In 2003, Powell came up with "ironclad evidence" to overthrow Saddam, Putin: It's not a tube of laundry detergent

In 2003, Powell came up with "ironclad evidence" to overthrow Saddam, Putin: It's not a tube of laundry detergent

On February 5, 2003, the atmosphere in the hall of the United Nations Security Council in New York was solemn. United States Secretary of State Colin Powell stood on the podium, holding a small test tube containing an unknown white powder. He solemnly declared that this was evidence of "weapons of mass destruction" possessed by Saddam's regime. The eyes of the world are focused on this little test tube, which seems to have become the dividing line between war and peace.

However, just as Powell was making an impassioned speech, an unexpected voice broke the silence in the room. Russia President Vladimir Putin sneered and said: "It's actually a tube of laundry detergent." This sentence is like a pebble thrown into a calm lake, stirring up a thousand waves.

What's in this little tube? Can it really be a reason to go to war? What kind of truth is hidden behind the "ironclad evidence" of United States? Let's unravel this gripping historical mystery with the pace of time.

Ironclad evidence or lies? Powell's astonishing statement

On 5 February 2003, the United Nations Headquarters building in New York was filled with the Security Council Chamber. The delegates of various countries looked serious, and there was an air of tension in the air. On this day, United States Secretary of State Colin · Powell will deliver a key speech to seek international support for United States's upcoming war against Iraq.

When Powell walked into the venue, the eyes of the audience were instantly focused on him. The general, who rose to prominence in the Gulf War, is now the United States's top diplomat. He was dressed in a straight suit, with a serious expression, and a mysterious small bottle in his hand.

"Excellencies," Powell said, his voice low but firm, "I stand here today to show you conclusive evidence that Iraq is still secretly developing weapons of mass destruction. ＂

As soon as the words fell, the entire venue was in an uproar. Since the end of the Gulf War in 1991, Iraq has been under United Nations sanctions, and its military strength has long been much weaker. Is Saddam Hussein really capable of continuing to develop such a dangerous weapon?

Powell ignored everyone's comments and continued: "According to our intelligence, Iraq not only possesses chemical weapons, but is also actively developing biological weapons. As he spoke, he held up the small bottle in his hand, "This is enough to kill thousands of people with anthrax spores." ＂

As soon as these words came out, there was silence in the venue. All eyes were on the inconspicuous little bottle. Powell went on to show a series of satellite photos and charts that he claimed were evidence of Iraq's clandestine weapons program.

"Saddam Hussein · pose a serious threat to world peace," Powell said in a resolute tone, "and if we don't act now, the price will be even worse in the future." ＂

The 76-minute speech is considered by many to be a key turning point in the United States' war against Iraq. Powell's earnest rhetoric and seemingly conclusive evidence have shaken many countries that were originally skeptical.

However, just as United States confidently presented these "ironclad evidence", Russia President Vladimir · Putin strongly questioned this. At a press conference in Moscow, Putin sneered and said, "I don't know if it's actually just a tube of laundry detergent." ＂

Putin's remarks immediately caused an uproar in the international community. As the leader of a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Putin's words undoubtedly cast a shadow over United States's arguments.

At the same time, France Foreign Minister Dominica · de Villepin also expressed doubts about the evidence of the United States. At a meeting of the Security Council, he asked rhetorically: "Is this so-called evidence really sufficient to prove the necessity of waging war?" ＂

In the face of doubts from the international community, the United States government still stands its ground. At a White House press conference, then-President George W. Bush said: "We have every reason to believe that Saddam's regime is actively developing weapons of mass destruction. For the sake of world peace, we have no choice but to act. ＂

Thus, while the international community was arguing, the United States government began final preparations for war in Iraq. On March 20, 2003, the U.S. military launched an air raid codenamed "Shock and Awe" against Baghdad, and the Iraq War officially began.

