Powell tells Republicans to "stop shouting at the world."

[BlackAsCoal]

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Powell: GOP ‘polarization’ backfired in election « - Blogs from CNN.com
If Powell want's to counter Rush he should go on his show and do it. Debate the points one by one. Powell wants the Republican Party to be more Liberal but there is already a Liberal Party, The Democrats.

We're supposed to be more Liberal because the Dems won this election cycle? Question: When the Republicans took over the Congress in 1994 did Democrats adopt Conservative ideals? No. They just thought up ways to take back power. Conservative Republicans should do the same.

As far as Conservatism and going along with the crowd, I think along these lines:
"The right thing to do is still the right thing to do even if no one else is doing it".

The Democratic Party is not a party of or for liberals.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Powell was lied to and misled just like we all were. Bush wanted him to go to the UN because he has credibility. What did Powell do when he found he had been used? He resigned. He is still trying to seperate himself from this administration of total incompetence.

He was and still is a man of character and credibility. If you want to beat someone up to avenge the fiasco called the Iraq war, start with Bush and Cheney. The war was derived long before W was elected, primarily to fatten the wallets of Haliburton and friends of this administration.

Never before has the country been dooped to this level. It will take generations for this country to recover from the years of the Bush administration.

Now Powell Tells Us

On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told me that he and his department's top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim. Now he tells us.

The harsh truth is that this president cherry-picked the intelligence data in making his case for invading Iraq and deliberately kept the public in the dark as to the countervailing analysis at the highest level of the intelligence community. While the president and his top Cabinet officials were fear-mongering with stark images of a "mushroom cloud" over American cities, the leading experts on nuclear weaponry at the Department of Energy (the agency in charge of the U.S. nuclear-weapons program) and the State Department thought the claim of a near-term Iraqi nuclear threat was absurd.

"The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons," said a dissenting analysis from an assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research (INR) in the now infamous 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was cobbled together for the White House before the war. "Iraq may be doing so but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment."

The specter of the Iraqi nuclear threat was primarily based on an already-discredited claim that Iraq had purchased aluminum tubes for the purpose of making nuclear weapons. In fact, at the time, the INR wrote in the National Intelligence Estimate that it "accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose."

The other major evidence President Bush gave Americans for a revitalized Iraq nuclear program, of course, was his 2003 State of the Union claim -- later found to be based on forged documents -- that a deal had been made to obtain uranium from Niger. This deal was exposed within the administration as bogus before the president's speech in January by Ambassador Wilson, who traveled to Niger for the CIA. Wilson only went public with his criticisms in an op-ed piece in the New York Times a half year later in response to what he charged were the administration's continued distortion of the evidence. In excerpts later made available to the public, it is clear that the Niger claim doesn't even appear as a key finding in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, while the INR dissent in that document dismisses it curtly: "[T]he claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment highly dubious."

I queried Powell at a reception following a talk he gave in Los Angeles on Monday. Pointing out that the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate showed that his State Department had gotten it right on the nonexistent Iraq nuclear threat, I asked why did the president ignore that wisdom in his stated case for the invasion?

"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?

more at link --
Robert Scheer: Now Powell Tells Us

Powell KNEW what he was presenting to the UN was lies and contrived deceptions .. and he knew countless innocent lives were at stake.

Please stop with the nonsense that Powell was some innocent guy who happened to get fooled by George Bush.

Powell KNEW .. just as he KNEW his report on the MyLai Massacre was a lie.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

The Powell Doctrine: Baghdad/Jenin/My Lai

With the US poised to attack Iraq, it's helpful to recall what pushed us over the brink last time ... the invisible steps and the unspoken consequences.

In the fall of 1990, when the US Congress was debating going to war, Amnesty International (AI) released an explosive report detailing how Iraqi soldiers had taken Kuwaiti babies out of incubators and left them to die on hospital floors. Many US Senators later claimed it was the Amnesty "dead baby" report that finally convinced them to use vicious force against the Iraqis.

Minor glitch. It was soon revealed that the Amnesty report was a complete sham - Kuwaiti propaganda put together by the PR firm Hill & Knowlton. The Summer 2002 edition of Covert Action Quarterly describes how political infighting at AI had pitted a board member (who said the report was too "sloppy" and "inaccurate" to release) against a high-level official at Amnesty UK, now suspected of having been an undercover British intelligence agent, who released the sham report anyway.

