Is Colin Powell trying to save his soul?

[globalvillage]

He's all over the news this morning about how he insisted that Rummy send 'enough' troops into Iraq to win the peace. No one listed to poor Colin.

WRONG, asshole. These too-little, too-late excuses are not going to redeem you. You helped lie us into this God-awful war, and it's on your head, too, so Fuck you. I hope you burn right along side of bush*, rummy, condi and the rest of your co-conspirators.

Cobra II page 130 "Senator John Kerry, declared he had received personal assurances from Colin Powell that force would be the last resort."

Colin Powell = LIAR

:grr: :grr: :grr:

[ProSense]

1. Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh!

Powell Advised Bush to Invade Iraq With Larger Force (Update1)

April 30 (Bloomberg) -- Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said he urged President George W. Bush to deploy a greater numbers of troops for the 2003 invasion of Iraq than advocated by the Pentagon.

``I made the case to General (Tommy) Franks and Secretary (Donald) Rumsfeld before the President that I wasn't sure we had enough troops,'' Powell said in an interview with Britain's ITV television network broadcast today. ``The President's military advisers felt that the size of the force was adequate. They may still feel that years later. Some of us don't. I don't.''

Powell said that generals and other Department of Defense advisers were ``anticipating a different kind of aftermath'' to the Iraq war.

A confidential memo written on Jan. 31, 2003, by David Manning, then a top U.K. foreign policy adviser, said Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair expected a quick victory and a complicated but manageable transition to a new Iraqi government, the New York Times reported on March 27.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aaa9Y_3JrSAY

THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NO INVASION YOU LIAR!!!!!!!!!!


:mad:

[ProSense]

2. GV!

You should post this in GD with the quote, the bloomberg article, and these headlines.


Powell says he urged more troops for Iraq
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-30-powell-iraq_x.htm?csp=34


Powell: I Wanted More Troops In Iraq
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml

[globalvillage]

3. done, thanks. n/t

[zann725]

4. Once you've "sold" your soul...there's a "no return"/Pottery Barn rule

No returns. You "bought it" (and "lost it") with your testimony BEFORE the War.

...all to please your "Master."

[TayTay]

5. Much as I think Powell caved,

I am glad he is speaking out. This is one more abandonment of the Bush regime and one more abandonment of the way in which this Admin took us to war. Powell was neutered at State by the neocons and fed bad information. He didn't speak up when Rumsfeld consolidated power from across the Executive branch into the Pentagon. He didn't give voice to his doubts enough and use the power of the State Department intelligence to call bullshit on all the dubious claims the Admin made in the run up to the war.

But Powell needs to speak out. This way of waging pre-emptive war is wrong, hurtful to this nation and immoral. Powell's voice can help to sink the neocon deception even further in the public eye and take away even more credibility from an Admin that still thinks it is divinely appointed to spread democracy.

We need Powell to speak. We need him to tell the truth. The American people need to see what was going on and how deep the lies went. We need to discredit this type of thing and the people who ran it.

All hands on deck! The country needs all it's voices in order to repudiate this method of operating for all time.

So go Colin and speak the truth. Unburden your conscience and tell everyone just how arrogant and drunk with power these fools were. Tell us because we need to memorize this for when the next demagogue comes along and promises us easy victories with little cost.

[ray of light]

6. exactly right, taytay

[ProSense]

7. Problem is

he's speaking up about his call for more troops to effect a better invasion, not about the deception and lies that led to the illegal war. He needs to stay on that message. The invasion was wrong. When there was uncertainty about the falseness of the facts that led to this war, this may have been okay. There is no uncertainty now, this message is inappropriate, IMO.

[globalvillage]

8. I don't believe he's telling the WHOLE truth

He's just telling enough to help ease his conscience. He's talking about troop levels, when he should be telling what he knew about the run up to the war.
He either LIED to Sen Kerry about the admin using force as a last resort, or he was completely duped. If he was, he needs to say it, and not talk about how he was right about troop levels.
I stand by my post. He's full of shit.

I do agree with you about the need to speak out. He'd better start talking about what he really knows. He should have done it long ago.

Hey, BTW. Haven't talked to you in a while.
:hi:

[TayTay]

9. Good to hear from you too GV!

I wish you could have come last week. You would have loved the speech. It was great, as was the mini-meetup after it. Let me tell you, the Senator was looking good and I thought of you when the Iraq War Vet spoke. (No reason. Just thinking about talent in the Bay State and how fortunate we are to have such strong moral voices speaking out when we need them. Oh, and TayTay has a bitchy side. LOL! Forgive me but, damn, I was wishing a candidate like that on Santorium.)

Powell can credibly speak to the level of troops that were required and why Rumsfeld was allowed to violate the 'Powell doctrine' that, post-Vietnam, required overwhelmingly superior forces to support military action. Why didn't he speak out more forcefully on this? He is very responsible for this error that has led to deaths among American troops and Iraqi civilians.

