(Post deleted by host for irrelevancy to thread topic)
Posted by dipshit at April 30, 2006 05:52 PMPowell is really the ultimate chicken hawk, basically gutless; slithering away from any responsibility like a snake. Perfectly content to let others fight a war he didn’t really believe in. (Is anyone in his family in uniform? He has fat son and two grandsons. What are they doing now?) He was against the war, sort of, but wasn’t prepared to say so. He played the part of the good General not questioning the Commander-in Chief (Commander Empty Flight Suit). His lying-sack-of-shit speech at the UN gave certain legitimacy to the Neocon imperialist, wet dream, fuck-up of Eye-rack that Dumbya, Shooter, and Field Marshal Rumsfuck could never have provided to a somewhat skeptical, mostly uninformed American public, and the rest of the world. He knew many of the things he said in the speech were completely unproven or just outright lies.
I’m not sure how he can live with himself now that so many troops, who he apparently cares for, have been killed or maimed. All because Bu$hCo didn’t have a plan for the aftermath of the war, and Powell knew it. His reputation is completely tarnished whether he believes it or not. Now he’s playing the blame game; he shares much of the blame no matter what he thinks or says. He should really just shut up and crawl back into the woodwork with the rest of the cockroaches.
colon cannot run away fast enough
the troops that were deployed in iraq may begin to gain on him.
if there was ever a candidate for a lynching, it is this sycophant. his sycophancy started decades ago in macv.
i thought of it on friday, prior to the introduction of this topic.
you don't know me, but i own and manage a specialty manufacturing operation in metro-houston. it is involved with the global oil and gas industry. an industry that in many respects i despise.
my shipping supervisor, a great woman, has a son who is a "screaming eagle". when the invasion began, when her son was deployed initially, she[and her family] were hardcore relishing the bushit invasion.
i found it interesting last week to hear from her how things had changed. her son,returned from iraq, is now eager to exit ft campbell and forsake the military[which he had intended to make a career].
i learned this because she asked me if he could apply for a job.
i try to keep my anti-war, anti-imperialist, anti-republican, anti-democrat orientation very private. apparently, my employees know me despite my reticence.
anyway, based on his mom's work ethic, her personality, if he wanted a job at my atelier, he would have the opportunity to be considered.
but just because you have been in pharoah's army doesn't cut you any slack.
Posted by albertchampion at April 30, 2006 06:57 PMPowell: trying to save his own reputation. Way too little and very much too late.
Charles
Posted by charles moore at April 30, 2006 07:09 PM"..I was not sure we had enough troops".
He's wasn't sure?
A West Pointer, trained to command? The Secretary of State, with every bit of information available to the US government at his fingertips, would have us believe, "he was not sure"?
Weasel words from a third rater.
Posted by Sonoma at April 30, 2006 07:28 PMNot every problem can be solved by openly opposing the bush administration. Richard Clark, for example, resigned and very actively took his case to the American people. His contributions to exposing the administrations deceit have been invaluable, this does not mean it is the right course for everyone.
In the lead up to the Iraq war Powell had one of the top positions in the White House - and I, for one, was glad to have him there! Something must be said for working for change from the inside. In the end, Powell’s efforts where futile, but the effort was still important - especially for Powell who believed that was his duty. Simply pushing everyone into one of two camps (which is what bush and the current republican leadership has done) and then screaming that everyone should come join their camp is not helpful.
Additionally, top white house officials should argue with each other in private. Whatever they decide on should be argued in public. This administration currently fails both these tests; they are all of one ideology so there is no private discussion, and they refuse to make a logical argument for their positions - Which, funny enough, is a clear sign someone has not discussed alternatives. Someone who has examined, discussed, and weighed alterative solutions is able to make a logical argument, acknowledged alternative views and explain their weaknesses and strengths.
Posted by Roc at April 30, 2006 07:36 PMI understand that Roc but was that any reason to go before the UN and blatantly lie?
Posted by Daryl at April 30, 2006 07:50 PM
I'd have only two follow up questions for Mr. Powell:
1. What was your fear when you told the President that more troops were needed?
One assumes the answer would be the chance of anarchy.
2. Has he seen Erroll Morris' documentary "The Fog of War"?
Posted by William Jensen at April 30, 2006 07:50 PM...but was that any reason to go before the UN and blatantly lie?
Good question Daryl.
I’ll admit, my knowledge on the time line is a bit fuzzy.
What did Powell know when he gave that speech?
Does anyone have a good source for this?
I'm glad Powell isn't being totally silent but he has a lot more work to do to set the record straight and repair at least some of the damage.
