Powell covers up history again
John Q. Smith
UN conceals Picasso's 'Guernica' for Powell's presentation
By David Walsh
8 February 2003
In an act with extraordinary historical resonance, United Nations
officials covered up a tapestry reproduction of Pablo Picasso's anti-war
mural 'Guernica' during US Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5
presentation of the American case for war against Iraq.
Picasso's painting commemorates a small Basque village bombed by German
forces in April 1937 during the Spanish Civil War. The painter, in
desolate black, white and grey, depicts a nightmarish scene of men,
women, children and animals under bombardment. The twisted, writhing
forms include images of a screaming mother holding a dead child, a
corpse with wide-open eyes and a gored horse. Art historian Herbert Read
described the work as 'a cry of outrage and horror amplified by a great
genius.'
The reproduction has hung outside the Security Council chamber at UN
headquarters in New York since its donation by the estate of Nelson A.
Rockefeller in 1985. As the council gathered to hear Powell on
Wednesday, workers placed a blue curtain and flags of the council's
member countries in front of the tapestry.
UN officials claimed that the cover-up was simply a matter of creating a
more effective backdrop for the television cameras. 'When we do have
large crowds we put the flags up and the UN logo in front of the
tapestry,' asserted Stephane Dujarric. New York Newsday, however,
reported that 'Diplomats at the United Nations, speaking on condition
they not be named, have been quoted in recent days telling journalists
that they believe the United States leaned on UN officials to cover the
tapestry, rather than have it in the background while Powell or other US
diplomats argued for war on Iraq.'
The right-wing Washington Times was obliged to note: 'Television cameras
routinely pan the tapestry as diplomats enter and leave the council
chambers, and its muted browns and taupes lend a poignant backdrop to
the talking heads. So it was a surprise for many of the envoys to arrive
at U.N. headquarters last Monday for a Security Council briefing by
chief weapons inspectors, only to find the searing work covered with a
baby-blue banner and the U.N. logo.'
Further damaging Dujarric's claim, the Toronto Star's art critic Peter
Goddard wrote that 'the coverup may have been prompted by UN realization
that images of the mural's vivid anti-war message were televised
world-wide when it appeared as a backdrop to the Jan. 27 interim report
by chief weapons inspector Hans Blix.'
A group of protesters held up copies of Picasso's painting outside the
UN on Wednesday while Powell was making his warmongering appeal.
Aside from its general evocation of anti-war sentiment, Picasso's
painting threatened to speak to historical parallels that the Bush
administration and UN officials were clearly determined that the media
or the public should not make.
For an entire generation the bombing of Guernica and Picasso's
interpretation of the event signified the barbarity of fascism and the
widespread determination to resist its violence and brutality.
The bombing of Guernica, by the German Luftwaffe in support of Francisco
Franco's Nationalist army, was one of the first opportunities for
European fascism to reveal its murderous face.
German bombers launched an unprovoked attack on the Basque village of
5,000 at 4:30 in the afternoon, the busiest hour of a market day.
According to one account, 'The streets were jammed with townspeople and
peasants from the countryside. Never before in modern warfare had
noncombatants been slaughtered in such numbers, and by such means' (Lael
Wertenbaker, The World of Picasso, 1967).
From 4:30 to 7:45 the squadron of German airplanes rained uncontested
bombs and gunfire on the village. 'Villagers who were not immediately
killed fled to the fields to take refuge, only to be ravaged by plunging
machine gun fighters' (Thomas Gordon and Max Morgan, Guernica: The
Crucible of World War II, 1975).
One-third of the population of the village was either killed or wounded.
The fires that engulfed the city burned for three days. Isolated farms
as far away as four miles were bombed.
A survivor of the attack recounted, 'The air was alive with the cries of
the wounded. I saw a man crawling down the street, dragging his broken
legs.... Pieces of people and animals were lying everywhere.... In the
wreckage there was a young woman. I could not take my eyes off her.
Bones stuck through her dress. Her head twisted right around her neck.
She lay, mouth open, her tongue hanging out. I vomited and lost
consciousness' (Gordon and Morgan).
The bombing of Guernica had no strategic military significance. It was
an opportunity for the German military'with the authorization of
Franco'to test its powerful new air force. The killing and maiming of
1,700 Spanish villagers was essentially done for bombing practice. The
raid also had the aim of intimidating and terrorizing not simply the
Spanish population, but any and all of those who might oppose the
fascist onslaught.
After news of the massacre had reached Paris, more than one million
people flooded the city's streets on May 1 to protest the atrocity.
