Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
View Poll Results: Will Colin Powell Endorse Barack Obama for President?
I am not sure. I cast this "yes" vote for my wife who said that's what she thinks and she has excellent intuition. If this wasn't for an endorsement, it seems odd that he would go on Meet the Press out of the blue with a couple of weeks before the election, right after the debates are concluded. Barack's major endorsements have usually been at big rallies. But that isn't Powells' style.
It would also give him a chance to try to vindicate himself for his role in Iraq.
It would also give him a chance to try to vindicate himself for his role in Iraq.
He has no need to vindicate himself. He presented the facts against Saddam/Iraq - the violation of at least 16 U.N. sanctions which called for action against Iraq, his sponsoring of terrorist acts (paying the families of suicide bombers), potential WMD's, etc.
__________________
"If Chuck is Solo, Larkin is his Fett!" - Morgan
He has no need to vindicate himself. He presented the facts against Saddam/Iraq - the violation of at least 16 U.N. sanctions which called for action against Iraq, his sponsoring of terrorist acts (paying the families of suicide bombers), potential WMD's, etc.
He has no need to vindicate himself. He presented the facts against Saddam/Iraq - the violation of at least 16 U.N. sanctions which called for action against Iraq, his sponsoring of terrorist acts (paying the families of suicide bombers), potential WMD's, etc.
He stated it as fact, not potential; that was their whole case, their whole case...
The U.N. resolutions are what actually gave us the authority to act.
We didn't just say "We think he has weapons...we're gonna get him."
wikipedia:
The US stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world".
Additional reasons: "to change the Middle East so as to deny support for militant Islam by pressuring or transforming the nations and transnational systems that support it."
For the invasion of Iraq "the United States relied on the authority of UN Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687 to use all necessary means to compell Iraq to comply with its international obligations".
__________________
"If Chuck is Solo, Larkin is his Fett!" - Morgan
I'm above what? I just said I do not think Colin Powell has to vindicate himself at all.
The problem is, BIM, that when the Bush Administration made the case to the American People, we were told, primarily, that Saddam had WMD's, and that Iraq was a direct threat to the United States now. While the other items may have been true, they were not put forth as the main argument, if you will, to the good people of this country.
Now, the question that is out there is if this was one huge intelligence screw up, or if it was deliberate. Regardless, I want to know. I can understand if the intelligence was wrong, misleading, etc., but I can't forgive if it was a deliberate misleading of this country.
Colin Powell, at the time, as SecState, was our public face to the world. He was the one that went to the UN to show the evidence, which later proved to be wrong.
Even Colin Powell realizes he made an arse out of himself and the US with the crap he peddled at the U.N.
And BIM, nothing you have posted changes the fact that there were a lot of intelligent people who figured out in advance that the invasion of Iraq was a sham. We all know now that the Bush administration lied and exagerated to us in building a false pretext for an unnecessary war.
P.S. Its not like this was his first faux pas. He has made a career of coverups. Of course, very few remember his role in orchestrating the My Lai cover up.
__________________
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire
Last edited by wallyburger; October 19th, 2008 at 05:21 AM.
Syria has chemical WMDs -- that's universally acknowledged -- and has for quite awhile. Syria sponsors terrorists -- it houses the leadership of Hamas, and trains and passes weapons to Islamic Jihad, PFLP, and a pseudo-AQ group of Sunnis in Lebanon, as well as welcoming and shipping arms to Hezbollah. It used to be home base for Abu Nidal and Imad Mugniyeh. Syria is working with North Korea on something interesting (again) in the north - certainly 'potential' WMDs. Syria is run by a family dictatorship and it has a history of exterminating tens of thousands of its own citizens. It is infamous for committing among the worst torture against prisoners and citizens. It is engaged in terrorist money-laundering.
But it doesn't have oil. And it didn't have a Bush family history where Dubya could look like he was stronger than his father.
The Saudis pay far more to the families of suicide bombers than Saddam ever did. The 9/11 link is clear and more direct than to Iraq. It is the number one center for Terrorist funding. It has oil, but it has a Bush-Cheney family history that is one of mutual back-scratching.
None of those things were reasons to go to war against Iraq. If we'd NOT taken him out, as we tuned in to the even greater threat of Iran, he'd have been wooed to once again be cooperative.
__________________
oderint dum metuant (Latin for 'let them hate, so long as they fear').
Well, in truth I'm actually not a total hawk, but I'm not a dove either -- I'm more like an angry pigeon flying over the political arena after a really big meal. -Abba Gav
Tetris Champion!
Linear Mode
