As of 10:43 AM Wednesday 01-23-07 I can not get on the web site of The Center for Public Integrity.

by Johnny T. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 9:44:49 AM

  (0+)

I was able to access it and the report is extremely negative about the Bush Administration.  I would say one thing in support of one of the few honorable people within the Bush Administration, Colin Powell.  First, Powell is a team player and a person who takes his marching orders seriously, even when he does not agree with them.  I think it was apparent from what we have learned that Colin Powell objected to the war.  He advised Bush against it prior to his invading and at each step Cheney was doing an end run around him.  Colin Powell also asked George Tenent prior to his giving his UN speech if the data he was providing him was rock solid.  Tenet assured him it was.  Powell later confessed to being misled by Tenet and others about the information on Iraq.

The Iraq war was not Colin Powell's war.  Powell never really supported it.  What he did was to provide the evidence the Administration gave him and told him to use.  He tried for 2 hours to convince George Bush not to invade Iraq before Bush went ahead anyway with the war.  I think you have an extremely honorable man here, raised in the military to follow orders at the end of the day, doing his job and trying to work within a corrupt system to change directions.  He couldn't and he followed the orders he was given.  What I find deplorable is that Colin Powell has been made a scapegoat of this administration when in fact he was probably the only one with any principles in it.

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 10:34:10 AM

  (0+)

Colin Powell was, and is, a man of integrity.  He was used and abused by this administration.  No question.  But do not use the excuse he 'was only following orders.'  It does not resonate with me.  At what point would he have stopped?  This was the excuse used by German soldiers who committed crimes.  There has to be a point beyond which any human being will not go.

by Shirley Bianchi (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 97 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:29:33 AM

  (0+)

If he'd resigned in protest rather than go tell lies at the UN for Bush, I'd call him honorable. It was precisely because Powell was perceived to have some honor and credibility that he was sent on that mission to deceive in the first place, do you follow?

What he did in helping Bush deceive people was morally indistinguishable from pushing the button to launch missiles or drop bombs himself.

Don't forget that by himself, Bush is only one "man" and could accomplish nothing. Without the assistance of people like Powell who are willing to do as they're told rather than adhere to moral principle, this country would not be going to hell right now.

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 12:07:44 PM

  (0+)

Powell WAS a man of integrity... maybe, at one point in his career. But when he went to the UN and sold Bush's bill of goods, I believe he knew, because I knew, that he was pushing lies. And at that point, history took a turn for Powell, into the realm of bad men and liars. His integrity will not be recorded as pristeen. HE will be remembered as a man who had the reputation and influence to have made a difference and instead, he, by playing the "good soldier" betrayed America. If he had stood up to Bush and Cheney, things might have been, could have been very different.

He does not deserve our respect. He is a failure.  Even now, he continues to fail to do all he could to rescue America from its failed and corrupt leaders.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 12:17:55 PM

  (0+)

Rob,

    I honestly believe you are putting the blame in the wrong place.  What Powell did was present false evidence in his UN speech.  You believe he did it intentionally.  I don't accept that premise.  What dpes Powell gain by lying?  Why spend time trying to talk Bush out of attacking Iraq? Yes, he did discuss the issue of troops needed to carry out the war, but he also told Bush frankly that he should not do it.   He did follow orders, but not necessarily knowing they were incorrect and wrong.

Maybe I am totally off my game, but the actions of Powell, his behavior, his resignation and the knowledge that Cheney and Tenet worked together to draft the NIE for Iraq without Powell present suggests strongly he was lied to and misled.  I can't prevent people from hating and blaming him for what happened, but I hope people will look at the evidence and think for a minute about who is really responsible.  Who was really behind the lies and  dishonesty?  Do you really believe Powell was the manipulator here or the manipulatee?

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 3:29:08 PM

  (0+)

I knew, when he gave the UN talk that he was full of it. If I knew, he knew. Poor COlin wasn't misled or tricked. One thing he is not is stupid.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 3:47:31 PM

  (0+)

Rob,

You are not being honest with your statement -- I knew he knew.  No one knows what is inside the mind of another person.  Look at the historical record.  Look at exactly what we do  "KNOW" and who knew the information was false, and when they knew it.  Look at the time-line of events.  Look at who we KNOW for sure has lied.  Go back and think -- could Colin Powell have been duped?  Smart people are duped all the time.  Being smart doesn't prevent that, it just makes it harder to do.

You can believe whatever you like, I can't change what you accept as reality.  However, I think there are some serious questions about when Powell actually knew the facts.  I think it is unfortunate that people count the lies and attribute culpability based on that number without thinking about who fostered those lies.  Who presented them as fact.  George Tenet isn't even mentioned in that article "False Pretenses".  Cheney only lied 48 times, yet his office wrote Powell's UN speech.  So should Powell or Cheney be credited with those lies?

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 5:19:51 PM

  (0+)

Either no one here knows Powell's history or you've been duped.

Colin Powell was one of the reasons Mia Lai Massacre was hidden from the public and he fought hard to have no investigation of the massacre or have anyone held accountable. Michael Powell, Colin's son, worked actively when he was head of the FCC to destroy ownership rules that limited media monopolies while Colin was SoS. Although this does not involve CP directly, one has to assume the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree. Powell only came out against Iraq after it was plain that plans for the invasion were totally inadequate. He wasn't against the invasion, he was against the means.

I'm sick of people giving Colin Powell the hero treatment. He's been a sycophant since the day he was born. If he were a true hero he would have quit the bush administration soon after he joined it and exposed all the rottenness it ensues. But he didn't. Like any coward only when it's safe does he oppose something when it's obvious to do so.

To Hell with Colin Powell.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 12:29:37 PM

  (0+)

-

Powell's acclaim is more phony massmind media catapulted propaganda which many people have eaten big spoonfuls of.  But it doesn't digest.  It comes out the same stuff it was when it was swallowed in.