I wish Powell would explain what the war was for. If he says it was for democracy, then he has to explain how this was possible if Cheney and Rumsfeld were largely left in charge. And he needs to explain Abu Ghraib and a hundred other occassions when his foreign policy portfolio was simply taken away from him.
Posted by Craig at April 30, 2006 08:36 PMInfo from Powell’s former top aid, Wilkerson, made available via CNN
“"(Powell) came through the door ... and he had in his hands a sheaf of papers, and he said, 'This is what I've got to present at the United Nations according to the White House, and you need to look at it,'" Wilkerson says in the program. "It was anything but an intelligence document. It was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose."
Wilkerson and Powell spent four days and nights in a CIA conference room with then-Director George Tenet and other top officials trying to ensure the accuracy of the presentation, Wilkerson says.
"There was no way the Secretary of State was going to read off a script about serious matters of intelligence that could lead to war when the script was basically un-sourced," Wilkerson says.”
Powell was and is a political snake that goes along with whatever is good for Powell. His cartoon of the ACME Mobile Weapons Trailer would have looked more authentic with the roadrunner sketched in.
And I gagged when Timmeh asked Conarteesta if Powell really brought the troop numbers to their attention, and she said she couldn't remember. If she can't remember something that important, then she is incompetent like the rest of the Bush crowd.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 30, 2006 08:42 PMPowell's gonna need to shout against this crap a whole lot louder than this if he wants to save his reputation. He's still trying to be some voice of reason even from the sidelines, "Well, I told the president and it was his decision. And the president did listen to the people he was supposed to listen to. But it's not my fault or Cheney's or Rumsfeld's, etc. And stop insulting the generals." If you listen to what he's actually saying, it's circular reasoning. Not my fault. Not any other cabinet member's fault in particular. President's decision, but he was just listening to the right people. Stop blaming the generals. Etc. What a load of crap. He wants to escape blame without pinning the blame where it belongs.
He's trying to have his cake -- "not my fault" -- and eat it, too -- "not the neo-con cabinet or president's fault, his decision, though."
Powell needs to know that he's either on the neo-con bus or not. And right now, he's still on based on this half-assed critique of his.
What he should be saying is: "I'm sorry for the UN speech. I should have counseled more against this war and resigned before the president pulled the trigger. And I should have spoken out back then. I let my country down. The rest of the cabinet gave atrocious advice and they're a bunch of warmongers. And the president's an idiot without critical faculties and an even worse warmonger. We need to impeach this bozo right now. Forgive me, America." Then, and only then, will I have respect for him.
Until then, he can go fuck himself.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 30, 2006 09:25 PMPersonally, Powell should be sent to the Hague along with the rest of them. He doesn't appear to be too touched by his role to me. When the President decided to go to war, Powell was "right there with him with the use of force." This is the same type of men that Hitler surrounded himself with. Loyal to the end. Shame on you Powell. We expected more from you and you betrayed us. Live with it!
Despite his differences with the administration, Powell said he never considered resigning in protest. "I'm not a quitter. And it wasn't a moral issue, or an act of a failure of an active leadership. It was knowing what we were heading into, and when the going got rough, you don't walk out," he told Walters.
Making False Case for War Still 'Painful'
When Powell left the Bush administration in January 2005, he was widely seen as having been at odds with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney over foreign policy choices.
It was Powell who told the United Nations and the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat. He told Walters that he feels "terrible" about the claims he made in that now-infamous address -- assertions that later proved to be false.
When asked if he feels it has tarnished his reputation, he said, "Of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."
He doesn't blame former CIA Director George Tenet for the misleading information he says he pored over for days before delivering his speech; he faults the intelligence system.
"George Tenet did not sit there for five days with me misleading me. He believed what he was giving to me was accurate. … The intelligence system did not work well," he said.
Nonetheless, Powell said, some lower-level personnel in the intelligence community failed him and the country. "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," he said.
While Powell ultimately supported the president's decision to invade Iraq, he acknowledges that he was hesitant about waging war. "I'm always a reluctant warrior. And I don't resent the term, I admire the term, but when the president decided that it was not tolerable for this regime to remain in violation of all these U.N. resolutions, I'm right there with him with the use of force," he said.
Powell told Walters he is unfazed by criticism that he put loyalty to the president over leadership. "Loyalty is a trait that I value, and yes, I am loyal.
Posted by Judith at April 30, 2006 09:31 PM
Too bad this chump Powell was too ball-less to suggest that the invasion would be illegal and wrong to being with!
Posted by Rouser at April 30, 2006 09:56 PMPowell's a fucking disgrace.
