Maybe true, but then again.....unless you believe him, you are calling d1allstar a liar. :lol:

Who is in better position to know, d1allstar or Colin Powell?

 

I'll side with the general ...

Since d1allstar didn't get a periodical to everyone's liking, here's one from February 4, 2003 done on PBS and includes Gwen Ifill, Bob Woodward and some others. You read and decide, but what I glean from it is that Powell convinced Bush and Cheney to take the UN and diplomatic route first, which he undertook, and then to use force if Hussein did not comply. He was right in the President's corner with that plan.

 

Interestingly, the pundits here repeatedly assert that the peace may take "decades" . . .

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june03/powell_2-4.html

Since d1allstar didn't get a periodical to everyone's liking, here's one from February 4, 2003 done on PBS and includes Gwen Ifill, Bob Woodward and some others. You read and decide, but what I glean from it is that Powell convinced Bush and Cheney to take the UN and diplomatic route first, which he undertook, and then to use force if Hussein did not comply. He was right in the President's corner with that plan.

 

Interestingly, the pundits here repeatedly assert that the peace may take "decades" . . .

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june03/powell_2-4.html

For one thing, those are talking heads talking about Powell ... not the man himself. And the discussion was in the midst of the Iraq debate. Time has revealed much more information that Ifill, Woodward, et al, had at the time, especially now that Powell himself has discussed the issue in the five-plus years since then.

 

Plus, what Powell may have said publicly and what he may have told Bush behind closed doors may be two different things. Who are we to believe on that score? Powell himself or a BGP poster?

Is it not the Secretary of State job to advise the prez? Powell went to the CIA took days to go over all the information, it was his job to take the information and advise the prez. No where is there a record of him telling Bush no to go to war.It was Powells job to look at the info and in his best judgement tell Bush what to do, Bush did not go to the CIA Powell did. At no time in the Today show interview did he say he advised Bush not to go to war, he backed the president on the war in virtually every conceivable way.

 

I am not blaming only Powell for going to war. But, I would say that he was the one able to look at the CIA info and advise Bush.Good night he was Secretary of State. I just say I would not want he advising any other presidents.

 

From the US Departent of State:

Under the Constitution, the President of the United States determines U.S. foreign policy. The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser.The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department and the Foreign Service of the United States.

I don't see anything in anybody's links that suggests that Powell didn't try to dissuade President Bush from invading Iraq. Powell himself says he tried to talk the President out of invading, explaining the complications that would arise from occupying an Arab country. But Powell is a military man and knew that the decision was not his to make. He gave his best counsel and, at the end of the day, took direction from the President he served.

Is it not the Secretary of State job to advise the prez? Powell went to the CIA took days to go over all the information, it was his job to take the information and advise the prez. No where is there a record of him telling Bush no to go to war.It was Powells job to look at the info and in his best judgement tell Bush what to do, Bush did not go to the CIA Powell did. At no time in the Today show interview did he say he advised Bush not to go to war, he backed the president on the war in virtually every conceivable way.

 

I am not blaming only Powell for going to war. But, I would say that he was the one able to look at the CIA info and advise Bush.Good night he was Secretary of State. I just say I would not want he advising any other presidents.

 

From the US Departent of State:

Under the Constitution, the President of the United States determines U.S. foreign policy. The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser.The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department and the Foreign Service of the United States.

 

 

I disagree strongly with the bolded and think you are overreaching. It is not the "job" of any cabinet member to "tell (the President) what to do". I've never seen any account that suggests Powell told the President he should invade Iraq. There are many, many accounts from many independent sources stating that Powell strongly tried to dissuade an invasion, to the point of openly clashing with more hawkish elements in the Administration. Powell is on the record as saying he "took (Bush) through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers" in an effort to avoid the war. Once the decision was made (by the President), Powell carried out his responsibilities.

 

You also make it sound like Powell, the Secretary of State, was Bush's communication link with the U.S. intelligence community. That is not the case. The President interacted directly with George Tenet, CIA Director.

I disagree strongly with the bolded and think you are overreaching. It is not the "job" of any cabinet member to "tell (the President) what to do". I've never seen any account that suggests Powell told the President he should invade Iraq. There are many, many accounts from many independent sources stating that Powell strongly tried to dissuade an invasion, to the point of openly clashing with more hawkish elements in the Administration. Powell is on the record as saying he "took (Bush) through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers" in an effort to avoid the war. Once the decision was made (by the President), Powell carried out his responsibilities.

You also make it sound like Powell, the Secretary of State, was Bush's communication link with the U.S. intelligence community. That is not the case. The President interacted directly with George Tenet, CIA Director.

 

 

As to the bolded part of your post, is it fair to query: if Powell felt so strongly about not invading Iraq, why he did not resign immediately (or for that matter at any time thereafter)? Its my understanding he was eventually fired and wanted to continue to work in Bush's administration. If true, isn't it somewhat illogical that he would want to do so if he disagreed as adamantly as some are claiming with Bush's decision?

I don't see anything in anybody's links that suggests that Powell didn't try to dissuade President Bush from invading Iraq. Powell himself says he tried to talk the President out of invading, explaining the complications that would arise from occupying an Arab country. But Powell is a military man and knew that the decision was not his to make. He gave his best counsel and, at the end of the day, took direction from the President he served.

 

Something else to ponder: Could Powell's concern about "occupying" Iraq been a reason that after the invasion Bush decided not to have as many troops in country as were needed so as to support the argument that we were not there as occupiers, rather as liberators who quickly turned the country back over to the Iraqi? In other words, Powell's advise and concern about being seen as occupiers was actually listened to by Bush, which is why we did not go to surge strength until it became apparent that we had to.