It may save a lot of time and effort for a lot of folks, to begin in knowing EVERY thing of butcherbush in massmind media since the 'Y2K bug' has been false and ALL LIES.  It saves searching for something, anything, real and true to find, when it does not exist.  Butcherbush is LIAR, and murderer, like his daddy before him.  Like OJ Simpson.

Powell-image is example across two generations of butcherbush LIARS, passed father to son, as the hired hands always have been legacy'ed property ... among the sociopathic misanthropic brainsick so-called 'rich.'

So where is Powell, why is he not in the slate of GOP prez candidates, if he's so honorably cherishing his country?  There'd be no competition.  Since plainly no such quality appears in any GOP puke wanna-be prex who has stepped up yet.

by meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 572 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 2:54:29 PM

  (0+)

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 11:46:52 AM

  (0+)

that should be used to start off impeachment hearings.

More evidence that is piling up against the opposition that a complicit congress has raised. 

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 12:19:49 PM

  (0+)

America used to have a set of balls....now we live in fear to stand and fight....

When we are ready...I will be on point and carry the flag...

by Michael Morris (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 316 comments [4 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 9:46:21 PM

  (0+)

There is absolutely nothing honorable about knowingly lying to the U.N. about the need for war – when it was based on false, misleading, cherry-picked, and outright bogus information – and then propagating that grisly lie simply because you "follow orders." That is precisely the defense many high-ranking Nazi war criminals attempted to use, and rightly failed, at Nuremburg in order to justify their gruesome crimes against humanity. What Colin Powell did was seditious and the very definition of treason. He deliberately deceived his country, violated his oath of office and the Constitution, and as a result, tens of thousands of people are dead, billions of dollars have been needlessly wasted and two countries – the U.S. and Iraq – have been torn apart. Colin Powell is a coward, not a hero and what he did – brazenly lie to prop up a megalomaniacal President hell bent on avenging his father's failures while in office – is as ignoble and shameful as it gets. Worse yet, premeditated war, which is exactly what the Bush administration is guilt of beyond all reasonable doubt, is murder. Prosecution, not pity, is what Powell precisely deserves.

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 12:29:10 PM

  (0+)

Colin Powell is a false media made hero.

As you have pointed out he should be in the same dockets next to the other war criminals if and when a trail should ever take place.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 12:34:32 PM

  (0+)

Rob is absolutely correct. Powell was chosen as Bush's stoolie to sell his (Bush's) war of choice because Powell – festooned and replete with all his ribbons – would never be suspected of perpetrating such an outrageous salvo of lies.

Powell as much as admitted that he knew what he was telling the U.N. was untruthful, and he admitted it to Barbara Walters during an interview, calling it a "blot on his record." That is a nauseatingly euphemistic statement by a man who seems to be in denial that he is, and continues to be, an enabler to the largest foreign policy failure in our nation's history.

If Powell had a modicum of decency left, He would immediately testify before the House Judiciary Committee, tell them everything he knows and help usher in the immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney for war crimes, etc.

His continued allegiance to Bush, and not the Constitution or his country, makes him an obsequious sycophant who betrayed a nation. For that, he should stand trial for treason.

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 12:46:23 PM

  (0+)

Thank you for your article.

Bush, Powell and Cheney did not lie. They said what they were told to say. The Washington Post published 26 above the fold articles supporting the invasion of Iraq between 9/11/01 and the invasion itself.

The editors of the Washington Post, The New York Times and others also, unequivocally lied.

The basis of my disagreement is that the three public officials being listed and berated for their lies are only doing the bidding of their masters. Once replaced, the new President, Vice President and Secretary of State will generate 532 lies of their own at the direction of their bosses.

You ask who are these bosses?

I answer...Research, research and more research!

by tom storey (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 58 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 12:47:12 PM

  (0+)

Powell did resign after the first Bush term.  Read the records of what Powell has stated about his UN speech.  Everyone has a right to judge the evidence however they like.  However, a person doesn't spend 2 hours with the President trying to talk him out of invading a country if he is just a willing cog who is part of the entire plan.  Powell had lots of reservations about the war, but ultimately he was not in charge of the final decision.  It was not his decision or his preference. 

I hope you read the report.  Cheney made only 48 false statements and George Tenet is not associated with any false statements.  Do you honestly believe these people are less culpable?  Do you believe the numbers reflect the level of integrity of the individuals involved in this fiasco?

Military people will tell you, at the end of the day you take your orders and follow them.  If you don't like it you can resign (which is what Powell did).  Powell also asked Tenet directly if the information in his UN speech was "rock solid".  The Secretary of State does not have an intelligence unit.  He must rely on the information from others.  Tenet lied and told Powell it was.  I don't honestly believe Powell knowingly said false things about Iraq.  This is not the kind of person who purposely misleads.  However, he was surrounded by individuals who had no concerns whatsoever about lying and misleading people and he had little chance to refute them even if he was not absolutely convinced of their accuracy.

It is a very sorry day for us when Colin Powell gets painted by the same brush as Cheney or worse.  Perhaps there is no way to convince any of you otherwise.  Many people agreed with the war because of Powell's UN speech and because of his stature.  However, I have never believed Powell purposely misled anyone.  Unintentionally he did, but not intentionally.  Had Tenet told him the intelligence data had lots of holes and much of it was unconfirmed heresay, there is no doubt in my mind that Powell would never have given that speech.  He was kept in the dark intentionally.  Believe what you wish, but if you look at what has been published since the invasion.  If you read what Powell has said and others have written (including Tenet) it was very clear what was going on behind the scenes and who was excluded from those deliberations.

