DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Colin Powell tried to talk Bush out of the war

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2042072.ece

THE former American secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2

Colin Powell was only man in the White House that used logic and common sense,and was pretty much "ran off". That,or he knew exactly what a foolhearty mistake this really was and had the common sense to distance himself from it.Instead,they listenned to people who "didn't have a clue" simply because they went along with what the White House wanted to do in the first place.

Too bad he won't run fro president. He'd win by a landslide.

Here I'll try to post it.
Never mind, it won't let me either..

As for the article, Powell was always a respected person in the political world. And to whoever said he'd win in a landslide..without a doubt.

I tried too... wouldn't work...

I give up....

I really wish he would run for President. I highly respect Colin Powell and think he would be a great president.

After seeing what the last two Presidents have gone through, I wouldn't want the job either.

Arch,I think both you an Ex make an excellent point.

And IMO,that's why the people who would make the best presidents want nothing to do with running for the office.

Lets see " Bush " ... Clinton .. Bush .. Now maybe another Clinton ???? And folks wonder why the rest of the World is scratching its head about American Politics ?

THE former American secretary of state Colin Powell has revealed that he spent 2½ hours vainly trying to persuade President George W Bush not to invade Iraq and believes today’s conflict cannot be resolved by US forces.

“I tried to avoid this war,” Powell said at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado. “I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.”

Powell has become increasingly outspoken about the level of violence in Iraq, which he believes is in a state of civil war. “The civil war will ultimately be resolved by a test of arms,” he said. “It’s not going to be pretty to watch, but I don’t know any way to avoid it. It is happening now.”

He added: “It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the armed forces of the United States.” All the military could do, Powell suggested, was put “a heavier lid on this pot of boiling sectarian stew”.

The signs are that the views of Powell and other critics of the war are finally being heard in the Pentagon, if not yet in the White House. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, is drawing up plans to reduce troop levels in Iraq in anticipation that General David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, will not be able to deliver an upbeat progress report in September on the American troop surge.

“It should come as no secret to anyone that there are discussions about what is a postsurge strategy,” said Tony Fratto, deputy White House press secretary, last week.

The surge’s lack of demonstrable success is creating fissures in the Republican party as well as putting enormous pressure on the Democratic presidential candidates to favour a rapid pull-out, which Gates fears could leave Iraq in chaos.

New Mexico senator Pete Domenici became the third Republican senator in recent weeks to break ranks openly with Bush on the war. “We cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress,” he said. “I am calling for a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path home.”

Speculation is growing that Gates will demonstrate his commitment to withdrawing US forces by moving a combat brigade of up to 3,000 troops out of Iraq as early as October and continuing to reduce their numbers month by month from their current strength of 160,000 to presurge levels of around 130,000 by the summer of 2008.

Gates believes American troop withdrawals are essential to building a cross-party consensus for retaining a presence in Iraq after Bush’s term in office expires. As a former director of the CIA who saw out the cold war in the early 1990s, he hopes to win the same bipartisan support for Iraq that President Harry Truman secured against the Soviet Union after the second world war.

The policy is likely to appeal to Gordon Brown, the prime minister, who hopes to begin withdrawing more British troops from southern Iraq by the end of August.

A senior defence source said it would be possible to reduce the number of American forces to roughly 50,000-70,000 by election day in November 2008. “You are going to have to have some people left behind to provide stability and security for the country and take on the terrorists,” the source said.

The figures are similar to those floated by aides to Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, although she has been upping the rhetoric against remaining in Iraq in an effort to capture the support of party activists.

According to Powell, the US cannot “blow a whistle one morning” and have all American forces just leave. The former secretary of state has twice met Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, to advise him on foreign policy. Despite his antiwar stance, Obama supports a phased withdrawal that could leave a “significantly reduced force” in Iraq for “an extended period”.

Defence experts believe it will be impossible to maintain the surge’s high troop levels beyond February at the latest, given the need to rotate and refresh troops. Powell, who served as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in the early 1990s, said in Aspen that America’s volunteer army was already overstretched. He predicted that Bush would be forced to “face the situation on the ground” and alter course by the end of this year.

