Powell calls on Bush to be more sensitive (defends Iraq war)

[sabra]

<<SNIP>>
http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,15640409%255E401,00.html

Powell calls on Bush to be more sensitive

FORMER US secretary of state Colin Powell has defended the invasion of Iraq but has admitted America's image had taken a beating and called on the Bush administration to be more sensitive.

Powell said the post-invasion insurgency in Iraq was the most difficult challenge facing the world and the United States, but that 12 years of negotiations with the former Iraqi regime had yielded no results.

"Bush and other leaders... felt the matter had to be dealt with," Powell said in a speech to an Asian leadership forum in the Malaysian capital.

But the former top diplomat, often described as a "dove" among the conservative "hawks" dominating the White House, also called on the current administration to be more conciliatory in its approach.

"I would like the government to speak with a softer voice and listen with a more discerning ear," he said.

<</SNIP>>

[kansasblue]

1. "Powell spends his last 2 cents of credibility and fades away."

..or something like that.

[Avalux]

2. Once, I respected Colin Powell

Then he went to the UN and lied for Bushco. Then he kept his mouth shut and slinked quietly away to save his own butt.

His appearance on the Daily Show sealed the deal for me. The man has lost any integrity he may have once had.

[Iowa]

28. I never did respect Powell...

Why? Because he is a Republican.

True story: I come from an Irish Catholic background. Years ago my Dad was at lunch with an old Irish priest friend and they were approached by a Republican US Senator running for another term. The conversation went something like this:

US Senator Jack Miller: Father, I hope I can count on your support.

Old Irish Priest: Jack, my Daddy always used to say, 'an Irish Catholic who is a Republican is a son-of-a-bitch who can't be trusted'. And I have always believed what my dear old Daddy taught me.

I fully agree with my Dad's priest friend, and I think the same applies to African Americans who are Republican.

[VegasWolf]

34. Good story! Unfortunately, I once respected him to before all the dead

people in Iraq, for which he shares the cupability, started
turning up.

[LynnTheDem]

36. You repsected him for Mai Lai, IraqGate, Iran-Contra, Gulf War I...?

The man has ALWAYS been a lying prick of a bastard awash in other people's blood.

[Eloriel]

3. defends Iraq war --

:rofl:

When Congressman Conyers is very busy this afternoon exposing Powell as either a complicit war criminal, or a complete doofus.

Rich, very rich.

[sabra]

7. indeed

McGovern is speaking to that right now...

[EVDebs]

4. Powell, as they say, was 'ridden hard and put away wet'

He allows his own Powell doctrine to be shredded and now this 'diplomat' is himself a shell of his former self.

Sad.

[neweurope]

5. *pukes*

-----------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush (and Powell) to The Hague!

[tk2kewl]

6. How do you feel about being subpoenaed General?

Testify in front of Congress about what happened here dude. And don't wuss out with the 5th.

[wakeme2008]

8. Let's talk about Haiti and what you order there Mr. Powell nt

:grr:

[gratuitous]

9. Once again, the price of admission to the conversation . . .

You MUST say that you supported the invasion of Iraq. You can't say you were duped by the duplicitous Bush administration. You can't say that you knew better. You absolutely must say that you supported the invasion, or your comments aren't recorded or reported.

Thomas Friedman, apparently with a straight face, said that liberals don't want to talk about the war in Iraq. This is a bunch of hooey! Liberals would like nothing better than to go through a thorough accounting of all the events, the lies, the jiggery-pokery, the fudging, the shading and all the rest of the corrupt Bush administration shenanigans -- as well as the role of the popular media in facilitating those shenanigans -- but before you're allowed to talk about Iraq, you must repeat the password: I was in favor of invading Iraq.

If you don't start from the premise that George W. Bush was and is absolutely right, you don't get a seat at the discussion table. It's revolting.

[Disturbed]

12. It comes down to framing the issues,

If we, who stridently oppose the Fascist Bush Regime, allow RW to frame any issues then we lose. It is we who must frame the issues and not be sidetracked or defend. We must be more like Howard Dean and frame the issues and pound them ad nauseum.