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 1:00:24 PM

  (0+)

Powell was in a position where, not only could he have refused to give Bush's deceptions his imprimatur as the only "credible" member of the Administration, he very possibly could've single-handedly stopped the war by delivering a staggering humiliation to the war party.

Suppose rather than knowingly tell lies, he had said this to his audience in the UN and the world (As per Paul Craig Roberts):

"As a loyal soldier following orders I came here today intending to deliver the Bush administration's evidence against Saddam Hussein. Now that I am standing here before you, I find myself caught in conflict between following orders and doing the right thing. I should have resolved this conflict before I arrived. I do so now by delivering the speech to you in its written form--here it is--but I refuse to deliver it out of my mouth. I cannot participate in an act of deception against the United Nations Security Council, the international community, and the American people. I have no confidence in the evidence in the speech. Under the Nuremberg Standard established by the United States in the trials of Nazi war criminals, following orders is no excuse. I will not participate in the war crime of naked aggression against another state. I hereby resign as Secretary of State of the United States."

Powell knew it was all lies, and Powell was the one man likely in a position to save his country...and he didn't. He's a despicable traitor, in my book.

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 2:00:10 PM

  (0+)

And had Mr. Powell delivered that staggering humiliation to this nefarious war cabal ? Hmmm!There is a distinct possbility that he wouldn't be around to enjoy the fruits of his labor.

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 3:46:54 PM

  (0+)

A "revenge" killing? What would that do for them? Powell would've become an instant worldwide celebrity and popular hero...killing him at that point would have been risky and pointless, wouldn't it?

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 4:06:49 PM

  (0+)

is

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

Following the comments on Powell, yeah, I completely lost all respect for him after his UN speech and lost even more respect for the traditional media for enthusiastically saying they brought his lies 100%. The alternative media shredded his presentation within three days, publishing nearly 30 pieces. It took the traditional media several months to catch up.

by Richmond Gardner (36 articles, 1 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 38 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 1:23:18 PM

  (0+)

Peter,

Since, in your view, Powell merely unintentionally led the U.S. to war; does an act of gross negligence make it any less damning or damaging? Even still and regardless, when people make mistakes deciding to go war based on a policy of belligerent preemption, people ultimately and needlessly die.

Are some people really so callous that they could look any grieving family of a fallen soldier – who fought for and paid for an unwarranted war with his or her life – that it was all just an "oops!"

Colin Powell is a bright man. Before becoming the Secretary of State, he was The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for our military. Can you, anyone, with total intellectual honesty say and concluded that Powell, with all his experience, knowledge, and decades of public service, believed every mendacious word he was spoon fed and disseminated to the public and the world?

Powell is not the main antagonist in this crime against humanity. There are many actors in this sick, demonic ploy to bring about unjustified war. However, he is a coward at the highest level who chose loyalty over dignity, honor and the rule of law.

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 1:31:56 PM

  (0+)

Frank,

     I never said what Powell did was right, and people can decide for themselves how they want to judge him.  He is intelligent, but even intelligent people can be misled.  It is my personal belief he was misled and I base that on Powell's actions.  They are the only ones prior to the war and after that do not reflect an individual calluous and oblivious of the implications of the war or reflective of someone who whole heartedly supported it as many seem to believe.  

     Imagine being in Powell's shoes for a minute.  If you were to talk with the head of the CIA, who was responsible for putting the NIE on Iraq together and who presumably has lots of classified intelligence information at his fingertips, and the CIA head informs you everything you are about to say is "rock solid" would you question him?  Would you say, "hey, you don't know what you are talking about?"  Based on what would you do that? 

Yes, Powell was the Joint Chief of Staff under Bush #41.  He gave the President solid advice and Bush #41 listened to him.  He gave solid advice to Bush #43, but #43 wasn't interested in listening.  I think after a year into the war, when it was clear the intelligence was totally faulty, that Cheney and Tenet had both lied to him and the President wasn't listening, Powell resigned realizing he really could do nothing or serve as a voice of reason. 

Was Powell wrong not to have quit sooner?  I don't know.  I'm not sure he realized how dishonest and bad things were until 2004.  I'm not sure at what point he realized the severity of the problem and that he would have absolutely no effect, regardless of what he did or said.  I certainly don't think that point in time came in early 2003 before the war started, when everyone around him who had intelligence information access was telling him the same story.  I think if Powell had stayed past 2004, people might have a stronger case saying Powell was just like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice.  That doesn't seem to be the case. His story seems very different from the rest in this Administration.  He seems to have been the sole voice of reason and logic against a chaotic, lying, dishonest group of cowards.  I wish people would put themselves in Powell's shoes and ask, "what would you have done and when if you were Powell and all this happened to you?"

I was against the war from the beginning.  I felt there was no immediate threat from Saddam and this was a totally unnecessary war.  However, I wasn't surrounded by a cacophany of sycophants and liars telling me, "we have evidence.  We have proof.  It is rock solid.  We know what we are talking about."  Wouldn't you have to ask yourself, "hey, I can't prove a negative.  What if they are correct? How can I object reasonably to them?"  I  think Powell could voice his opinion and concerns and quit when it became clear that he had been used.  In the meantime, I think he follows the policy of the President and offers his best advice to him.  Here is a guy I admire. It is not because he is faultless.  Who is?  It is because like anyone he tried to do what was right and nonorable, but is now blamed for taking part in something he never wanted the US to have any part in from the start.   It seems Powell has paid a far heavier price than anyone else in this Administration for the war.  Based on some of the posts here, people still blame him, call him a traitor, dishonest and a liar.  I want justice to be served and people held accountable for this war as well.  However, I would like those who are truly responsible for the war, the lies and deception to be held accountable.  That is part of what I object to about the number counting in this report.  I don't think it reflects where the real responsibility for this fiasco lies.  Remember, Cheney was down at CIA headquarters every day during the time the NIE on Iraq was being prepared, something which was just unheard for a VP to do..  He is charged with lying only 48 times and Tenet is not cited as lying at all in this report.  Do you think that truly reflects their culpability? 