However, as the war progressed, the U.S. military never found the weapons of mass destruction that Powell claimed. This can't help but make people wonder whether the "ironclad evidence" that Powell presented at the UN Security Council at the beginning is the truth or a well-planned hoax?

Putin's cynicism: one sentence is heaven-shattering

As Powell's U.N. speech sent shockwaves around the world, Russia President Vladimir · Putin's words slammed into United States' carefully constructed arguments like a hammer.

On February 10, 2003, Putin received visiting France President Jacques Chirac at the Kremlin. At the subsequent joint press conference, Putin unexpectedly sharply questioned the "ironclad evidence" of the United States. He sneered and said, "I don't know if it's actually just a tube of laundry detergent." ＂

This seemingly casual ridicule actually contains profound political wisdom. Putin not only challenged the authority of United States, but also cleverly used a common item in ordinary households, laundry detergent, to analogy with Powell's display of "dangerous substances". This contrast has not only sparked laughter in the international community, but also cast doubt on the evidence of United States.

Putin's remarks quickly spread among the global media. The New York Times ran the headline "Putin: United States' Evidence Could Just Be Laundry Detergent." The Guardian called it "Putin's punch to United States hegemony." Even the United Kingdom's "Times", which has always been pro-American, had to admit that Putin's words "cast a shadow over the United States' justification for war."

In the face of Putin's ridicule, the United States government appeared somewhat unprepared. White House spokesman Ali · Fleischer, when pressed on the matter at a regular news conference, could only bite the bullet and say: "We have full confidence in our intelligence sources." President Putin's rhetoric is irresponsible. ＂

However, Putin did not stop there. In the days that followed, he repeated this "laundry detergent" metaphor several times in public. On February 15, at an economic forum in Moscow, Putin said bluntly: "If United States really has solid evidence, why not let United Nations weapons inspectors go to the field to verify it?" Are they afraid that their 'laundry detergent' will be debunked? ＂

Putin's series of remarks not only made United States passive, but also aroused widespread resonance in the international community. European powers such as France and Germany began to openly oppose United States' war plans. Even in United Kingdom, there were large-scale anti-war demonstrations.

On February 15, more than 10 million people around the world took part in an anti-war march, a record high. In London, about 2 million people took to the streets, chanting slogans such as "Don't fight for oil" and "Bush and Blair are warmongers." Among the marchers, there was no shortage of placards holding "Putin is right, this is just laundry detergent".

In the face of the growing anti-war voice in the international community, the United States government still goes its own way. In a televised address, President Bush said, "We have a responsibility to protect the world from terrorists and tyrants." Even President Putin's 'washing powder' theory cannot change the fact that the Iraq regime poses a threat to world peace. ＂

However, Putin's "laundry detergent" theory has gained the upper hand in international public opinion. More and more people are questioning the real motives of the United States for going to war. Some analysts pointed out that United States' move was more out of strategic considerations for controlling oil resources in the Middle East, rather than a real security threat.

On 17 March, Bush issued an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, demanding that he leave Iraq within 48 hours, otherwise United States would launch a military strike. At this tense moment, Putin once again publicly stated: "If the United States launches war against the opposition of the international community, it will make a historic mistake." Not only will they not be able to find so-called weapons of mass destruction, but they will also trigger more regional instability and the threat of terrorism. ＂

Putin's prediction was confirmed step by step in the course of later history. Although the United States quickly overthrew Saddam's regime, it was never able to find the so-called weapons of mass destruction. On the contrary, the situation in Iraq has continued to be volatile since the war, and extremist groups have taken advantage of the opportunity to gain momentum, bringing long-term instability to the entire Middle East region.

In 2005, then-outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted in an interview with United States that his speech at the United Nations was a "stain" on his career. "The intelligence was clearly wrong, and it was a lesson that I will never forget," he said. ＂

However, Powell has never given a clear answer to what exactly was in the small bottle that once shocked the world. Putin's "laundry detergent" statement has left a deep mark on the long river of history and has become a classic metaphor for people criticizing United States' foreign policy.