Eyewitness accounts filled French newspapers. Stunned and horrified by
the black and white photographs of the bombing's devastation, Picasso
quickly sketched the first images for the Guernica mural. Three months
later the painting was delivered to the Spanish pavilion at the 1937
World's Fair in Paris. Following the victory of Franco's fascist army,
with the aid of Hitler and Mussolini, Picasso forbade the work's display
in Spain until the country enjoyed 'public liberties and democratic
institutions.' 'Guernica' was returned to Spain on October 25, 1981, on
the centenary of the painter's birth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1998-2003
World Socialist Web Site <http://www.wsws.org/>
All rights reserved
Uncle Samuel
wrote:
>Just like he did at My Lai.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/cnote/lane041795.html
"Powell, who arrived in Vietnam in June, about ten weeks after My Lai,
had no involvement in the massacre.) The Americal's adjutant general
ordered Powell to check it out and report within three days with a
suggested reply to Glen."
>Copyright 1998-2003
>World Socialist Web Site <http://www.wsws.org/>
>All rights reserved
Right...now here's a credible source, the "socialists" are claiming
Powell had the Picasso covered with a UN flag...what a hoot!
With <chuckle> "unbiased" reportage like this it's not hard to measure
who's behind the "peace marches"...
Here's some more of their propaganda...
http://www.internationalist.org/left&war0901.html
"The shock waves from the coordinated September 11 attacks on New
York’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon have spread throughout the
world. Aircraft carriers steam toward the Indian Ocean, the largest
air armada since World War II is being assembled to strike at
Afghanistan, the killer elites of the 82nd and 101st Airborne
Divisions are on the move...
It is a war on Arabs, Asians and all immigrants, who are being
victimized and deprived of rights.
It is a war on black people, who are facing a resurgence of racist
“profiling” by the authorities.
It is a war on working people, who are being thrown out of their jobs
by the hundreds of thousands while the benefits of those who remain
are slashed.
It is a war on democratic rights, as the capitalist rulers generalize
police-state controls on everything from e-mail to national ID cards.
Before long the bourgeoisie will be declaring workers’ strikes a form
of “terrorism.”
That's what these creeps think of the US response to 9-11 and radical
Islamo-fascism!
But the real story cuts far deeper...in their own words...
http://www.insof.org/w7/news_intern.html
"In response to the US aggression, Committee of the Revolutionary
Internationalist Movement (CoRIM) "called upon the people of all
countries to unite in their millions to oppose and resist every act of
US aggression" . Revolutionary Communist Party of USA also called for
resistance. Similarly, Communist Party of lran
(Marxist-Leninist-Maoist), Communist Party of Afghanistan, Communist
party of lndia (Marxist-Leninist) (People's War) and the Maoist
Communist Centre (MCC) have condemned US aggression on Afghanistan and
repression on the masses the world over.
As CoRIM statement states, " this war will be met with a storm of
resistance not only in those countries designated as targets, but
through out the whole world, including in the US and other aggressor
countries them-selves ". Anti-war protests were held within the US and
the other imperialist countries. In London 20000 people demonstrated
against the US and the allied aggressors. 10000 people in Scotland,
15000 in Berlin, 10000 in San Francisco, 5000 in New York, 800 in
Seattle, 200 in Los Angeles, 500 in Vancouver, 500 in Toronto, have
demonstrated to protest the aggression. In these anti-imperialist
demonstration the slogans, "no war, support peace"; "this war is not
patriotic war," etc. were chanted. "
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5802
"The Workers World Party staged anti-American rallies in Washington,
D.C. and San Francisco, January 18th. In fact, the Stalinist WWP has
organized all the major rallies demanding "peace" on tyrants’ terms.
The organizers and speakers at this communist-sponsored, anti-American
rally were the same cast of characters, saying the same hateful things
that they did at last October’s anti-American rally in Washington,
D.C.
That it was an anti-American rally was self-evident because one of the
speakers said that in Korea anti-war rallies are known as "f-cking
America rallies." The remark received the loudest cheers of any
remarks made during the event.
The speaker who uttered this invective was Yoomi Choong of the Korea
Truth Commission (KTC). Ms.Choong is the Deputy Secretary General of
the KTC, which is affiliated with the International Action Center
(IAC), which is affiliated with International ANSWER. All of these
groups are affiliated with the Workers World Party (WWP). The WWP is a
staunch advocate of Kim Jong Il."
Oh yeah, the commies are out and re-massing worldwide.
Aozotorp
>>Just like he did at My Lai.
>
>http://www.tnr.com/politics/cnote/lane041795.html
>
>"Powell, who arrived in Vietnam in June, about ten weeks after My Lai,
>had no involvement in the massacre.) The Americal's adjutant general
>ordered Powell to check it out and report within three days with a
>suggested reply to Glen."
>
Sounds like the best face one can put on it is that Powell did not check it out
very good!
Uncle Samuel
A fair appraisal.
