more neocons jumping ship - Colin Powell

[oldandslow]

The blight of the Bush admin upon this nation is finally beginning to be revealed.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
The New York Times

September 9, 2005 Friday
Late Edition - Final

Powell Calls His U.N. Speech A Lasting Blot on His Record

The former secretary of state, Colin L. Powell, says in a television interview to be broadcast Friday that his 2003 speech to the United Nations, in which he gave a detailed description of Iraqi weapons programs that turned out not to exist, was ''painful'' for him personally and would be a permanent ''blot'' on his record.

''I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world,'' Mr. Powell told Barbara Walters of ABC News, adding that the presentation ''will always be a part of my record.''

Asked by Ms. Walters how painful this was for him, Mr. Powell replied: ''It was painful. It's painful now.'' Asked further how he felt upon learning that he had been misled about the accuracy of intelligence on which he relied, Mr. Powell said, ''Terrible.'' He added that it was ''devastating'' to learn later that some intelligence agents knew the information he had was unreliable but did not speak up.

Mr. Powell also implied in the interview that the United States did not go to war in Iraq with sufficient troops to secure the country and failed to keep sufficient Iraqi forces to help stabilize the country.

''What we didn't do in the immediate aftermath of the war was to impose our will on the whole country with enough troops of our own, with enough troops from coalition forces or by re-creating the Iraqi forces, armed forces, more quickly than we are doing now,'' he said.

But with Iraq still violent and plagued by sectarian conflict, the United States has ''little choice but to keep investing in the Iraqi armed forces and to do everything we can to increase their size and their capability and their strength.''

Since leaving office in January, Mr. Powell has declined interview requests. But his expressions of regret about the weapons intelligence and the lack of troops were consistent with many of his statements in office, especially after it became clear that Iraq had none of the weapons that Mr. Powell had said it was stockpiling.

He acknowledged several times that intelligence failures lay behind his presentation on the eve of the Iraq war two years ago, but he has never expressed any regret about the war itself. Asked by Ms. Walters, ''When the president made the decision to go to war, you were for it?'' Mr. Powell said, ''Yes.''

Asked about editorials asserting that he had put loyalty ''ahead of leadership,'' Mr. Powell parried the question. ''Well, loyalty is a trait that I value, and yes, I am loyal,'' he replied. ''And there are some who say, 'Well, you shouldn't have supported it, you should have resigned.' But I'm glad that Saddam Hussein is gone.''

Mr. Powell said he did not blame George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, for the failures and did not believe that Mr. Tenet tried to mislead him.

''No, George Tenet did not sit there for five days with me, misleading me,'' he said, referring to the week he spent at the Central Intelligence Agency reviewing the evidence on Iraq before making his presentation to the United Nations. ''There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up. That devastated me.''

[Brock]

But I'm glad that Saddam Hussein is gone.''

Me too.

[patteeu]

In the first place, no one who understands what a Neocon is would mistake Powell for one. In the second place, neither Powell nor anyone else mentioned in this article is jumping ship in any reasonable sense of the phrase. He left the administration long ago and it's not news that he thought we could have used more troops in post-invasion Iraq.

[go bowe]

yeah, somehow powell as neocon struck me as odd...

very odd...

[mlyonsd]

The facts are the intelligience at the time forced us to react in the way we did.

Sorry if that bursts anyones political bubble.

[PastorMikH]

Maybe it's just me, but I think it might have been possible for better inteligence from that region had another administration actually kept agents in Iraq.

[mlyonsd]

He acknowledged several times that intelligence failures lay behind his presentation on the eve of the Iraq war two years ago, but he has never expressed any regret about the war itself. Asked by Ms. Walters, ''When the president made the decision to go to war, you were for it?'' Mr. Powell said, ''Yes.''

Asked about editorials asserting that he had put loyalty ''ahead of leadership,'' Mr. Powell parried the question. ''Well, loyalty is a trait that I value, and yes, I am loyal,'' he replied. ''And there are some who say, 'Well, you shouldn't have supported it, you should have resigned.' But I'm glad that Saddam Hussein is gone.''