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 2:43:09 PM

  (0+)

What with the "Niger uranium forgeries" and the "aluminum tubes" fiasco and the "Office of Special Plans" lie factory, etc., our unfortunate Babe-In-The-Woods, Powell, didn't have a clue as to what was going on all around him?

Practically the whole world saw right through the whole laughable charade, except for our poor, hapless little insider Colin Powell, paragon of "integrity", who thought Bush and Cheney and the crew were acting in good faith? Gimme a break!

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 4:02:03 PM

  (0+)

Harold:

   The New York Times piece by Joe Wilson was published in April of 2003.  Joe Wilson attempted to get the White House to admit Bush had misled about the Niger yellowcake.  It was only after the White House refused to admit anything Joe Wilson wrote his story in April 2003.  The Powell UN speech was early Feb. 2003.  The Niger yellowcake reflected only one aspect of the lying.  There was plenty of additional false information about WMD, al-Qaeda connections to Saddam, etc.  Should Powell have known it was all lies after the Joe Wilson piece?  I think many people were misled by the lies, Powell was not alone.  I also think you forget one important point.  There are people with classified intelligence information the public knows nothing about.  If those people are going to lie to you about the reliability of their information, how would you know until the information is gradually proven false?

Look at who was responsible for the false information, not the person who provided it to the public.  Do you have any idea how often the White House Press Secretary provides the Press incorrect information, often not knowing it is false?  Why does this happen?  Because telling a falsehood is more convincing when you don't know it is false.  Powell had nothing to do with putting together the Iraq NIE.  Powell didn't even write the UN speech, CHeney's office did.  Powell does not have his own intelligence group in the State Department to collect this type of information.  You are looking at Powell and blaming him because of what he said instead of looking at what transpired and asking -- who told him this?  Who provided him this information?  What evidence do you have the Powell knowingly lied?  This is an assumption you are making based on how you perceived things from your isolated world. 

I think there is a difference between knowingly lying and being misled into providing false information.  Perhaps you don't see it that way.  However, if Tenet said, "hey Colin, the intelligence data is full of holes, we can't confirm any of it and some of the sources we are using are just totally unreliable, but we need to make a case for this war so proceed with the UN speech."  and Powell did I would agree with you.  Had Powell been beating the drums for war, encouraging Bush to push ahead in spite of his own reservations about it, I would also agree.  Had Powell stayed past 2004 and continued to enable Bush and support him, I would agree with you.  There was talk about Powell leaving even before he did, so it is clear to me Powell was not happy being in this Administration. Now people are calling him a liar, a betrayer, a traitor.  Powell made some mistakes.  Maybe he should have checked some additional sources, asked other people, sought out additional information.  I don't know, but I would give him the benefit of the doubt knowing what we do now.  Colin Powell seems to me to have been the most honest and perhaps one of the few in this Administration with any integrity.

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 4:57:24 PM

  (0+)

The New York Times piece by Joe Wilson was published in April of 2003.  Joe Wilson attempted to get the White House to admit Bush had misled about the Niger yellowcake.  It was only after the White House refused to admit anything Joe Wilson wrote his story in April 2003.  The Powell UN speech was early Feb. 2003. 

LOL! Now you're just making ridiculous excuses.

It's well documented that the Bush administration knew and/or had good reason to question the accuracy of those papers long before Wilson's article and Powell's speech. 

The Niger yellowcake reflected only one aspect of the lying. 

Good point. Why didn't our Babe-In-The-Woods catch on?

There was plenty of additional false information about WMD, al-Qaeda connections to Saddam, etc.  Should Powell have known it was all lies after the Joe Wilson piece?

Well sure. I know I did, Rob Kall apparently did, many people I'm familiar with did. The "big picture" was obvious, and anybody who couldn't see it at that time simply didn't want to see it. (And once again, certainly, the Bush administration was informed by several different sources, in 2002, that the Niger documents were suspect). 

Are you actually going to make the breathtaking assertion that Powell had no clue as to what was going on all around him? Are you actually going to make that insulting claim?

I think many people were misled by the lies, Powell was not alone.

Bullshit. It was plain to see that Bush and Cheney were DESPERATELY seeking a war with Iraq and looking for any pretext. Millions and millions of people all over the world could see it. Who do you think you're kidding with this nonsense about Powell being so uninformed, misled, etc.?

I also think you forget one important point.  There are people with classified intelligence information the public knows nothing about. If those people are going to lie to you about the reliability of their information, how would you know until the information is gradually proven false?

Ok, so you're basically implying that Powell is merely an imbecile? He interacted with the whole crew practically every working day, yet knew absolutely nothing about the nature of the "Office of Special Plans", for example?

Look at who was responsible for the false information, not the person who provided it to the public.  Do you have any idea how often the White House Press Secretary provides the Press incorrect information, often not knowing it is false?  Why does this happen?  Because telling a falsehood is more convincing when you don't know it is false.  Powell had nothing to do with putting together the Iraq NIE.  Powell didn't even write the UN speech, CHeney's office did.  Powell does not have his own intelligence group in the State Department to collect this type of information.  You are looking at Powell and blaming him because of what he said instead of looking at what transpired and asking -- who told him this?  Who provided him this information?  What evidence do you have the Powell knowingly lied?  This is an assumption you are making based on how you perceived things from your isolated world. 

You either live in a closet, or you're pretending for some inexplicable reason, that it wasn't obvious for a long time that Bush and Cheney were determined to start a war? 

Everyone here disagrees with you and your assessment of Powell. It's obvious that you're just plain delusional. That being the case, I suppose I'm not going to waste any more time arguing absurdities with you.