John Edward Robinson a/k/a "robbie"
Uncle Samuel wrote:
*************************************************
That is about is relevant, as saying Pat Robertson. The Bimbo Rush, the
KKK or other Right Wing Odd Balls speak for America. Bush perhaps.
--
\\\\\\||///
\\ //
( @ @ )
---0ooo-----(_)------ooo0
John Edward Robinson
a/ka/ "robbie"
John Q. Smith
It was not in the best interest of advancing his career.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/121700b.html
December 17, 2000
Behind Colin Powell's Legend
Page 1, 2, 3
Vietnam Lessons
On Jan. 17, 1963, in South Vietnam's monsoon season, U.S. Army Capt.
Colin Powell jumped from a military helicopter into a densely forested
combat zone of the A Shau Valley, not far from the Laotian border.
Carrying an M-2 carbine, Capt. Powell was starting his first -- and only
-- combat assignment. He was the new adviser to a 400-man unit of the
Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN). Across jungle terrain, these
South Vietnamese government troops were arrayed against a combined force
of North Vietnamese regulars and local anti-government guerrillas known
as the Viet Cong.
The 25-year-old Powell was arriving at a pivotal moment in the Vietnam
War. To forestall a communist victory, President John F. Kennedy had
dispatched teams of Green Beret advisers to assist the ARVN, a force
suffering from poor discipline, ineffective tactics and bad morale.
Already, many U.S. advisers, most notably the legendary Col. John Paul
Vann, were voicing concerns about the ARVN's brutality toward civilians.
Vann feared that the dominant counterinsurgency strategy of destroying
rural villages and forcibly relocating inhabitants while hunting down
enemy forces was driving the people into the arms of the Viet Cong.
But as Colin Powell arrived, he was untainted by these worries. He was a
gung-ho young Army officer with visions of glory. He brimmed with trust
in the wisdom of his superiors. Capt. Powell also felt the deepest
sympathy for the ARVN troops under his command, but only a cold contempt
for the enemy.
Soon after his arrival, Powell and his ARVN unit left for a protracted
patrol that fought leeches as well as Viet Cong ambushes. From the soggy
jungle brush, the Viet Cong would strike suddenly against the advancing
government soldiers. Often invisible to Powell and his men, the VC would
inflict a few casualties and slip back into the jungles.
In My American Journey, Powell recounted his reaction when he spotted
his first dead Viet Cong. "He lay on his back, gazing up at us with
sightless eyes," Powell wrote. "I felt nothing, certainly not sympathy.
I had seen too much death and suffering on our side to care anything
about what happened on theirs."
While success against the armed enemy was rare, Powell's ARVN unit
punished the civilian population systematically. As the soldiers marched
through mountainous jungle, they destroyed the food and the homes of the
region's Montagnards, who were suspected of sympathizing with the Viet
Cong. Old women would cry hysterically as their ancestral homes and
worldly possessions were consumed by fire.
"We burned down the thatched huts, starting the blaze with Ronson and
Zippo lighters," Powell recalled. "Why were we torching houses and
destroying crops? Ho Chi Minh had said the people were like the sea in
which his guerrillas swam. ... We tried to solve the problem by making
the whole sea uninhabitable. In the hard logic of war, what difference
did it make if you shot your enemy or starved him to death?"
For nearly six months, Powell and his ARVN unit slogged through the
jungles, searching for Viet Cong and destroying villages.
Then while on one patrol, Powell fell victim to a Viet Cong booby trap.
He stepped on a punji stake, a dung-poisoned bamboo spear that had been
buried in the ground. The stake pierced Powell's boot and quickly
infected the young soldier's right foot. The foot swelled, turned purple
and forced his evacuation by helicopter to Hue for treatment.
Although Powell's recovery from the foot infection was swift, his combat
days were over. He stayed in Hue, reassigned to the operations staff of
ARVN division headquarters. As part of his work, he handled intelligence
data and oversaw a local airfield. By late autumn 1963, Powell's first
Vietnam tour ended.
On his return to the United States, Powell did not join Vann and other
early American advisers in warning the nation about the self-defeating
counterinsurgency strategies. In 1963, Vann carried his prescient
concerns back to a Pentagon that was not ready to listen to doubters.
Then, when his objections fell on deaf ears, Vann resigned his
commission and sacrificed a promising military career.
In contrast, Powell recognized that his early service in Vietnam put him
on a fast track for military success. He signed up for a nine-month
Infantry Officer Advanced Course that trained company commanders. In May
1965, Powell finished third in a class of 200 and was the top-ranked
infantryman. A year later, he became an instructor.
In 1966, as the numbers of U.S. servicemen in Vietnam swelled, Powell
received a promotion to major, making him a field-grade officer before
his 30th birthday. In 1968, Powell continued to impress his superiors by
graduating second in his class at Fort Leavenworth's Command and General
Staff College, a prestigious school regarded as an essential way station
for future Army generals.
