Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News Petraeus Assessment

I hear that, Ken, but there are two reasons why that response is completely fatuous:

• The insurgents have been, and will continue to disrupt military actions as well.
• Available evidence suggests that military responses have only served to increase the insurgency.

Completely agree with your "what if" scenario. It's important to remember that, although almost everyone bought the fairy tale about the existence of Saddam's WMD's in the Fall of 2002, there were many who recognized that attacking iraq was not the best way to deal with it, and that among those who spoke most forcefully against the invasion at that time, in the Fall of 2002, was the man who would have been President, had it not been for the Librul Media's two-year campaign to discredit him.

Without trying to sound like I am patting myself on my back for my brilliance, I never bought into the WMD argument. Even before the invasion. It just did not make sense.

Iraq was a mess under sanctions and Saddams army and scientific community were in disarray due to that and the whupping they suffered in the first Gulf War. At that point I thought Saddam was no longer interested in or able to launch another war of aggression. He rather was interested in building monuments of himself and opulent palaces to secure his legacy. And he was also grooming the way for his two sons to take over after he was gone or in declining health. I remember emailing my brother in law those arguments against the existence of WMD’s. But it was a great sales pitch. Fear works.

That also brings to mind Colin Powell’s speech to the UN a month before the invasion. I remember listening to that speech in disbelief wondering what in the world possessed him to capitulate like that. Before that Powell was very reticent on invading Iraq, the line “You break it, you own it” comes to mind. A friend of mine and I have discussed this at length. We have come to two conclusions.

One, he was somehow blackmailed by Bushco—what it could have been I don’t know—or Two, he made a deal. The deal being: I cave on WMD’s and the invasion, and you in turn provide a lot of money for AIDS in Africa. And lo and behold Bush has indeed provided more money for African AIDS projects that any president by far. I could be way off base, but the startling about face by Colin Powell has always perplexed me.

Me too Ken. Interesting theory, that. But plausible.

I didn't buy into the WMD argument either. But I understood that other people did, and so did not argue the point at the time. Instead, I asserted that the Inspections had a far better chance of disabling any weapons with minimal harm than did an invasion force.

Turns out they had.

Doesn't the fact that it is impossible to safely walk the streets of Iraq without the escort of one hundred soldiers and five helicopter gunships tell us everything we need to know about the situation in Iraq?

Keep in mind that Colin's son, Michael, was Chairman of the FCC throughout President Bush's first term. Leaving office one month after Colin resigned as Secretary of State.

I have always thought he naively believed he could make a difference i.e. as the voice of reason amongst neocon war dogs. That he presented the "evidence" to the UN, I have always suspected that was the way Cheney could implicate Powell to be a part of their plan to deceive not only the American people but the world with someone who many people had the opinion he was of high integrity. He served at the pleasure of the President and I believe that his presentation was exactly that, his job. I do not believe he could have been bought.

The current series of articles about Cheney makes it clear Powell never had a chance. I don't think anyone was prepared to fight against Cheney and the longer Cheney was able to manage the politics the less likely anyone would be able to fight against him.

I guess we can wait for his biography and perhaps get a better picture of what was going on from his perspective.

Blackmailed? deal?

hah

Powell is a twisty politician baxtard. And like all modern Politicians their public performances are part of advertising campaigns.

He played a very important role in the selling of the war,

he was the voice of reason - the character who was cautiously thinking it through. then if even HE changed his mind so forcefully.....

He was playing a part to a certain audience, a reformed cynic selling the washing powder with claims of dazzling brilliance and freshness that would cleanse the world of its stains.

if you think for one minute that the powerpoint (always the stress on power too, sneakily subliminial eh?) presentation to the UN was aimed at the hard assed international negotiators.....

Do you seriously think a presentation like that at that stage would influence anybody - let alone the worlds top diplomats? do you think it was intended to? do you think that presentations such as these are the way other countries are persuaded - to go to war?

There was one main audience, the only game in town. The US public that the administration needed to persuade in favour of going to war.

Powell was one of the many tools they used, some less subtle than others.

I think it would have been a bonus but certainly not required. The neocon architects never envisioned going to the UN for anything. In fact Wolfowitz was upset that we had not invaded Iraq in the summer of 2002. It was a great concession when Powell convinced the President to go to the UN. I have always suspected it was a deception. The neocon architects plan could have been thought out as sure we can go to the UN and get this clown Powell off our back but we are going to invade regardless and it would be a bonus when we run the pr when we justify the invasion to the American people. Once in the UN the plan becomes straight forward. Negroponte would set the trap by insisting on inspectors who he "knew" Iraq would reject and thus they would not need to supply any other "proof". It really didn't matter that the trap failed as we wouldn't have troops in place until the spring anyway. Thus it would be a win-win.

I dunno ... I am waiting a few years and see who does the talking. We should get a more accurate portrayal of the events by then.

So—he fell on his sword for his commander in chief. Possibly. I hope that is the truth. How can we really know unless he decides to reveal the truth in the, maybe, forthcoming autobiography. Yes, he was regarded by many, including myself, as a man of high integrity and honor. That is why the about face puzzled me so. I had a feeling watching the speech that he was on autopilot, halfheartedly laying out the “evidence”. And yes indeed his target audience was Americans. The administration knew everyone else was a lost cause and didn’t matter anyway. It was our war, with Blair siding with Bush (what was that about?) and dragging his poor troops and country along with him. I forgot to mention Tonga, to whom we are deeply indebted.

All of us are eagerly awaiting the truth behind the real motivations and machinations behind the war. Hopefully that will indeed materialize. I am also eagerly awaiting the truth of #41’s opinion of #43, which of course we will never see. Brings to mind Jacky Gleason’s (Beaufort T Justice’s) quote “There is no way that you could have sprung from my loins!”