PDA

View Full Version : Powell Distances Himself from President



Anastasius Focht
05-18-2004, 11:40 AM
Powell Distances Himself from President
NewsMax Wires
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
With President Bush’s approval rating hitting record lows and worries about the U.S. occupation of Iraq growing, Sec. of State Colin Powell has been carefully distancing himself from the administration.

The decision by Powell to make comments that cast the administration in a poor light could not come at a worse time for the president.

Lost in the hubbub over the abrupt camera change during his appearance on Meet the Press Sunday was Sec. Powell’s striking statement about the WMD controversy in the run up to the Iraq war.

Powell told Russert that that he had cited intelligence that had been provided to the CIA and which he now believes had been “deliberately” falsified in an effort to win public approval for the war.

Referring to his Feb. 5, 2003 appearance before the UN’s Security Council when he argued that Iraq had or was close to developing WMD, including biological weapons, Powell told Russert the information he offered was not only wrong, but that in some cases the intelligence cited by the administration had been purposefully misleading.

“"It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading,” Powell said. "And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it."

The statement marks a major turning point for the administration, which has admitted intelligence was inaccurate, but never that it had “deliberately” offered false intelligence or that such intelligence may have been willfully manipulated.

On Monday, the New York Times’ lead story on Powell’s comments began: “Secretary of State Colin Powell has said for the first time that he now believes that the Central Intelligence Agency was deliberately misled about evidence that Saddam Hussein was developing unconventional weapons.”

Already, critics of the administration have seized on Powell’s admission.

David Corn, a liberal pundit for the Nation magazine, wrote, “Appearing on Meet the Press, Powell acknowledged--finally!--that he and the Bush administration misled the nation about the WMD threat posed by Iraq before the war.”

The Times reported that Powell’s comments were intended to distance himself from President Bush.

"Basically, Powell now believes that the Iraqis had chemical weapons, and that was it," the Times quoted an official close to Powell. "And he is out there publicly saying this now because he doesn't want a legacy as the man who made up stories to provide the president with cover to go to war."



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/5/17/211348.shtml

weedman
05-18-2004, 12:42 PM
Thank you for the interesting article, Anastasius Focht.

Sir Zach of R.
05-18-2004, 01:31 PM
I never have liked Powell that well. He's more moderate than republican. If I correctly remember, he wanted the president to go to the UN before hitting Iraq. It was nearly the same during the PGW2. Powell wasn't exactly the biggest supporter of getting Saddam out of Kuwait in 1991. He wanted to "talk" him down. On another note, he's not exactly known for his support of SOCOM.

Trident-za
05-18-2004, 01:50 PM
I never have liked Powell that well. He's more moderate than republican. If I correctly remember, he wanted the president to go to the UN before hitting Iraq. It was nearly the same during the PGW2. Powell wasn't exactly the biggest supporter of getting Saddam out of Kuwait in 1991. He wanted to "talk" him down. On another note, he's not exactly known for his support of SOCOM.

Does any of this have any impact whatsoever on what he said about "deliberately misleading"? Or are just hoping to throw enough mud on his reputation that nobody takes it seriously?

Tane Angle
05-18-2004, 01:52 PM
I haven't always agreed with Powell, and I think he did the country a disservice by clamming up for so long. However, regardless of whether or not we agree on everything, I've respected the man for a long time. My respect for him has only increased with this newfound openess and honesty.

Powell's seen war, I'd say any possible talking that can be done, should be done. Powell knows the value of the UN, he saw it in 1990 and 1991. Not to mention that, if I am not mistaken, he was concerned that if we went in, we might lose our hostages at the US Embassy, Kuwait City. Powell was doing his job by looking out for those hostages.

As for politics, I think Powell has done a "good" job of ignoring his own politics in favor of standing by the President. But I think that Powell knows in his heart that it may not be in the best interests of his nation and his people to support Bush in this election. Besides, is there that much wrong with moderation? I'm wary of both extremes equally.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

Sir Zach of R.
05-18-2004, 01:55 PM
If Powell had his way in 1991, there would have been no war and Kuwait probably wouldn't have been liberated.