Regardless, the attack on Iraq had already begun and television viewers worldwide were absorbing endless footage of laser-guided bombs, pinpoint missiles and other" precision warfare" that miraculously seemed to destroy machinery without harming civilians. Back home, flag-waving hysteria followed Operation Desert Storm to its climax, and returning conquerors, including then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, were feted as national heroes.

Minor glitch. A few months later it was revealed that actually 100,000 to 200,000 Iraqis, many of them unarmed civilians, had died during the six-week attack, including tens of thousands mowed down in aerial assaults as they were trying to flee along what became nicknamed "The Highway of Death."

Equating civilians and combatants is integral to "The Powell Doctrine" which recommends using overwhelming force on the enemy, regardless of civilian casualties. In his autobiography, Colin Powell discusses the Vietnam War and explains the benefits of destroying the food and homes of villagers who might sympathize with the Viet Cong: "We burned the thatched huts, starting the blaze with Ronson and Zippo lighters ... Why were we torching houses and destroying crops? Ho Chi Minh had said people were like the sea in which his guerillas swam. We tried to solve the problem by making the whole sea uninhabitable. In the hard logic of war, what difference does it make if you shot your enemy or starved him to death?"

Unmentioned is the moral implication of targeting civilians, or why doing so would make them want to sympathize with the US.

A few years later, Colin Powell was an up-and-coming staff officer, assigned to the Americal headquarters at Chu Lai, Vietnam. He was put in charge of handling a young soldier, Tom Glen, who had written a letter accusing the Americal division of routine brutality against Vietnamese civilians; the letter was detailed, its allegations horrifying, and its contents echoed complaints received from other soldiers. Rather than speaking to Glen about the letter, however, Powell's response was to conduct a cursory investigation followed by a report faulting Glen, and concluding, "In direct refutation of this (Glen's) portrayal, is the fact that relations between Americal soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent."

Minor glitch. Soon after, news surfaced about the Americal division's criminal brutality at My Lai, in which 347 unarmed civilians were massacred; Powell's memoirs fail to mention the Glen incident.

Fast forward to April 2002, and having risen to Secretary of State, Colin Powell reported to a US congressional panel about his visit to the Jenin refugee camp, site of a recent Israeli attack. Powell testified, "I've seen no evidence of mass graves ... no evidence that would suggest a massacre took place ... Clearly people died in Jenin - people who were terrorists died in Jenin - and in the prosecution of that battle innocent lives may well have been lost." In the same vein, Amnesty International issued a short release stating that while it appeared "serious breaches of international human rights and humanitarian law were committed ... only an independent international commission of inquiry can establish the full facts and the scale of these violations." For its part, the White House also claimed more facts were needed, and then Bush called Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon a "man of peace."

So in essence, the whole Jenin attack would need to be swept under the carpet because (since Israel had not allowed a UN investigation and NGOs had come up with very little) there was not enough solid information to support accusations.

Minor glitch. Unmentioned is the fact that the US military, under the auspices of learning about urban warfare, had accompanied the Israeli military on its attack on Jenin (Marine Corps Times, 5-3-2002). Or the fact that dozens of foreign journalists witnessed 30 Palestinian corpses being buried in a mass grave right near the hospital. Or the fact that local hospital personnel describe seeing the Israeli military loading other corpses "into a refrigerated semi-trailer, and taking them out of Jenin" (which would answer the question posed in Amnesty's release, "What was striking is what was absent. There were very few bodies in the hospital. There were also none who were seriously injured, only the 'walking wounded'. Thus we have to ask: where are the bodies and where are the seriously injured?'').