Ahm, I think Powell knows this and that's why he's speaking out. By all accounts, this is now an embittered man who believes he was played by the neocons and marginalized by the Bush Admin. My readings of Powell's actions show that the Bushies never intended for Powell to be anything but a figure head in that Admin. He was never supposed to ever wield real power, real power would be kept for Cheney and Rumsfeld. Powell was supposed to smile and provide a sanity cover for the Admin. This is what he did in terms of talking to Senators, like Kerry, before the IWR. IMHO, this is what Powell is doing. He has not come out and said that Kerry was wrong in his account of speaking to Powell before the war and trying to get his sane views.

Powell was played. Kerry was played through Powell and other allegedly sane people who provided cover for this war. Powell knows this and is speaking out to what he can actually attest to, the troop levels were wrong. If he wants to continue this dialogue of wrong-doings, then he needs to start talking about State Dept intelligence and those tubes that the Admin claimed could only be used to WMD weapon delivery when State's own intel said otherwise.

One piece of the puzzle at a time. The media can only barely hear one thing at a time. First the obvious and glaring contradiction of the troops levels needed for an invasion. Then get into that justification for the war and those tubes. The State Dept knew the intel told about them was wrong and Powell was head of the State Dept. He needs to talk about this next and about the monumental power grab and utter disregard for the truth that went into this. Then Powell needs to talk about Valerie Plame Wilson and the vendetta against the truth-sayers by Rummy and Cheney. One thing at a time.

Edit: I think Colin Powell is trying to wash blood off his hands. I really do. I think he is starting with the troop levels which is something he is credible on. I don't think it will end there. And I don't think this blood will wash off that easily.

[globalvillage]

10. Well, he'd better get on it.

A very, very smart man recently said something about telling the truth, and telling it to Americans all the time. I think Powell is way past due.
I wish I could have been in Boston, but I will be visiting sometime this summer. Hopefully, it will coincide with some brilliant speech or some otherwise noteworthy event. Even if not, it will be great to see all of you New England people, WEL and Vek.

[TayTay]

11. And you too! I wish we could have a giant meetup

sometime. That would be nice. (Hmmm, Christmastime in Boston is not that bad, just a bit cold. Save up those frequent flyer miles.)

Powell has blood on his hands. He knows this. I really believe he has a conscience, which I can't say for the neocons who really set foreign policy or this criminal Admin. I think he is starting to come clean on this. He has to speak to what he actually knew. the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force is something he can speak to and he can then talk about Rummy and his insane power grab for the Pentagon at the expense of every other power check agency in the government.

[ProSense]

12. I just hope he's not

backtracking. This is from the Bloomberg article (link in post 1):

Powell previously has expressed second thoughts about the Iraq war. In an interview last September with ABC News, Powell called his presentation to the United Nations before the war, in which he argued Iraq posed an imminent threat, a ``blot'' on his record. The assertions about Iraq's possession of chemical and biological weapons later turned out to be false.

[globalvillage]

13. BTW, did you finish Cobra II?

You were reading it, weren't you? What did you think?
I'm not quite finished, but I do agree that it's the definitive book on the Iraq war. Probably an easier read for someone with military experience, it's fairly detailed re conflicts. I will probably re-read it when I'm through. The research must have been extensive and exhausting.
I was relieved, too, that it doesn't seem to lean in either direction. Factual without an overabundance of commentary. Just enough to keep the reader's interest. Lots of first hand accounts, which made it read less like a text. Some insight as to what people were thinking and feeling, but I think the authors succeeded at not inserting themselves into the account. So far, the picture it paints is of our military sent into an impossible situation by an administration hell-bent on power through conflict regardless of cost. Throw in Rummy and Franks unbelievable arrogance and a complete neglect of post-war planning by all, and you've got yourself a truly fucked up war.
Anyway, not finished yet, but I'm curious to know your impression. It does tell a lot of the story, and, if you're anything like me, it will piss you off.

[TayTay]

19. It's a good book but hard to read

because all those errors resulted in so many Iraqi and American lives lost. It dovetails nicely with the James Reston (SP) book from a couple of months ago. This whole misadventure is just awful because it was so preventable.

The stuff on Rummy and his 'snowflakes' from on high is so arrogant. This guy was concerned with only one thing, consolidating power into the Pentagon. That part about him squeezing and squeezing the Generals to get fewer and fewer troops into the invasion is hard to read from this end of history. They wanted a war but they didn't want the cost and they didn't want to commit to what it would take to win a war.

It's a hard read for me. (I'm not qite finished either.) The invasion plans were all wrong, the 'plans' for the peace afterward were weak and not implemented and the whole thing was a major screwup. This is the authoritative look at what happened, but it's a hard thing to read. Those mistakes, allowing the insurgency to grow, allowing the looting, all that is just so damn sad.

Sigh! No wonder Sen. Kerry recommended this book. It is thorough and omplete. And disturbing.

What did you think?

[globalvillage]

21. I'm glad he recommended it.

I think it's probably an easier read for someone with a military background. Someone needs to put together a synopsis, though. Everyone should know what's in it, but will it actually be read by people who need convinced? Cobra II Cliffs Notes might work better.
I have, though, added about 1/4 inch to my right bicep from carring it around. I am more than halfway through, so I really need to switch hands.