Tell it to the judge at the Hague you lying piece of shit war criminal.
Posted by ran at April 30, 2006 09:58 PMFunniest comment I've seen in a while "Powell is really the ultimate chicken hawk" - he's just a retired 4-star general of the United States Army with 35 years of service.
But then I guess it depends on how you define what a chicken hawk is... I think it's this:
http://www.desertusa.com/aug96/du_hawk.html
or to ensure you don't think I found a single page when searching:
http://www.centralpets.com/animals/birds/raptors/rpt2938.html
of note for the owners of this blog:
"In California, state and federal laws protect all raptors. ... They may even kill chickens, and despite this rare occurrence, the Red-tail is known throughout the country as a "chicken hawk." :-)
Of course I think General Powell would greatly prefer the comparison over say one to a Copperhead (http://www.civilwarhome.com/copperheads.htm)
Posted by OutsideTheEchoChamber at April 30, 2006 10:14 PMWilkerson brought Powell out. Now he says that he warned this Administration! But he was the one that went to the UN showing the reasons while knowing that he was lying he was also known that he was lying the UN communities.
I am feeling lucky to have real news as both Free Speech TV and links TV on the dish network, compare to all the others networks network, it is the best news in America.
Last week was about a meeting of John Dean and Daniel Ellsberg. That was the first time they were interview together, as the inside man (John Dean) save the other (Daniel Ellsberg) from jail. They both said that this President has ignored all laws and that he is more dangerous than Nixon ever.
I saw this week end the Press corps gala! Stephen Colbert is the only person who has had the guts to say in public in double talks that Bush is an asshole. It was so rights when he told the reporters that they were covering this white House should just a get the memo and copy paste to their Newspaper? I stop mine when we had news that it was bought by a Texan!!!! I do live in the north east!!! We have too many monopolies.
We do not have a robust recovery, we have a market recovery.
>What did Powell know when he gave that speech?
In his defence, he did throw a lot of stuff out. Scooter Libby was on his back a lot, shouting and harassing himself with stuff (from Cheney), swearing a lot of OSP stuff was genuine. Tenet was playing Bush's game by that time.
But in his heart of heart's I think he really knew it was all shit. I think Powell's primary loyalty has always been not to the American people and its politicians, but to the American Army. In the army he saw the effects the fickle public and its politicians had on the army - in the early 60's in Vietnam, in the early 70's in Vietnam, in the 80's when he saw a US President, Reagan, decide to shell the Lebanon with a battleship because it would look good on TV and then had to deal with the immeidate aftermath - 230 dead marines in a suicide bombing, overnight withdrawal, and an immediate invasion of Grenada to cover Reagan's ass.
In 1990 he had a war in which he had control. He refused to go ahead with Gulf War One until the politicians had given him an open and shut guarantee on their political aims on the war - to the Kuwaiti border, no further, no messing about inside Iraq.
Under Bush 2 a lot of it was out of his hands. People already have forgotten the hysteria and fear there was in America. As his instincts were always for the well-being of the army, at the time the army under the chameleon Franks were swinging to the politicians, rather than with the more honest and honourable Shinseki. Now the generals are turning against the politicians and Powell follows.
The time where Powell really failed for me as a politician and a man was not in 03 at the UN but in 96 when he was offered the Republican Nomination for Presidential Candidate on a plate and turned it down. Think how different the world would be now if Colin Powell had been president on 9/11.
Posted by john at May 1, 2006 12:38 AMgood insight john.
Posted by Roc at May 1, 2006 01:14 AMInasmuch as no one believes the Cowardly Lion anymore, having squandered his credibility at the UN, why doesn't he just fade into deserved obscurity?
Posted by bob h at May 1, 2006 04:45 AM500,000 troops wouldn't have significantly reduced what we're seeing now. "Enough" was never going to be enough. Those on the left decrying our supposed timidity in attacking Iraq with enough force play into the hands of the xenophobes agitating for other wars in other places against non-Christian brown people. Given numerous reports of manpower shortages, recruiting difficulties, equipment and supply depletion and a looming "draft/no draft" controversy where in the hell were 500,000 troops supposed to be gotten had we gone that route? We couldn't summon body armor and adequately armored vehicles for 150,000 troops. What were the other 350,000 going to do for personal protection, activate their force fields? Prediction: All the above problems will be used by the Right as a rationale for going nuclear in our next war. They'll say "We can't expend the manpower and material needed to fight this war properly, just look what going in short did to us in Iraq. We HAVE to use nukes, there's no other option". That's next, watch for it.
