Colin Powell's New Book: War With Iraq Never Debated

[EVAY]

LOL @ bringing up the same garbage that didn't have clout years ago. No one ever created any "evidence". Everyone in the world thought he had WMD's. Powell said from the beginning he wanted to bring up all the other atrocities that Saddam did and Bush said to focus on WMD's.

The created evidence was not the WMD's. It was the Al Quaeda connection.

And that 'evidence' was spouted by W., Cheney, and Rumsfeld repeatedly as why we were going to war against Iraq. The WMD evidence was believed by most but was insufficient to get the American public behind another war. They 'linked' Hussein to Osama Bin Laden falsely, blatantly, and in contradiction to the data from the CIA, the Military intelligence, and other countries' intelligence agencies.

The administration wanted to go to war with Iraq, not because of WMD's (which they believed but which were wrong), not because of Al Quaeda connections (which they didn't even privately believe since they KNEW that was wrong), but for two quite separate reasons.

Reason 1: Bush 43 thought his dad had dropped the ball by not pursuing Hussein all the way into Iraq in the first Gulf War, plus ( He [Hussein] TRIED TO KILL MY DAD).

Reason 2: The neocons wanted to establish a democracy in the the middle of the Arab world, believing it would be a stabilizing influence in the region. Condi Rice literally said that was one of the reasons in her testimony before congress.

Linking Iraq to the attack on the U.S. was a way to sell it to the American people.

[spursncowboys]

The created evidence was not the WMD's. It was the Al Quaeda connection.

And that 'evidence' was spouted by W., Cheney, and Rumsfeld repeatedly as why we were going to war against Iraq. The WMD evidence was believed by most but was insufficient to get the American public behind another war. They 'linked' Hussein to Osama Bin Laden falsely, blatantly, and in contradiction to the data from the CIA, the Military intelligence, and other countries' intelligence agencies.

The administration wanted to go to war with Iraq, not because of WMD's (which they believed but which were wrong), not because of Al Quaeda connections (which they didn't even privately believe since they KNEW that was wrong), but for two quite separate reasons.

Reason 1: Bush 43 thought his dad had dropped the ball by not pursuing Hussein all the way into Iraq in the first Gulf War, plus ( He [Hussein] TRIED TO KILL MY DAD).

Reason 2: The neocons wanted to establish a democracy in the the middle of the Arab world, believing it would be a stabilizing influence in the region. Condi Rice literally said that was one of the reasons in her testimony before congress.

Linking Iraq to the attack on the U.S. was a way to sell it to the American people.

Your reasons are your opinion. There is no evidence to support it. The first one is pretty ridiculous. Seeing how serious he was about death of soldiers and not politicizing it, that is pretty di able to even conceive that. The second one is equally ridiculous. Rumsfeld's "small footprint" goes against the nation building idea. The only neocon position for the middle east is to fight the anti israel groups.

Both "reasons" are in the same category as "war for oil" nonsense.

Come on EVAY. You're better than that.

[spursncowboys]

Now if you said that another reason we went to Iraq to scare any other country trying to cide with terrorists or to be able to move into Iran easier-that would make a little more sense.

[spursncowboys]

I honestly think after 9-11, Bush looked at our threats a little more serious and imminent.

[Blake]

I honestly think after 9-11, Bush looked at our threats a little more serious and imminent.

I think Bush seriously wanted to see what happened to The Pet Goat.

[Wild Cobra]

I think Bush seriously wanted to see what happened to The Pet Goat.

Wow...


What can we extrapolate about your thinking skills form that?

[EVAY]

Your reasons are your opinion. There is no evidence to support it. The first one is pretty ridiculous. Seeing how serious he was about death of soldiers and not politicizing it, that is pretty di able to even conceive that. The second one is equally ridiculous. Rumsfeld's "small footprint" goes against the nation building idea. The only neocon position for the middle east is to fight the anti israel groups.

Both "reasons" are in the same category as "war for oil" nonsense.

Come on EVAY. You're better than that.

There is evidence to support reason No. 1 in W.'s own words "He tried to kill my dad" is a QUOTE from W. And several of W's biographers have said that W believed that the U.S. should have followed Iraq's army into Iraq in the first Gulf War. I'm not going to look them up for you, but if you care to check it out, it is there.