Recognizing Powell as an emerging "water-walker" who needed more
seasoning in the field, the Army dispatched Powell to a command position
back in Vietnam. But on his second tour, Powell would not be slogging
through remote jungles. On July 27, 1968, he arrived at an outpost at
Duc Pho to serve as an executive officer.
Then, to the north, at the Americal headquarters in Chu Lai, division
commander Maj. Gen. Charles Gettys saw a favorable mention of Powell in
the Army Times. Gettys plucked Powell from Duc Pho and installed him on
the general's own staff at Chu Lai.
Gettys jumped the young major ahead of more senior officers and made him
the G-3 officer in charge of operations and planning. The appointment
made "me the only major filling that role in Vietnam," Powell wrote in
his memoirs.
But history again was awaiting Colin Powell. The Americal Division was
already deep into some of the cruelest fighting of the Vietnam War. The
"drain-the-sea" strategy that Powell had witnessed near the Laotian
border continued to lead American forces into harsh treatment of
Vietnamese civilians.
Though it was still a secret when Powell arrived at Chu Lai, Americal
troops had committed an act that would stain forever the reputation of
the U.S. Army. As Major Powell settled into his new assignment, a
scandal was waiting to unfold.
My Lai
On May 16, 1968, a bloodied unit of the Americal division stormed into a
hamlet known as My Lai 4. With military helicopters circling overhead,
revenge-seeking American soldiers rousted Vietnamese civilians -- mostly
old men, women and children -- from their thatched huts and herded them
into the village's irrigation ditches.
As the round-up continued, some Americans raped the girls. Then, under
orders from junior officers on the ground, soldiers began emptying their
M-16s into the terrified peasants. Some parents used their bodies
futilely to shield their children from the bullets. Soldiers stepped
among the corpses to finish off the wounded.
The slaughter raged for four hours. A total of 347 Vietnamese, including
babies, died in the carnage. But there also were American heroes that
day in My Lai. Some soldiers refused to obey the direct orders to kill
and some risked their lives to save civilians from the murderous fire.
A pilot named Hugh Clowers Thompson Jr. from Stone Mountain, Ga., was
furious at the killings he saw happening on the ground. He landed his
helicopter between one group of fleeing civilians and American soldiers
in pursuit.
Thompson ordered his helicopter door gunner to shoot the Americans if
they tried to harm the Vietnamese. After a tense confrontation, the
soldiers backed off. Later, two of Thompson's men climbed into one ditch
filled with corpses and pulled out a three-year-old boy whom they flew
to safety.
Several months later, the Americal's brutality would become a moral test
for Major Powell, too.
A letter had been written by a young specialist fourth class named Tom
Glen, who had served in an Americal mortar platoon and was nearing the
end of his Army tour. In the letter to Gen. Creighton Abrams, the
commander of all U.S. forces in Vietnam, Glen accused the Americal
division of routine brutality against civilians.
Glen's letter was forwarded to the Americal headquarters at Chu Lai
where it landed on Major Powell's desk.
"The average GI's attitude toward and treatment of the Vietnamese people
all too often is a complete denial of all our country is attempting to
accomplish in the realm of human relations," Glen wrote.
"Far beyond merely dismissing the Vietnamese as 'slopes' or 'gooks,' in
both deed and thought, too many American soldiers seem to discount their
very humanity; and with this attitude inflict upon the Vietnamese
citizenry humiliations, both psychological and physical, that can have
only a debilitating effect upon efforts to unify the people in loyalty
to the Saigon government, particularly when such acts are carried out at
unit levels and thereby acquire the aspect of sanctioned policy."
Glen's letter contended that many Vietnamese were fleeing from Americans
who “for mere pleasure, fire indiscriminately into Vietnamese homes and
without provocation or justification shoot at the people themselves.”
Gratuitous cruelty was also being inflicted on Viet Cong suspects, Glen
reported.
“Fired with an emotionalism that belies unconscionable hatred, and armed
with a vocabulary consisting of 'You VC,' soldiers commonly
'interrogate' by means of torture that has been presented as the
particular habit of the enemy. Severe beatings and torture at knife
point are usual means of questioning captives or of convincing a suspect
that he is, indeed, a Viet Cong. ...
“It would indeed be terrible to find it necessary to believe that an
American soldier that harbors such racial intolerance and disregard for
justice and human feeling is a prototype of all American national
character; yet the frequency of such soldiers lends credulity to such
beliefs. ...
“What has been outlined here I have seen not only in my own unit, but
also in others we have worked with, and I fear it is universal. If this
is indeed the case, it is a problem which cannot be overlooked, but can
through a more firm implementation of the codes of MACV (Military
Assistance Command Vietnam) and the Geneva Conventions, perhaps be
eradicated."