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 5:42:56 PM

  (0+)

the Reagan defense, here, Peter?

C'MON, GET REAL!

by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 6:51:37 PM

  (0+)

Harold:

I have no realtionship to Colin Powell.  I'm Caucasian, not Black.  I can't even claim to have served in the Military.  I have no reason to support Powell other than I believe he was duped.  You are entitled to your opinion about what Powell "SHOULD HAVE KNOWN", but I would be careful about making too many assumptions.  That is what Bush does and why he ends up drawing silly conclusions.

I don't deny lots of people questioned the logic for the war including myself.  However, I did not come in contact with people who had access to "classified intelligence" telling me "we have evidence for this point.  We have inrefutable support for this."  I believe Powell's concerns about the Iraq invasion reflected that "big picture" view we had.  However, Powell was hardly in a position to refute individuals with "rock solid" evidience to support their points, evidence the President also had.  There is no question the Bush people inside the decision making process knew the data was faulty.  I think the question is, did Powell really know that?  Do you really believe Powell was part of that inside loop, because there has yet to be any support for that point.   I have never felt Powell was stupid.  He is extremely intelligent.  You don't end up as the head of the Joints Cheif of Staff unless you are.  However, you are assuming again that any intelligent person would know this whole thing was BS.  I am sure Powell knew the Bush Administration was angling to attack Iraq and I think he wanted to discourage it.  What I don't believe is he knew how far Cheney and company would go to make that war happen. What they would be willing to risk and say to get what they wanted.

I don't pretend to know when Powell knew how deep the rat hole went.  Certainly he did by 2004 and wanted out, a year after his UN speech.  I'm hardly delusional.  I look at the data, look at behaviors, look at time lines and look at what I know before I draw inferences or conclusions.  If you are so convinced of Powell's duplicity, why should he have bothered asking Tenet about the information in the UN Speech?  Why resign in 2004?  Why try to talk Bush out of invading Iraq?  Why even speak out against the Bush Administration after he left office?  He is trying to cover his involvement?  That is one explanation.  The other is, because he wasn't in the loop to start with and there is plenty of evidence to support that contention.

You believe what you like.  You knew it was all lies.  Rob knew it was all lies.  Others knew what was being presented were all lies so Powell had to know as well.  He just wanted to act innocent to save his precious reputation, but he was in on it from the get go. Planning, deceiving, misleading purposefully for the Bush Administration.   Great, there you have it.  Look no further than the surface, for there you can find all the superficial truths you want.   Good for you.  You would make Cheney proud.

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 7:38:59 PM

  (0+)

Anybody with a computer and access to the internet can verify for themselves in a few minutes time that Powell is a liar and a willing accomplice of mass murderers George Bush and Dick Cheney. Powell knowingly and willfully attempted to deceive in his speech at the UN.

According to other informed insiders, e.g., Greg Thielmann, who worked for Powell, Powell made statements that he had to know were incorrect and misleading:

Thielmann was admired at the State Department. One high-ranking official called him honorable, knowledgeable, and very experienced. Thielmann had planned to retire just four months before Powell’s big moment before the U.N. Security Council.

On Feb. 5, 2003, Secretary Powell presented evidence against Saddam:
“The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction pose to the world."

At the time, Thielmann says that Iraq didn't pose an imminent threat to the U.S.: “I think it didn't even constitute an imminent threat to its neighbors at the time we went to war.”

And Thielmann says that's what the intelligence really showed. For example, he points to the evidence behind Powell’s charge that Iraq was importing aluminum tubes to use in a program to build nuclear weapons.

Powell said: “Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries even after inspections resumed.”

“This is one of the most disturbing parts of Secretary Powell's speech for us,” says Thielmann.

Intelligence agents intercepted the tubes in 2001, and the CIA said they were parts for a centrifuge to enrich uranium -- fuel for an atom bomb. But Thielmann wasn’t so sure.

Experts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the scientists who enriched uranium for American bombs, advised that the tubes were all wrong for a bomb program. At about the same time, Thielmann’s office was working on another explanation. It turned out the tubes' dimensions perfectly matched an Iraqi conventional rocket.

“The aluminum was exactly, I think, what the Iraqis wanted for artillery,” recalls Thielmann, who says he sent that word up to the Secretary of State months before.

Houston Wood was a consultant who worked on the Oak Ridge analysis of the tubes. He watched Powell’s speech, too.

“I guess I was angry, that’s the best way to describe my emotions. I was angry at that,” says Wood, who is among the world’s authorities on uranium enrichment by centrifuge. He found the tubes couldn’t be what the CIA thought they were. They were too heavy, three times too thick and certain to leak.

"Wasn't going to work. They would have failed," says Wood, who reached that conclusion back in 2001.

Thielmann reported to Secretary Powell’s office that they were confident the tubes were not for a nuclear program. Then, about a year later, when the administration was building a case for war, the tubes were resurrected on the front page of The New York Times.

“I thought when I read that there must be some other tubes that people were talking about. I just was flabbergasted that people were still pushing that those might be centrifuges,” says Wood.

The New York Times reported that senior administration officials insisted the tubes were for an atom-bomb program.

“Science was not pushing this forward. Scientists had made their determination, their evaluation, and now we didn’t know what was happening,” says Wood.

In his U.N. speech, Secretary Powell acknowledged there was disagreement about the tubes, but he said most experts agreed with the nuclear theory.

“There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium,” said Powell.

“Most experts are located at Oak Ridge and that was not the position there,” says Wood, who claims he doesn’t know anyone in academia or foreign government who would disagree with his appraisal. “I don’t know a single one anywhere.”

Why would the secretary take the information that Thielmann’s intelligence bureau had developed and turn it on its head?

“I can only assume that he was doing it to loyally support the President of the United States and build the strongest possible case for arguing that there was no alternative to the use of military force,” says Thielmann....

