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

"It was a great concession when Powell convinced the President to go to the UN"

oh really? considering the decision to go to war had already been made, and that as we saw the war was going to to ahead regardless of the UN it was not concession at all, merely a sop and they used it as part of the sales pitch.

Powell played his part. he has no integrity, if he had such misgivings about the war he should have resigned then and there.

Powell's speech to the UN is deeply etched in my memory. I don't see him as you do, Schlack, as being on the same par with the other neo-con's who have trampled our international standing in the muck of their misguided dreams of absolute hegemony. I believe the reports that I have read, as expressed by others here, that great pressures were brought to bear on Powell before he agreed to this act of chicanery, and that he was ashamed of himself even while he was delivering the infamous presentation. I remember listening to him and thinking to myself that he sounded like he was deathly sick.

I think the same is true of the current batch of military leaders, who are forced by their loyalty, by the threat to their careers, or by other factors that only they and their masters in the Executive Branch know about . . . I mean think about it, which of you would be willing to be the next Janet Karpinski? Get with the program! The surge is working! Right??? RIGHT????

selling the iraq war was THE main focus of the bush admin, one wonders what would have happened if they had spent as much effort planning the occupation.

"same par with the other neo-con's who have trampled our international standing in the muck of their misguided dreams of absolute hegemony. "

im sorry steve, but with a notable and noble exceptions the us policy elite both repub and democract neo-con and neo-lib, hawk and dove are all interested in and work towards the dream of "absolute hegemony". it is the dream of imperial elites throughout time.

i have been recently reading a history of the US getting into the second world war. a story as filled with lies, double dealing, media manipulation and presidential intrigue as this current war. it hasnt changed much, except we have more access to info these days.

the point being that the intention was to place the US first in the world through the means of ww2 - which was achieved. maintaining and increasing this imperial leadership or hegemony was the goal of us foreign policy since then. it was the guiding hand of the cold war struggle of two large empires. it has persisted beyond the cold war to now where cold warriors are still playing chess with the world (they still dont know how the horsey moves).

the actions throughout time may be different ranging from covert operations, financial conflict and action and out right war -oh sorry interventions/police actions - but the policy has always been the same. sometimes more somtimes less intensively.

Powell, whatever personal qualities he has, still fits neatly into the that structure. his career was deeply entwined with said foreign policy goals, as is the US military as a whole.

" I remember listening to him and thinking to myself that he sounded like he was deathly sick."

perhaps he was but he still went ahead and did it. he went ahead presented that bull**** knowing how weak it was, knowing how it would damage him personally. he knew what he was doing and still did it.

whatever the immediate reasons he laid his political life down at the altar of empire.

Not when the White House was writing Powel's script for him.

Setting up Powell had to be one of the great political sucker punches of all time. As a result Colin Powell lost 100% of whatever credibility he ever had. He had been an "authority figure" and respected for his management of the First Gulf War. He could have been the first African-American to be elected president.

Now Mr. Powell will only be remembered as the White House's fool, sent to tell known lies to the UN, with an air of certainty that, up until then, only Mr. Powell had.

Colin Powel deserves every bit of derision he receives. he oculd have saved thousands of lives, had he stood up to Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. He did not. And hundreds of thousands have died and millions have suffered.

Mr. Powell has made himself rich on the (Conservative) spekaers circuit. I'm sure he cries all the way to the bank at the things that are said about him.

The only thing Mr. Powell has as an item of concern is the possibility that Thomas Jefferson was right when he said, "I fear for my nation when I contemplate that God is just."

Schlack: You’re Irish and so are connected with and love the English (sorry) so what is your take on the Bush-Blair alliance? Was this just an attempt to regain a smidgen of the glory days of The Raj or was there more to it?

It was bad enough before we lost our soldiers in Iraq. Powell above all others knew we did not have the power, equipment or soldiers to win a war in Iraq.

I wonder how any of them sleep at night with the death rate going higher every day. I stood loudly opposed to Bush in 2000 and was nearly hysterical when so many Republicans stood behind him in 2004. I knew what was happening when I read the 1992 platform and attended the meetings around the 2000 platform and they were identical. Force Democracy in the Middle East to save them from themselves. Of course taking oil was not mentioned in the platform but anyone with a 2nd grade education knew about it. It was the first action for a one world order under America.

