007, she testified in front of Congress that she had never fired her weapon (her M16 rifle having jammed), and that she had been knocked unconscious when her vehicle crashed. Lynch has been outspoken in her criticism of the original stories reported regarding her combat experience. When asked about her heroine status, she stated "That wasn't me. I'm not about to take credit for something I didn't do ... I'm just a survivor." --Wikipedia, Jessica Lynch

* * *

Related Links
Pat Tillman Foundation
Veteran Recalls Death By Friendly Fire
Recovering from a System Crash on Your Mac Laptop