WASHINGTON, Oct. 6 (UPI) -- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell's wife says in a new biography that President George W. Bush used her husband to sell the war in Iraq. I n "Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell" by Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post, Alma Powell describes the administration's treatment of her husband as callous. "They needed him to do it because they knew people would believe him," Mrs. Powell said. Powell, the first black secretary of state, gave DeYoung six interviews for the book. He told her he never considered resigning even though he had disagreements with the president about the 2003 invasion. "I supported him," he said. "I can't go on long patrol and then say, 'Never mind.'"
8th October 2006 12:37 AM
sirmoonie
You can either trust black people or not.
The negrotionalist on this board is funny. And pathetic.
8th October 2006 06:47 AM
caro
quote:"I supported him," he said. "I can't go on long patrol and then say, 'Never mind.'"
Grmpf! Yes, better send your wife years later to disclaim liability for any potential fuck-up. If he thinks he made the right decision, he can just own up to it, no?
8th October 2006 06:52 AM
corgi37
All the rats are deserting the ship. W aint gonna be a lame duck as much as a dead duck. What a dramatic crash!
8th October 2006 09:59 AM
Jumping Jack
Powell got punked by many countries as well.
8th October 2006 10:02 AM
BILL PERKS
I LOATHE ALL REPUBLICANS BLACK,WHITE OR REDNECK
8th October 2006 10:09 AM
Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Every US politician, Republican and Democrat, lied to us on this deal.
Nothing like selective memory loss.
8th October 2006 11:31 AM
Chuck
He didn't have to quit. He could have just refused to lie for others. If that causes them to drop him, it wouldn't have been the same as his quitting.
He had a choice and he chose wrong. Claims of being used are ridiculous at best.
8th October 2006 11:59 AM
Riffhard
Nobody fucking lied you goddamned simpletons!!!! The same intel that Bush presented to the UN is the same intel that the Clinton Admin provided the Bush Admin with! It's the same intel that Israel had. It was the same intel that France had. Same for Germany. Even Poland agreed with the intel! Likewise Russia. As well as Italy,and Spain!! You guys are stuck on this stupid assed Bush lied mantra. Pull your fucking heads out of your asses fellas. The intel may have been wrong(I think those WMDs are safe and sound in the Becca Valley in Syria),but nobody lied! Everyone,and I mean everyone,agreed with the assesment of Iraq's WMD program. You talk aboput selective memory!! To try and claim that Bush,or anyone else,lied only proves that you'er a complete fucking moron with no sense of reality or intelligence. Moreover it proves your a goddamned partisan hack that is blatantly lying through your teeth. Either that or you don't read much.
Riffy
8th October 2006 12:14 PM
MrPleasant
8th October 2006 12:22 PM
Chuck
American Patriot
Iraq War critic Scott Ritter takes aim at Bush, Clinton, the CIA, Cindy Sheehan—and you.
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/article.php?id=4281
(clip)
DR: Supporters of the war often say that Bill Clinton and our European allies also thought there were WMD. What do you think when people make those statements?
Ritter: I’m not going to defend the Clinton administration. I fully believe that the Bush administration should be investigated for lying, and lying in the course of official duty constitutes a felony, and I believe that there are many members of the Bush administration who could be brought up on felony charges for misleading Congress, misleading the American people—but don’t stop at the Bush administration! This goes back to the Clinton administration. Sandy Berger is a liar every bit as much as Condoleezza Rice is. Madeleine Albright’s a liar every bit as much as Donald Rumsfeld is. I mean, they’ve all lied about the same thing, which is that Iraq represented a threat in the form of weapons of weapons of mass destruction that warranted military action. I would agree with anybody who said Iraq [could not be certified] as being 100 percent in compliance with its obligation to disarm. That’s why I was always in favor of letting weapons inspectors back in to finish the job—but letting them finish the job in accordance with the mandates set forth by the [U.N.] Security Council, not the unilateral policy object of regime change that was embraced by both the Clinton administration and Bush administration, thereby corrupting the integrity of the inspection process. But, no, Clinton’s just as bad as Bush—the only difference is, he just bombed them; Bush invaded. But let’s never forget: Under Clinton, another form of warfare took place, and that is the economic sanctions that the United States would never allow to be lifted regardless of Iraq’s compliance level with its disarmament obligations. And these sanctions have killed far more people than George W. Bush’s war has.
