Powell: Iraq nuclear threat "all Cheney" - knew "no Niger connection"

[swag]

from Robert Scheer

via http://www.huffingtonpost.com

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060411_bush_leak_plame_libby_powell/

. . .

“The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote,” Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush’s State of the Union speech? “That was a big mistake,” he said. “It should never have been in the speech. I didn’t need Wilson to tell me that there wasn’t a Niger connection. He didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. I never believed it.”

When I pressed further as to why the president played up the Iraq nuclear threat, Powell said it wasn’t the president: “That was all Cheney.” A convenient response for a Bush family loyalist, perhaps, but it begs the question of how the president came to be a captive of his vice president’s fantasies.

More important: Why was this doubt, on the part of the secretary of state and others, about the salient facts justifying the invasion of Iraq kept from the public until we heard the truth from whistle-blower Wilson, whose credibility the president then sought to destroy?

In matters of national security, when a president leaks, he lies.

By selectively releasing classified information to suit his political purposes, as President Bush did in this case, he is denying that there was a valid basis for keeping the intelligence findings secret in the first place. “We ought to get to the bottom of it, so it can be evaluated by the American people,” said Sen. Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I couldn’t have put it any better.

. . .

[Bluebear]

1. Well whose picture is THIS at the UN Mr. Powell?

You did the dance man.

[swag]

3. Too good a "good soldier."

[Kutjara]

2. The chum is in the water...

...and the sharks are starting to eat eachother.

[WhiteTara]

4. wasn't Powell a general or something?

It seems to me that he is such a scaredy cat, he wouldn't take anyone on. How the hell did he get to the top of the military chain? I know it wasn't for being so upright, he did cover up the Mai Lai massacre. Maybe he just did slimy things for other people and they glad handed him up the line. Cause it sure doesn't come from have big cajones and being able to stand up to the enemy.

[Kutjara]

5. There are two kinds of general.

(1) The warrior general. This is the kind that get their stars through military merit, long service and dedication to the profession of soldering.
(2) The politician general. This is the kind that get their stars through greasing the heirarchy, smarming the top brass, insinuating themselves into cliques and clubs, taking credit for the successes of others and deflecting criticism of their own failures.

Guess which one Powell is.

[WhiteTara]

7. insinuating slime? n/t

[Catrina]

6. So, he is clearing up the question about whether he lied on purpose or

lied inadvertently? And apparently he is not afraid of repercussions!

In the documentary 'Dead Wrong' his former Aide said that Powell refused to use some of the 'evidence' he was given because he doubted its authenticity. So WHY did use the rest of it? He could have quit, he and Tenet. That might have saved thousans, tens of thousands of deaths.

Isn't it a crime to lie the way he did? Even his aide tried to cover for him so why isn't worried about repercussions?

[ContraBass Black]

8. It's a little late to be blowing a whistle.

Forget you.

[William Seger]

9. F.U.C.P.

A military man who would enable an unnecessary and illegal war is a disgrace to his former uniform.

[driver8]

10. Fuck you, Powell...you sold your soul to the regime a long time

ago. You are guilty as the rest of them, you piece of shit. You lied once, why should we believe you now??

(We don't...)

[GeorgeGist]

11. "Military men are dumb,..

stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."
~ Henry Kissinger

[CarlSheeler4U]

12. Powell Doctrine would have saved lives, but he did not

Iran, unlike Iraq, has not had a depleted military from the vestiges of
Desert Storm. Iran has received support from China, Russia and France.

Assuming the world's most advanced countries opted to stay on the
sidelines, do we believe that any support would be avaiable for any
subsequent attack on the US?

How could we say such an attack on our civilians was not justified
beacuse we empowered our leaders to do nothing to prevent it from
occuring? The civilian casualities would be enormous there
(Iran)...and what about blowback, as if our foreign and energy policies
since the mid 1900's are not bad enough?

How does this legitimately differ from invading Poland, Czechlosavkia
and Austria? The same saber-rattling applied as justification. Let's
say we can do it, because we can. Does this result in "might makes
right?"

What then would prevent China from invading Taiwan and South Korea
under similar pretenses? Venezuela would seek Russian support to
protect its borders and the whole option of preventive first strikes
creates justification (remember Pearl Harbor?). How about a Sino-Russo
pact if things get hairy?

The point is right here, right now we will either watch in the manner
German citizens did in the late 1930's and early 1940's as their young
men are recruited for the "noble" cause or we will act with resolve
sooner than later.

The alternative to this debacle is cut the BS and invest the tens or
hundreds of billions needed to produce alternative energy instead of
maintaining occupancy of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, which if one
bothers to examine on a world map border each other and puts Russia in
the unenviable position of spooling up its own military, nuclear
arsenal and reformation of the former Soviet bloc. Yes, hthe US will have a decisive first strike, but the occupation will be a bettle of attrition.

This is not a movie, this is a real take. I warned a group of College
Democrats at Brown in November that this could occur before 2010 and
they looked at me like I went to public school, which I did.

Being a Marine vet with combat and staff planning experience forces one
to think of the world in pieces of a puzzle with "what if" planning.

Now folks understand why I believe that post election 2006 and waiting
till 2008 is way too late for Impeachment. Further, putting the US in
a battle footing has historic foundation in political motivation.

The public seldom changes its elected officials in time of war and it
opens a third nightmare scenario where King George's toilet paper
called our Constitution has its amendment removed permitting a third
term in office. I think it's time to restore the color coded alerts
and declare that our country is at a red alert and the threat is from
within.

I welcome folks' thoughts and input.

Carl
Sheeler for US Senate (D-RI)
www.carlsheeler.com
[e-mail]

[Disturbed]

13. Wishing the best for you, Carl.

Yes, the alliances are changing because the Neo Fascist Bush Regime is
waging wars of Empire.

[CarlSheeler4U]

14. Let's hope we're wrong. FUBAR if we aren't.

[swag]

15. .