Posted by steve duncan at May 1, 2006 05:36 AMIt's easy to criticize the boss after you leave a job, but Powell had every opportunity to speak up and out BEFORE the US invaded Iraq and launched the current occupation.
He didn't. In fact, he did what he's done for 40 year: carry water for his GOP masters.
He's a dispicable human being with the dried blood of the My Lai massacre under his finger nails.
Posted by Christopher at May 1, 2006 07:10 AMI have the opportunity to meet General Powell in June (yes, they are actually letting me in the room). If any of you have any decent (read: non-snarky) questions you'd like me to ask him, list them below. I'll ask him tough questions, so don't hold back.
Powell, along with Paul O'Neill, were the only appointees of this administration who had any business being in their positions. O'Neill got shived, and Powell's reputation will forever be soiled by his association and shilling for these thugs.
Posted by God Of War at May 1, 2006 08:21 AMIf any of you have any decent (read: non-snarky) questions you'd like me to ask him, list them below.
Ask him how long it took him to get the smell of shit out of his hai......
Oh nevermind.
Posted by snark at May 1, 2006 08:26 AM
Powell's State Department had a pre-invasion Future of Iraq Project that anticipated the insurgency. The State Department warned CENTCOM before the war about the lack of security plans. President Bush was given two National Intelligence Council assessments in January 2003 which "predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict."
Posted by croatoan at May 1, 2006 08:26 AM"There will be time to go back and look at those days of the war and, after the war, to examine what went right and what went wrong," Rice said on CBS'"Face the Nation."
Gack!!! So in other words, Kindasleazy is looking forward to the day when they can all look back and say, "Yup, we sure fucked up there, didn't we? Shoulda, coulda, woulda, huh? Ah, well." The effort undertaken in looking forward should be focused on what we should be going to get it right at the time we're doing it. That is, NOW.
I hate that woman and her demonic rhetoric. (:>
Posted by Donald Cormac at May 1, 2006 08:46 AMI'll ask him tough questions, so don't hold back.
Ask him how he felt when he was asked to take the lead in covering-up the Mi Lai massacre.
Posted by phidipides at May 1, 2006 09:01 AM"Think how different the world would be now if Colin Powell had been President on 9/11."
John - different but not better. I feel a sadness for Powell because in the mid 1990's he had the stature and respect that might have enabled him to become America's first black President. But as a citizen I am glad that the test of the last 5 years has finally revealed the true character of the man before we made that mistake. He is a follower and not a leader. A soldier but not a warrior. The wishy-washy "... I was not sure we had enough troops" isn't and wasn't and never will be good enough. The answer to the question whether we operationally have enough troops is either "Yes" or "No but we have to move forward now" or "No but we think we can win anyway" or "No and I have to convince my command of the dangers." Leaders must make decisions and not equivocations. A leader can make the right decision, the wrong decision for the right reasons or the wrong decision for the wrong reasons but leaders must make decisions. I understand that the idea and meaning of decision making has recently taken a slap in the face from Dubya but real decision making is still the hallmark of a leader. One of the unfortunate consequences of our system of promotion is that the focus on the political skills necessary for General-grade rank reward candidates with strong political skill but weak leadership skills. Colin Powell has always been a political general (starting from his days as a Colonel serving Alexander Haig). If 4 guys - Franks, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush - could have backed Powell down imagine what 19 guys would have done.
Timmeh asked Conarteesta if Powell really brought the troop numbers to their attention, and she said she couldn't remember.
be fair - she was just a lowly National Security Advisor at the time.
Posted by benjoya at May 1, 2006 09:49 AMoh, and ask powell if he's lost a lot of friends in iraq.
Posted by benjoya at May 1, 2006 09:51 AMoh, and ask powell if he's lost a lot of friends in iraq.
Posted by benjoya at May 1, 2006 09:51 AM
*****
I will.
Ask him how he felt when he was asked to take the lead in covering-up the Mi Lai massacre.
Posted by phidipides at May 1, 2006 09:01 AM
*****
OK, that one's a little too snarky. LOL.
Posted by God Of War at May 1, 2006 10:37 AMYeah, ask him how he slept at night after lying about the My Lai massacre?
See; not a hint of snark. ;-)
Posted by Christopher at May 1, 2006 10:38 AMI don't think Powell is a total fuck-up. He is far better than the rest, mind you, that's not saying much...
Posted by tempus at May 1, 2006 10:41 AMpowell never was anything but a political general.
Posted by herbal tee at May 1, 2006 01:35 PMherbal tee: I served under him, and he is not a total nutbar. More like Zinni, actually.
Posted by tempus at May 1, 2006 01:43 PM