Sorry man, your original thought misrepresents what Powell thinks.

[Taco John]

The facts are the lack of intelligience at the time really made us want to react in the way we did.




Fixed your post...

[Taco John]

Maybe it's just me, but I think it might have been possible for better inteligence from that region had another administration actually kept agents in Iraq.



This is news to me... Is there a source to back this up or is this just some guess work? I've never heard anything about this.

[PastorMikH]

This is news to me... Is there a source to back this up or is this just some guess work? I've never heard anything about this.


It's from numerous reports I saw in numerous places back before/during the war. One of the problems with the targeting of Sadaam's and his buddies whereabouts was due to inteligence agents not having extensive connections due to the berevity of time they had spent in the field.

This arguement doesn't mean enough to me to force me to bother digging around on the internet to find a 2-3 year old set of reports. ou probably missed the news because you were so busy posting on here telling us that Priest had lost his burst and wouldn't play again.

[jettio]

In the first place, no one who understands what a Neocon is would mistake Powell for one. In the second place, neither Powell nor anyone else mentioned in this article is jumping ship in any reasonable sense of the phrase. He left the administration long ago and it's not news that he thought we could have used more troops in post-invasion Iraq.

no chit, mon.

Powell served in the military and was respected by his fellow warriors, that automatically disqualifies him from neo-con status.

Neo-cons are pussuzzies who can not imagine military service.

[jettio]

The facts are the intelligience at the time forced us to react in the way we did.

Sorry if that bursts anyones political bubble.

Not true. Raising scrutiny on Saddam was a proper move. Sticking with the inspections process would have gotten the job done, and if Saddam proved to be non-cooperative, there would have been a unified international effort to get him out of there with enough troops to secure the country and its borders.

The marginal decision recommended by the Security Council has proven to be the best decision now that it is known that there were no WOMD and after it is proven that B*sh had no plan for proper transition for post-Saddam Iraq.

B*sh had the opportunity to chose that course, he was not forced into taking the course that he did. He chose that course not because of intelligence in the CIA sense, he chose that course because little personal intelligence and an over-estimated opinion of his own opinion and because he thought war was sh*ts and giggles.

There were two clear courses of action then available, B*sh was arrogant and ignorant and chose the worst one. He was not forced into being stupid, he volunteered to be wrong, and he won the faith of lot of fools who went along with him.

[mlyonsd]

Not true. Raising scrutiny on Saddam was a proper move. Sticking with the inspections process would have gotten the job done, and if Saddam proved to be non-cooperative, there would have been a unified international effort to get him out of there with enough troops to secure the country and its borders.

Speculation. Now that it's a proven fact countries were getting kick backs in the oil for food program with our tax dollars there is no proof any international effort to get rid of Saddam would have occured. Actually, the 12 years prior proves my point and disproves yours.


The marginal decision recommended by the Security Council has proven to be the best decision now that it is known that there were no WOMD and after it is proven that B*sh had no plan for proper transition for post-Saddam Iraq.

All I can tell is you're one hell of a Monday morning QB.


B*sh had the opportunity to chose that course, he was not forced into taking the course that he did. He chose that course not because of intelligence in the CIA sense, he chose that course because little personal intelligence and an over-estimated opinion of his own opinion and because he thought war was sh*ts and giggles.

Saddam had the ultimate choice, not Bush. Bush was forced to take action because of what Saddam decided not to do.


There were two clear courses of action then available, B*sh was arrogant and ignorant and chose the worst one. He was not forced into being stupid, he volunteered to be wrong, and he won the faith of lot of fools who went along with him.

You say Bush was arrogant. I say he was taking the country's best interest to heart in his decision. And, as I've stated before, even Gore would have reacted militarily to Saddam by now. 911 changed things.

We'll just have to disagree I guess.

