Netanyahu Plays Colin Powell, Tries to Jump Start the NeoCons' Next War with Iran

[McCamy Taylor]

Need I say more?

Here, watch Colin Powell from 2003.

Interesting symmetry. Our SOS lied to the UN. Their president lies to our Congress. You've got to admire a guy who can claim, straight faced, that Iran is an ally of Al Qaeda. Man, those NeoCons never give up. They must be desperate, with the price of oil dropping so low. Nothing like another middle east war to cut supplies of crude and drive up the prices of their inventory.

[MADem]

1. To be fair, MT, Powell was a tool, not an instigator.

Remember, he was the Pottery Barn guy--you break it, you own it. He was the EXTREMELY reluctant dude telling GHW Bush to not keep plowing towards Baghdad. He's also the guy who wrote a memoir that included an apologia along the lines of "Those assholes LIED to me!!!" Under the W administration, he was given his lines and a pat on the ass, and told to deliver them. He should have had more integrity, but his crime was being a weak ass wimp more than anything else.

Bibi is beating the bushes (small b) for war without end, amen. He's not being duped, he's trying to be the duper. He's a despicable human being. Israel would do well to vote his ass out, though I don't think that will happen. According to a poll, the majority of Israelis think that asshole coming over here, uninvited, and dividing the Democrats and Republicans, is a "helpful" thing. Talk about UNINFORMED--it's not just for the American electorate, apparently:

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Majority-of-Israelis-believe-Netanyahu-speech-wont-stop-Iran-Zionist-Union-poll-finds-392764

[JHB]

4. But being equally fair...

...Powell was a lynchpin in pushing the war and obtaining the covering support and authorizations. He was the "Mr. Integrity" of the administration. People who were rightly mistrustful of Cheney and the rest of the PNAC gallery were willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt if Colin Powell was backing them up. If nothing else, in an environment where conservatives were all but threatening Democrats with "if you vote 'no' and anything happens, we'll crucify you for it", "trusting Powell" gave cover for acquiescing.

Powell had the opportunity to balk and he didn't. He knew (or very strongly suspected) that he was being fed BS (the former head of the Joint Chiefs doesn't have a few back channels of his own to double-check at least some points?). He could have opposed them, he could have simply resigned for "personal reasons" and ashes his hands of it. Instead, he went along with it and gave cover for the primary instigators.

[Adrahil]

5. Actually, I think if you read a number of accounts....

Powell did balk, and was manipulated into what he did. He resigned for a reason.

Powell isn't perfect, but the man HAS integrity and regrets the role he played in the Iraq war.

Putin? The man doesn't feel any shame.

[JHB]

12. There's a big difference between balking internally and balking publicly

"Big" as in whether or not a war starts.

He knew all the principles in the administration, especially the ones who's spent the previous decade pushing to oust Saddam. He could have resigned much earlier and put a boulder in their path to launch their pet-project war, but instead played the good soldier and went along until it was much too late.

Yes, he regrets his role. But he's also stayed out of it. Or at least kept notably low-profile as the neocons keep beating their war drums.

[sabrina 1]

18. If he had integrity he would have resigned, publicly and warned the people who would have listened

to him, as soon as he realized they were lying. Lives were at stake. I can't think of any other more important time to take a stand than when you KNOW lies are being told to start an illegal, unnecessary war that will cost the lives our own troops and as Sen. Byrd said before he cast his 'no' vote, the lives of innocent Iraqis'.

Sorry, integrity isn't a word I would use for someone who knowingly helped one of the worst bunch of criminals, to send our troops into a terrible war.

We had no heroes, at a time when they were most needed. We did have some with the integrity to say 'no', but those in a position to stop it, decided their careers were more important. THAT is when he should have resigned. I believe if he had done that, we would not have gone to Iraq.

[MADem]

17. Absolutely--but he WAS a tool. If he wasn't in the mood to be that lynchpin, they would have found

another useful tool to do the dirty work. He was useful to them because he came across as a reluctant warrior, a non-partisan, a "fair minded" guy. In reality he was weak and lacked sufficient resolve to stand up and scream like NETWORK, and quit. Tom Ridge was another who played the Go Along/Get Along game. That soul-selling is ugly work.

[sabrina 1]

19. If he had resigned before becoming a tool, with the kind of respect he had from the people, it is

likely they would not have been able to get their war going. But he put his career first. The fact that he knew they were lying to the people makes his decision even worse.

We needed leaders at that time. Thousands of US troops are dead because we did not have the kind of leaders who would have stopped it.