Saddam's last moments: the dignity and resistance of the heroes

On 30 December 2006, at a secret military base outside Baghdad, an execution destined to go down in history was about to take place. On this day, Saddam Hussein, the Iraq strongman who once called for wind and rain· will usher in the last moments of his life.

At 4 a.m., Saddam Hussein was woken up from prison by US troops. He put on a black coat to hide the signs of abuse on his body. On the way to the execution ground, Saddam remained silent and his eyes were determined.

The execution ground was housed in a two-story concrete building. When Saddam Hussein was brought in, more than a dozen Iraq officials were present. Among them was Iraq's national security adviser Muwafaq · Rubayi, who would oversee the execution from start to finish.

As soon as Saddam Hussein entered the room, he was insulted and ridiculed by those present. Someone shouted the name of the Shiite leader executed by Saddam's regime in an attempt to provoke the former dictator. However, Saddam Hussein ignored these provocations and calmly said: "Are you also worthy to be called men?" ＂

Then the judge began to read out the long indictment. Saddam Hussein was accused of crimes against humanity by ordering the execution of 148 Shiite residents of the village of Dujail in 1982. Surprisingly, however, there is no mention of "weapons of mass destruction" that the United States has accused Saddam of possessing.

After the reading, the executioners prepared to put a black hood on Saddam. However, Saddam Hussein resolutely refused. "I was a fighter, and from the moment I picked up a gun, I knew that I could die at any moment," he said. I am not afraid of death, and I am not afraid of you. ＂

At this moment, Saddam Hussein showed a very different side from his reign. The once brutal dictator has now shown surprising composure and courage. He insisted on facing death in his own way, refusing to cover his face.

When Saddam Hussein was brought to the gallows, he looked around and said to Rubayi: "This is for men." This sentence is not only an evaluation of the method of execution, but also an affirmation of one's own courage.

At the moment when the noose was put on him, Saddam Hussein began to recite the Koran. His voice was loud and firm, echoing through the silence of the execution ground. The scene unnerved some of those present, and some began to shout for speeding up the execution.

However, just as the executioners were about to flip the switch, the gallows malfunctioned. This accident gave Saddam one last chance to express himself. He shouted: "Long live Iraq!" Long live Palestine! Long live the Arab nation! Down with the Persians! ＂

These slogans reflect Saddam's complex political position. Even in the last moments of his life, he showed adherence to Arab nationalism and hostility towards Iran (ancient Persia).

Finally, the officials present reactivated the hanging. Saddam · Hussein, the strongman who ruled Iraq for nearly a quarter of a century, ended his storied and controversial life.

Saddam's death provoked a mixed response in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. In the Sunni region of Baghdad, protest demonstrations broke out. And in the Shia-majority southern cities, celebrations are held.

The international community also had a different view of Saddam's execution. United States President George W. Bush called it "an important milestone for Iraq's justice." However, some countries and organizations, including the Vatican, have expressed opposition to the death penalty as not contributing to the reconciliation process in Iraq.

It is noteworthy that Saddam Hussein's execution coincided with the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha. This arrangement, seen by many as a deliberate humiliation of Sunnis, further exacerbated sectarian tensions within Iraq.

Saddam's execution also sparked reflection on United States's role in the Iraq war. Although the United States repeatedly stressed that Saddam's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction, they were not found until Saddam was executed. This raises questions about the real motives of the United States in launching the Iraq war in the first place.

In the years following Saddam's execution, the situation in Iraq did not improve as United States had hoped. On the contrary, sectarian conflict has intensified, and extremist groups have taken advantage of the opportunity to gain momentum, bringing long-term instability to the entire Middle East region.

The Truth Revealed: The Embarrassing Results of the Post-War Search

On May 1, 2003, United States President George W. Bush stood on the deck of the USS Lincoln, with a banner reading "Mission Accomplished" hanging behind him, confidently announcing the end of major combat operations in Iraq. However, the military operation, known as "shock and terror," quickly overthrew Saddam's regime, did not find the "weapons of mass destruction" claimed by United States.