The second reason is a quote from Condi Rice's testimony before congress. She flat out said that the rationale included discussions about the value of a stable democracy in the region. I remember watching that on tv and thinking at the time "Then why don't you say to the American people that is what you are doing"?

I don't happen to believe that we went to war with Iraq for oil. But we also didn't go to war with Iraq because they were supporting Al Quada. Because they weren't. Hussein and Osama Bin Laden hated each other with a passion. They were opposing Islamic followers (one Sunni and one Shia). But you have to admit that the Al Quaeda 'connection' was loudly and often touted as a reason to go to war with them.

Starting that war doesn't mean that Bush didn't care about our soldiers. He just cared about other things more.

[Nbadan]

'war for oil nonsense...yEah. because that worked out so bad for global conglomerates...why they did nt even get 100% of Iraqs oil...

[Nbadan]

Tenet fell on his sword, like a good centurion

So he is a war criminal...he was a ' soldier' who led his country into war under false pretenses and fabricated evidence... Back in the day we called them traitors...Today they are Freedom medal winners..

[ChumpDumper]

No one ever created any "evidence".

You never read about Curveball either.

[Nbadan]

No they aren't.

I was in the military during Desert Storm. Saddam Hussein violated the agreements to put in effect to implement the cease fire. This alone gave us the right to pursue war.

Who put in the no fly zone again? (hint: not the UN)
Who was sponsoring state terror before the war? (hint:
Not Iraq)

[ChumpDumper]

I honestly think after 9-11, Bush looked at our threats a little more serious and imminent.

He sure didn't take them seriously before 9/11.

[Nbadan]

Who used chemical weapons during the war? (hint: again not Iraq)

[FuzzyLumpkins]

if they're so stupid then why reply to my post, Stupid?
I do if i'm not comfortable with what I'm given. This was one of my stupid questions I asked before, Stupid, but you're refusing to answer which pretty much makes this whole exchange stupid, Stupid. Have it your way.

One more thing

You understand the notion of what a leading question is? What presenting a false choice is? This isn't cross-examination.

You are going to have to try much harder than this.

I only repeated myself. Are you even going to address the chain of command or you just going to continue with the bluster? And lol at you trying to be someone you are not.

[spursncowboys]

There is evidence to support reason No. 1 in W.'s own words "He tried to kill my dad" is a QUOTE from W. And several of W's biographers have said that W believed that the U.S. should have followed Iraq's army into Iraq in the first Gulf War. I'm not going to look them up for you, but if you care to check it out, it is there.

yeah he has disagreed with his dad's decision to stop and not go and finish saddam and his loyalists off. That has nothing to do with him wanting to go into a war to avenge his dad.

The second reason is a quote from Condi Rice's testimony before congress. She flat out said that the rationale included discussions about the value of a stable democracy in the region. I remember watching that on tv and thinking at the time "Then why don't you say to the American people that is what you are doing"?

Yeah but that has nothing to do with your assertion that we want to make a colony. I remember when Bush said that he wanted to rid the world of evil and thought to myself "what?!" But Bush doctrine of premptively striking a country ran by a tyrant is different than some kind of nwo idea of nation building just to have american airports and seaports in the middle east. Plus we already had it in Saudi Arabia, UAE, turkey, and western afghanistan.

I don't happen to believe that we went to war with Iraq for oil. But we also didn't go to war with Iraq because they were supporting Al Quada. Because they weren't. Hussein and Osama Bin Laden hated each other with a passion. They were opposing Islamic followers (one Sunni and one Shia). But you have to admit that the Al Quaeda 'connection' was loudly and often touted as a reason to go to war with them.

Starting that war doesn't mean that Bush didn't care about our soldiers. He just cared about other things more.

They didn't hate each other with a passion. Saddam did have al qeda in iraq to train. He also said any terrorist can train in iraq as long as they are targeting american or israeli interests. The part that bush and co. got wrong was that bin laden never had personal talks with saddam. Yeah the al queda and wmd's were definitely overused for sure. They should have focused on the un resolution violations; the attempted eradication of the kurds; and the fact that he would not allow the un inspectors to do their job. We should have also gone after governments and companies who went against our embargo.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

snc:

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html

Further the Pentagon did their own study they released in 2008 that says there was no link. Not 'wrong about meeting OBL' but no collaboration at all.

