What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Smart Guys Keep Their Faces Looking Young view!
howlifeworks.com - Why men have finally started to use certain anti-aging skin care products...
30 Comments
- hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -5/+42I used to respect Powell. Now, all I can think of when I see him is - Where were you 4 years ago??? He chose to play the "good solider" instead of the "good American" during his time with Bush Co.
- physphd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28@anitab83
"I imagine it's difficult to play the "good American" over the the "good soldier" when you've spent your entire adult life as a career military leader."
I hear what you're saying and agree with the sentiment, but to be clear he was not ever a military leader.
Look back at his service record. Since being promoted to Brig. Gen. in 1979 he was a commanding general of men for a grand total of 10 months. He is as much a career politician as anybody in Washington. He never served in a combat role (his two 'Nam tours were early as a political liaison officer and advisor and later as deputy assistant chief of staff for operations G-3). His purple heart was for stepping on a piece of bamboo and bronze star for helping pull crew from a non-combat related helicopter crash. I need not touch on his documented peripheral role in covering up the My Lai massacre or Iran-Contra.
Since returning from VN his posts included:
being a full-time MBA student
a White House fellow for the Office of Management and Budget
senior aide to SecDef's special asst.
Asst. to the Energy Secretary
Asst. to SecDef
Asst. Div. Cmdr of 4th ID
6 mos as Cmdr 5th Corps
Nat'l Security Advisor
4 mos Cmdr, Forces Commend
Chairman, Joint Chiefs
And a few other periods of months here and there that I don't have info for.
There are currently tens of thousands of officers with more command experience. This is not to denigrate the man, but to point out that he was only ever a politician in uniform. He looked good and wore it well, lending military legitimacy to a succession of administrations that had little. - AmishRefugee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17I totally agree with you, but you have to take into account what Bush and Cheney think about dissenting opinions in their inner-circle, if he spoke out against the plan, they'd probably stone him to death. Granted he still should have been open about what he thought, but it's not surprising that he may very well have been muzzled by those around him.
- hambend, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@czeman
If I had to hazard a guess, I would say it was turning Iraq's oil accounts back over to US dollars from Euros. The US has a lot vested in holding a monopoly on the oil trade.
Remember "Mission Accomplished"? They switched the accounts back over just a few days before that. It may sound like a bit of a conspiracy theory, but it's supporters are largely economists rather than tin-hatters. - mitrebox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12we'll I'm just talking completely out of my ass here but:
one reason could be that we sold the Iraqis the chemical weapons (UK, France, Canada, Belgium) and the delivery mechanisms. (US, UK) and that deal was orchestrated under the supervision of then Vice President G.H. Bush. We know some of the weapons were used with devastating results: on the Kurds, on the shia, on the Sunnis (in Basra). Right now those deals are hearsay and rumor, but if Coalition Forces claimed to find anything it would have to be inspected by an international fact finding mission.
So if you were to show that we found something it would mean the President would have to dishonor his father and President Reagan, basically piss off most of the world showing that the west was an enabler of Saddam's regime and his massacre of hundreds of thousands of people across three nations.
Or Bush can just have people pissed off at him and the US (they were pretty angry with us before he took office mind you).
I think almost anyone would be willing to take the rap for their fathers mistakes. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I wish I could digg you up more than once for that. Powell is a politician first and foremost.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12It wasn't his decision to make. What did you want him to do?
He got Bush all the relevant info I'm sure. He did get Bush to go to the UN. But predictably, when the UN didn't pass a resolution despite Powell delivering scary and bogus data, Bush went to war anyway.
He was as unable to stop Bush as any of us are.
Is that his fault?
If you saw his interview on Meet the Press where aides assigned to him tried to cut off the interview and he stopped them, you'd have more respect for this man and his efforts do what is within his power to inform and involve the public. - anitab83, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12I imagine it's difficult to play the "good American" over the the "good soldier" when you've spent your entire adult life as a career military leader. He was hoodwinked into thinking there was a reason for us to go to war. Then as the facts came out of Iraq, he became a laughingstock of sorts, and was marginalized internally. By that time, he could have come out and said "I have proof that Bush lied", and nothing would have changed, other than Bush becoming more resolute and pushing even harder.
You can't reason with a bull, your only choice is to trap them. That's why I am so thankful the Republicans are out of power in Congress. At least a gate has been put up. - leobaby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10My anger for our president is only tempered by the sadness of the direction of my country.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The longer "we" stay, the more money will be transfered to halliburton and other criminals through no-bid contracts and other means. Right now civil war is breaking out which will provide a pretext for the construction of permanent bases.
"We" as in "We The People", this is a loss for us. But for /them/, the people that campaigned disinformation ruthlessly to get "us" there, they are winning. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6yes, i hope more people stopped worrying about concepts of pride like "winning" when this was a deception in the first place in an attempt of some minority to save some of its assets on the region richest in oil.
it's like being pushed in a fight pit you didn't want to be in the first place and then talking about "winning", wtf is there to win unless your dignity by getting out and protecting yourself from being pushed in again. - junk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Considering his past roles in the Iran Contra and My Lai coverups I can't help but shake my head at all these people who expected more from him and were let down.