To substantiate the pre-war allegations, the United States government immediately formed a special team called the Iraq Survey Group (ISG). The team, consisting of more than 1,400 experts, is tasked with searching for weapons of mass destruction throughout Iraq.

The team was led by David Ka·y, a former CIA official in United States, and included intelligence analysts, weapons specialists, scientists and engineers. Armed with state-of-the-art testing equipment, they conducted carpet searches of military installations, scientific research institutions and suspicious locations in Iraq.

Over time, however, the findings have become increasingly embarrassing for the United States government. Not only did the search team not find any chemical or biological weapons, but they also failed to find conclusive evidence of the relevant research and development projects. The small bottle of "anthrax spores" that was once displayed by Powell at the UN Security Council seems to be just a tube of "washing powder" as Putin said.

In January 2004, David · Kay testified before Congress: "We were all wrong. He said the team did not find any stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, nor did it find any signs that Iraq had recently restarted related programs. This conclusion is undoubtedly a blow to the United States government.

Faced with this embarrassing situation, the Bush administration began to adjust its rhetoric. They claim that although no physical weapons have been found, Saddam's regime retains the relevant "capabilities" and "intentions". However, this claim has not calmed the doubts of the international community.

In July 2004, the United States Senate Intelligence Committee released a 511-page report severely criticizing the CIA's intelligence failures on Iraq. The report notes that the CIA has relied too heavily on unreliable intelligence sources and has ignored evidence in its analysis that contradicts its preconceived position.

At the same time, the United Kingdom government is in a similar predicament. On July 14, 2004, the United Kingdom released the results of a survey known as the "Butler Report", acknowledging that the judgment that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction on the eve of the Iraq war was wrong. The report seriously undermined the credibility of Tony · Tore's government.

At a time when the US and UK governments are in a crisis of confidence, some interesting details are beginning to emerge. In October 2004, the New York Times revealed that some suspicious chemicals found by the US military in Iraq turned out to be ordinary pesticides after testing. This is reminiscent of Putin's famous "laundry detergent" mockery.

Even more ironically, the U.S. military found a batch of expired chemical protective suits in an abandoned warehouse outside Baghdad. These protective suits were sold to the Saddam regime by Western countries, including United States, during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s of the 20th century. The discovery undoubtedly added a layer of embarrassment to the United States allegations.

On 31 March 2005, United States President George W. Bush established an independent commission of inquiry to conduct a comprehensive review of Iraq's pre-war intelligence failures. In its report, the Commission noted that United States intelligence agencies were "wrong in almost every important respect" in assessing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

The report not only criticizes serious shortcomings in the intelligence gathering and analysis process, but also points to problems in the use of intelligence by policymakers. However, the report found no evidence that government officials directly suppressed or misrepresented intelligence in support of the decision to wage war.

As the truth gradually emerged, the international community's criticism of United States grew louder. Many believe that United States uses disinformation as a pretext to control Iraq's oil resources and reshape the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East.

In September 2005, then-UN Secretary-General Kofi ·Annan said in an interview with United Kingdom Broadcasting Corporation that Iraq war was illegal from a legal point of view. He pointed out that the unilateral war launched by the United States, bypassing the Security Council, violated the Charter of the United Nations.

In the face of doubts from the international community, the attitude of the United States government has also begun to change subtly. In a December 2005 interview with CNN, then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice admitted that the United States government had "made a lot of mistakes" on Iraq. However, she still insisted that overthrowing Saddam's regime was the right decision.

History's warning: lies will eventually be exposed

The aftermath of the war in Iraq is far from subsided, and this war based on disinformation has taught the world a profound lesson. From the "washing powder" in the UN Security Council to the smoke of gunpowder on the streets of Baghdad to Saddam's gallows, every scene is a reminder to the world that lies will eventually be exposed and the truth will be revealed.