8th October 2006 12:32 PM
Riffhard
Scott Ritter!! You must be kidding me?!?!? That fucking idiot has been discredited by both sides of the political aisle. The guy is a selfserving scumbag. That asshat tried to say very similar shit a few years ago,and everyone,both Dem and Repub,slammed him for his twisting of facts and flat out lying to promote himself.
You can do better Chuck. Please go find some other cut and paste crap and try and redeem yourself. Scott Ritter!!! LOL!
Riffy
8th October 2006 12:44 PM
Chuck
"That fucking idiot has been discredited by both sides of the political aisle."
**yawn**
You fail to impress, knave.
8th October 2006 12:46 PM
sirmoonie
quote:MrPleasant wrote:
What an absolute joke of a human being. There is something VERY wrong with a country that would freely elect this person to run its affairs.
8th October 2006 12:51 PM
Riffhard
"Bush invaded. But let’s never forget: Under Clinton, another form of warfare took place, and that is the economic sanctions that the United States would never allow to be lifted regardless of Iraq’s compliance level with its disarmament obligations. And these sanctions have killed far more people than George W. Bush’s war has."
That right there is a perfect example of the way this clown twists facts. Now I know full well that Bill Clintoon is a horrible man,a rapist,a liar,and the most morally reprehensible president in the history of this great nation,but he did not wage war against Iraq with the sanctions! The sanctions were not Clintoon's fault! They were Saddam's fault! He repeatedly violated every single UN treaty that he signed. Yet this stupid fucknut is tring to lay the blame on the US! Hey Scott who was firing on US and UK jets patroling the no-fly zones every single day?
Scott Ritter!! Holy shit! That's rich that is! LOL!
Riffy
8th October 2006 12:56 PM
Riffhard
quote:Chuck wrote:
"That fucking idiot has been discredited by both sides of the political aisle."
**yawn**
You fail to impress, knave.
Ooooh snappy comeback Chuck! Hey there young buck your source is a fucking Saddam apologist. Keep on posting his tripe though. It's fun to see what people like you consider to be hard evidence. The guy is a joke Chuck,and everyone but you knows that.
Knave? LOL! Putz!
Riffy
8th October 2006 12:57 PM
Dick Bush
Heh
Isn't that Walker the sweetest candy ever?
8th October 2006 01:30 PM
BILL PERKS
RIFFHARD-YOU ARE BLIND,IGNORANT AND A STEPFORD IF YOU THINK YOUR PREZ DIDNT LIE TO AMERICA.HAVE ANOTHER GLASS OF KOOL-AID!
8th October 2006 02:09 PM
Chuck
"Hey Scott who was firing on US and UK jets patroling the no-fly zones every single day?"
================
December 4, 2002
No-Fly Zones Over Iraq
Washington's Undeclared War on "Saddam's Victims"
by JEREMY SCAHILL
(clip)
"The Bush administration asserted that Iraq's firing on US aircraft entering Iraqi airspace constituted a "material breach" of the November 8 UN Security Council resolution on Iraq. The charge was quickly, though diplomatically, rebuffed by Secretary General Kofi Annan and several foreign governments, including Security Council member China. There are no UN resolutions that prohibit Iraq from maintaining its military or taking action in defense of its territory.
Hans von Sponeck, a 32-year veteran of the United Nations and a former Assistant Secretary General, scoffs at the characterization of these zones by the US media and government officials as having a basis in the UN charter or Security Council resolutions.