The North American Union was also part of the plan which meant no borders north or south of America. Look at the mess we are in now with up to 20 million illegal aliens in America. Our security is in the dumps and Bush struts his stuff all over all of us.

I am not psychic but I have read history and it was clear from day one that the One World Order of the Neoconservatives was in the works starting with Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43.

Colin Powell knew what the neocons wanted and he fell into line to help them take on Iraq. I am beyond disgust with the whole lot of them. What the hell got into the Republican Party under Bush/Clinton/Bush that totally destroyed our credibility in our own government? Was it the desire for world power under Christianity? It looks that way to me and it brought out all the religious extremist wackos out of the closet and into our discussions.

RR is now balanced but I remember when it was not! Doug was balanced in his refusal to get involved in the Christian Conservative force here. But we had some lulus who were militant in their desire for a Christian Nation.

I've given up any thought for a limited government. It cannot exist in our new dictatorship within the white house. Changing parties will not stop this. Americans need to want their freedoms back and it should be an issue in the 2008 elections but it won't be. Abortion and Gay marriages will be the focus and not much else.

Can we force them out of the debates? Can we not demand freedoms equally for all Americans?

How can we prioritize what we want? Out of Iraq? Equal Rights? Closed borders? Remove corruption by enforcing our laws? Where do we start? Who can we work with?

These are questions I would be asking on the home page if I were still there. I cannot be there as many do not like my opinions. I just hope I can be here.

Sandy: Our biggest failure in Iraq was the failure of congress to restore funding for the Crusader Artillery System. If we had had such a fine weapon we could have used it to help persuade the Arab Muslims (and maybe the Persians as well) to become Christians, thereby making them learn to love us and become our friends. This glaring oversight of our congress is directly responsible for the morass we find ourselves in today.

I have a lot of trouble with the passive voice. "Be remembered"? Be remembered by whom, Philly Steve? Colin Powell still commands a higher overall approval rating than any other public figure of recent times. Even higher than Ronald Reagan. Up in the 70 percent range.


You and I have a different view of what is "absolute" about "absolute hegemony". In the political sense, I see the term "absolute" as meaning "imposing by any means necessary to prevent any deviation whatsoever". I agree that the powerful elite seek a world in which the US is predominant. I do not agree that all except a very few - who so far remain unnamed - seek a world in which the US is absolutely predominant.

The current Iraq debate provides a perfect example. More and more of the powerful elite are coming to eschew the cost of absolute predominance in Iraq and accept something short of the "total victory" (i.e., absolute hegemony) that the neo-con's insist upon.

Even at the time of the October 2002 Resolution, more than half of the Democratic members of Congress voted against authorizing the use of force (i.e, absolutism) against Iraq. More than half. What kind of imperial elitism did their vote represent?

Or are they, the majority of Dem's in Congress in October of 2002, perhaps the noble and notable exceptions to whom you referred?

ROFL!

i dont know, the brits are trying to keep one foot in europe and one foot in "the special relationship" with the US.

i dont really know, ive read so much, heard so many interviews and commentators and still havent figured that one out.

there seemed to be nothing in it for british oil companies - or any british interests in general, they were apparently twiddled about as much as the american people, George Bush saying one thing when meeting and then doing another in practice.

there seemed to be so little in it for britain i can only guess that he had some kind of brain fart. i think may have Blair developed something of a messiah complex.

he also wanted to stand solidly with the US after 9/11 whatever they did, perhaps be a junior partner in the new empire. dont forget than a million people marched in london feb 15th 2003 against the war - and unprecedented protest that was ignored. even the british government couldnt have believed the bullcrap that they themselves issued as evidence.

blinded by Bush perhaps, sucked in by the "lets do some good" rhetoric.

i have read that in return GWB promised concessions on global warming/poverty (i cant rememebr which one) which were never fulfilled. so perhaps like so many in the us he was sucked by the false promises.

on the other hand he has now got a job as a de facto member of the bush administration - as get this - middle east peace envoy - man do they have an ironic sense of humour. perhaps we always was a loyal bushie too.