Quite frankly thinking that Saddam wanted an organization whose purpose was to create a Sharia state in his country to become relevant is dumb.

[ChumpDumper]

Saddam did have al qeda in iraq to train.

[George Gervin's Afro]

mobile bio weapons labs? the administration showed us the images ....

rummy told us the wmds were 'in and around Tikrit'..except they weren't...

either incompetents or liars...

[Blake]

Wow...


What can we extrapolate about your thinking skills form that?

I don't know, what?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

You understand the notion of what a leading question is? What presenting a false choice is? This isn't cross-examination.

You are going to have to try much harder than this.

I only repeated myself. Are you even going to address the chain of command or you just going to continue with the bluster? And lol at you trying to be someone you are not.

Ah. So I guess you would jump off a bridge if your superiors told you to. Cool. Nice to know.

[ChumpDumper]

Took three pages for a straw man to show up. Getting better, I guess.

[boutons_deux]

Colin Powell Owes Us an Apology, Not Another Excuse


Has there been a more vastly overrated person in the past 50 years than Colin Powell?

He helped cover up My Lai.

He did his part to make sure that the Iran-Contra mess never came fully to light.

He buckled under to chickenhawk bullies in the Bush White House and did his part to lie us into a destructive war with a speech to the U.N. that he knew was based on stovepiped bull from people he already didn't trust.

And still, people trust him and revere him and, I have no doubt, if he came to them shilling another war, they'd salute and agree with him as devoutly as they did back in 2003, when he was before the UN talking about those lagoons of anthrax consomme that didn't really exist.

And now, of course, he's back with another book in which he polishes his own apple to a high gloss while ducking his responsibility for the greatest foreign-policy foul-up of our time. And he's still talking like a hapless apparatchik:

"By then, the President did not think war could be avoided," Powell writes. "He had crossed the line in his own mind, even though the NSC [National Security Council] had never met — and never would meet — to discuss the decision."

The president "didn't think war could be avoided"? Jesus H. Christ on a 10-day contract, at what point in his presidency did George W. Bush try to avoid a war with Iraq?

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politic...#ixzz1uxpCvLBk

[johnsmith]

Wow...


What can we extrapolate about your thinking skills form that?

I don't know about Blake's thinking skills, but based on you making that post it's a pretty safe bet to say that you're a ing idiot with no sense of humor and no idea what sarcasm is.

[johnsmith]

Colin Powell Owes Us an Apology, Not Another Excuse


Has there been a more vastly overrated person in the past 50 years than Colin Powell?

He helped cover up My Lai.

He did his part to make sure that the Iran-Contra mess never came fully to light.

He buckled under to chickenhawk bullies in the Bush White House and did his part to lie us into a destructive war with a speech to the U.N. that he knew was based on stovepiped bull from people he already didn't trust.

And still, people trust him and revere him and, I have no doubt, if he came to them shilling another war, they'd salute and agree with him as devoutly as they did back in 2003, when he was before the UN talking about those lagoons of anthrax consomme that didn't really exist.

And now, of course, he's back with another book in which he polishes his own apple to a high gloss while ducking his responsibility for the greatest foreign-policy foul-up of our time. And he's still talking like a hapless apparatchik:

"By then, the President did not think war could be avoided," Powell writes. "He had crossed the line in his own mind, even though the NSC [National Security Council] had never met — and never would meet — to discuss the decision."

The president "didn't think war could be avoided"? Jesus H. Christ on a 10-day contract, at what point in his presidency did George W. Bush try to avoid a war with Iraq?

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politic...#ixzz1uxpCvLBk

It's because he speaks so clearly.....for a colored fella.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ah. So I guess you would jump off a bridge if your superiors told you to. Cool. Nice to know.

There is a difference between understanding what another man's position is and what you would do in a mythical position.

Powell was told by his commander in chief of specific intelligence that indicated these things and he honored that. When how he had been used came to light, he just resigned his post.