Its time powell spoke his mind and say what the world thinks about the three stooges.
Colin Powell in four-letter neo-con ‘crazies’ row
Martin Bright
Sunday September 12, 2004
The Observer
*A furious row has broken out over claims in a new book by BBC broadcaster James Naughtie that US Secretary of State Colin Powell described neo-conservatives in the Bush administration as ‘****ing crazies’ during the build-up to war in Iraq. *
*Powell’s extraordinary outburst is alleged to have taken place during a telephone conversation with Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. The two became close friends during the intense negotiations in the summer of 2002 to build an international coalition for intervention via the United Nations. The ‘crazies’ are said to be ** Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz. ***
*‘The British government saw Powell as the most significant voice of sanity in the US administration. At different times during this very difficult period, the Brits used Powell to get across their point of view to the White House. But, bizarrely, Powell sometimes also used Blair to pass messages to Bush.’ *
Don’t you guys think that Powell him self became part of that group when he appeared in UN on February 6, 2003, and lied about Iraq’s WMDs by showing fabricated maps and satellite pictures. At least he lost my respect that day. I used to think that he was an honorable man.
^^
There were no fabricated maps or dummied up satelite photos. The analysis and interpretation of the maps and photos and other intelligence has not been proven accurate. You can hardly place the blame on Colin Powell for that. I'm sure he believed every word he said at the UN.
I think at that time Colin Powell was asked to represent US, because, in all honesty, no one else in the Administration had any credibility left to face the UN. As Secy of State he must be told that he has to be part of the 'team'. In hind-sight, Powell may regret some of his decisions. We'll just have to wait for the memoirs. :-)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
^^
There were no fabricated maps or dummied up satelite photos. The analysis and interpretation of the maps and photos and other intelligence has not been proven accurate. You can hardly place the blame on Colin Powell for that. I'm sure he believed every word he said at the UN.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t find any distinction between something being fabricated and not proven accurate. They both imply that what ever he said on that day, he knew that it was all made up. In other words basically it was a lie. And yes Faisal I agree with you that he was the only guy who had some credibility, and I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that he will come out with the truth once he is out of the Office like Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill did.
I don’t find any distinction between something being fabricated and not proven accurate. ** They both imply that what ever he said on that day, he knew that it was all made up. ** In other words basically it was a lie. And yes Faisal I agree with you that he was the only guy who had some credibility, and I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that he will come out with the truth once he is out of the Office like Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill did.
[/QUOTE]
Your sense of logic is mystifying. Everyone in their lives has said something to someone that has not been accurate. That something proves to be inaccurate does not tell you anything about whether the speaker ** knew ** that what he said was inaccurate at the time he said it. If you know something to be false when you say it, you are lieing. If you believe it to be true when you say it, you are telling the truth as you know it but you are wrong.
If you ask me whether it is possible that Powell knew there were no WMD in Iraq when he addressed the UN, I'd have to say that sure it is possible. Given Powell's history though, I'd have to say it is unlikely. Why do you presume that Powell could not have been convinced that there were WMD in Iraq by the same evidence he presented to the UN? Virtually the entire world believed that Saddam did have WMD somewhere in Iraq.
He may or may not have known the truth about WMD in Iraq, but he sure was telling the truth when calling the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration as '****ing crazies'.
I'll say it again - Clinton might have misled the American people about his sex life (which was only an issue because the right wing spent hundreds of millions of dollars to destroy him). But the crazies have laid the foundation for long term damage to the US and world by misleading the world for the reasons to go to war which lead to the killing of thousands of people, the spending hundreds of billions of dollars, the permanent damage to the reputation of the US and the framework for untold additional terrorists to attack the US.
Sorry, I'm just experiencing more outrage today at this adminstration and wonder why Americans who were so outraged over lying about a blow job give this president a free pass over MUCH MORE damaging and dangerous miscalcuations. Mind boggling.
Re: Colin Powell in four-letter neo-con 'crazies' row
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Agent Smith: *
.....I don’t find any distinction between something being fabricated and not proven accurate. ....
[/QUOTE]
Mr. Mooli and Mr. Smith calmn down a bit. Will ya?
Oh My! These epitomes of truth are out to lynch poor Powell.
US says Soviet Commies are making nukes
Commies say, our program is for peace.
Commies explode the big cracker
US says China is making nukes
China says, our program is for peace.
China explodes the big cracker
US says Bharat is making nukes
Bharat says, our program is for peace.