Powell is guilty of treason and mass murder, just like Bush and Cheney; your childish drivel notwithstanding. You should try to get it through your head, goofball.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 10:06:17 PM

  (0+)

Denial and delusion are key point of every American's God given rights....

The only good thing....some of us have denied ourselves those rights....

by Michael Morris (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 316 comments [4 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 9:49:29 PM

  (0+)

Harold,

Beautifully done! Poignantly written and brilliantly thought out! If only Powell had addressed the U.N. with those powerful words – instead of his despicable water-carrying speech for Bush and Cheney – the world would be vastly different and unarguably for the better!

Great Job!

-Frank J. Ranelli, Associate Editor

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 2:12:47 PM

  (0+)

I believe the author of those words that could have saved the world from the war party, was Paul Craig Roberts.

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 3:22:56 PM

  (0+)

Wtih all the overwhelming evidence against Bush and his minion, they should all be in prison!

by Patrick Roberts (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 3:23:32 PM

  (0+)

Please, impeachment of Bush and Cheney ... while it would be gratifying... it wouldn't be the actual penalty war criminals should suffer.  

 And further, it would simply be the limited hangout the elites would appreciate.... The folks that need to be tried, hung, keel hauled or worse are the folks who pull the Bush, Cheney marionettes' strings.  They would be 'ok' with the Bush-Cheney demise if only Hillary. Obama or some other Rothschld devotee (aka puppet) is put in place to carry on their agenda. 

Anything that takes away from the search for, prosecution of, and punishment of the actual powers (however that may be accomplished) is a distraction those powers welcome. 

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 6:03:16 PM

  (0+)

to add to the ranks of such notables as Ollie North and Liddy et al...

There oughta be an award.

Tell me, how is it that even I knew it was all BS and he didn't???

'How does it feel?'

by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 6:46:19 PM

  (0+)

C. Bid:

   I would hardly consider Ollie Noth or G. Gordon Liddy heros.  They were patriotic, both excellent speakers, but hardly heros.  They wrapped themselves in patriotism to justify their excesses and abuse of the law.  When has Colin Powell done that, justifying his actions by saying "I did it for the good of the country."  Powell is well aware that his speech and actions contributed to the justification for the war.  He isn't saying this war was necessary. He is not claiming to be a patriot who did this for America and by God you should all thank him for it.

   When did liberal thinking become synonomous with hatred?  When did it become equivalent to jumping to conclusions and drawing inferences without the benefit of evidence?  I knew, Powell should have known.  Powell is smart, so he had to know everything.  Believe what you will.  I am not the defender of justice here.  I would just like people to think a little before drawing conclusions.  I have tried to state some of the evidence to support my conclusions.  You can ignore or consider as you like.

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 7:52:58 PM

  (0+)

Let me just say that for the sake of brevity and to avoid repeating everything that was said by those of us who believe that Powell is by no means deserving of the benefit of the doubt, I kept my previous remarks short -and in a moment I will clarify the point I was trying to make.

I understand what you are saying.  However, a man of moral integrity (knowing full and well the administration's desire to pick a fight with Saddam even before taking office) could not, with any degree of a conscience, deliver the speech to the U.N. while still having considerable misgivings about it.  He knew the implications of what he was doing.  After failing to convince the administration to draw down or alter their persistent drumming for war, he chose to cower to their demands and delivered a history changing monologue of deception that rightfully should shadow him for the rest of his days...  If he had been the upright man of principles and justly held convictions that his defenders wish him to be, he would have spoken truth to authority.  He would have refused to play 'errand boy'.  He would have resigned then.  But 'he was deceived,' you say.  Why, then, was he against it?  Why did he try to change their insistence?  Why were there congressmen that weren't so 'deceived'?  He should have resigned immediately!  That, to me, would have truly made him a heroic patriot.  He chose loyalty to a band of bloodthirsty bullies, only jumping ship to save face later after the damage was already done.

It is revisionist history that will spin him to be the only hero of the Bush administration.  He'll be held up as the honorable General who resigned over his now vocal differences with the administration.  Squeaky clean and deceived.  Oblivious?  How very Reaganesque!  We know how that game plays out down the road.

If it's deserving of hatred, well... that's a question to ask of anyone who has lost a child, spouse, sibling, other relative, friend, or country to this war.  

by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 10:46:11 PM

  (0+)

I think Peter Wedlund makes some good points. While I don't personally feel what Colin Powell did was completely honorable, I think calling him a traitor is a bit extreme. The evidence in his case is lacking. If one were to try to make the case for Cheney or Tenet, I think the going would be much easier. Powell, while certainly no hero, is a bit of a mystery. I think he has a smidge more integrity than what passes for such in the rest of the Bush Administration.

I too feel that Powell was largely misled. He confronted George Tenet on some of the intelligence from dubious sources such as "Curveball," but in the end he bought the big lie. I think this is due to a combination of factors; i.e., excessive loyalty to the point of sycophancy and the fact that he's human. I think it's disingenuous to say, "I knew, he knew." Well, I for one didn't know at the time of Powell's speech to the UN that his information was bogus. It seemed credible to me at the time. It wasn't until a month later when I learned some disturbing facts about 9/11 that I started to question the big picture regarding Iraq. One could argue that Powell must have known 9/11 was an inside job at the time, but that is just conjecture. It is hard to gauge what one man knew and when he knew it.  