In 1995, when we questioned Glen about his letter, he said he had heard
second-hand about the My Lai massacre, though he did not mention it
specifically. The massacre was just one part of the abusive pattern that
had become routine in the division, he said.
Powell's Response
The letter's troubling allegations were not well received at Americal
headquarters.
Major Powell undertook the assignment to review Glen's letter, but did
so without questioning Glen or assigning anyone else to talk with him.
Powell simply accepted a claim from Glen's superior officer that Glen
was not close enough to the front lines to know what he was writing
about, an assertion Glen denies.
After that cursory investigation, Powell drafted a response on Dec. 13,
1968. He admitted to no pattern of wrongdoing. Powell claimed that U.S.
soldiers in Vietnam were taught to treat Vietnamese courteously and
respectfully. The Americal troops also had gone through an hour-long
course on how to treat prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions,
Powell noted.
"There may be isolated cases of mistreatment of civilians and POWs,"
Powell wrote in 1968. But "this by no means reflects the general
attitude throughout the Division." Indeed, Powell's memo faulted Glen
for not complaining earlier and for failing to be more specific in his
letter.
"In direct refutation of this [Glen's] portrayal," Powell concluded, "is
the fact that relations between Americal soldiers and the Vietnamese
people are excellent."
Powell's findings, of course, were false, though they were exactly what
his superiors wanted to hear.
It would take another Americal hero, an infantryman named Ron Ridenhour,
to piece together the truth about the atrocity at My Lai. After
returning to the United States, Ridenhour interviewed Americal comrades
who had participated in the massacre.
On his own, Ridenhour compiled this shocking information into a report
and forwarded it to the Army inspector general. The IG's office
conducted an aggressive official investigation, in marked contrast to
Powell's review.
Confirming Ridenhour's report, the Army finally faced the horrible
truth. Courts martial were held against officers and enlisted men who
were implicated in the murder of the My Lai civilians.
But Powell's peripheral role in the My Lai cover-up did not slow his
climb up the Army's ladder. After the scandal broke, Powell pleaded
ignorance about the actual My Lai massacre.
Luckily for Powell, Glen's letter also disappeared into the National
Archives -- to be unearthed only years later by British journalists
Michael Bilton and Kevin Sims for their book, Four Hours in My Lai.
consort.gif (5201 bytes)
December 17, 2000
Behind Colin Powell's Legend
Page 1, 2, 3
Powell's Admissions
In his best-selling memoirs, Powell did not mention his brush-off of Tom
Glen's complaint.
Powell did include, however, another troubling recollection that belied
his 1968 official denial of Glen's allegation that American soldiers
"without provocation or justification shoot at the people themselves."
After a brief mention of the My Lai massacre in My American Journey,
Powell penned a partial justification of the Americal's brutality. In a
chilling passage, Powell explained the routine practice of murdering
unarmed male Vietnamese.
"I recall a phrase we used in the field, MAM, for military-age male,"
Powell wrote. "If a helo spotted a peasant in black pajamas who looked
remotely suspicious, a possible MAM, the pilot would circle and fire in
front of him. If he moved, his movement was judged evidence of hostile
intent, and the next burst was not in front, but at him.
"Brutal? Maybe so. But an able battalion commander with whom I had
served at Gelnhausen [West Germany], Lt. Col. Walter Pritchard, was
killed by enemy sniper fire while observing MAMs from a helicopter. And
Pritchard was only one of many. The kill-or-be-killed nature of combat
tends to dull fine perceptions of right and wrong."
While it's certainly true that combat is brutal and judgments can be
clouded by fear, the mowing down of unarmed civilians in cold blood does
not constitute combat. It is murder and, indeed, a war crime.
Neither can the combat death of a fellow soldier be cited as an excuse
to murder civilians. Disturbingly, that was precisely the
rationalization that the My Lai killers cited in their own defense.
But returning home from Vietnam a second time in 1969, Powell already
had begun to prove himself the consummate team player. Those skills were
tested again when Powell was drawn into another Vietnam controversy
involving the killing of civilians.
In a court martial proceeding, Powell sided with an Americal Division
general who was accused by the Army of murdering unarmed civilians while
flying over Quang Ngai province. Helicopter pilots who flew Brig. Gen.
John W. Donaldson had alleged that the general gunned down civilian
Vietnamese almost for sport.
In an interview, a senior investigator from the Donaldson case told us
that two of the Vietnamese victims were an old man and an old woman who
were shot to death while bathing. Though long retired -- and quite
elderly himself -- the Army investigator still spoke with a raw disgust
about the events of a quarter century earlier. He requested anonymity
before talking about the behavior of senior Americal officers.
"They used to bet in the morning how many people they could kill -- old
people, civilians, it didn't matter," the investigator said. "Some of
the stuff would curl your hair."
