And not only that, the former Secretary of State also says he tried to talk President Bush out of attacking Iraq for two and a half hours with no luck…
Some interesting “snippets” from today’s TimesOnline (UK) article by Sarah Baxter:
Powell tried to talk Bush out of war
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”. …”
(Snip!)
“… 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?” …”
(Snip!)
“… 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. …”
(Snip!)
“… 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.” …”
al-Qaeda is only 10% of the problem — did you get that? I say President Bush is the other 90% of the Iraq problem, but that’s just moi.
Has anybody else noticed that despite the fact al-Qaeda makes up only a tiny fraction of the insurgency in Iraq, the Republicans, the MSM and the military has now taken up the practice of constantly referring to the Iraqis who oppose the Shi’ites’ form of government as “al-Qaeda”? “al-Qaeda-this”, “al-Qaeda-that”, “blah, blah, blah”. “Got to fight ‘em there so they won’t come here, blah, blah, blah”. As IF thousands of Iraqi Baathists and Sunnis would follow our troops to the USA. Common sense tells you they just want to take control of their fellow Iraqis again; bring things back to the “good ole’ days” “bad ole’ days”, as it once was under Saddam…
Case in point: one more quote from General Powell:
“… 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. …”
In other words, if our troops vacated Iraq, so-called “al-Qaeda” (as everybody on the Right of this issue likes to call them) would NOT “follow our troops home”, they would go for the throats of the current Iraqi government and would eventually get their butts KICKED according to the former Secretary and General. They’d be a little bit too busy to jump in boats and on planes to head over to America to cause troubles here — get it?
To me, it almost seems it should be ILLEGAL for American politicians to misleadingly refer to large groups of people as “al-Qaeda” who are NO SUCH THING for no other reason than political, personal, and/or financial gain. I MIGHT just buy the “faulty intelligence” claim behind President Bush’s rush to war but the man keeps lying to the American People to keep the troops IN the war, yet, somehow, this is not a crime of some sort? I just don’t get it.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again — our troops have already won the war the day Saddam Hussein was handed over to the people of Iraq to face justice. They should have been brought home starting right then and there, to “Welcome Home” banners, ticker tape parades and well-deserved accolades. It was at that moment when U.N. Resolution 1441 had been enforced and the United Nations should have taken over the “Big Oil And Nation Buildin’ Bidness”, but NOPE; not under the reign of President King Bush.
I suspect future historians will NOT be “kind” to us for this…
UPDATE:
Wouldn’t you know it? Within hours of posting this article, Clark Hoyt, the Public Editor of The New York Times comes out with this piece:
Seeing Al Qaeda Around Every Corner
AS domestic support for the war in Iraq continues to melt away, President Bush and the United States military in Baghdad are increasingly pointing to a single villain on the battlefield: Al Qaeda.
Bush mentioned the terrorist group 27 times in a recent speech on Iraq at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. In West Virginia on the Fourth of July, he declared, “We must defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq.” The Associated Press reported last month that although some 30 groups have claimed credit for attacks on United States and Iraqi government targets, press releases from the American military focus overwhelmingly on Al Qaeda.
Why Bush and the military are emphasizing Al Qaeda to the virtual exclusion of other sources of violence in Iraq is an important story. So is the question of how well their version of events squares with the facts of a murky and rapidly changing situation on the ground.
But these are stories you haven’t been reading in The Times in recent weeks as the newspaper has slipped into a routine of quoting the president and the military uncritically about Al Qaeda’s role in Iraq — and sometimes citing the group itself without attribution.
And in using the language of the administration, the newspaper has also failed at times to distinguish between Al Qaeda, the group that attacked the United States on Sept. 11, and Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, an Iraqi group that didn’t even exist until after the American invasion.
There is plenty of evidence that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is but one of the challenges facing the United States military and that overemphasizing it distorts the true picture of what is happening there. While a president running out of time and policy options may want to talk about a single enemy that Americans hate and fear in the hope of uniting the country behind him, journalists have the obligation to ask tough questions about the accuracy of his statements. …”
Wow. The Public Editor of The NYT himself has just admitted they’ve played right into President Bush’s hands by failing to question all of these “al-Qaeda” references lately by both the President, his cronies, and their military leaders. To the NYT, I say “apology accepted; you may now get back to the business of reporting again.”
Where did this sudden “wakeup call” to the NYT come from? Was it due to the overwhelming polls that show al-Qaeda makes up only a tiny fraction of the insurgency? Was General Powell’s assertion that al-Qaeda makes up “only 10% of the problem in Iraq”? Or could it be we bloggers are doing a pretty good job of keeping the MSM elites a bit more honest these days?
Whatever the answer, it’s refreshing to see an MSM editor make such a public admission in an MSM editorial which strikes an interesting resemblance to a blog post. Looks like somebody’s getting “IT” over there in the offices of the NYT and that’s a “good thing”, folks…
Hopefully, their MSM brethren will join in the fray and get back into the “bidness” of reporting and holding our elite politicos accountable again.
See also (H/T in part to MemeOrandum): Middle Earth Journal (our fellow GTL co-blogger, Ron Beasley’s personal blog); Talk Left; The Newshoggers; Hot Air (Far Right POV); Ace of Spades HQ (Another Far Right POV)
Loading ...
12:41 pm on July 9th, 2007 1
I have no admiration for Colin Powell. He wanted to join the “Big Boys Club”, thinking he could be a conservative, a member of the power structure, and perhaps show blacks that shutting up and toeing the line for once would prove that blacks could be a part of the solution rather than the problem. Instead, HE became the problem and showed once again that being Uncle Tom is just that, being Uncle Tom. Condi Rice wants to be “white” as well and is doing an even worse job than Powell.
Fessing up now about how stupid you were associating yourself with this crowd isn’t going to return you to the fold, my friend. Working insidea system that is rotten to the core doesn’t make that system eventually turn prestine and clean.
1:43 pm on July 9th, 2007 2
“I suspect future historians will NOT be “kind” to us for this…” — If we follow the Democrats’ strategy (i.e. none) there may not BE ANY future historians to worry about. When will the Dem’s wake up and realize what we’re up against here, when the bells ring for morning prayer???
Lee’s racist remarks aside, Colin Powell has served this country admirably, has dedicated his life to serving the people of the United States in an extremely ethical manner and deserves the highest praises for all his hard work.
Condi Rice may have yet to fully prove herself, but has also done many good things for this country. This includes, of course, the arrangements she has brokered with North Korea that I notice none of the left wing blogs are talking about.
For both of the above, race should never even be allowed to enter into the discussion.
1:52 am on August 10th, 2007 3
[...] know al-Quada represents less than 10% of the problems we face in the Iraq Civil War; that coming directly from Colin Powell himself, along with the think-tanks he referenced [...]