"That's a total misnomer," he says. "There is no UN mandate for the establishment of these two no-fly zones. There is always a reference to resolution 688, which deals with an appeal to the Secretary General to ensure the protection of minorities in Iraq. That is not, by a wide stretch of the imagination, an agreement that you can establish, in some other country, airspace that belongs only to you and is blocked to the national aircraft. It is an illegal establishment of a zone for bilateral interests of the US and the UK."
"...in 1993, the U.N. legal department announced that it could find no existing Security Council resolutions authorizing the United States, Britain, and France to enforce the no-fly zones. They are never explicitly mentioned in Resolution 688 or elsewhere. Furthermore, Resolution 688 was not enacted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, the section that is used to authorize and legitimize the use of force.
France later backed away from its involvement in the no-fly zones, leaving the United States and Britain to enforce them. Other U.N. Security Council nations have never accepted their legitimacy. So the dispute over whether Iraq's firing at planes over the no-fly zones constitutes a "material breach" actually exposes a long-standing divide at the United Nations. No wonder the administration has been hesitant to cite Iraq's recent anti-aircraft fire as cause to demand further military action from the Security Council."
Full: http://www.slate.com/?id=2074302
8th October 2006 02:18 PM
Chuck
The Embarrassment and Illegality of the No-Fly Zones
by Jacob G. Hornberger,
November 21, 2002
President Bush's "zero tolerance" for Iraqi violations of UN resolutions has apparently dropped to "two percent tolerance." According to administration officials, Iraqi forces have once again fired on U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zones in Iraq, which U.S. officials had previously claimed would constitute an immediate justification for invading Iraq, not only under the principle of "self-defense" but also for violation of the recently passed UN resolution.
The Bush administration, however, is backing off and so far is not using the shootings as a "self-defense" excuse to invade Iraq, and so far isn't even taking the matter to the UN Security Council.
There's a very good reason for the government's decision: Despite their mild protestations to the contrary, U.S. officials know that the no-fly zones have been illegal from the get-go. And their decision not to use either "self-defense" or violation of the UN resolution as a justification for invading Iraq is an implicit acknowledgment of that illegality.
The no-fly zones were unilaterally established by the U.S. government after the Persian Gulf War, supposedly to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq. There was one big problem, however: The United Nations never authorized the no-fly zones to be established. U.S. officials have always claimed that the U.S. government, as a member of the United Nations, has the right to unilaterally enforce any resolution of the United Nations. Such a position, however, is patently fallacious. Enforcement of an organization's rules and regulations belongs to the organization itself, not to each and every individual member of the organization.
(clip)
Full: http://www.fff.org/comment/com0211h.asp
8th October 2006 02:23 PM
Riffhard
quote:BILL PERKS wrote:
RIFFHARD-YOU ARE BLIND,IGNORANT AND A STEPFORD IF YOU THINK YOUR PREZ DIDNT LIE TO AMERICA.HAVE ANOTHER GLASS OF KOOL-AID!
Please show me any and all proof that either Bush,Clinton,the UK,Israel,France,Germany,Spain,or any other nation's intelligence agencies lied. Please show me how you can prove that. You can't because the proof does not exist. Was the intel wrong? Perhaps,but I still think that there are WMDs inside Syria. We know for sure that a convoy of well over one hundred large trucks were photographed by sattalite driving north into Syria in the weeks during the run up to the war.
You know Bill you can say whoever lied all you want,but you only do so because you hate Bush. You have no proof,and none is forthcoming. So drink your own Kool Aid there big boy. I have no problem with facts. You just seem to try and make them up out thin air. Not even the idiot Dems in congress will say that Bush lied. They tried but then had to back off when it was pointed out that Bush used the exact intel that was provided them by Clintoon. Read a little Bill. You might actually learn something. However,you're just content to believe anything that supports your insane,inane,naive hatered of Bush. Like Bush or not I could give two shits,but to try and babble on as if you have a clue only makes you look ignorant. BUSH DID NOT LIE! I don't even like the guy as much as some here seem to think I do,but I'm not gonna sit here and say the man lied when I know goddamned good and well he didn't. Did he cherry pick intel? Sure he did,but that's a far cry from lying. Everyone cherry picks when they are trying to achieve a consensus on an issue as important as war.