[gratuitous]

17. Except you can't frame anything if you can't participate

I don't know how or why the popular media have decided that the only people allowed to criticize the war in Iraq are those who supported the invasion initially, but it seems to be the case. Even today, during the White House press gaggle, Scott McClellan dismissed Sen. Durbin's remarks out of hand simply by noting that Durbin had voted against the resolution authorizing Bush to do anything he pleased. This was apparently sufficient for most of the reporters in attendance that Durbin wasn't to be given a platform for his opinion.

Where there is no access, the framing is already accomplished.

[sandnsea]

20. no you don't

That's the way the left framed it, unfortunately. For invasion or against it, end of story. The correct frame is in favor of holding Saddam accountable to the disaramament process, getting inspectors back in Iraq. If we'd framed it that way from the beginning, and made Bush accountable to THAT standard, we'd be leaps and bounds ahead now.

[gratuitous]

23. No, I'm saying the anti-war left doesn't get a chance to frame anything

Before you can make any comments in the popular media, you must first say that you were in favor of the invasion. Any other voice, any voice that says the invasion was ill-considered and illegal from its inception is shut out of the discussion. Nobody on the left has "framed" the issue as for or against the invasion; the administration and the media both work from the premise that the only analysis or critique of the war may come from folks who will first allow that the invasion was a good idea.

The left hasn't had a chance to act as gatekeeper to the popular media discussion. There were millions of people marching in the streets all over America in 2002 and 2003, and the Bush administration dismissed them out of hand as merely a "focus group." The media followed this lead and continues to this day to allow folks to talk about Iraq only if they were on board with the administration at the beginning. Have you seen anyone on the talk shows who says, "You know, I voted against the resolution back in 2002, and again in 2003. I was right then, and I'm right now about what a mess this was going to be." If you do, please let me know, because I'd love to see it!

[sandnsea]

25. Well you're wrong

Very few Democrats say or said they were in favor of the invasion, very few. Most have said they were in favor of holding Saddam accountable to the UN resolutions and to inspections; which isn't the same thing as an invasion. The left has, for the most part, been unable to understand the difference. They seem to, now that the DSM depends on Bush saying the IWR was not a vote for war because he hadn't decided to go to war at that time. But based on your post, I'm not going to hold my breath. I actually fully expect the left to fuck up the DSM too, by attacking Congress just like they did with the 16 words.

[gratuitous]

27. Oh, okay

I must be missing all the times on Scarborough and O'Reilly and Wolf and Candy when they have the Democrats who say they've been against the invasion all along. The only Democrats I see are those who voted for the war before they voted against it, if they ever did.

The conversation as I see it has been almost exclusively among the folks who were in favor of invading Iraq, arguing over such minutiae as whether the situation is exceeding the rosiest of expectations or merely meeting those expectations. I don't see folks like Kucinich or McDermott, two people who were against invading even before the invasion getting a chance to explain that the situation has played out just as badly as they knew it would back in 2002, and in some ways is going even worse than that.

[sandnsea]

42. There you go

Don't know the difference between the vote and the war. That's been the problem for two years. People who supported getting inspectors back into Iraq, like Kucinich, but had no plan to get them there. The same people who pretend that security, elections and reconstruction is a "get out now" plan, when it's not.

Like I said, just keep pretending that Congress voted for war and not a process that should have led to peace, and that Congress wasn't lied to, and see how far the DSM will go.

[still_one]

10. POWELL YOU ARE A MURDERER ALSO

You lied for this administration, and that will be what you will be remembered for

[chelsea0011]

11. Can one kill 1000,000 civilians and be sensitive?

[AuntiBush]

13. Sensitive? Now!?! A little too late for that! http://bushbodycount.com

It's estimated that well over 7,700 troops have died in Iraq. Why isn't the numbers matching-up to the numbers we seeon the MSN?

Because they don't count the dead who die enroute to hospitals, on their way to hosptials in Germany and the likes.

Powell: It's way too late, Pal! You're no "dove" in my eyes.