XASA
05-18-2004, 02:02 PM
If Powell had his way in 1991, there would have been no war and Kuwait probably wouldn't have been liberated.

News to me. What is your source? For someone who didn't want to go to war, Powell did a great job, didn't he?

Zach, don't let your support for the president cloud your judgment of Powell just because he said something that was not supportive of administration's reasons for going to war. I think if his advice had been heeded we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.

Kitsune
05-18-2004, 02:05 PM
Not that anything of this is surprising anymore... :roll:

Sir Zachs assessment of Powell is certainly correct. He was a moderating factor in the Neocon regime, but he lost most of his influence just before the Iraq war. I think it was deliberately done to make him present the doubtful (understatement) information to the world just before the war.
Possibly he now wants to take his revenge or something.

scm77
05-18-2004, 02:09 PM
“"It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading,” Powell said. "And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it."


That is completely taken out of context.
I saw the replay of the interview last night. The question was something about one exiled Iraqi codenamed "Curveball" who it turns out was feeding them bull****.

It had nothing to do about the CIA or the President exagerating.

It was funny when his press aid pushed the camera off of him just before the last question. But he did order it back on him and he answered the last question.

Sir Zach of R.
05-18-2004, 03:06 PM
I got that info from The Comandos, by Douglas C. Waller. C 1994.

XASA
05-18-2004, 03:33 PM
I got that info from The Comandos, by Douglas C. Waller. C 1994.

Thanks for the source. I read the book when it came out ten years ago, so I can't recollect the references to Powell. If memory serves me right--which can be a problem for an old man-- Powell was hesitant about going to war unless all the pieces were in place beforehand; i.e., the use of overwhelming force, a coalition that included Arab countries and UN support. He was also adamant about having an exit strategy in place. Most of which became known as the Powell doctrine. Once those goals were achieved, he supported and fought GW1 wholeheartedly.

What is interesting is that the administration didn't follow these steps before GWII; specifically, Rumsfeld insisting that technology and "transformation" would make overwhelming force-- boots on the ground--unneccessary. I think history will be kinder to Powell than Rumsfeld and crew.

786mine
05-18-2004, 08:26 PM
Powell did the right thing. I think being an honest general, and being thought to follow what is right name Powell feel guilty for what he did and I think he thought it was time to come front and take responsibility. Good job Powell.

Ratamacue
05-18-2004, 09:03 PM
I never have liked Powell that well. He's more moderate than republican. If I correctly remember, he wanted the president to go to the UN before hitting Iraq. It was nearly the same during the PGW2. Powell wasn't exactly the biggest supporter of getting Saddam out of Kuwait in 1991. He wanted to "talk" him down. On another note, he's not exactly known for his support of SOCOM.

You ever considered that having an open mind for once could be beneficial? To say you don't like him because he's "moderate" is an extremely weak reason. Politicians who refuse to consider the views of another party because they belong to a specific party are not usually well-suited to serving in office. John McCain and Colin Powell are two men I see as ideal for President, and guess what: neither of them is extreme-right or -left. By not mimicking every word said by President Bush, Powell has shown that he's not some mindless zombie concerned only with keeping his job or sticking to his party just because it's the one he belongs to.

sethen
05-18-2004, 10:26 PM
Powell is the type of man with unimpeachable reputation. What he said carries a lot of weight with me. He was a great general. He alone has been the voice of dissention in the Admin. and it is those that have objected that need to be recognized, when this is reveiwed after Bush is removed from office.

usa320
05-18-2004, 10:33 PM
I think powell is a decent guy. But with any politician, there are things i would have done differently. For instance i would have said "**** the UN" and i would have bombed iraq when i still had the element of surprise and still had a chance of catching them moving their WMD with their pants down. if the UN didnt like it, then they could just get the hell out of New York and find someplace else to meet then.

EvanL
05-18-2004, 11:20 PM
I think powell is a decent guy. But with any politician, there are things i would have done differently. For instance i would have said "f*** the UN" and i would have bombed iraq when i still had the element of surprise and still had a chance of catching them moving their WMD with their pants down. if the UN didnt like it, then they could just get the hell out of New York and find someplace else to meet then.
Wow. I wasnt aware that they had already begun the brain-to-ass transplants already.
News to me.