So, I don't feel that Powell is a traitor. He is a less than completely honorable man in a world full of such, but the evidence for treason in his case is lacking. I don't think he had enough good intelligence to call Bush to the carpet over Iraq. I don't think the State Department had enough contrary intelligence for him to call George Tenet a liar to his face. I think the picture became much clearer for Powell after no WMD's were found, but by then it was too late for everyone involved.

by Sam Adams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 5:34:40 AM

  (0+)

This "study" was bankrolled by a George Soros front. This is like the AP doing a Clinton hit piece and then "forgetting" to tell everybody their source was the American Spectator. Bogus.

by Scott (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 745 comments [30 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 9:56:42 PM

  (0+)

Which parts of the study are you disputing?   Did they come up short on their tally or what? 

by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 23, 2008 at 10:59:26 PM

  (0+)

...when I heard the news was, "hmm...and this is news because why?" My second thought was, "gee, 935 lies...in seven years. I am forty-five, and I don't think I have achieved 935 lies in my entire lifetime." My third thought was, "well, perhaps now, the evidence is so completely incontrovertible, perhaps the truth has won the day, and...well, perhaps a certain batch of assholes would finally be getting the cleansing they have needed for the past...hell, as long as they have lived."

Yes, many thoughts raced through my mind. The one that truly made me shudder was, "yeah, now everyone knows what I have known from the get go, and they simply don't give a sh*t about this country anymore."

In other words, this is going to be spun by way of silence, or it's going to be spun into "propaganda" by those that carry the water, errr, I mean pump out the bullshit. Yes, as heinous as the evidence is, and as incontrovertible, if revisionists can say that the deaths of six million Jews never happened, I think a little revisionism on this isn't that far out of the realm of the real.

As far as COLON (spelled intentionally) is concerned, f*ck him and feed him horseshit! He knew he was lying! He may be a heel licking, ass kissing sycophant, but he's not stupid. He knew that he was spreading lies. As much as any of the other war pigs involved in this treason, he is responsible, and his hands bear the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people!

I don't hold the illusion that something substantial will come out of this. I hope that perhaps impeachment might find a place on the table now. However, I have a better chance of growing a womb, experiencing male parthenogenesis, and birthing a clone of myself than I do seeing something resembling a spine show up on Pelosi's back.

Earthworms are generally invertebrates...and she qualifies as far as I can tell.

Blessed be!
Pappy

by Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 2:13:06 AM

  (0+)

All one really has to do is witness what other State Department biggies did when the war started.

 Google

John Brown

and look at what he did and what he had to say.  

Look at what Colin Powell has wrought in the State Department - 1/2 of the soldiers in Iraq are mercenaries who operate outside any legal system at all getting very high bucks (so that's affect the DoD, too, as career officers leave to go to Blackwater, etc.), a sytem of torture and illegal detainment some of which has been paid for on State Department fund$- OUR money, and totally devasted moral.

 Oh, yeah this is a man of great intelligence - just like the rest of them, one who cannot think linearly OR vertically - one who can't figure out the consequences of what they do, and never asks.

He is America's version of Lord Chamberlain in many many ways. But since this is the US empire, he'll go down as  .. America's Colin Powell, the man who betrayed America by colluding with the Imperial President.

He knew his oath of office and he knew the Geneva Conventions.  I'm convinced that if there WAS an ICC investigation ala Iraqi war crimes, we'd be seeing the indictment and conviction of Colin Powell.   He watched over a million, mostly children, Iraqi's died during sanctions. FOR SHAME! Another "patriotic" psychopath.   Face it.

by ladybroadoak (39 articles, 20 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 394 comments) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 2:50:45 AM

  (0+)

Imagine for a second that   Saddam Hussein was after  nuclear power and  had all those preparations.  Now,  you all then think that we, the US should have invaded some foreign country like Iraq because of that? If Bush had not lied you would give him a mandate or agree that UN should give this madman a mandate to attack that country?  Think about it. Bush was a lier  but it his lies were sold to us because, sadly speaking, we were ready to buy. Now, let's imagine that it was not Iraq but, say Israel.  or France. Or Spain.  Or even Russia.  Would we buy it? No. Why not?   Because we don't care for Iraq.   Bush knew that. Now we know that too. He did that  because he could. We  empowered him to do that. Now we whine that we were deceived. Tell that to the dead.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 8:31:16 AM

  (0+)

I would be among the first in line to denegrade Powell if I seriously believed he was duplicious in what he did.  If I thought he acted insincerely and was empowering Bush to carry out a war he knew wa illegal, immoral and baseless I would be screaming, "GET POWELL".

Many of you are still making the case Powell is guilty because he "HAD TO KNOW".  No one knows what people do or do not know, even intelligent people. Moreover, people don't make decisions (at least very important decisions) based on what they "THINK", they make important decisions based on "FACTS", precisely "what do we know for sure?"  In business, science or government, if people provide you "lies" and tell you they are facts, it is literally impossible to make "GOOD DECISIONS" regardless of how intelligent you are.

No one knows exactly what Powell knew.  No one knows when Powell realized he being provided with lie after lie, not facts.  All we have to go on are his words and actions and what we know others were doing to assess his culpability.  Should he have known?  Should he have dug deeper to investigate?  Should he have questioned more?  Those are good questions for which I don't have the answer or presume to know why he did not.  Perhaps the deception was very good.  Perhaps his confidence in Tenet was sufficient to prevent it.  I just don't know or pretend to know.  

George Tenet admitted information in the Iraq NIE was not confirmed, weak and selective.  Tenet initially protested about Cheney's selective use of intelligence.  Then he stated, "this is something the Administration wanted so I just went along."  I took that to mean it was not JUST Cheney, but Bush himself who was telling Tenet, we want to do this.  Tenet should have gone to Congress, resigned if necessary and stopped the proccess.  He did not.  He enabled it.  He lied about the facts.  Those who depended on "reliable information" to make decisions were no longer able to do that.

Powell should have known better.  Really?  If you don't or can't distinguish for sure what is reliable from what is not reliable, how can you?  If you have no independent source of "intelligence data" how do you "confirm" the lies.  You can't base your objections on what people "THINK" or "FEEL" decisions are made based on "FACTUAL INFORMATION." 