[dave502d]

14. Do you think Powell could turn on B*h? n/t

[sundancekid]

15. unfortunately, it is so true that this man was raised to "salute" and

kiss a$$ upline ... "ridden hard, put away wet" and sells out in the end ... some day, I want to look him straight in the eye and tell him that people like him surely were NOT the reason many of us risked life and limb in Selma ... I continue to pray that "we shall overcome" these wartime abuses of the constitution

[Cha]

16. How can you "defend" the indefensible?

We ALREADY know you lied "bare face" to the UN..is that why you're trying to defend this illegal bush's WAR ON IRAQ?..because you LIED about it and you don't want to go to the Hague when the shite hits the Jet Engine?

[daleo]

18. We now are sure of what a deceiving performance Powell put on at the U.N.

The Downing Street Minutes and associated memos make it perfectly clear that Powell was in as deep as the rest of them, when it came to lying for an illegal war.

[ima_sinnic]

19. oh blah blah blah blah--traitor!

now the treasonous SOB is asking Bush to tell his lies in a kinder, gentler way.

FUCK YOU COLON BOWEL!!

[zara]

21. We need JOHN BOLTON...

to carry out Colin P's vision. What a man! Made the case to the UN> Harrumph harrumph harrumph....

[The_Casual_Observer]

22. Powell is a politico know-nothing ass kisser

He has no substance, no brain, no courage. Perfect minion for cheney. He should fry in hell.

[Generator]

24. Jesus H.Christ, Powell

Isn't the defintion of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? Seeing and knowing Bushco. as he does he knows they are incapable of "sensitivity"- he knows they are not going to change.

Maybe he's insane. Still shilling for Bushco. Maybe he's on their dime. That makes more sense. Not this, it had to be done,and Bush needs to be nicer bullshit.

[shantipriya]

26. Powell

Powell is SOB!!!!

[DemoTex]

29. Bu$h as a sensitive, new-age guy?

Never happen in a million years.

[schultzee]

30. LOL Not a sensitive nerve in his chimp bod

[stanwyck]

31. Another guy who wants to get into heaven

and thinks he may have a tougher time of it after his partying with the Bushies.
Too late, Colin. Evoke the "kinder, gentler" all you want. Too much damage has been done. And you were right in the thick of it.
Lots of back-pedaling being done.
Watch for more as the Iraq debacle continues to spiral downward.
The real heroes spoke up BEFORE we embarked on this misguided, deadly invasion.
Powell knows he's mortal.
And he's scared.
We don't have to be part of his campaign to get past the pearly gates.

[Malva Zebrina]

32. Honestly when I see a headline of something Powell has said

I am repulsed.

What does he think? That he still clings to the notion that he has credibility and respect? He squandered that and it is all of his own doing.

Or is he trying to enhance and shore up his name and reputation to be sure that when history is written, he will still appear as the "sober" one who opposed Bush and was "abused" by his commander in chief?

What is this willy nilly quisling trying to do? He was a liar and a traitor to the American people and there is no respite for him at all in the realm of credibility.

He has placed himself in the same catagory as Gordon Liddy and Oliver North. Perhaps one day he will be having a radio talk show.

[flakey_foont]

33. Sensitive??

did they jump all over Kerry's ass for saying using the word "sensitve"?

[LynnTheDem]

35. "12 years of negotiations with former Iraqi regime had yielded no results"

No results.

As in no attacks on ANYONE by Iraq?

As in no WMD whatsoever?

As in no ties to 911 and no ties to al Qaeda or any other international terrorist organization?

As in 1700+ dead Americans, tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, world hatred towards us and the destruction of the entire US military?

THOSE kinds of "NO RESULTS"???

[Miss Chybil]

39. Exactly! nt

[SaveAmerica]

37. while you're dreaming, call on him to be more intelligent

[eridani]

38. Nothing wrong with his mind

It's his ethical standards that are the problem.

[lumpy]

40. Too little, too late, Colin.

You took the wrong turn in the road starting with Mylai. A crooked road wears out the ass.

[leesa]

41. You are a war criminal and a treasonist. STFU

Do you feel the noose about your neck, Colon. Lying to the American people and to the UN to launch an illegal war ain't a good thing.