Supporters of the surge believe this could send a disastrous signal to the Iraqis. “If we pull out, if we stop this operation now, we will hand Al-Qaeda a terrific victory,” said Frederick Kagan, a military historian at the American Enterprise Institute and an early advocate of the policy.

“The Iraqi government, right now, is a terrific ally in the war on terror. There have been more Iraqis killed fighting Al-Qaeda than in any other nation of the world. The question is, are we going to stand by them?”

The same political fault line runs through the White House between Vice-President Dick Cheney’s office and the State Department � now run by Condoleezza Rice, Powell’s successor � as it did at the start of the Iraq war. Bush has not yet thrown his weight definitively behind one side or the other, but the key difference this time is that the defence secretary is one of the “realists”.

According to Powell: “We have to face the reality of the situation that is on the ground and not what we would want it to be.” He believes that, even if the military surge has been a partial success in areas such as Anbar province, where Sunni tribes have turned on Al-Qaeda, it has not been accompanied by the vital political and economic “surge” and reconciliation process promised by the Iraqi government.

Al-Qaeda, Powell asserted, was only 10% of the problem in Iraq and Nouri al-Maliki, its prime minister, lacked the political will to establish an effective government. After a promising start to the surge at the beginning of the year, 453 unidentified corpses were found on the streets of Baghdad last month, 41% more than the 321 bodies found in January, according to unofficial Iraqi health ministry statistics.

The military gains could prove as fleeting in Anbar as Baghdad. American officers in Iraq believe Al-Qaeda strengthened its hold on the Sunni-dominated region in 2005, when responsibility for security was shifted prematurely to Iraqi forces that were led by Shi’ites and proved incapable of providing protection.

Powell believes that a reduction in US forces will have to be accompanied by talks with Syria and Iran. “You have to talk to the people you dislike most in this dangerous world.”

The general and former joint chiefs of staff added: “Shi’ites will ultimately prevail because they are 60% of the population and their militias can be pretty violent. They will prevail also because they are determined not to be ruled again by the Sunnis.

“The Sunnis are struggling for power and survival and it’s going to be resolved by a test of arms. It’s going to be very ugly.”

Another reason I don't think Powell won't run(other then his wife) is that he is 70 years old. I think a lot of people don't realize that about him since he doesn't look it.

I posted this article not to bash Bush, but to show that there was dissent with regards to the Iraq war in the Bush administration.

I will be interested to see if the American media picks up on this story. This could be a huge story (everyone seems to love and respect Colin Powell) if it is followed up on.

I think this article also reveals something about the nature of the Bush administration, they are not very welcoming to dissent. Powell disagreed and was asked to resign by Chief of Staff Andrew Card. That is not the way an administration should operate. Powell defended the war to the UN and various other avenues. He probably should have gotten better treatment from Bush than he got.

What is interesting is that this board is real quiet without the hawks chiming in about " fight em there instead of here " Maybe Powell knows a little more than we did ? Just goes to show the lack of respect given to the people who should know about starting wars from this administration. Powell needed to speak up earlier but didn't out of respect for the office of the President >?? Looks like he realizes that nobody in this current admin is worthy of his respect and/or discretion. I am looking foreward to posters like Coach B and his efforts to trash Powell kinda like to see how he goes about it.

I have never trasherd Powell, nor will I. I can disagree with him without trashing him. I understand why we went to war and I understand the rush to go. I have stated it many times. Of course, you being the "cool" internet bully you are, have to get your little shots in, huh, Pit Jr.?

Quote:

---

I have never trasherd Powell, nor will I.

---

Thought you might take that stance. You can disagree with him ? So now on top of all of your vast knowledge of all things football you think you might have a better grasp of the reasons behind the war than Powell ?? My that is a bit much even from you Coach . What on God's green Earth gives you the slightest idea that you know enough even to disagree ??? Gonna accuse him of rewritting history ?? You really are a hoot Coach.

No, I don't think I know more than him. As I said, I understand why we went to war and why we did it so quickly. Are you saying that you agree with everything that Savage and RAC do just because they are a GM and a coach in the NFL?