Moral of the story? Truth is often the first casualty of war. Before we hang our hopes on heroes or unquestioningly believe what we hear from even the most reliable sources, we need to dig deeper to find the real story. Second, while the US was appropriate to be outraged at the targeting of its civilians in the September 11 attacks, we should extend that outrage to scenarios in which our government targets, or is complicit in targeting, civilians elsewhere.
The Powell Doctrine: Baghdad/Jenin/My Lai

 

[bk1983]

I agree with some of the criticisms of Powell. But what many forget is the Bush admin handled intelligence alot different then any other. Rumsfeld had developed his own intelligence to counteract the CIA and FBI findings which disagreed on his assesement of an Iraq and al qaeda connection. Second Rumsfeld and Powell were at deep odds on how to handle the Iraq situation. One side pushing the war was Cheney,Rumsfeld,Wolfowitz,Chalabi of the INC, against Powell and Armitage of the state dept who opposed the war. Even Rice who was then the NSA was kept out of the loop on intelligence the pentagon had.

Rumsfeld and those who pushed for the Iraq war wrapped the intelligence around the policy, which is the exact opposite of the proper order. Intelligence has to be studied from every concievable angle, then you devise a policy from the intelligence conclusions. Instead Rumsfeld already had a policy and created his own wing in the pentagon to find intelligence to fit the policy. The CIA and FBI went back 10 years and mulled over 70,000 pages of intel to try and find a link between Iraq and al qaeda. They could find none, all the intelligence that claimed there was a link came from the INC which of course was deeply in favor of ousting Saddam as they step in as the new power in Iraq.

I believe Powell was given intel that was cherry picked by Rumsfeld to back the policy they had chosen on Iraq. He made his decision based on intel that was provided to him. What many of you dont realize is just how powerful Rumsfeld was, he controlled the intelligence, so while Powell is not free from blame, I think alot of you fail to understand how things worked in the lead up to the war.

 

[bk1983]

Furthermore, many of you probably dont know that the Iraq situation and WMD's have never had a National Intelligence Estimate(NIE) done. That was until demanded by Powell and the state, the NIE is regarded as the highest level document generated by the intelligence agencies. Given 2 weeks to create the NIE,(usually takes several months to years) the CIA advisors stated Cheney and Libby visited and questioned them at headquarters at least 10 times. That is 10 times in 2 weeks, the VP never visits CIA headquarters unless he is there for some ribbon ceremony. It was an obvious bully tactic to influence the findings of the NIE to fit the policy on Iraq.

 

[bk1983]

In my opinion, your evaluation of him is incorrect. He was wrong about the Gulf War when he recommended that ground ops be halted after 100 hours. That cost tens of thousands of lives.

If ground ops had continued for one day more, there would have been no Saddam Hussein to screw with. The Shiites would have taken him out in 1991. Because Powell stopped the left hook from crushing the Republican Guard, they were available to brutally crush the Shiite uprising and ensuring that we would have to be back to clean up the mess.

To make matters worse, Powell allowed himself to get played by Cheney and Libby over the WMD issue. That shows a lack of intellect that is telling. I think we have a victim of the Peter Principal here.

He didn't allow himself to be played by anyone.. I would like to know what lack of intellect you speak of? Because Powell's speech which was given to the UN was originally written by Libby, that speech was thrown out by Powell. The one he actually gave was based on the findings of the NIE report. George Tenet also gave him 100% assurance that the intel he was giving was iron clad. Of course now with your 20/20 hindsight you can claim Powell should have known better, but at the time he was giving a speech based on the findings of the highest level report the NIE. Tenet also a personal friend of powells assured him that the findings were legitimate. Remember this all happened after the fiasco with France, diplomacy which Powell was pushing for seem to have failed.

Also if my evaluation is incorrect who do you think was the most qualified in the Bush admin? With guys like Rumsfeld,Wolfowitz, and Rice imo Powell was head and shoulders above the rest. Of course now that he speaks out against partisan republicans you would like to discredit him.. Remember, it was Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz who falsely claimed a small number of troops was needed in Iraq even though Gen.Franks and Shinseki concluded at least 200k was needed to contain a post war iraq..

 

[JimH52]

I believe Powell was given intel that was cherry picked by Rumsfeld to back the policy they had chosen on Iraq. He made his decision based on intel that was provided to him. What many of you dont realize is just how powerful Rumsfeld was, he controlled the intelligence, so while Powell is not free from blame, I think alot of you fail to understand how things worked in the lead up to the war.

Exactly, I cannot believe that Powell deliberately misled the UN. He read and delivered what he was given.