For eight months in Chu Lai during 1968-69, Powell had worked with
Donaldson and apparently developed a great respect for this superior
officer.
When the Army charged Donaldson with murder on June 2, 1971, Powell rose
in the general's defense. Powell submitted an affidavit dated Aug. 10,
1971, which lauded Donaldson as "an aggressive and courageous brigade
commander."
Powell did not specifically refer to the murder allegations, but added
that helicopter forays in Vietnam had been an "effective means of
separating hostiles from the general population."
Mysterious Interview
Powell apparently was questioned by Army authorities about his knowledge
of Donaldson's alleged atrocities. But his answers may be lost to
history. In his memoirs, Powell provides a brief -- and incorrect --
description of the 1971 interview in the context of the My Lai massacre.
"I was serving in the Washington area, and was called to appear before a
board of inquiry conducted by Lt. Gen. William Ray Peers at Fort
Belvoir, Virginia," Powell wrote. "The board wanted me to give a picture
of fighting conditions in the Batangan Peninsula in 1968 [where the My
Lai massacre had occurred]. I knew it had been a hellhole, a rough
piece of territory inhabited by VC sympathizers."
Powell's account of the interview is itself a bit of a mystery. While
it's true that in 1971, a commission headed by Gen. Peers was
investigating the My Lai cover-up, all the Peers interviews were
conducted at the Pentagon, not at Fort Belvoir.
Also, by 1971, the Army knew a great deal about the "fighting conditions
in the Batangan Peninsula" and would not need the opinion of an officer
who arrived months after the My Lai massacre. Further, when we examined
the Peers Commission records at the National Archives branch at
Suitland, Md., we found no indication that Colin Powell ever had been
interviewed by the board.
There was, however, an investigation at Fort Belvoir conducted in the
same time frame by the Army's criminal investigation unit. It was
examining the murder allegations against Powell's friend, Gen. Donaldson.
The retired Army investigator told us that Powell was questioned in that
case. But the investigator said Powell volunteered little knowledge
about the atrocities. The investigator doubted that any record was made
of the interview.
Nevertheless, the investigator claimed that "we had him [Donaldson] dead
to rights," with the testimony of two helicopter pilots who had flown
Donaldson on his shooting expeditions. Still, the investigation
collapsed after the two pilot-witnesses were transferred to another Army
base and apparently came under pressure from military superiors.
The two pilots withdrew their testimony, and the Army dropped all
charges against Donaldson. "John Donaldson was a cover-up specialist,"
the old investigator growled.
While thousands of other Vietnam veterans joined the anti-war movement
and denounced the brutality of the war, Powell held his tongue. To this
day, Powell has avoided criticizing the Vietnam War other than to
complain that the politicians should not have restrained the military
high command.
With the My Lai cloud dissipated, Major Powell's career advanced
smartly. Powell often says he learned many lessons from Vietnam. One
lesson he doesn't mention is that a military bureaucrat succeeds best by
sidestepping controversy and keeping quiet when superiors screw up.
As the years unfolded, that proved to be a very valuable lesson indeed.
Donald L Ferrt
Wow = right out of WWII!
>
> While success against the armed enemy was rare, Powell's ARVN unit
> punished the civilian population systematically. As the soldiers marched
> through mountainous jungle, they destroyed the food and the homes of the
> region's Montagnards, who were suspected of sympathizing with the Viet
> Cong. Old women would cry hysterically as their ancestral homes and
> worldly possessions were consumed by fire.
>
> "We burned down the thatched huts, starting the blaze with Ronson and
> Zippo lighters," Powell recalled. "Why were we torching houses and
> destroying crops? Ho Chi Minh had said the people were like the sea in
> which his guerrillas swam. ... We tried to solve the problem by making
> the whole sea uninhabitable. In the hard logic of war, what difference
> did it make if you shot your enemy or starved him to death?"
When I got to The Americal Divison in late 69, a lot of areas were
free fire free strike zones = Anyone could be fired upon!
>
> For nearly six months, Powell and his ARVN unit slogged through the
> jungles, searching for Viet Cong and destroying villages.
>
> Then while on one patrol, Powell fell victim to a Viet Cong booby trap.
> He stepped on a punji stake, a dung-poisoned bamboo spear that had been
> buried in the ground. The stake pierced Powell's boot and quickly
> infected the young soldier's right foot. The foot swelled, turned purple
> and forced his evacuation by helicopter to Hue for treatment.
Guess they did not have Kit Carsons in those days!
> who ?for mere pleasure, fire indiscriminately into Vietnamese homes and
> without provocation or justification shoot at the people themselves.?
> Gratuitous cruelty was also being inflicted on Viet Cong suspects, Glen
> reported.
