This morning we are talking about the disintegration of Bush's credibility. But then, for many of us, Bush never had much credibility to destroy in the first place. We knew he was a liar of the first rank since well before the election debacle. But how about the greek tragedy that is the fall of Colin Powell? Powell, whether you agree with the assessment or not, was considered by many to be the most honest and trustworthy of all the people in Bush's administration. For two years he gave Bush the foreign policy cred he needed not to be immediately laughed off the world stage. Many people would think, "Well, Bush doesn't make any sense, but Powell is standing up there with him and I trust Powell so there must be something there after all." That all ended abruptly with Powell's presentation to the UN. Powell's reputation in the international community has been nearly destroyed by his failed Adalai moment. His presentation utterly failed to impress those who have expressed reservation about the U.S. course. Then it came out that the British intelligence report that Powell praised was based on a decade old plagiarized college thesis and his credibility began to sink like a rock. People began to question whether Powell had completely sold out his reputation for a campaign of lies and distortions. Well, now comes a column from Gilbert Cranberg, former editor of the Des Moines Register, that argues that Powell's report was not only a spin job but may have actually contained false information:

Powell's U.N. report apparently contains false information ... Powell's speech was accompanied by a number of graphics, including drawings said to be based on information provided by various sources. In each instance, the audience was dependent on Powell to describe the significance of the images. He also played the tapes, in Arabic, of two intercepted conversations, which the State Department translated. Powell referenced the conversations and commented on them. In the first cited conversation, between two Iraqi military officers discussing how to conceal from U.N. inspectors a certain "modified vehicle," Powell's account of the conversation squared with the State Department's translation. Powell's version of the second conversation, however, departed significantly from it. This conversation, about possibly forbidden ammunition, was reported by Powell to be between Republican Guard headquarters and an officer in the field. When Powell referred to this conversation, he quoted one of the parties as ostensibly saying, "And we sent you a message yesterday to clean out all of the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there." The State Department's transcript of the actual conversation makes it evident that Powell had embellished the quote to make it appear much more incriminating. Instead of being a directive to "clean out all of the areas, the scrap areas and the abandoned areas," as Powell claimed, the transcript shows the message from headquarters was merely "to inspect (emphasis added) the scrap areas and the abandoned areas." The damaging admonition that Powell said he quoted, "Make sure there is nothing there" is not in the transcript and appears to be an invention. Asked to explain the discrepancy, the State Department's press and public affairs offices said I should study Powell's presentation posted on the department's Web site. Instead of clarifying or explaining the discrepancy, the posted material simply confirmed the disparity.

Here's how Powell's states it (official State Deparment link):

SECRETARY POWELL: Let me pause again and review the elements of this message. "They are inspecting the ammunition you have, yes?" "Yes. For the possibility there are forbidden ammo." "For the possibility there is, by chance, forbidden ammo?" "Yes. "And we sent you a message yesterday to clean out all the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there. Remember the first message: evacuate it." This is all part of a system of hiding things and moving things out of the way and making sure they have left nothing behind. You go a little further into this message and you see the specific instructions from headquarters: "After you have carried out what is contained in this message, destroy the message because I don't want anyone to see this message." "Okay." "Okay."

And here is how it is in the official state department transcript of the conversation (official State Department link):

Iraq: Failing to Disarm: Transcript of Iraqi Conversation -- Ammunition Lt. Col: Sir ... Col. Yes. Lt. Col: There is a directive of the [Republican] Guard Chief of Staff at the conference today ... Col. Yes. Lt. Col. They are inspecting the ammunition you have. Col. Yes. Lt. Col. for the possibility there are forbidden ammo. Col. Yes? Lt. Col. For the possibility there is by chance, forbidden ammo. Col. Yes. Lt. Col. And we sent you a message to inspect the scrap areas and the abandoned areas. [no "make sure there is nothing there"] Col. Yes. Lt. Col. After you have carried out what is contained in the message ... destroy the message. Col. Yes. Lt. Col. Because I don't want anyone to see this message. Col. Okay okay. Col. Thanks. Lt. Col. Goodbye.

What's amazing about this is that the evidence of Powell's distortion is right there in the official State Department transcript. Yet it took weeks for someone to notice this discrepency. Cranberg concludes:

Powell went out of his way to assure the Security Council of his report's integrity: "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions." Granted, Powell could not reveal the identities of spies and other hidden sources. Unnamed sources when cited by the government, however, may be no more credible than anonymous sources generally, and they ought to be regarded as especially suspect. Nevertheless, columnists at The New York Times and The Washington Post accepted everything Powell said without a smidgen of skepticism, calling it a "masterful indictment" (James Hoagland) "that would convince any jury" (William Safire). Nor am I aware that any news organization has called attention to the government's evident fabrication.

(Link to this story courtesy of the Daily Howler).