Bharat explodes the big cracker
US says Pakistan is making nukes
Pakistan says, our program is for peace.
Pakistan explodes the big cracker
US says North Korea is making nukes
North Korea says, our program is for peace.
North Korea admits to have the big cracker
US says Iran is making nukes
Iran says, our program is for peace.
Iran coughs up nuke oven and points fingers to Namak Haram AQ Khan
US says Libya is making nukes
Libya says, our program is for peace.
Libya coughs up nuke pots and pans, and points fingers to Namak Haram AQ Khan
US says South Africa is making nukes
sa says, our program is for peace.
SA works with USA and cleans up its act
US says Ukraine has nukes
Ukraine works with USA and cleans up his act
US says Kazakhstan has nukes
Kazakhstan works with USA and cleans up his act
antiobl, I am only talking about what Powell said on 2/6/04 not everything on your list from 1 to 10. He didn't talk about all these on that day.
myvoice : I said in my first post that I thought he was an honorable man by looking at the history. But unfortunately he was forced by this administration to go to UN and give false information to the world. Which off course even after his presentation in UN lot of countries didn’t buy. There were some rumors about Powell resigning because his disagreement with this administration on WMD issue. But finally he decided to keep his job, and please don’t try to convince us that he or other people in this administration didn’t know about the false information about WMDs in Iraq. They were trying to use CIA as an scapegoat for wrong intelligence, but in fact they asked CIA to create that false intelligence. Why do you think CIA Director George Tenet resigns few days before 9/11 commission was about to release its final report? Do you think it was all coincidence? One must a fool to believe that. Like I said earlier we all have to just wait and see when his books comes out, and we don’t have to wait too long for that. Because this November someone else will move to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
[QUOTE] Originally posted by myvoice: *
**Everyone in their lives has said something to someone that has not been accurate. *
[/QUOTE]
"Everyone" has indeed said something that's not accurate. But "everyone" is also not part of a highly-selective group of individuals who have the capabilities and the power to invade another country based upon the (mis)information that they articulate to their fellow country-members. "Everyone" issues inaccurate statements, but not "everyone"'s inaccuracy has such grave consequences for millions - if not billions - of people around the world.
With power comes responsibility. You got a responsibility to ensure your statements, when presented to the entire world (as Powell's speech was with so much hoopla and furore prior to his UNSC presentation), are accurate and grounded in well-established facts. It is the LEAST that is expected from a democratic government.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Agent Smith: *
Don’t you guys think that Powell him self became part of that group when he appeared in UN on February 6, 2003, and lied about Iraq’s WMDs by showing fabricated maps and satellite pictures. At least he lost my respect that day. I used to think that he was an honorable man.
[/QUOTE]
Is it not the same famous speech that was plagiarised from a post-grad student? this is why they should write thier own speeches. poor guy was made a scapegoat.
seminole has a point, clinton was impeached because of an affair, yet Bush goes scot free after misleading the world on the WMD and the death of thousands, while Rumsfield gets a slap on the wrist after accepting responsibility for like prisoner abuse?
"Everyone" has indeed said something that's not accurate. But "everyone" is also not part of a highly-selective group of individuals who have the capabilities and the power to invade another country based upon the (mis)information that they articulate to their fellow country-members. "Everyone" issues inaccurate statements, but not "everyone"'s inaccuracy has such grave consequences for millions - if not billions - of people around the world.
With power comes responsibility. You got a responsibility to ensure your statements, when presented to the entire world (as Powell's speech was with so much hoopla and furore prior to his UNSC presentation), are accurate and grounded in well-established facts. It is the LEAST that is expected from a democratic government.
[/QUOTE]
Nadia: I appreciate your input but think you're quite wrong. No one, no matter what position they are in is infallible. This applies to the weakest among us and the most powerful. You cannot hold any government (even a democratic one) to a standard of perfection. The MOST one can expect is that a powerful leader will do all that he/she can to insure that he/she has received the best information possible within the time frames which are relevant and then make a decision based upon that information.
I'm sure that you believe GW & Co. failed to meet even the standard I have imposed. Our election will tell you whether the majority of the American voters share your opinion.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
Our election will tell you whether the majority of the American voters share your opinion.