[patteeu]

The choice wasn't between continued sanctions/inspections and war, it was between following the Europeans down the path of lifting sanctions while failing to get Saddam to let inspectors return and war. Bush made the right choice for a lot of reasons, WMD not withstanding.

[Radar Chief]

This is news to me... Is there a source to back this up or is this just some guess work? I've never heard anything about this.

And here I thought it was common knowledge that we hadn’t had any agent in Iraq since ‘bout ’98, relying on electronic intelligence instead. :shrug:

[jettio]

The choice wasn't between continued sanctions/inspections and war, it was between following the Europeans down the path of lifting sanctions while failing to get Saddam to let inspectors return and war. Bush made the right choice for a lot of reasons, WMD not withstanding.

Go to the library and read the papers from those days.

Security Council was forced to confront Saddam, at Bush's urging, and after much negotiation and lobbying (bullying and bribing some might say) the decision made by the Security Council was that the best course of action was to continue with inspections.

They were right, ding dong.

B*sh was wrong and yesterday was the deadliest day for Iraqi civilians since B*sh's retarded carrier landing and declaration of Mission Accomplished.

The only reason you are willing to overlook the folly of the fakery is that you do not consider the Iraqi people nowhere near equal to Americans, you simply do not give a sh*t that they get killed.

B*sh has also managed to get about 2,000 of our soldiers killed dead and spent $300 billion of our money to do it, and you can't realize that is too high a price to pay for a chaotic zoo with a puppet clown act for a government.

If B*sh had made the right decision, there would have been five or six neo-con faggots wringing their hands about the fact that he did not make the wrong decision. Nobody else would have cared or thought that the intelligence dictated the dumbazz decision that he made.

The intelligence did not dictate a damn thing, the five or six neo-con wussies did. They got their way and everybody is worse off, except for Halliburton.

Do not be stupid.

[patteeu]

And here I thought it was common knowledge that we hadn’t had any agent in Iraq since ‘bout ’98, relying on electronic intelligence instead. :shrug:

That's what I thought too.

[patteeu]

Go to the library and read the papers from those days.

Security Council was forced to confront Saddam, at Bush's urging, and after much negotiation and lobbying (bullying and bribing some might say) the decision made by the Security Council was that the best course of action was to continue with inspections.

They were right, ding dong.

B*sh was wrong and yesterday was the deadliest day for Iraqi civilians since B*sh's retarded carrier landing and declaration of Mission Accomplished.

The only reason you are willing to overlook the folly of the fakery is that you do not consider the Iraqi people nowhere near equal to Americans, you simply do not give a sh*t that they get killed.

B*sh has also managed to get about 2,000 of our soldiers killed dead and spent $300 billion of our money to do it, and you can't realize that is too high a price to pay for a chaotic zoo with a puppet clown act for a government.

If B*sh had made the right decision, there would have been five or six neo-con pillowbiters wringing their hands about the fact that he did not make the wrong decision. Nobody else would have cared or thought that the intelligence dictated the dumbazz decision that he made.

The intelligence did not dictate a damn thing, the five or six neo-con wussies did. They got their way and everybody is worse off, except for Halliburton.

Do not be stupid.

Saddam kicked the inspectors out and nothing was done. He only allowed their return after the US/UK mobilized their troops into a ready position that could not be maintained indefinitely. Sanctions had been in place for years, but European sentiment was moving in the direction of lifting them. Without European support, sanctions would be meaningless. The status quo could not be maintained in the way that you are suggesting. Saddam would have kicked inspectors out again as soon as the US/UK stood down. His game was to cooperate just enough to buy time until the Europeans caved on sanctions. Under the status quo approach, it was only a matter of time before that happened. GWBush and Tony Blair changed the game.

Don't be naive.

[WilliamTheIrish]

Powell Calls His U.N. Speech A Lasting Blot on His Record

He could have been a real candidate for POTUS.

I'm still mad at him for knowingly going to the UN when he knew the report was shiot. They used his loyalty against him. But he played the part of good soldier.