Riffy
8th October 2006 02:35 PM
Riffhard
Chuck you're a pretty funny guy. You keep posting shit from Saddam apologists and try and pass that horseshit off as some kind of legitimate "think peice". Here's a clue Chuck if you're going to post obviously bogus partisan bullshit then expect me to laugh in your face. The author of that article is full of shit. There never was a cease fire declared after the final shots of the Gulf War. The UN treaty stated plainly that the US could,and would,resume military action if Iraq failed to live up to it's obligations under UN Sec 1441. Here ya go Chucky read and learn.
Iraq violated that treaty in addition to 16 others. You think the UN has any balls Chuck? They weren't going to do shit. Limpwristed pansy beuracratic asses that they are. Funny that you post first from Scott Ritter,a known Saddam apologist,and you follow that shit up with a guy that obviously hates his own country and once again looks for a way to say that the USA,and the UK,are the bad guys and that Saddam was mearly misunderstood! You're ridiculous.
Riffy
8th October 2006 02:56 PM
Dick Bush
quote:Riffhard wrote:
Chuck you're a pretty funny guy. You keep posting shit from Saddam apologists and try and pass that horseshit off as some kind of legitimate "think peice". Here's a clue Chuck if you're going to post obviously bogus partisan bullshit then expect me to laugh in your face. The author of that article is full of shit. There never was a cease fire declared after the final shots of the Gulf War. The UN treaty stated plainly that the US could,and would,resume military action if Iraq failed to live up to it's obligations under UN Sec 1441. Here ya go Chucky read and learn.
Iraq violated that treaty in addition to 16 others. You think the UN has any balls Chuck? They weren't going to do shit. Limpwristed pansy beuracratic asses that they are. Funny that you post first from Scott Ritter,a known Saddam apologist,and you follow that shit up with a guy that obviously hates his own country and once again looks for a way to say that the USA,and the UK,are the bad guys and that Saddam was mearly misunderstood! You're ridiculous.
Riffy
Hey now Riffy,
The yellowfingered man is that dull, that nobody could ever make a decent cartoon of him.
That's simply impossible to make, you'd better believe it.
8th October 2006 02:56 PM
Chuck
Saddam apologists, a guy who hates his own country...blah blah blah
**yawn**
==============
Powell's Case Against Iraq Flops at UN
Heavy Belligerence, Scant Evidence
by WILLIAM HUGHES
It was an embarrassing flop! What else could you call Collin Powell's trying to play the celebrated attorney, Johnny Cochran, at the UN, on Feb. 5th? There wasn't a single piece of credible evidence produced, before the Security Council, by the U.S. Secretary of State, to show that Iraq was in "material breach" of UN Resolution 1441. None!
By drawing a parallel to an actual criminal trial, one can see that what Powell did at the UN was make an "Opening Statement." Now, every first year law student knows that an "Opening Statement" is NOT evidence. It is simply the preview of the prosecutor's evidence he "hopes" to present through the witnesses at the trial in order to prove his case.
In fact, at a real trial, the judge, before introducing the opposing counsels, will instruct the jury that what they are about to hear from the attorneys is NOT evidence. The only evidence the jury is legally to consider is the evidence that comes from the witnesses in the case. Those witnesses are all subject to cross examination by counsel for the defense. If those witnesses intend to introduce any physical evidence, such as exhibits, then that evidence must be authenticated, and approved by the court, prior to the jury hearing it.
None of these necessary procedural steps were followed by Powell. It wasn't enough for him to have the CIA spook, George Tenet, sitting behind him. Tenet, or one of his flunkies, should have been called as a witness by Powell. Absent that, the Security Council should have barred the admission into evidence of any of the U.S.' highly-suspect exhibits. The audio tapes, videos, and the photos, including the reputed "intelligence sources," were all, on their face, hearsay evidence. And, the only way they could have ever been lawfully admitted into evidence, is if a witness was produced to verify each items' accuracy; authenticity; the chain of custody; the relevance; and, if necessary, the vocal identification of the speakers.