[/QUOTE]
Well not really. It is quite possible that the majority of American people agree with Nadia and believe that Bush misled them into the war; but still vote for him in November '04, because they think he remains the better man for the job. You never know. Most people don't vote on a single-point agenda ;)
For you revisionist historians, Clinton did not get impeached because he had an affair or utilized a woman's sex organ as a humidor. Nor did he get impeached just because he lied about it.
He got impeached because he lied while under oath and giving testimony to a federal grand jury. He lied while under oath giving a deposition in a civil lawsuit. This is called perjury. People of common stature and no great financial means go to jail for perjury. Lawyers who commit perjury get disbarred and lose their ability to practice their professions.
Politicians lie all the time. What they don't do all the time is commit perjury while giving testimony before a federal grand jury or in a civil case during deposition.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
Most people don't vote on a single-point agenda
[/QUOTE]
And most people vote on emotions and fears which the GOP is doing a splendid job in spinning Iraq and the "War on Terror" to play to the fears of the American people.
anxiously checks MV’s temperature Are you alright? Do you have a fever ? You “appreciate” my input? :o well i’ll be darned!
No, it’s not perfection. i realize no one is perfect - no human, no government, no Muslim, no Buddhist, no one at all is perfect.
And i am not saying i am Mother Teresa and i have never lied; i have lied. While i DON’T want to minimize the repercussions of my own lies in my personal life, my lies haven’t caused repercussions for thousands and thousands of people around the world - like the mothers crying for their Iraqi/American sons who have lost their lives since Powell’s speech and the initiation of this invasion. In a hypothetical world, if i was ever in a position where what i state has such grave consequences for m/billions of people, then by God i swear i would think multiple times before uttering anything in public.
oh yes. My 13 year old brother, who is definitely not a news junkie like his elder sister, could tell that in no way whatsoever was 9-11 linked with Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist regime. Yet GW & Co. repeatedly asserted that this was the case - did they base this upon “the best information possible within the time frames which [were] relevant and then ma[d]e a decision based upon that information”? No. i believe GW was itching to attack Iraq from the moment he assumed presidency…and rather than letting the facts from the intelligence sources speak for themselves, he manipulated the intelligence to suit his objective.
If they had been the noble warriors seeking truth and honesty, inevitably prone to misjudgements as we all are, as your post makes it out to seem, then anyone capable of reading would have been able to realize that a sanctioned Iraq poses very little threat to its neighbours let alone to a country all the way on the other side of the world. But they weren’t after the “truth” (IMHO); that is why all sorts of bogeyman stories were conjured up (like the Saddam and 9-11 “link”, uranium from Niger, blah blah blah) to instill in peoples’ minds that an invasion would be justifiable.
When you are in the most powerful position in the world, you owe it to your people to check, double check, triple check, quadruple check your sources before you initiate an invasion that takes the lives of whoknowshowmany civilians, and more than 1000 Americans. It’s not perfection. It’s just plain common sense.
Since we are going all over the place anyway, in this thread, so might as well ask myvoice, as to why Clinton lied? Does the reason that he lied about an extra-marital affair make any difference in your condemnation of the man? Most man lie about extra-marital affairs. Maybe thats too hard for you to agree since you are a lawyer AND a Bush supporter. Maybe if Clinton pays you enough to represent his side of the story, you will find his reasoning for lying much more credible! :)
mv, what did Clinton lie about? And why was he asked about it? Too bad the Democrats aren't as diligent in their investigations or hateful to put Bush under oath or in front of a grand jury. There are many more pertinent questions that have to do with life and death and the future of our country that he should have to answer to.
[quote] I'll say it again - Clinton might have misled the American people about his sex life (which was only an issue because the right wing spent hundreds of millions of dollars to destroy him). But the crazies have laid the foundation for long term damage to the US and world by misleading the world for the reasons to go to war which lead to the killing of thousands of people, the spending hundreds of billions of dollars, the permanent damage to the reputation of the US and the framework for untold additional terrorists to attack the US.
[/quote]
Sorry but i have to agree with this. If one HAS to choose, i would rather choose a president who lies about his sex life rather than someone who lies and sends his fellow countrymen/women to an illegal invasion which has now sucked a country into a quagmire possibly for decades, that will affect the stability of the world that i will be passing onto my grandchildren. i am not condoning what Clinton did, but - in terms of global ramifications, it's not too hard to see whose lies have sown the seeds of hatred and possible future conflicts for decades to come.
anxiously checks MV’s temperature Are you alright? Do you have a fever ? You “appreciate” my input? :o well i’ll be darned!