On March 21, 2006, on the third anniversary of the outbreak of the Iraq War, then-United States President George W. Bush gave a speech in Cleveland, acknowledging that there were "some errors" in the pre-war intelligence assessment. However, he still insisted that the decision to overthrow Saddam's regime was the right one. This attitude raises more questions: Can a war built on the wrong foundation really bring justice and peace?

At the same time, the voices of reflection in the United States are getting louder. In May 2006, Nancy ·Pelosi, the Democratic leader of the United States House of Representatives, severely criticized the Bush administration in a public speech: "They manipulate intelligence and mislead the United States people, which is a blasphemy against our democratic system." The remarks reflect widespread concerns in United States society about the integrity of the government.

On the other side of the Atlantic, United Kingdom is also in a crisis of confidence. In January 2009, the United Kingdom government announced the establishment of the "Iraq Commission of Inquiry", chaired by Sir John · Zilcott, to comprehensively review the decision-making process of United Kingdom's involvement in the war in Iraq. The process, known as the Zilcott Investigation, lasted seven years, culminating in the release of a 2.6 million-word report in July 2016.

The report pointedly notes that the United Kingdom government was "far from exhausting the options for peace" when it decided to enter the war and exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq. The report not only shook Tony · Blair's political legacy, but also lowered the United Kingdom people's trust in the government to an all-time low.

The consequences of the war in Iraq were far more serious than expected. In December 2011, U.S. troops officially withdrew from Iraq, but the Middle Eastern country has not been as democratic and prosperous as United States claims. On the contrary, long-standing sectarian strife and political instability have created the conditions for the rise of extremist groups.

In June 2014, the extremist group Islamic State (ISIS) seized Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city, and declared a "caliphate." This development shocked the world and forced people to re-examine the long-term impact of the war in Iraq.

In a May 2015 interview with United States CNN, Hillary · Clinton, then a candidate for United States president, admitted that she had made a "mistake" in voting for the war in Iraq as a senator in 2002. This attitude of openly admitting mistakes reflects the reflection of the United States political elite on the Iraq war.

However, admitting mistakes does not mean that the stain of history can be easily erased. On July 6, 2016, the day the United Kingdom released its Zilkot report, a suicide bomb attack occurred in Baghdad, the capital of Iraq, killing nearly 300 people. This bloody incident is yet another reminder that the spectre of war is still unsettled, and that the consequences of a war based on lies continue to affect the lives of countless ordinary people.

The lessons of the Iraq war are not limited to the United States and Britain. It has had far-reaching implications for the entire international order. In 2003, when United States unilaterally launched a war bypassing the UN Security Council, the trend of multipolarization in the world began to emerge. Emerging powers such as Russia and China have begun to participate more actively in international affairs and challenge the unipolar hegemony of United States.

On March 20, 2018, on the 15th anniversary of the outbreak of the Iraq war, the RAND Corporation, a United States think tank, released a research report. The report pointed out that the war in Iraq not only failed to achieve the desired goals, but weakened United States' global influence and created conditions for Iran to expand its influence in the Middle East. This conclusion is undoubtedly a heavy blow to United States' Middle East policy.

As time passed, more and more details were revealed. In 2019, the United States New York Times published a lengthy investigative story revealing how United States intelligence used disinformation from an Iraq chemical engineer codenamed "Paperclip" to support the decision to go to war. The chemical engineer later admitted that he fabricated intelligence aimed at overthrowing Saddam's regime, and that United States intelligence agencies selectively embraced this false information.

Today, when we look back at the little bottle of "laundry detergent" that Powell held up to the UN Security Council, it has become a powerful historical metaphor. It reminds the world that whether it is a big country or a small country, whether it is strong or weak, lies will eventually be exposed and the truth will eventually be revealed. And those who try to manipulate information for political purposes will only end up undermining their credibility and international standing.