Powell, as always, was trying to be a good soldier even if he had doubts about Cheney's assertions.

Cheny is a criminal and should be treated as such.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

... You stood and cheered Bush,

LOL... I am STILL cheering Bush. Nothing I've said has denigrated Bush. I've known what he is from day one... which in my case is damn near 20 years ago. He didn't far too far from Daddy's tree... and no one of any discernable credibility has ever accussed GHW Bush of being anything approaching a Conservative. They're Moderates... And while I absolutely LOATHE moderates... I vastly prefer them to Leftists. Hell I'll sit down and eat with a moderate, I wouldn't let a leftist in my office, let alone my HOUSE and I wouldn't eat with anyone I knew had been near a leftist, that hadn't had a shower.you will do nothing other than knuckle under to whatever ass decides to do to the Constitution in the name Security.

But you keep telling yourself that there's no limit...

LOL... you're a leftists... LIKE YOU HAVE A CHOICE!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Exactly, I cannot believe that Powell deliberately misled the UN. He read and delivered what he was given.

Powell, as always, was trying to be a good soldier even if he had doubts about Cheney's assertions.

Cheny is a criminal and should be treated as such.

Cheney is a criminal? Do tell...

What crime has Cheney committed? And please, be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

(Now just FTR: this idiot will not be able to provide so much as a SINGLE valid example of a SINGLE crime which it can be said that it is even LIKELY that VP Dick Cheney has commited... The only reason I ask the question is to prove this imbecile to be an empty vessel, from which the piss has already leaked.)

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The Democratic Party is not a party of or for liberals.

ROFLMNAO... that's true... there are damn few if ANY Liberals in the Democrat Party. Liberals are those that pursue liberty... The Democrat Party is not and has not pursued liberty in 70 years; it is nearly, if not exclusively, the party of the anti-American (Leftists...).

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL... I am STILL cheering Bush. Nothing I've said has denigrated Bush. I've known what he is from day one... which in my case is damn near 20 years ago. He didn't far too far from Daddy's tree... and no one of any discernable credibility has ever accussed GHW Bush of being anything approaching a Conservative. They're Moderates... And while I absolutely LOATHE moderates... I vastly prefer them to Leftists. Hell I'll sit down and eat with a moderate, I wouldn't let a leftist in my office, let alone my HOUSE and I wouldn't eat with anyone I knew had been near a leftist, that hadn't had a shower.you will do nothing other than knuckle under to whatever ass decides to do to the Constitution in the name Security.

But you keep telling yourself that there's no limit...

LOL... you're a leftists... LIKE YOU HAVE A CHOICE!

Lordy, lordy, one of those "Nobody to trust but me and thee, and we're not so sure of thee!" types. Well, a few nutcases are good for comparison. Just stay away from anything sharp or explosive. People like you cannot be trusted not to hurt themselves or others with such things.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

ROFLMNAO... that's true... there are damn few if ANY Liberals in the Democrat Party. Liberals are those that pursue liberty... The Democrat Party is not and has not pursued liberty in 70 years; it is nearly, if not exclusively, the party of the anti-American (Leftists...).

The Democratic Party is a party of centrists .. not leftists.

Ever heard of the DLC?

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Furthermore, many of you probably dont know that the Iraq situation and WMD's have never had a National Intelligence Estimate(NIE) done. That was until demanded by Powell and the state, the NIE is regarded as the highest level document generated by the intelligence agencies. Given 2 weeks to create the NIE,(usually takes several months to years) the CIA advisors stated Cheney and Libby visited and questioned them at headquarters at least 10 times. That is 10 times in 2 weeks, the VP never visits CIA headquarters unless he is there for some ribbon ceremony. It was an obvious bully tactic to influence the findings of the NIE to fit the policy on Iraq.

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."

This fascination about Powell is sick.

You're talking about the same man who believes we should be unconcerned about the loss of civilian life .. and in fact, believes civilians should be targeted .. YET, you want to make a saint out of this spineless bastard.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

He didn't allow himself to be played by anyone.. I would like to know what lack of intellect you speak of? Because Powell's speech which was given to the UN was originally written by Libby, that speech was thrown out by Powell. The one he actually gave was based on the findings of the NIE report. George Tenet also gave him 100% assurance that the intel he was giving was iron clad. Of course now with your 20/20 hindsight you can claim Powell should have known better, but at the time he was giving a speech based on the findings of the highest level report the NIE. Tenet also a personal friend of powells assured him that the findings were legitimate. Remember this all happened after the fiasco with France, diplomacy which Powell was pushing for seem to have failed.