[MADem]

20. Can't argue with that. He didn't step up and he should have.

Four star retirement ain't bad at all. You can live pretty well on it.

He sacrificed his integrity for fleeting fame and a little cash.

[Adrahil]

22. But he was manipulated into believing evidence said something it didn't.

Once it was clear what had been done, he DID resign.

Perhaps he should have been more wary. But hindsight is 20/20.

Having said that, I opposed the war in Iraq anyway. I didn't see anything, even in the faked evidence, that I thought was an imminent threat.

[Enthusiast]

2. It's a mushroom cloud I tells ya!

If a Republican is elected to the presidency in 2016 there is an 72% chance of a world war with Iran and Russia as USA opponents.

If a Democrat is elected in 2016 there is only a 48% chance of a world war with Russia and Iran.

Saudi Arabia will remain neutral. [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Adrahil]

6. There is no chance Russia goes nuclear over Iran.

If we won't risk WWIII over Ukraine, they certainly won't risk it over Iran.

[sabrina 1]

21. Russia is working with Obama resolve the Iran nuke issue peacefully. I believe the poster was

referring to the neocons who are operating in Ukraine trying to start a war with Russia. I am sure Bibi would be on board for that also.

The poster was correct. With a Repub, unless we get out and elect Progressive Dems to Congress and the Senate to stop it, there is a good chance we will go to war with Iran and Russia.

If we get a Dem, it depends on who the Dem is.

Right now I'm glad it's Obama who clearly knows better than to start any more wars anywhere. However, he is being undermined by neocons re Iran and Ukraine.

[newthinking]

3. They still are in places of power. Victoria Nuland is one example

Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State, is the wife of one of the architects of the NeoCon Playbook.

Imagine that? Working directly under John Kerry?



"If it walks like a duck..."

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/03/reckless-kiev-neocons-putin-ukr-201431053846277945.html

A woman for all seasons when it comes to Washington politics, Nuland was at home in the Clinton and Bush administration as she is today at the Obama administration. She served as assistant Vice President Dick Cheney, ambassador to NATO, and an Obama State Department spokesperson before taking on her current position in September 2013.

But there should be no mistaking her ideological leaning. Not only because she's the spouse of leading neoconservative, Robert Kagan. Or, that she's the sister-in-law of another prominent Neocon, Fredrick Kagan and wife Kimberly, both think-tank type military historians.
Russia declares support for Crimea breakaway

They all belong to a Washington clique of neoconservatives that continue to affect foreign policy who, like most of the other collaborators in the movement, haven't served in the military and are referred to by their detractors as "chicken-hawks".

[Adrahil]

7. Man... You're like a broken record...

Did she steal your candy when you were a baby?

[newthinking]

8. why would you have a problem with this?

You certainly must not like NeoCons?

Is there something wrong with connecting the dots? Can you explain why it is a good thing to have a NeoCon in such a powerful position?

[Adrahil]

9. Nope... Just notice you are always posting about her....

Seems a little focused and odd, IMO.

from what I've read about her, she's more conservative than I am, but I'm not sure I would call her a neocon.

For what it's worth, married people CAN have differing political opinions. My wife, for example, is rather more left than I am.

[newthinking]

10. She clearly is on board with the neocon playbook

Nuland was the Deputy Permanent Representative to NATO from July 2000 to July 2003. Then
"A career Foreign Service officer, Nuland was Principal Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney from July 2003 until May 2005, where she worked on 'democracy promotion' in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the broader Middle East.

There is really no way to intellectually disassociate her from the NeoCons and the Iraq war. She has been fully embeded with them.

[Adrahil]

11. So says you....

But I find I frequently disagree with you on things that you seem to believe are "clear."

In my view, you seem to be a victim of "outcome-based reasoning." So let's leave it at that.

BTW, I DO like your banner.

[newthinking]

13. Thanks

I am quite impressed with Yanis' analysis and approach. I hope they are successful in Greece.

[Adrahil]

16. On that, we can agree! n/t

[CJCRANE]

14. What is the defintion of "outcome-based reasoning"?

It's an interesting term but I can't find a clear defintion of it.

[Adrahil]

15. also know as "confirmation bias"...

... it is the tendency for people to look for and interpret evidence in a manner consistent with what they already believe the conclusion is, or should be.

Most of us suffer from it to one degree or another. Some are all but ruled by it: see Creationists, Climate change deniers, Supply-siders, Maduro-supporters, and Putinistas.

Note that I am NOT accusing Newthinking of being a Putinista. I may be wrong, but I think he/she is well-intentioned, but suffering from a severe case of outcome-based reasoning.