>
> ?Fired with an emotionalism that belies unconscionable hatred, and armed
> with a vocabulary consisting of 'You VC,' soldiers commonly
> 'interrogate' by means of torture that has been presented as the
> particular habit of the enemy. Severe beatings and torture at knife
> point are usual means of questioning captives or of convincing a suspect
> that he is, indeed, a Viet Cong. ...
>
> ?It would indeed be terrible to find it necessary to believe that an
> American soldier that harbors such racial intolerance and disregard for
> justice and human feeling is a prototype of all American national
> character; yet the frequency of such soldiers lends credulity to such
> beliefs. ...
>
> ?What has been outlined here I have seen not only in my own unit, but
> also in others we have worked with, and I fear it is universal. If this
> is indeed the case, it is a problem which cannot be overlooked, but can
> through a more firm implementation of the codes of MACV (Military
> Assistance Command Vietnam) and the Geneva Conventions, perhaps be
> eradicated."
>
> In 1995, when we questioned Glen about his letter, he said he had heard
> second-hand about the My Lai massacre, though he did not mention it
> specifically. The massacre was just one part of the abusive pattern that
> had become routine in the division, he said.
>
> Powell's Response
>
> The letter's troubling allegations were not well received at Americal
> headquarters.
>
> Major Powell undertook the assignment to review Glen's letter, but did
> so without questioning Glen or assigning anyone else to talk with him.
> Powell simply accepted a claim from Glen's superior officer that Glen
> was not close enough to the front lines to know what he was writing
> about, an assertion Glen denies.
>
> After that cursory investigation, Powell drafted a response on Dec. 13,
> 1968. He admitted to no pattern of wrongdoing. Powell claimed that U.S.
> soldiers in Vietnam were taught to treat Vietnamese courteously and
> respectfully. The Americal troops also had gone through an hour-long
> course on how to treat prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions,
> Powell noted.
Interesting = At the Americal Divison training Center - a one day
lecture event = They tolds us exactly the opposite = To disrespect
Vietnamese = This was late '69. They advocated searching Vietnamese
For documents = especially Women Vietnamese who might carry documents
in orifices = So it was import we probe these orifices in order to
save American Lives = they said the Penis was a good prober of these
orifices!
>
> "There may be isolated cases of mistreatment of civilians and POWs,"
> Powell wrote in 1968. But "this by no means reflects the general
> attitude throughout the Division." Indeed, Powell's memo faulted Glen
> for not complaining earlier and for failing to be more specific in his
> letter.
>
> "In direct refutation of this [Glen's] portrayal," Powell concluded, "is
> the fact that relations between Americal soldiers and the Vietnamese
> people are excellent."
Unless he burned down their house of course!
Well ,Powell is now touted as the person interested in Human rights =
But during Indonesia's rampage in East Timor in '99, he also said
human rights has no place in the conduct of foreign affairs!
Uncle Samuel
wrote:
>
>
>Aozotorp wrote:
>>>>Just like he did at My Lai.
>>>
>>>http://www.tnr.com/politics/cnote/lane041795.html
>>>
>>>"Powell, who arrived in Vietnam in June, about ten weeks after My Lai,
>>>had no involvement in the massacre.) The Americal's adjutant general
>>>ordered Powell to check it out and report within three days with a
>>>suggested reply to Glen."
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sounds like the best face one can put on it is that Powell did not check it out
>> very good!
>
>It was not in the best interest of advancing his career.
He had 3 days to report back - not nearly enough time in those
conditions.
Aozotorp
Then he should have said such = Read the whole article also!
Uncle Samuel
War is Hell, s**t happens.
Donald L Ferrt
Not war crimes that are covered up!
Uncle Samuel
Ferrt) wrote:
Yawn, nothing got "covered up" - we all know about My Lai.
Aozotorp
Not due to the higher ups involved!
John Edward Robinson a/k/a "robbie"
Uncle Samuel wrote:
***********************************************
Too bad the Bushes don't understand it.
IRAQ CRISIS: THE REGION: Iran-backed forces add to US challenge
By Guy Dinmore in Washington
Financial Times; Feb 19, 2003
The movement into northern Iraq of Iraqi Shia opposition forces backed by
Iran underlines the growing complexity of the task facing the US as it plans its
military overthrow of the Baghdad regime and tries to shape a future
government to replace it.
The 5,000-strong force said by Iranian officials to have taken up a position
about 15 miles inside northern Iraq is there to counter any threat from
Saddam Hussein's army and allies. But it also represents a foothold for the
jostling of positions, military and political, once the Iraqi regime has gone.
Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, a Shia Muslim Arab who heads the
Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri), regards southern Iraq
as his stronghold. Dozens of his relatives have been killed or imprisoned by
the Baghdad regime, many after the failed 1991 uprising that was encouraged
but then abandoned by the US.