I know many on this board are angry about the Iraq war, myself included.  I want people to be held accountable for what they did.  However, let's not be blinded by that anger and hate everyone in the Administration and label them all liars, deceivers and traitors.  The thing I object to most about the Bush Administration has been their unwillingness to look any deeper than what they want to see.  The truth has become whatever they wanted to define it to be instead of what the "TRUTH" really was. 

I now sense the anger expressed by many on this board toward Powell reflects a similar desire to find fault with him because he helped facilitate our entry into war, thus he has to have "KNOWN" what he said were lies.  No one knows what information is in peoples minds or what precisely they know.  We can judge actions.  We can judge behavior.  We can judge poor decisions. Let's not start trying to judge the thoughts of people and condeming people because of what we "BELIEVE" but what we can "PROVE".  Now, which one of you can "PROVE" Colin Powell knew everything he said was a lie?  Which one of you "KNOWS as FACT" Colin Powell was a willing insider intent on helping Bush convince a US public Iraq was a threat?  Please provide precise information on sites and locations of this information.  I trust facts.  I can interpret factual information.  I don't accept assumptions, inuendo and "gut feelings" as substitutes for them.  If you do, I am not going to stop you.  Everyone is welcome to their own views and opinions.

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 8:42:32 AM

  (0+)

is in my previous comment. Tell it to the dead.

and in this article I wrote in Y2004

http://www.opednews.com/sashine1203_nodding_heads.htm

IN the Y2004, Damn it! 

tell it to the dead.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 9:02:35 AM

  (0+)

Mark:

You have just proven my point, not refuted it.  You condemn Powell in your op-ed piece not based on any "proof" but on assumption and supposition.  Example "He didn't give a damn."  You don't know anything about what he thought, no one does.  "He didn't care about our country's international reputation; neither did he care for his own image as a statesman."  Again you have no knowledge of what Powell cares about, you are making assumptions and drawing conclusions.  Your comment that Powell's message was based on his belief Americans will like this because people will enjoy watching it on TV is again a supposition on your part about what he thought.  Your sentence, "we are losers and we are to be wasted.  That's what Mr. Powell and Co. think about us."  Again you make a statement about what Powell thinks when you have no idea what he is thinking.

You are angry and upset and I don't question your right to be.  This is the worst hijacking of American Democracy in my lifetime.  We deserve answers about responsibility and accountability and we are not being provided them.  The war has destablized an entire region of the world.  It has cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.  It has cost trillions of dollars and no one has been held responsible for it.  I want that accountability as well.  I want to know the truth as well.  What I don't want is a lynch mob mentality that think they can read peoples minds and know what they were thinking and thus define the truth however they like.  Is that not exactly what we are objecting to about in this war?  Wasn't the problem with the "facts" that they were made to agree with whatever the Administration wanted them to be?  Now, because of your anger and hatred of this war you do the same.  You pretend to know what people were thinking.  They were thinking whatever you decide they were.  Who is to argue with your view, can anyone else read their minds? 

We won't find truth by searching for what we "think we know".  We find truth by putting together what we do know and searching for what we do not yet know.  It is a long and arduous process, but in this case very worth the effort because the consequences of this war have been so devasting to so many.  This is something we NEVER want to happen again.  Without knowing precisely how it happened this time it makes it very difficult to prevent a future occurrence.

I don't question anyones right to be angry or upset.  I don't question your motives for believing what you do.  What I question is the logic that you are using to draw concllusions.  Provide me proof and not inuendo.  Give me facts and not feelings or beliefs.  Show me evidence and not thoughts or assumptions.  This is how one discovers truths.  At some point one must move past these inferences if you wish to discover the true reality.  Just because you hate someone, doesn't mean the hate is justified.  I would keep an open mind and until the evidence exists that proves your point.  Sometimes you can be very surprised by facts that don't always agree with your initial beliefs.

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:28:39 AM

  (0+)

'Provide me proof and not inuendo'

The statement above is childish.    If you look into this site you will find   that such statements  characterise people who  already made decisions   on their own and just come out here to   vent, No offense.  You misunderstand the purpose.  We here (as far as I  see it) are not  to smear Powell. We here  are people  who investigate us, try to find out what happened to us.

 My message in that opednews was not about Powell-it was about us.   We here are adults. There are things in this world which adults do. One of those things is  an assumption of responsiblity for your actions  per  influence of yours. Powell, an experienced general  and an adult had a responsiblity that   it was for him to decide if literally hundreds of thousands of people would die. In history this is called a ' star moment' and there are ' star victories' and  'star failures'. As an adult, a father, a man of experience he had to take a responsibility and stop it. It was his chance.   He blew it. And that is the fact and that does not matter what he thought. And  then I turn to the explanation of his behavior as I see it and I say ' He did not give a damn'. That is  a logical explanation, it is based on what I saw and heard on that fateful day, on my experience with similar people, on my life as an adult and as a father and  I DO NOT HAVE  TO PROVE IT TO YOU OR TO ANYONE.  Eat your checkers. Nobody has all the facts . Nobody claims all the knowledge. But as  my father said ( no offense), 'An idiot is system which in order to come to the conclusion needs unlimited info.'  I said then and I say again that Powell's  speech  was an abominable lie and  he did that because he did not care. And he did not care because his experience fortified him in his opinion that US people  did not care for anything. That was his knowledge and he surely as Hell did not care for the facts.  He gambled on it  and we here noddded our hands and sent our children to kill other children instead of  putting him in tar and feathers.

No, Peter,  I am not angry. I am sad as  Hell. If after all that carnage and all those deaths  we still have to 'give facts' to you, hey, maybe  Powell was right and we  just deserve those coffins.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 12:51:58 PM

  (0+)