[ginnyinWI]

15. I'm glad he's saying it now, but

it would have been even more honorable if he had come to JK's defense in 2004 and told how they'd both been lied to. I do think Powell was lied to because he was not in the inner circle, not a neocon.

[globalvillage]

17. Exactly. That is why bush* should read more.

Here's how I see it, with apologies to whomever wrote this summary

"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"

--From Macbeth (V, i, 38)


Lady Macbeth (Colin Powell) utters one of the most famous lines in literature in this scene. Macbeth (bush*) kills the king (Iraqis) to take the crown for his own. Lady Macbeth (Colin Powell) is behind her (his) husband (boss)'s atrocities, urging him to do what needs to be done to realize the prophecies of the Witches (PNAC), who foretold that Macbeth (bush*) would be King. The brutal slaying of Duncan (insert any one of thousands of names here), along with his guards in Macbeth (bush*)’s castle is the cause of guilt and misery for both Macbeth (bush*) and his queen (Powell), each of whom participated in the deed. While Macbeth (bush*) may have slain Duncan (the dead), it was Lady Macbeth (Colin Powell) who ran back to the scene of the crime, to smear the drugged guards with blood and thus incriminate them.

Lady Macbeth (Colin Powell) begins to sleepwalk (dissemble), as guilt denied in consciousness erupts in her (his) dreams, and her (his) servant calls a doctor (the media) for assistance. Lady Macbeth (Colin Powell) is observed walking down the hall with a lantern, rubbing her (his) hands roughly in an attempt to remove the bloody stain which seems never to go away. She (He) begins to reveal, while still asleep, the depth of her his guilt, and subsequent slide into madness and suicide (a book deal). The doctor (world) is now horrified to learn the truth and realizes his own (everyone’s) life is in jeopardy, forcing him (the entire bush*) cabal to flee the castle.

http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/?id=259

I changed the ending. So sue me. Also, I don't know how to strikeout text. That would be a handy thing to know.

Anyway, if Lady Macbeth had warned Duncan...


edit for misplaced punctuation. I'm a little anal that way.

[karynnj]

18. Nice analogy - and I like the changed ending

Shakespeare works for everything.

[karynnj]

16. I agree -

Possibility 1 - He was complicit from the beginning. Then he lied us into war as surely as Bush did - and his former credibility helped him. (This bothers me as he duped good people like Kerry.)

Possibility 2 - He was kept outside the loop and was duped. If this were the case, he needed to speak out when he found they were planning war - regardless whether Saddam complied or not. As an insider (and beyond that as COLIN POWELL) he could have made going to war harder. He didn't, so his push for more troops is just that he would have fought the war better.

[TayTay]

20. I think it's in between for Powell

Oddly enough, I do. I think that Powell accepting the job at State was a Faustian bargain to begin with and that he didn't do enough to fight back against Rummy's power grab at the Pentagon. However, Rummy was assisted by every other person in the Bush Admin in this consolidation of Pentagon power. Certainly Condi never fought it and it is part of the NSA Director's job to fight back against the Pentagon and make sure the President is getting a complete intelligence picture.

I think Powell was not as bad a player as everyone else. Remember, this Admin didn't trust Powell and installed 'spies' in State to watch him, lest he get out of line and begin to give Cheney/Rumsfeld trouble. The most troubling piece of that Powell testified at the UN that the Iraqis had those mobile WMD trailers and there was certainly a lot of doubt about that at the time. Did Colin know this? If so, then why did he risk his reputation and that of the US government to spread that particular onerous lie?

The part with Sen. Kerry is also very troubling. Kerry obviously thought that Powell was acting in good faith and that, one Vietnam vet to another with all that that implies about lessons learned, Powell could be trusted. Powell had impressed Kerry with how he acted during the first Gulf War and had earned some trust. That trust was broken, either willfully or through a double deception.

Sigh! I do think that Powell tried to mitigate some things at State. I think there was more than just Colin Powell at State though and Cheney's people over there also served to spread the Big Lie.

[karynnj]

14. It is possible he did both

That in September and October, he told Kerry and the others that force would be the last resort. It does sound as though he lied to them at this time and that he knew that they were comitted to war. It's possible that they kept him out of the loop, but in that case why did he say things at the UN that he knew were either untrue or likely to be untrue. In a way, because Powell had credibility, it was worse that he allowed himself To be used.

That he in the run up to the invasion in March said to go in with a big force would actually have been consistent with the Powell doctrine. If he was truely lied to in the fall, by the beginning of 2003, he had to know that the UN, the inspectors etc was a fraud. He had to choose where his loyalties lied - at that point he chose Bush rather than international law. If the invasion was illegal, which it sure seemed to be, he is complicit. He was one of the few people on the inside with the credibility to have gone to the country to try to stop the war.


Imagine the impact if Powell would have told the truth in a speech in January, 2003. (It could have sounded a lot like the Kerry speech of that time - but as one of the inner circle, it could have had an impact.)