The movement of some of his forces hundreds of miles from southern Iran into
northern Iraq appears to have come as a surprise to the US administration,
which has been engaged in talks with Sciri, as one of several Iraqi opposition
groups, for some years. However, Ayatollah Hakim, based in Tehran since
1980, should not be viewed as an Iranian puppet under Tehran's tight control,
US and Iranian officials say.
But Ayatollah Hakim and Jalal Talabani, head of the Patriotic Union of
Kurdistan (PUK), whose party controls that area of north-east Iraq now
hosting Sciri troops, have long spoken of their military alliance. They have a
common interest in containing Ansar al-Islam - an extremist Sunni group
suspected of al-Qaeda links that holds a mountainous enclave next to PUK
territory - as well as the People's Mujahideen Organisation, the
Baghdad-backed Iranian opposition force. Iranian sources say the US
administration privately told Ayatollah Hakim that his role in a democratic
Iraqi government would be supported by the US, but that his small army
should not intervene during the US invasion.
The US is concerned that advances by Kurdish forces in the north and the
Shia in their southern stronghold could lead to widescale ethnic bloodletting
directed against the Sunni minority.
Turkish troops are already in northern Iraq, but the US wants them, too, to
stay out of the fighting. Turkey is concerned about the potential for large
movements of refugees, about the status of the Turkoman minority in Iraq and
any move by the Kurdish parties to set up an independent or
quasi-independent state, especially if they should control the oil-rich region of
Kirkuk.
Analysts say the Bush administration is not speaking with one voice over Iran,
with Pentagon hawks concerned the State Department is encouraging too
strong an Iranian role.
Find this article at:
http://search.ft.com/search/article.html?id=030219000803&query=guy+dinmore&vsc_appId=totalSearch&state=Form
John Edward Robinson a/k/a "robbie"
Uncle Samuel wrote:
***************************************************
Not so!
Iranian-backed forces cross into Iraq
By Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran and Guy Dinmore in Washington
Published: February 18 2003 21:48 | Last Updated: February 19 2003 1:43
Iranian-backed Iraqi opposition forces have crossed into northern Iraq from Iran with the
aim of securing the frontier in the event of war, according to senior Iranian officials.
The forces, numbering up to 5,000 troops, with some heavy equipment, are nominally
under the command of Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, a prominent Iraqi Shia
Muslim opposition leader who has been based in Iran since 1980 and lives in Tehran.
A US State Department official said he was aware of reports that part of Ayatollah
Hakim's Badr brigade had crossed into northern Iraq but declined further comment.
Analysts close to the administration of President George W. Bush said the US was
concerned about the intentions of this new element in an increasingly complicated
patchwork of forces in northern Iraq.
Turkey has long had a limited military presence in northern Iraq, and US special forces
began moving into the region several months ago. The Badr brigade has been trained and
equipped by Iran's Revolutionary Guards and could be regarded as a proxy force of the
Iranian government.
Iranian officials insist that force's role in the north is defensive but its presence will
exacerbate the concerns of the US and especially the Arab world that military intervention
in Iraq will lead to a permanent disintegration of the country. Through inserting a proxy
force, Iran is underlining that it cannot be ignored in future discussions over Iraq's
make-up.
Ayatollah Hakim's forces had previously been based in southern Iran, close to Iraq. Two
months ago they began moving into the area of northern Iraq governed by the Patriotic
Union of Kurdistan (PUK), one of two Kurdish parties that rule an area the size of
Switzerland outside Baghdad's control.
A senior Iranian official, who asked not to be named, said the presence of Ayatollah
Hakim's troops was defensive and aimed at countering a possible attack on Iran by the
People's Mujahideen Organisation (MKO), an Iranian opposition group based in Iraq
and strongly supported by President Saddam Hussein.
Another official said the Badr force had moved into an area near Darbandikhan, a
depopulated and rugged stretch of hills and ravines about 15 miles from the closest point
on the Iranian border.
The MKO used Iraqi territory to mount attacks on Iran during the 1980-88 war between
Iran and Iraq. The Kurdish parties controlling northern Iraq have also expressed fears that
Mr Hussein would try to use the MKO against them in the event of a US-led invasion of
Iraq.
Ayatollah Hakim is the head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri),
a mainly Shia Muslim group that fought in the failed 1991 uprising against Baghdad in
southern Iraq. More recently Sciri has taken part in talks between the Iraqi opposition
and the US.
His office in Tehran denied that the Badr brigade had moved into northern Iraq but said
Sciri had maintained forces in that region for several years, gathered from Iraqi Shia who
had fled the Iraqi regime. A representative of the PUK also denied there had been a
recent movement across the border but confirmed a presence of Sciri forces.
Uncle Samuel
BS - we know.