- tharju, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5sorry Powell, you should have and could have done more as a Secretary of State. It's alright, neither of us try hard enough to stop it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6good morning colln.
even though, it's ironic talking of "winning" or "losing" in iraq. it sounds like as america pride being blind to the solid truth: they knew at the top there was no threat, they had at the top no intention of helping iraq, the people there don't want america near them, there's nothing "good" or "bad" to have done there unless not interfering at all. it now becomes clear why they wanted to force the public and army to attack iraq, to save some of usa's assets in controlling the region richest in oil. but the world advances and isn't only affected by wars like some lunatics think. they made a mess out of it. - grooviekenn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Should'v
Could'v
Would'v
.
.
.
DIDN'T - grooviekenn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5... i didn't vote for him...
wait.. was Colin Powell even on the ballot?!?! - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4it is just so pathetically immature and stupid to look at the disastrous situation in Iraq in terms of the US winning or losing!
The criminals who took over the US government are killing hundreds of thousands of people, mostly civilians....and gutting the US constitution, based upon the spreading of irrational fears by the corporate owned media.
The losers here are all the American people, all the rest of the world, and especially all those poor families of Iraqi people who were destroyed by the bombs and bullets used by the fool Bush, instead of reason and decency.
Bush and his criminal friends are making a lot of money from this.
I hope justice prevails eventually! - diggdong, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Unless the US is planning on leaving the country (notgonnahappen), what else is going to happen to change the strategy? Sadly the situation is only going to get worse.
- tekz0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4dugg for the insightful comments
- spock627corfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3No, "they" didn't all see the same intelligence. "But the claim that the administration and Congress saw the same intelligence ignores several important facts. First, taking into account assessments such as the Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB), the White House typically has access to more intelligence than does Congress -- and indeed, this was the case with prewar intelligence on Iraq. Second, the Bush administration began making claims about the Iraqi threat months before Congress received any substantial intelligence analysis. And third, the administration received information directly from alternative intelligence sources, specifically the since-discredited Office of Special Plans and Iraqi National Congress."
Much more here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200511080006 - turbodigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3...there goes colin powell again, stating the obvious.
- freff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think that a man that has enough respect and love for his family to put aside something like a Presidential bid at the height of his popularity is good man indeed.
I also think that politics tends to attract people who crave power, and these people due to their very nature inevitably become corrupted by the pursuit of power. The person who is qualified to lead, but isn't seeking power for the sake of having it is probably a man of integrity, and one that would make a good leader.
I also think that none of what you said has any bearing on whether Colin Powell, a US General during the Gulf War, and former Secretary of State leading up to this war, is qualified to speak on the current progress of this war. - Genghis1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No wonder our policies stink. The decicions were made by a Bush, a Dick, and a Colon!
- rabidsquirrelOG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Powell had numerous chances to 'do the right thing' and failed to - every time. Everytime he has left a position of influence he claims that he would have done it differently but the deck was stacked against him...
He has no sympathy from me at this point. He stands as an accomplice to their crimes - Crimes against humanity and the constitution - in my mind. - czeman, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9If Bush lied, they all did. They were all given the same intelligence.
BTW, did anyone stop to think that maybe the government doesn't want to tell us what they did find over there? I don't know why they wouldn't, but I have friends in the military that told me they definitely found what they went in there after.
What kills me is everyone is sitting there saying that we need to just get out of there now. What's going to happen when we do that? I can guarantee the situation is only going to get worse.
Yeah, I expect you'll dig me down for my comments. I don't care. It's just a friggin digg. It's not my life. lol - flink405, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Good old Colin---the guy forgets he was Secretary of State when this was all started.
Did the idiot not think to ask or prepare plans for post-Saddam???
He´s jockeying for a VP slot on somebody´s ticket.
Zilch credibility. - mrdctaylor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Obama/Powell '08?
- drk1t, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2The main thing I remember about Powell is he didn't run for prez because his old lady didn't want him to run. I think a man ought to make up his own mind and let the old lady go shopping or cook supper.
- Yokohamalion, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2I don't think Powell just towed the line. He did his job as Secretary of State and sought a diplomatic solution by going to the UN and pushing for a resolution and inspectors when Cheney and his group thought it was a waste of time. As far as losing the war it is already won. We got rid of Saddam and any threat his regime posed. We are however losing the peace. That being said rebuilding a country is not a prerequisite to winning a war. The US is the only country in history that considers it "just" to help rebuild a country they just defeated ie. Germany, Japan, Iraq. The people there can accept our help to rebuild or fight against it. Its on their head now.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Powell and Bush enjoy 69ing each other. And you all vote for him! Tisk tisk.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is