# Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council

On February 5, 2003, the Secretary of State of the United States Colin Powell gave a PowerPoint presentation to the United Nations Security Council. He explained the rationale for the Iraq War which would start on March 20, 2003 with the invasion of Iraq. The decision to invade Iraq had already been made prior to the presentation being given.
The content of the presentation was based on unreliable evidence. Powell was criticized for lying, while the U.S. saw its credibility heavily damaged.

## Selection and preparation

On February 5, 2003, Powell appeared before the UN to prove the urgency to engage a war with Iraq. In 2016, Powell would say, "[A]t the time I gave the speech on Feb. 5, the president had already made this decision for military action." Powell was selected to deliver the speech based on his credibility, and he stated in 2016 that it had been written by the vice president's office:
   The speech supposedly had been prepared in the White House in the NSC [National Security Council]. But when we were given what had been prepared, it was totally inadequate, and we couldn't track anything in it. When I asked Condoleezza Rice, the national security advisor, where did this come from, it turns out the vice president's office had written it.
CIA analyst Nada Bakos has stated that the speech's language differed from what the CIA prepared for Powell and from the copies the CIA received in advance of the presentation.

## Content

   My second purpose today is ... to share with you what the United States knows about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction ... Iraq's behavior demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort ... to disarm as required by the international community. Indeed, the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction ... every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.
Powell claimed that Iraq harbored a terrorist network headed by al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (in a small region controlled by Ansar al-Islam). He also claimed that Iraqis visited Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and provided training to al-Qaeda members, although thousands of Arabs from many countries did the same. US intelligence agencies have found no evidence of any substantive collaboration between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

### Slides

* Iraq Failing To Disarm
* Iraq Is Hiding Evidence
* Iraq Is Muzzling Its Scientists
* Iraq Is Hiding Dangerous Weapons
* Iraq Still Seeks Nuclear Weapons
* Iraq Is Harboring Terrorists, Including Al Qaida
* Iraq Has Refused To Disarm Peacefully

## Reactions
### Iraqi reaction

Ansar al Islam invited 20 journalists to a compound that should have been a 'poison factory'.

### Others

Although the presentation failed to change the fundamental position of the Security Council, including France, Russia, China, and Germany, Powell succeeded in hardening the overall tone of the United Nations towards Iraq. While Colin Powell's statement to the UN may have been accepted as proof by many in the US, this was not the case in Europe.
Powell himself stated later: "I, of course, regret the U.N. speech that I gave, which became the prominent presentation of our case. But we thought it was correct at the time. The President thought it was correct. Congress thought it was correct." "Of course I regret that a lot of it turned out be wrong," he said.
Powell's Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson later said that he had inadvertently participated in a hoax on the American people in preparing Powell's erroneous testimony before the United Nations Security Council.
In 2015, Michael Morell stated that he wanted to apologize to Powell for the evidence.

## Analysis

David Zarefsky noted that the speech mainly relied on the argument from ignorance.
The Guardian dubbed the speech a decisive moment in undermining the credibility of the United States.
The New York Times Magazine considered the speech one of the most indelible public moments of the Bush administration.
FAIR analyzed the media coverage of the week before and the week after the presentation and urged the media to broaden their coverage.

## Further developments

In a 2005 interview, Powell stated that he did not lie because he did not know the information was false.
   "There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up. That devastated me."