Deep down, I still think he's a great man and a great leader.

[patteeu]

He could have been a real candidate for POTUS.

I'm still mad at him for knowingly going to the UN when he knew the report was shiot. They used his loyalty against him. But he played the part of good soldier.

Deep down, I still think he's a great man and a great leader.

Powell contradicts this specifically.

[WilliamTheIrish]

Powell contradicts this specifically.

jAz posted a quote from Powell that was printed in Time magazine back in 03 (?), where Powell calls the report 'shit' or bullshit.

It's here or in the archives.

[patteeu]

jAz posted a quote from Powell that was printed in Time magazine back in 03 (?), where Powell calls the report 'shit' or bullshit.

It's here or in the archives.

That would be Powell's after-the-fact assessment. From the OP article:

He added that it was ''devastating'' to learn later that some intelligence agents knew the information he had was unreliable but did not speak up.

...

''No, George Tenet did not sit there for five days with me, misleading me,'' he said, referring to the week he spent at the Central Intelligence Agency reviewing the evidence on Iraq before making his presentation to the United Nations. ''There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up. That devastated me.''

[jettio]

Saddam kicked the inspectors out and nothing was done. He only allowed their return after the US/UK mobilized their troops into a ready position that could not be maintained indefinitely. Sanctions had been in place for years, but European sentiment was moving in the direction of lifting them. Without European support, sanctions would be meaningless. The status quo could not be maintained in the way that you are suggesting. Saddam would have kicked inspectors out again as soon as the US/UK stood down. His game was to cooperate just enough to buy time until the Europeans caved on sanctions. Under the status quo approach, it was only a matter of time before that happened. GWBush and Tony Blair changed the game.

Don't be naive.

Yeah. Maintaining those troops mobilized is unsustainable but sending them headlong into an interminable clusterf*ck is easy as pie.

B*sh did what he did because he thought it would be easy and that the rightness or wrongness of the action would be less relevant while he basked in glorious victory.

You are the one that is naive. The war was unnecessary. And nothing but arrogance and incompetence is to blame for going to war, and arrogance and incompetence is to blame for having no sensible plan of how to secure the country and protect the people there.

The intelligence did not dictate any thing. Neocon panty-waists did.

[patteeu]

The war was unnecessary.

The American Revolution, developing a polio vaccine, and sending a man to the moon were all unnecessary too. I'm not going to try to convince you that the war in Iraq was a good thing (because that would be as fruitless as trying to tell my dog that butt-licking is unsanitary), but your belief that sanctions and inspections would have worked just fine is proof of your naivete.

[oldandslow]

Patteau's cure, however, is worse than the disease.

Iraq is headed for civil war. The leader that is most apt to be evolve out of this mess is an Iranian-type shiite fundamentalist.

The sad fact is, we brought this on ourselves.

WMD's indeed. In Iran.

[patteeu]

Patteau's cure, however, is worse than the disease.

Since we successfully avoided the disease, I guess we'll never know.

[oldandslow]

No, we have not.

The disease is only beginning.

Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorist activity.

It is also the worst foreign policy blunder since the Bay of Pigs.

[Brock]

No, we have not.

The disease is only beginning.

Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorist activity.

It is also the worst foreign policy blunder since the Bay of Pigs.

The only difference between now and when Saddam was in Iraq is now terrorism is openly fomented.

[Radar Chief]

The only difference between now and when Saddam was in Iraq is now terrorism is openly fomented.

Actually terrorism was openly fomented before, but it didn’t receive much attention from the press so many didn’t know ‘bout it and there for didn’t exist.

[patteeu]

No, we have not.

The disease is only beginning.

Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorist activity.

It is also the worst foreign policy blunder since the Bay of Pigs.

You are losing your bead on the analogy that you started. If, as you asserted, "[p]atteau's (sic) cure, however, is worse than the disease," then the disease cannot be something that is just beginning now.

