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

[BlackAsCoal]

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..

Cynthia McKinney took a bolder stand against the war than anyone and was one of the very first to criticize it. She was demonized by DEMOCRATS for her willingness to speak truth to power.

 

[bk1983]

Cynthia McKinney took a bolder stand against the war than anyone and was one of the very first to criticize it. She was demonized by DEMOCRATS for her willingness to speak truth to power.

Yes she was, the mainstream media also failed in their duties to the American public.. Paula Zahn from CNN said Ritter had drunken Saddam's kool-aid just because he was against the war on Iraq and mocked the supposed intel of a wmd and al qaeda link to Iraq.. I remember when any opposing voice was called anti-americans and belittled. Of course when one cannot attack the message they attack the messenger..

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Yes she was, the mainstream media also failed in their duties to the American public.. Paula Zahn from CNN said Ritter had drunken Saddam's kool-aid just because he was against the war on Iraq and mocked the supposed intel of a wmd and al qaeda link to Iraq.. I remember when any opposing voice was called anti-americans and belittled. Of course when one cannot attack the message they attack the messenger..

They attack the messenger and they win because far too many Americans lack the courage, or quite frankly, the intellect to stand and support those who speak truth to power.

Had America listened to McKinney, think of how different the world would look now. NO ONE, absolutely no fucking body in American politics had the courage of Cynthia McKinney.

Here's what she said BEFORE the war began ..

Another Oil War
by Rep. Cynthia McKinney
September 23, 2002

Once again the world now waits with fear and trepidation regarding the threat of a US attack on Iraq.

The President provides as justification for this impending attack the Iraqi refusal to comply with UN resolutions regarding weapons inspections, the alleged Iraqi threat to its neighbors and the Iraqi government's mistreatment of its own citizens.

The American people are being called upon to send their young sons and daughters to go and kill young Iraqi sons and daughters. This war, like all wars, will be brutal and will leave many American and Iraqi families mourning the loss of their children.

We're not allowed to publicly question the Bush Administration for fear of being called unpatriotic. Aren't we entitled to really know why we're being urged to go to war? Aren't we entitled to be confident that the Administration is telling the truth?

We know that this Administration has some trouble with telling the truth.

You might recall that the White House had a kind of amnesia a few months ago and didn't tell the truth about September 11 until I asked some pretty straightforward questions. In so doing, it seems I helped them remember that they had in fact received a whole raft of reports warning of terrorist attacks against this country.

And this is the same Administration, which stole the 2000 election in Florida and then lied about it.

There have been so many times I wished our country could use its massive military resources for such noble goals as protecting civilians and enforcing UN Security Council Resolutions. I'd be their greatest supporter. But I've sat upon this committee for 10 years and I have seen our country repeatedly refuse to use to its military to save civilians from slaughter.

I need only remind you of our country's shameful failure to intervene in Rwanda in 1994 and in so doing we allowed 1,000,000 Rwandan men, women and children to be butchered with axes and machetes in 100 days.

And, yes, we are the same country that abandoned the people of Afghanistan to the Taliban, that abandoned the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo to the invading Rwandans and the Ugandans, that abandoned the people of East Timor to the invading Indonesians, that abandoned the people of Sierra Leone to the brutal hand chopping killers of the RUF, that abandoned the people of Chechnya to the brutal Russian Army, that abandoned the people of the Philippines to brutalities of Ferdinand Marcos, that abandoned the people of Chile to monstrous crimes of General Pinochet and so on and so on.

But the President would have us believe that this time things are different for once, he says, we're going to war to save people's lives.

However, just last Sunday, September 15, 2002, the Washington Post's lead story carried the banner headline "In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil is the Key Issue." The article then went on to describe how US oil companies were looking forward to taking advantage of the oil bonanza, which would follow Saddam Hussein's removal from office.

Apparently, so the article says, CIA Director James Woolsey, indicated that non-US oil companies who sided with Hussein would most likely be excluded from sharing in Iraq's massive oil reserves a*" reserves said to be second only to Saudi Arabia.

And I find the current Bush fervor and alleged urgent justifications for attacking Iraq startling because I recall reading an article from the London Guardian on December 2, 2001 last year, which had a banner headline "Secret US Plan for Iraq War." The article, almost a year old now, is interesting because it reports that the President had already ordered the CIA and his senior military commanders to draw up detailed plans for a military operation against Iraq. The operational commander was General Tommy Franks working out of the US Central Command at McDill air force base in Florida. Apparently, other key players were, low and behold, the CIA Director James Woolsey and the Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz.