Also if my evaluation is incorrect who do you think was the most qualified in the Bush admin? With guys like Rumsfeld,Wolfowitz, and Rice imo Powell was head and shoulders above the rest. Of course now that he speaks out against partisan republicans you would like to discredit him.. Remember, it was Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz who falsely claimed a small number of troops was needed in Iraq even though Gen.Franks and Shinseki concluded at least 200k was needed to contain a post war iraq..

It doesn't matter who the speech was written for, Powell KNEW it was full of lies and half-truths .. and he KNEW countless lives hung in the balance .. including the lives of American troops .. YET, like the spineless coward he is, he marched right into the UN and gave the speech which doomed the lives, futures, and families of innocent people. This is the same cowardice he has shown throughout his career as the negro you can trust.

I'd imagine that if Hitler had bad things to say about republicans some democrats would find things to praise about hjim as well.

 

[bk1983]

It doesn't matter who the speech was written for, Powell KNEW it was full of lies and half-truths .. and he KNEW countless lives hung in the balance .. including the lives of American troops .. YET, like the spineless coward he is, he marched right into the UN and gave the speech which doomed the lives, futures, and families of innocent people. This is the same cowardice he has shown throughout his career as the negro you can trust.

I'd imagine that if Hitler had bad things to say about republicans some democrats would find things to praise about hjim as well.

You need to rethink your judgement of me.. I have always respected Powell regardless of what side he was politically on. You dont respect him, that is fine. But dont box me and label me as trying to build him up just because he is speaking against the repubs..

I already stated the reason I believe what I do, the speech was not written for Libby it was written by him. The intel given to him was endorsed and backed by head of CIA Tenet and the NIE report. Of course threw hindsight we now know the info was cherry picked to wrap the intelligence around the already decided policy. But at the time I cannot say Powell knew this. Gen.Powell was the last on board in the admin to support the Iraq invasion. He was trying to push diplomacy up until the fiasco with France, that embarrased him and he did a complete turnaround on his position.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

You need to rethink your judgement of me.. I have always respected Powell regardless of what side he was politically on. You dont respect him, that is fine. But dont box me and label me as trying to build him up just because he is speaking against the repubs..

I already stated the reason I believe what I do, the speech was not written for Libby it was written by him. The intel given to him was endorsed and backed by head of CIA Tenet and the NIE report. Of course threw hindsight we now know the info was cherry picked to wrap the intelligence around the already decided policy. But at the time I cannot say Powell knew this. Gen.Powell was the last on board in the admin to support the Iraq invasion. He was trying to push diplomacy up until the fiasco with France, that embarrased him and he did a complete turnaround on his position.

Have you for one moment took a look at Powell's history?

Who confused him about the MyLai and Jenin reports? Was Rumsfeld, Libby, or Bush to blame for those lies as well?

How the fuck is it that everyone in the Bush camp gets blame except Powell and Rice? What is it about Powell and Rice that gives them exception from policies they supported and lied for?

He knew his UN presentation was full of lies .. said he knew .. yet you still want to give him a pass.

That makes no sense my brother .. no sense at all.

By the way .. my judgment of you makes you one of my favorite posters .. but I believe you to be wrong on Powell. That doesn't mean I respect you any less.

 

[bk1983]

Have you for one moment took a look at Powell's history?

Who confused him about the MyLai and Jenin reports? Was Rumsfeld, Libby, or Bush to blame for those lies as well?

How the fuck is it that everyone in the Bush camp gets blame except Powell and Rice? What is it about Powell and Rice that gives them exception from policies they supported and lied for?

He knew his UN presentation was full of lies .. said he knew .. yet you still want to give him a pass.

That makes no sense my brother .. no sense at all.

By the way .. my judgment of you makes you one of my favorite posters .. but I believe you to be wrong on Powell. That doesn't mean I respect you any less.

