Is there anyone left who still considers Colin Powell to be an honorable man? If so, why? Such a viewpoint must of necessity be based on ignoring the facts. What about Halabja? Has there ever been a more embarrassing or hypocritical performance by an American official, not omitting Dubya himself? To claim that gas attacks that took place a dozen years ago were sufficient reason for killing ten thousand Iraqis today is silly enough, but what about the fact that Powell was Secretary of State at the time, and did not (apparently) protest then?
But in case you needed one more straw to break this camel's back, how about Powell's reaction here: (from The New York Times editorial “The Failure to Find Iraqi Weapons”, published Friday, 26 September 2003)
Americans and others in the world are glad that Mr. Hussein has been removed from power. If Iraq can be turned into a freer and happier country in coming years, it could become a focal point for the evolution of a more peaceful and democratic Middle East. But it was the fear of weapons of mass destruction placed in the hands of enemy terrorists that made doing something about Iraq seem urgent. If it had seemed unlikely that Mr. Hussein had them, we doubt that Congress or the American people would have endorsed the war.
This is clearly an uncomfortable question for the Bush administration. Yesterday, Secretary of State Colin Powell met with Times editors. Asked whether Americans would have supported this war if weapons of mass destruction had not been at issue, Mr. Powell said the question was too hypothetical to answer. Asked if he, personally, would have supported it, he smiled, thrust his hand out and said, "It was good to meet you."