What I found most incredible about the article, especially after reading this week's Washington Post article, was the last sentence which said:

"The most adventurous ingredient in the anti- Iraqi proposal is the use of US ground troops . . . significant numbers of [US] troops could also be called on in the early stages of any rebellion to guard oil fields around the Shia port of Basra in southern Iraq."

Isn't it amazing the London Times didn't refer to US troops guarding the new parliament, or the schools or hospitals full of ravaged civilians, or saving the men, women and children brutalized under years of Hussein's rule.

I wonder why the President hasn't talked about these plans, which were being cooked up nearly a year ago.

I learned this week from the Times of London that Bush Administration plans to spend some $200m on convincing a skeptical American and world public that the war on Iraq is justified. I didn't realize that telling the truth would be so expensive.

And surely if we were really interested today in the truth about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction wouldn't this Committee want to hear from Scott Ritter. I just cannot believe that he's not here today.

Before we send our young men and women off to war, we need to really make sure that we're not sacrificing them so that rich and powerful men can prosecute a war for oil.

Rep. Cynthia McKinney Another Oil War

She was speaking to the Armed Services Committee on which she served. She not knew Scott Ritter and had investigated his findings. Her words were prophetic.

I repeat .. NO ONE in American politics had the courage McKinney had on the war.

Just two months later, she was defeated for the congressional seat she had held for five terms. She was defeated by democrats, AIPAC, huge infusions of money, the media, and a political lsight of hand in Georgia called "crossover voting" that allowed republicans to vote against her.

The very next election she was re-elected running against five candidates that seemed to be put together to sap her support. She beat them all without a runoff. However, when she returned to Congress, Nancy Pelosi refused to grant her back seniority, which was uncommon. Thus she served her sixth term in Congress as a freshman .. which kept her off important leadership and committee posts .. and sheilded the Bush Administration from her.

 

[elvis]

Bush is a social conservative and a fiscal Stalinist.

fiscal stalinist?

yeah, 20 million people starved because of Bush's fiscal policy, oh wait.

 

[elvis]

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.

The only reason Powell is getting respect here is because he endorsed Obama. He is a war criminal. Period.

 

[Ravi]

fiscal stalinist?

yeah, 20 million people starved because of Bush's fiscal policy, oh wait.

We shall see.

 

[elvis]

We shall see.

I have no love for Bush. But Stalin? come on.

 

[del]

I have no love for Bush. But Stalin? come on.

ravi exaggerates occasionally.

 

[Ravi]

I have no love for Bush. But Stalin? come on.

What part of fiscally do you not understand?

 

[elvis]

What part of fiscally do you not understand?

Stalin's economic policies literally led to the starvation of 20 million Russians. I wasn't talking about the people he sent to the gulags. These were people who starved because of economic laws.

 

[oreo]

ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Dollars to pesos, Mr. Powell is getting ready for a run at the presidency in 2012.

If he had resigned during the runup to the war and just laid low until the public got sick of the war, he could have been seen as a visionary and an honest man, a return to the relative sanity of Bush I without being seen as a peacenik either. Then from 2006 on, he could have surfaced again, criticizing the Bush administration's recklessness and huge spending ways. He could have criticized military budgets without setting off people's hippy alarms. He could have run in 2008 and steamrolled Obama.

But he had to go and make that speech. And stay on board in the Bush administration for a while. So he was/is tainted, but lucky for him, the american people have a short memory span, and respond to symbolism over substance. Why, just look how...presidential he looks, after all! So for the next couple of years, he pops up here and there, making speeches with the aid of an image consultant and a speechwriter.

Either that or he's angling for a job in the Obama administration.

Yep--that's what I make of this proclimation from Powell too. He is putting himself in the spotlight for a run for the Presidency. I must admit I was surprised that Powell did not back McCain for the Presidency. McCain as close to a democrat as one could possibly be--while referring to himself as a republican.

I hope the republican party has learned a lesson from this election. Which is: Stay to your principle foundation of less government spending, lower taxes & keeping the heck out of the private sector--NO MORE BAILOUTS!

The next President needs to be another Ronald Reagan. Lets get back to what being conservative REALLY means. Colin Powell is not that man.