My contribution to this thread was centered around the problem of an Iraq led by Saddam that, if nothing was done, was destined to escape from the UN sanctions regime and continue to impede inspections. That particular disease is now cured.

This new disease that you assert exists is only a matter of your opinion. AFAIK, we have yet to see a terrorist who has been bred in Iraq only to cross the Atlantic and attack the US. Since we don't know what would have happened if we had let Saddam wiggle out of his containment box of sanctions and inspections and since we don't know what the aftermath of the Iraq war will bring, we have no way of knowing whether the "cure, however, is worse than the disease."

[go bowe]

That's what I thought too.that's astounding...

no agent in iraq?

since 98?

well, one would hope that we were still getting human intelligence, even if second hand through expatriates (which turns out to be a little unreliable, but still better than nothing, maybe...)...

it's really surprising that we couldn't recruit at least some iraqi "spies"...

maybe we should have sent in harrison ford...

[go bowe]

It's from numerous reports I saw in numerous places back before/during the war. One of the problems with the targeting of Sadaam's and his buddies whereabouts was due to inteligence agents not having extensive connections due to the berevity of time they had spent in the field.

This arguement doesn't mean enough to me to force me to bother digging around on the internet to find a 2-3 year old set of reports. ou probably missed the news because you were so busy posting on here telling us that Priest had lost his burst and wouldn't play again.i'm not a link, but i did stay at a holiday inn last night...

i think i saw some stuff to that effect on the communist news network (just to save time)...

wasn't a major story i don't think, but i'm pretty sure pmike is right about this...

[patteeu]

that's astounding...

no agent in iraq?

since 98?

well, one would hope that we were still getting human intelligence, even if second hand through expatriates (which turns out to be a little unreliable, but still better than nothing, maybe...)...

it's really surprising that we couldn't recruit at least some iraqi "spies"...

maybe we should have sent in harrison ford...

I don't know that it was absolutely zero agents in Iraq. My understanding was simply that we had very few if any human assets there. We gained most of our intelligence from electronic means, friendly intelligence services (e.g. Israelis), and expatriates. I have to believe that we must have had SOME contacts in the Kurdish and Shiite communities though.

[go bowe]

Speculation. Now that it's a proven fact countries were getting kick backs in the oil for food program with our tax dollars there is no proof any international effort to get rid of Saddam would have occured. Actually, the 12 years prior proves my point and disproves yours.



All I can tell is you're one hell of a Monday morning QB.



Saddam had the ultimate choice, not Bush. Bush was forced to take action because of what Saddam decided not to do.



You say Bush was arrogant. I say he was taking the country's best interest to heart in his decision. And, as I've stated before, even Gore would have reacted militarily to Saddam by now. 911 changed things.

We'll just have to disagree I guess.you have too much faith in gore...

[Radar Chief]

that's astounding...

no agent in iraq?

since 98?

well, one would hope that we were still getting human intelligence, even if second hand through expatriates (which turns out to be a little unreliable, but still better than nothing, maybe...)...

it's really surprising that we couldn't recruit at least some iraqi "spies"...

maybe we should have sent in harrison ford...

It’s not that we couldn’t turn anyone close to Saddam, his “inner circle” was such more out of fear than loyalty from what I understand, it’s that we didn’t try.
I can’t remember the exact reasons, but IIRC it was ‘bout the expense of turning an agent of any value. That and electronic surveillance is just cheaper and less likely to turn back on us.

[go bowe]

Saddam kicked the inspectors out and nothing was done. He only allowed their return after the US/UK mobilized their troops into a ready position that could not be maintained indefinitely. Sanctions had been in place for years, but European sentiment was moving in the direction of lifting them. Without European support, sanctions would be meaningless. The status quo could not be maintained in the way that you are suggesting. Saddam would have kicked inspectors out again as soon as the US/UK stood down. His game was to cooperate just enough to buy time until the Europeans caved on sanctions. Under the status quo approach, it was only a matter of time before that happened. GWBush and Tony Blair changed the game.