Go back and reread my posts.. I said Powell was not free from blame. I also dont think Rice is free from blame either, I think she is nothing more then a glorified assistant. She was a terrible NSA and Sec of state. She preached the lunatic strategy of "Secure,hold,build" even though our troop numbers were clearly insufficicent to achieve the strategy.

I also respect your position, you have clearly shown yourself to be as non partisan as one can be. I respectfully agree to disagree with you.

Btw go back to my post at 12:57 and you will see I said I agree with some of the criticisms of Powell and do not believe he was free from blame.

 

[editec]

I do not believe anyone in the know believed that Saddam was anywhere near having nuclear weapons.

I believe the every knows that biological weapons and chemical weapons are NOT weapons of MASS destruction.

I believe that most people assumed that Saddam had chemical weapons, but therefore must have also known Saddam constituted no real immediate threat to American interests.

I believed then, just as I believe now, that the invasion of Iraq was a terrrible mistake, and I am not sympathetic to those who supported that war regardless of their political affiliation.

I believe that Powell knew then that the invasion of Iraq was a mistaken policy, but that he reverted to the good soldier mode and accepted his orders, just as he'd been doing his whole damned life.

I fault Powell in exactly the way I faulted Hillary and many Democrats for allowing the hysteria of the Bush administration and the American people who believed them to pucsh them into going along with what they both knew (or should have known) was a stupid, stupid policy.

I give Powell a slight pass, more than I give Hillary, because he is in uniform (and Bush was his CoC) while Hillary was a Senator and under NO OBLIATION to go along with the POTUS's policies.

Who represented my opinions in those day leading up to the invasion?

Byrd, that's who.

He, of all the Democrats, was the most articulate critic of the invasion. He pointed out the unlikihood that Saddam was a real threat, and he reminded Congress that the objective was Al Qada.

 

[bk1983]

I do not believe anyone in the know believed that Saddam was anywhere near having nuclear weapons.

I believe the every knows that biological weapons and chemical weapons are NOT weapons of MASS destruction.

I believe that most people assumed that Saddam had chemical weapons, but therefore must have also known Saddam constituted no real immediate threat to American interests.

I believed then, just as I believe now, that the invasion of Iraq was a terrrible mistake, and I am not sympathetic to those who supported that war regardless of their political affiliation.

I believe that Powell knew then that the invasion of Iraq was a mistaken policy, but that he reverted to the good soldier mode and accepted his orders, just as he'd been doing his whole damned life.

I fault Powell in exactly the way I faulted Hillary and many Democrats for allowing the hysteria of the Bush administration and the American people who believed them to pucsh them into going along with what they both knew (or should have known) was a stupid, stupid policy.

I give Powell a slight pass, more than I give Hillary, because he is in uniform (and Bush was his CoC) while Hillary was a Senator and under NO OBLIATION to go along with the POTUS's policies.

Who represented my opinions in those day leading up to the invasion?

Byrd, that's who.

He, of all the Democrats, was the most articulate critic of the invasion. He pointed out the unlikihood that Saddam was a real threat, and he reminded Congress that the objective was Al Qada.

IMO the person who was dead on about the Iraq policy and actual lack of threat was former UN inspector and Marine Scott Ritter. His positions and criticisms never changed he was 100% correct and dead on, google him and you will see he was mocked by Fox news as some kook.. Now everyone realizes just how correct his assesments were..

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Go back and reread my posts.. I said Powell was not free from blame. I also dont think Rice is free from blame either, I think she is nothing more then a glorified assistant. She was a terrible NSA and Sec of state. She preached the lunatic strategy of "Secure,hold,build" even though our troop numbers were clearly insufficicent to achieve the strategy.

I also respect your position, you have clearly shown yourself to be as non partisan as one can be. I respectfully agree to disagree with you.

Btw go back to my post at 12:57 and you will see I said I agree with some of the criticisms of Powell and do not believe he was free from blame.

Much repect for you brother .. and you did indeed say he was not free from blame.

I HATE and DESPISE Powell and believe he deserves as much blame for innocent dead people as Bush, Rumsfeld, and all the rest of the band of lunatics.

Personally, I believe Powell should be stood in front of a firing squad and killed on national TV.