 

[Chris]

Yep--that's what I make of this proclimation from Powell too. He is putting himself in the spotlight for a run for the Presidency. I must admit I was surprised that Powell did not back McCain for the Presidency. McCain as close to a democrat as one could possibly be--while referring to himself as a republican.

I hope the republican party has learned a lesson from this election. Which is: Stay to your principle foundation of less government spending, lower taxes & keeping the heck out of the private sector--NO MORE BAILOUTS!

The next President needs to be another Ronald Reagan. Lets get back to what being conservative REALLY means. Colin Powell is not that man.

Reagan and Bush created 90% of the National Debt...

ReaganBushDebt.org

 

[SwingVoter]

The only reason Powell is getting respect here is because he endorsed Obama. He is a war criminal. Period.

No respect here. Powell is a nothing of a man. Appeased the Taliban, appeased Arafat, appeased Bush, a record of standing for nothing that no one will match anytime soon.

 

[bk1983]

Yep--that's what I make of this proclimation from Powell too. He is putting himself in the spotlight for a run for the Presidency. I must admit I was surprised that Powell did not back McCain for the Presidency. McCain as close to a democrat as one could possibly be--while referring to himself as a republican.

I hope the republican party has learned a lesson from this election. Which is: Stay to your principle foundation of less government spending, lower taxes & keeping the heck out of the private sector--NO MORE BAILOUTS!

The next President needs to be another Ronald Reagan. Lets get back to what being conservative REALLY means. Colin Powell is not that man.

Uh, Reagan also increased government spending and raised taxes..

 

[jillian]

Uh, Reagan also increased government spending and raised taxes..

And increased the deficit.

But don't confuse them with facts.

 

[sealybobo]

I always admired Powell, Had he run for President, I would be standing proud right now! I disagree with him about this,, it smacks of palying to an audience, instead of to all the people.

You are such a partisan hack that you don't even realize that

a. You are wrong
b. You are not a republican. What they do doesn't benefit you
c. You are part of the problem.

Since you are part of the 90% of us and not part of the top 10%, you should start voting with us, not against us. Your husband goes to work for $. That makes him one of us. Now if he sat at home and his money did all the work, then maybe you would be a Republican, but even then, half those guys have wised up too.

But the day you stop voting GOP regardless of what their actions are, that's when the GOP will start catering to you for real again. Until that day, they can just get by on lying to you. It's worked so far. When you continuously vote for them despite the fact that they don't do shit for you, why should they change?

My hope is the Democrats have changed from the late 80's when they were big tax and spenders. We voted those bums out of office. Now it's your turn.

Now if you want to continue supporting/defending Bush/McCain/Delay/Abramoff/Vetter/Craig/Foley/Boehner/Stevens...

Fine, but don't expect them to ever do any better than they did the last 8 years. Because they made out like bandits. Do you get that? Do you understand the last 8 years were great for real Republicans?

You are one of the last few broke asses to continue defending the GOP. It's getting pathetic.

 

[midcan5]

The republicans need to listen to Rush, Hannity, Savage and Coulter et al, after all they contribute so much to the country and have been so helpful both in advice and accomplishments. Please guys keep listening to your leaders. Rush needs you.

 

[Jennifer.Bush]

Ok, i'll start:

El socialismo es estúpido

lmaoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

powell doesn't even know why he likes obama, reason like he can bring people together is not goona solve anything

 

[Esta_PG]

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time - Blogs from CNN.com

This guy is class. He reputation was scarred when he gave the WMD speech at the UN. He was burned by Bush once but never again.

His reputation wasn't just scarred, it was destroyed. It's unforgivable if he believed the war was without cause AND DID NOTHING. He's among the least admirable men in America, and this pathetic "look, I'm liberal, I swear, whichever way the wind blows" tour is just tragic.

It's one thing to say you truly believed the war was an important thing. It's another to say you didn't but had so little spine you did nothing to stop it, especially when you had the power to do so. Cyrus Vance would be rolling in his grave were he not cremated.

 

[geonerd20]

I have nothing but admiration for Colin Powell. It is too bad that he allowed himself to be used by Bush and Cheney. It was a momentary lapse in judgment that will likely stigmatize him for the rest of his life. Thats too bad, because I think he would have made a perfect Secretary of State, or Defense Secretary, or even someone to take charge of the reconstruction of New Orleans.