Comments on: Powell Says Iraq War Course Must One Day End

By: RJN

RJN — Sat, 07 Oct 2006 01:13:09 +0000

Well said Cernig. As Secretary of State Powell was unable to speak publicly about things that he saw, but were hidden from us.

Now, he is doing what a man of conscience should do; inform the public with the truth as he sees it.

By: legion

legion — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:07:02 +0000

Cernig,
I agree, but the damning thing is that Powell knew all of this _at the time_. And not only did he fail to do anything worthwhile to stop it, he actively aided what I firmly believe he knew to be an unnecesary war against the wrong enemy, while pulling back operations against the actual bastards that had attacked us. As far as I'm concerned, he's just as culpable as Rice and Rumsfeld.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:12:22 +0000

BTW Anderson, we haven’t finished are earlier discussion.

??? ... one of the Foley threads?

By: LJD

LJD — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 13:45:19 +0000

The amnesia on the left is mind boggling.

He, more than anyone, knows that Bush misdirected the nation into war with Iraq by hanging the “war on terror” label

Powell went to the U.N. with our grievances in the case FOR war.

what is being fought now is an occupation against the will of the majority of the Iraqi people.

Yes, because the 'will of the Iraqi people' is to kill eachother off.

That it is still dishonestly labelled a “war” just to press patriotic buttons

Actually, the credit goes to the moonbats. 'No WAR for oil' Unjust, illegal WAR' 'Stop the WAR' etc.

By: Cernig

Cernig — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 12:57:41 +0000

When someone with the qualifications and clout of Powell calls a President's trustworthiness into question, we should listen. He, more than anyone, knows that Bush misdirected the nation into war with Iraq by hanging the "war on terror" label on underlying motives that had nothing to do with fighting terror and far more to do with neoconservative theories of "shaking up" the Middle East by showing that the U.S. could use its military power on anyone without the cooperation of the international community. It has far more to do with justifying Bush's claim that he is the "War President" and using the war to further an agenda of centralizing power in the executive. Powell realizes, too, that the "war" in Iraq ended the day Bush declared "mission accomplished" and that what is being fought now is an occupation against the will of the majority of the Iraqi people. That it is still dishonestly labelled a "war" just to press patriotic buttons is one of the breaches of the "bond of trust" Powell is talking about. Doesn't "Occupation President" have a very different ring to it? Very definitely not as useful for political mileage. Regards, C

By: legion

legion — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 05:21:49 +0000

I, like a lot of people, used to have an enormous amount of respect for Powell. But he long ago traded his responsibility to those under him for loyalty to those above him. After the way he was ignored & eventually discarded by the Bush admin, does anyone think Powell's opinion will have the slightest impact?

By: Tano

Tano — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 04:43:06 +0000

Whats new here is that Powell is sending a mesage to the Bush admin. - none too subtle, and probably sincerely meant as constructive. It boils down to this: "If you want popular support (however grudging) for what you want to do in Iraq in the near future, you should probably articulate some sort of an exit strategy. The American people are sensing the lack of one, and this is causing serious erosion in their patience. Articulate one, and you will buy yourself some time".

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 03:10:15 +0000

Fersboo,

If you knew anything about me, you would know that I am pretty much of a hawk on matters of national defense.

I know that in patriofascist land, anyone who dares question GW on anything is labeled a quasi-traitor, but in fact my anger at Bush is mostly over his failure to finish the job in Afghanistan, his failure to kill or capture Bin Laden, and his starting a pointless, futile war in Iraq, where Al Qaeda was NOT until the war.

I am also pissed about the deaths of several thousand people who served our country with courage and distinction, as well as the thousands more wounded. Of course there is the matter of the thousands of innocents in Iraq who have perished, people whom we had no beef with, though I rather think they feel they have one with us now.

Trash Powell if you must, GW & his minions have a long record of crapping on people who have served...

By: Fersboo

Fersboo — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:36:20 +0000

Anjin, the fact that you of all people on OTB is defending Powell makes my point for me.

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 01:32:35 +0000

Fersboo,

So your historical analogy is Ike won WW2 all by himself and George Marshall had nothing to do with it? Guess they did not have a chain of command when you were in uniform...

Both men deserve ample credit. But they still refer to it as the "Powell Doctrine", no?

By: w editor

w editor — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:43:05 +0000

"I may not get to say 'yes' or 'no' on I-raq, but I get to say 'when.' With-in a certain time-frame, of course.

By: Fersboo

Fersboo — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:27:17 +0000

Um, wouldn't the winning of the Gulf War be a honor of the non-political General Schwarzkopf? At least that was the way I remember it back when I was still in uniform. And the 2003 invasion was led by General Tommy Franks.

By: anjin-san

anjin-san — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:21:18 +0000

Fersboo,

You should really crack a history book once and a while. Powell has actually won a war, which is not something you could say about McClellan.

By: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:13:44 +0000

One wonders if Powell was not somehow responsible for convincing G.H.W.Bush not to pursue Saddam back to Bagdad in 1991. We had over 500,000 Troops including our best heavy Armored Divisions, Carrier support and momentum. Clinton destroyed the service, with downsizing. H. Norman Schwartzkoph will never, as a good soldier should, badmouth his superiors. My question is who gave the advice that forced us to fight the same war over again. Kind of like WWI and WWII. The peace insisted upon by the allies, Britain and France were so punishing in Germany that it gave rise to Hitler.

By: Fersboo

Fersboo — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:26:36 +0000

And to think that Powell was once the darling of the MSM, just the right kind of man to lead the Republican Party. He seems to be more of a McClellan than a Grant, in my humble opinion.

BTW Anderson, we haven't finished are earlier discussion.