Don't be naive.it's not naive to hold a different opinion about what might have happened...

i happen to pretty much agree with what you said...

but reasonable people (good heavens, i'm channeling kotter :eek: ) could just as well assume that we wouldn't have stood down (consider who the president is and his widely perceived predispostion to remove saddam)...

and reasonable people could just as well assume that the cost of maintaining a military presence in the region would not have been prohibitive; as it turns out, it would have cost us far less in terms of lives and treasure (no, i'm not channeling meme)...

i don't think either of those things is naive...

[go bowe]

It’s not that we couldn’t turn anyone close to Saddam, his “inner circle” was such more out of fear than loyalty from what I understand, it’s that we didn’t try.
I can’t remember the exact reasons, but IIRC it was ‘bout the expense of turning an agent of any value. That and electronic surveillance is just cheaper and less likely to turn back on us.i think you're right about that...

but it wasn't unique to iraq...

hasn't that pretty much been the overall policy of the u.s. after the end of the cold war?

[Radar Chief]

i think you're right about that...

but it wasn't unique to iraq...

hasn't that pretty much been the overall policy of the u.s. after the end of the cold war?

Yes, I believe so.

[patteeu]

it's not naive to hold a different opinion about what might have happened...

i happen to pretty much agree with what you said...

but reasonable people (good heavens, i'm channeling kotter :eek: ) could just as well assume that we wouldn't have stood down (consider who the president is and his widely perceived predispostion to remove saddam)...

and reasonable people could just as well assume that the cost of maintaining a military presence in the region would not have been prohibitive; as it turns out, it would have cost us far less in terms of lives and treasure (no, i'm not channeling meme)...

i don't think either of those things is naive...

Dear Mr. Kottermyselfi :p

What I was saying was naive is the notion that sanctions and inspections could have held Saddam in check indefinitely.

Although it seems cost effective in retrospect, no one would have been willing to spend billions (tens of billions?) of dollars to keep an invasion force stationed at Saddam's doorstep indefinitely. Not to mention the resistance to the presence of such ground troops we would have faced from the Arab host countries.

You (and Jettio for that matter) are entitled to your opinions. My opinion continues to be that Jettio's position was naive. FWIW, the only reason I added that insult at the end of my post was to parallel Jettio's "don't be stupid" comment at the end of his.

[Radar Chief]

FWIW, the only reason I added that insult at the end of my post was to parallel Jettio's "don't be stupid" comment at the end of his.

If it helps any, that’s exactly why I assumed you did it.

[go bowe]

He could have been a real candidate for POTUS.
* * *
Deep down, I still think he's a great man and a great leader.i probably would have voted for him...

but i don't know if he really is an outstanding leader in terms of politics...

to me, he seems to lack charisma...

he's too formal when he speaks, too measured...

great general, but he just doesn't connect with ordinary folks somehow...

and there's still that racial/gender thing...

[go bowe]

Dear Mr. Kottermyselfi :p

What I was saying was naive is the notion that sanctions and inspections could have held Saddam in check indefinitely.

Although it seems cost effective in retrospect, no one would have been willing to spend billions (tens of billions?) of dollars to keep an invasion force stationed at Saddam's doorstep indefinitely. Not to mention the resistance to the presence of such ground troops we would have faced from the Arab host countries.

You (and Jettio for that matter) are entitled to your opinions. My opinion continues to be that Jettio's position was naive. FWIW, the only reason I added that insult at the end of my post was to parallel Jettio's "don't be stupid" comment at the end of his.ok, in that case, you're slower than a snail's ass... :p :p :p

[patteeu]

ok, in that case, you're slower than a snail's ass... :p :p :p

You've seen me run apparently. :)

[DanT]

The USA Today recently ran the following in-depth look at the claims and facts surrounding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs:

Posted 9/2/2005 3:59 PM Updated 9/6/2005 2:51 PM
Piecing together the story of the weapons that weren't
By Charles J. Hanley, The Associated Press (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-09-02-WMD-indepth_x.htm)