Nor are the charges against Iraq evidence of any wrongdoing. They are simply the beliefs of the moving parties, (in this case, it's really the U.S. and the United Kingdom, and their silent partner, Israel,) that Iraq is allegedly hiding "weapons of mass destruction" from the UN Inspectors. The world must now wonder: "Where is that evidence?"
It is a cardinal principle of the law, embodied in the Federal Rules of Evidence, (and followed by every state in this country), that before an exhibit can legally be considered by a jury, that it must be properly authenticated. It order to do that, the moving party, in this case Powell, was duty bound to present a witness. And, that witness, after being properly sworn, and qualified as an expert in the field, must testify, with personal knowledge, that the exhibit "is what it is claimed to be."
For example, with respect to the photos of the supposed "chemical munition bunkers," Powell should have been required to produce a witness from the CIA, or some other agency that had personal knowledge of those photos, and who could have testified, under oath, that they were in fact, what they "claimed to be." In addition, a representative from Iraq should have been given the opportunity to cross exam that witness about first, his qualification; and second and most importantly, the truth, accuracy and relevance of his testimony. This was not done.
All the Security Council heard was Powell's unproved, speculative and highly circumstantial allegations against Iraq. He certainly did not make a case to justify a war. What he did demonstrate, however, is that the U.S. doesn't have any "smoking gun." Taking all of these assertions at their best, all Powell really has is hearsay, built on more hearsay, built on lots of shaky suppositions. And, all of them together don't pass the smell test.
Also, the glaring flaws in Powell's case were spotlighted by his ridiculous and totally irrelevant charge that Saddam has been aiding the al Qaeda Terror Network. First, this allegation has nothing whatsoever to do with UN Resolution 1441, which deals with the WMD issue. And, to make matters worse, It is a silly canard, that was recently raised by the Israeli windbag, Ariel Sharon.
The great South African statesman, Nelson Mandela, was right. He said that Powell's performance before the UN, "undermined that agency," and only reflected the U.S.' "belligerent policies against Iraq."
In summary, Powell's case against Iraq was a big flop.
8th October 2006 03:30 PM
Chuck
Bush's Long War with the Truth
By Robert Parry
January 2, 2006
(clip)
Yet, even on something as well known as the pre-war chronology, Bush has been allowed to revise the history. In one favorite fictitious account, he became the victim of Hussein’s intransigence, leaving Bush no choice but to invade on March 19, 2003, in search of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction.
Less than four months later – facing criticism because no WMD was found and U.S. soldiers were dying – Bush began to claim that Hussein had barred United Nations weapons inspectors from Iraq and blocked a non-violent search for WMD. Bush unveiled this rationale for the invasion on July 14, 2003.
“We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power,” Bush said. [See the White House Web site.]
The reality, however, was that Hussein had declared that Iraq no longer possessed WMD and let the U.N. inspectors into Iraq in November 2002 to check. They were allowed to examine any site of their choosing. It was Bush – not Hussein – who forced the U.N. inspectors to pull out in March 2003, so the invasion could proceed.
But this historical revisionism – which Bush has repeated in varying forms ever since – spared him the need to defend his decisions forthrightly. By rewriting the history, he made it more palatable to Americans who don’t like to see themselves as aggressors.
quote:corgi37 wrote:
All the rats are deserting the ship. W aint gonna be a lame duck as much as a dead duck. What a dramatic crash!
Damn Straight My Corgi .......
...and you ain't seen NOTHING yet !!!!! ( Just wait until November 7th ) .
Finally , after twelve long Friggin years , we will be back in power .
" I see RU486 Morning - After Birth Control ' Kill Pill ' Dispensaries on every street corner Ronnie ! ... YES !!!"
LBJoey !
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour
NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