Something else to ponder: Could Powell's concern about "occupying" Iraq been a reason that after the invasion Bush decided not to have as many troops in country as were needed so as to support the argument that we were not there as occupiers, rather as liberators who quickly turned the country back over to the Iraqi? In other words, Powell's advise and concern about being seen as occupiers was actually listened to by Bush, which is why we did not go to surge strength until it became apparent that we had to.

Everything I've read said that was the Pentagon's call ... primarily Rumsfeld.

As to the bolded part of your post, is it fair to query: if Powell felt so strongly about not invading Iraq, why he did not resign immediately (or for that matter at any time thereafter)? Its my understanding he was eventually fired and wanted to continue to work in Bush's administration. If true, isn't it somewhat illogical that he would want to do so if he disagreed as adamantly as some are claiming with Bush's decision?

 

 

I think Powell is a good soldier who viewed finishing out Bush's first term as completing his mission. Abruptly resigning in the middle of the term would not seem consistent, even if he had significant disagreements. I have read that Powell signaled during the summer of 2004 that he did not wish to serve in a 2nd Bush term and that Bush decided to cut departing staff members loose immediately following the 2004 election to make a cleaner transition for their replacements.

 

Here is an excerpt from an article about Powell's resignation, written about 2 years after the fact (italics are mine):

 

Yet Powell had constantly found himself on the losing side of regular ideological combat inside the Bush administration, particularly against Rumsfeld and the powerful vice president, Dick Cheney, over Iraq and a host of other foreign policy issues. Though Powell had scored some victories, the rumored humiliations had been real. He had been purposely cut out of major foreign policy decisions more than once, and his advice often had gone unheeded or been only grudgingly accepted by the president. Why hadn't he resigned?

 

The easy answer had the virtue of truth: Soldiers didn't quit when they disagreed with the decisions of their commanders. The fact that he had been out of uniform for nearly a decade was irrelevant to Powell; he would be a soldier until he drew his last breath.

Something else to ponder: Could Powell's concern about "occupying" Iraq been a reason that after the invasion Bush decided not to have as many troops in country as were needed so as to support the argument that we were not there as occupiers, rather as liberators who quickly turned the country back over to the Iraqi? In other words, Powell's advise and concern about being seen as occupiers was actually listened to by Bush, which is why we did not go to surge strength until it became apparent that we had to.

 

I think Powell's cautions about being seen as occupiers were in the context of advising the President about the repercussions of invading and knocking off the government of an Arab country in the Middle East. He also made his opinions known that he felt that troop levels for the invasion were inadequate because we would be responsible for providing order once we took out the government. But Powell's counsel for increased troop strength prior to the invasion were not adopted and, since he was no longer in an official military capacity, he acquiesced to those who were responsible for military planning (Rumsfeld, Franks). And Powell was clearly not without support in his view that the invasion force was much too small. The 1999 Desert Crossing simulation of a U.S. led invasion of Iraq concluded that in excess of 400,000 troops would be required to prevent the country from falling into chaos. Regarding your theory of why we chose to go in with inadequate boots to secure the country, it seems logically inconsistent to me that someone would heed a rather narrow piece of advice (it is undesireable to be seen as occupiers) and discard the interconnected reasoning. I'm sure Powell didn't communicate his concerns in a manner that suggested an a la carte implementation of his recommendations would be successful.

I respect Colin Powell.

 

I admire his accomplishments and contributions to this nation.

 

As far as I know, he is an honorable man.

 

We simply disagree on our choice of candidates. :thumb:

Great post and comments Fb, I feel the same way. I don't know and couldn't care less if race was involved in his decision to back Obama. I strongly disagree with his choice as well and frankly with Powell being a military man I found it hard to believe that He would back such a person that not only did not serve but in a time of war will no doubt cut military funding which imo is spitting in the face of every man and woman that we have protecting us and on the grave of any who has ever paid the ultimate price for his right to do so. The again, when a close family member of the Wannabe was just recently proud of her country the maybe it runs in the family. That would certainly explain some of his close companions for years.

 

Just how much of a stretch are you going to try to make here? Why would I look into his stance on all of the issues if I know he's not running? That would be a colossal waste of my time. There may be many reasons I wouldn't vote for him that I wouldn't know about until he was running. :creepy:

:thumb: Makes sense to me, why debate a stance on issues if that person is not running. That sounds to me like.....well, never mind :lol:.

 

nWo, here is a perect example of the race card being played by Team Obama.

Absolutely RTS, the Obama camp along with their bias media backers at NBC/MSNBC, CNN, CBS,ABC along with most all of the trash programming like Oprah, Ellen, The View, practical all of Hollyweird etc.....these are the ONLY ones mentioning or playing any race card. They spin it to use it t their advantage and to play themselves the victims :irked:......Is Sickining.

Race doesn't matter to me. As I have said over and over there are plenty of reason not to vote for Barock Hussien Obama, one certainly does not have to look for any.

 

As to the first part, race has been brought up by the Obama campaign. To not do so would be like ignoring the pink elephant in the room. But to say they have "done nothing but bring race" into the campaign is QUITE a stretch.

This partof the post is the typical spin that I was speaking of above. Anything to claim the victim and say Oh, how everyone is against us:rolleyes:. That is very old weak!

 

I just posted yet another example of them bringing race into it. It's endless. And my logic flies just fine, thank you very much.

:thumb::thumb: It certainly does RTS.