Funny how you and others were allowed to voice an opinion different than those that were supporting the war (like Powell did publicly at the time) and when I do, I'm a "hoot". Typical of you, Ire, but I wouldn't expect much less from our internet tough guy here.

If I am the official internet tough guy does that make you our official village idot ? I say we put it to a vote. Got the old panties in a wad Coach ? lol

No, you see, I don't go around threatening people on the internet like you constantly do. Real tough, Ire.

I find it laughable that someone of your caliber in intelligence would call ANYONE an idiot.

This is getting horrible. Thread after thread and this is a "political discussion"?

Can't we disagree yet still discuss?? This is the future of our country here. Most likely the future of our world. Partisanship is making me sick. I'm guilty of it as well, so I'm not trying to be holier than anyone. This is just rampant in our country and a bigger threat than Al Quada could ever be.

Ease up old man I was just pulling your chain. How do you know of my intelligence one way or the other ? Have we met ? I get a kick out of you and listening to your arguments ( although you and Pit get carried away ) and I get the feeling that you aren't as pretentious as you come off on this board but I could be wrong . Well, at any rate sorry if you got offended as I was just playing but this is where our spat ends.

Nah, I judge you by your posts and PMs where you threaten people, like you can beat them up on the internet. That's why I said what I did. Maybe you aren't like you come off here, either. Regardless, the spat is over....AK is right......but the "old man" comment is more offensive than the idiot one 39 isn't exactly ancient, but using that term does remind me that the mid-life crisis is just around the corner. Wonder if DC will sell me his gold chains and Camaro Z28?

Yes, there is a pattern. You claim to be above name calling and claim to ignore people, but constantly respond to them and talk about them.

Quote:

---

Wonder if DC will sell me his gold chains and Camaro Z28?

---

Only if you agree to wear a tank top so that all of your back and shoulder hair shows, it is after all a packaged look that you are after is it not ? Myself I look foreward to the days of plaid shorts and tube socks in my golf cart. Stylin' !

Nonsense. No matter what he said behind closed doors, he put HIS credibility on the line when he asserted to the whole world that we had evidence of "mobile biological weapons labs." Busheney picked him because he was the most believable voice with the least to gain personally on this issue. Duty or not, if he believed that strongly, he wouldn't have done it.

He knows he can't win, so I doubt he even considers whether or not he'd even want to. And I believe he doesn't want to.

I'm not disagreeing with your opinion there Steve. Because I can see your point of view. And it makes a lot of sense.

But I think if you look at the flip side,he was in a "lose/lose" situation. If he rebuked the war in public,he would have been branded a traiter and deserter to the right. You would have seen his character asassinated. Just look at Joe Wilson when he tried to question the administration.

So I think no matter which stance he took,he was pretty well doomed to critacism and attacks of his character. And I think if you look around,you might see that he had far more to lose by not going to the U.N. than going. And that's a pretty sad reality............

JMHO

He may have felt that way, but I doubt anyone held a gun to his head. I think if he voiced his opinion to the president, then the president said "I need you to go to the UN and say this," he should have said "I can't do that, have someone who believes in it do it." It wouldn't have had to been made public.

But then this may not be the first time I've been naive...

I'm not saying you're naive. I just feel he would have been kicked to the curb and been rebuked by this administration pretty much the same way they've done everyone who's followed that path.

And in all honesty,most people I know who's opinions I trust on the matter,knew Powell didn't support this administrations plans and strategy when he resigned and walked away. The fairly consistant reply from most of my former military friends can best be described by "Uh oh,something isn't right. If Powell's walking out,something is bad wrong here."

You are correct that he had other options. But have you noticed how certain things "leak out of this White House" while other things you can't even pry out of them with a sobpoena"?


And usually the things that are "leaked" are about those who have rebuffed them? I can see your point of view and do see how this was an option he could have and maybe should have taken. But I can also see how he might have understood the results and consequences of handling it that way.

So I'm not really disagreeing with you. I can just see why he may have chosen to do otherwise.

JMHO