PDA

View Full Version : Powell Says U.S. Was 'Too Loud' Over Iraq



Burgold
March-30th-2005, 03:44 PM
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050330061509990015&ncid=NWS00010000000001

Powell Says U.S. Was 'Too Loud' Over Iraq
Former Secretary of State Tells German Magazine That Saddam Had to Go



AFP/Getty Images

Powell, shown here in December, said he was "furious" that he had been misinformed about Iraq's stockpiles of arms before the war.


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



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

More News on Iraq:
· Panel to Fault Spy Agencies
· Gunmen Kill Iraqi Pilgrims

Talk About It: Post | Chat


BERLIN (March 30) - Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said the Bush administration was sometimes ''too blustery'' in its rhetoric during the buildup to the Iraq war, but he still believed toppling Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, according to a German magazine interview published Wednesday.

Powell was quoted by Stern magazine as saying that the ongoing insurgency in Iraq is ''much bigger'' than anticipated. The magazine published the interview in its German translation and could not immediately offer the English version.

''I suppose we sometimes were too loud, too direct, maybe too blustery,'' Powell was quoted as saying. ''That must have had the Europeans shuddering quite a few times.''

He also said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's famous jibe at France and Germany, when he labeled them ''old Europe'' for refusing to join the war in Iraq, did not help.

''Terms like 'old Europe' didn't exactly have a confidence-building effect,'' Powell was quoted as saying, ''and clearly helped turn public opinion in Europe against us.''

Powell, who retired as secretary of state in January, also said he still is "furious and angry" about his Feb. 5, 2003, speech to the U.N. Security Council in which he said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that violated U.N. sanctions.

No such weapons were found, but Powell told Stern he had no reason to doubt intelligence from the CIA and other agencies suggesting Saddam had them.


"I have to live with that."
-Colin Powell, on presenting false WMD evidence to the United Nations

Powell said he spent four days and three nights at the CIA before making the presentation, Stern reported.

''Some of this information was wrong. I didn't know that at the time,'' Powell was quoted as saying. ''I have to live with that.''

But he defended the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 that toppled Saddam and paved the way for elections in Iraq - despite the continuing anti-U.S. insurgency.

''Yes, the insurgency is much bigger than we assumed. But I'm happy that Saddam is in jail. And I'm darn glad that we will never again have to talk about weapons of mass destruction in connection with Iraq,'' Powell said.

But he said he had never considered resigning and rejected suggestions that his relationship with President Bush was a cool one.

''Anyone who says that has no idea. We are friends,'' he said.


03-30-05 15:10 EST


Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. The information contained

Gichin13
March-30th-2005, 03:51 PM
I still like Colin Powell.

My favorite was the clip where he was being interviewed on CNN and the "advisory" comes from the background to try and cut off the questions and he sends them away.

Buford
March-30th-2005, 03:56 PM
that was on Meet the Press

The Evil Genius
March-30th-2005, 03:59 PM
I sense a thread of badmouthing of Powell coming on.

edit...not to be baiting in any way...

I would suggest that Powell is incorrect though about the US being too loud. What we were, IMHO, was unclear about our real intentions.

Had Bush et al. made the assertion that we were going to Iraq to dispose of an evil tyrant (and not simply for violations of WMD) - I think a lot of the negative press would have been nipped in the bud.

There will still have been protestors - but had the press been directed to look at Saddam's more closely (rather than the WMD issue) - I think the spin of the war would have been much much much better.

But, hindsight is always 20/20.

Beaudry
March-30th-2005, 04:36 PM
There is no way we go to war without the WMD angle. The average Joe just doesn't go for that. If that was the reason, why Iraq over North Korea? The Democrats were forced to vote for the war because of the WMD.

SnyderShrugged
March-30th-2005, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by Beaudry
There is no way we go to war without the WMD angle. The average Joe just doesn't go for that. If that was the reason, why Iraq over North Korea? The Democrats were forced to vote for the war because of the WMD.


Isnt your logic a little off?

Doesnt N. Korea have WMD's? By your logic, you would say that everyone would support war w/ N. Korea right now.

Larry
March-30th-2005, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by skin-n-vegas



Isnt your logic a little off?

Doesnt N. Korea have WMD's? By your logic, you would say that everyone would support war w/ N. Korea right now.

Um, I think a lot of Americans would support a war with North Korea.

The ones that don't remember that little complication called China. I don't think South Korea would be really happy about the idea, either.

SnyderShrugged
March-30th-2005, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Larry


Um, I think a lot of Americans would support a war with North Korea.

The ones that don't remember that little complication called China. I don't think South Korea would be really happy about the idea, either.


didnt say I supported it, only that the logic was off from the previous post.

chomerics
March-30th-2005, 06:07 PM
I really like Powell a lot, but he let me down with his rhetoric to the UN. A lot of the information was sketchy at best, and a man of his credentials should have known better then to present it to the rest of the world as a justification for war. Because of this, I wonder how much pressure was put on his to give the presentation in the first place.

With Colin Powell on board, it added a legitimacy to the intel, but the rest of the world saw right threw it, and negged us. If we had a leader who had one iota of charisma, intellegence or credibility, the rest of the world may have had a different outlook on the invasion. Powell was the neo-cons best hope for pursuading the worlds leaders, but even he couldn't pursuade them into believing the BS.

Gichin13
March-30th-2005, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by T.E.G.
Had Bush et al. made the assertion that we were going to Iraq to dispose of an evil tyrant (and not simply for violations of WMD) - I think a lot of the negative press would have been nipped in the bud.

There will still have been protestors - but had the press been directed to look at Saddam's more closely (rather than the WMD issue) - I think the spin of the war would have been much much much better.

But, hindsight is always 20/20.

I agree -- and thought so at the time. I also agree with Powell that we played the situation incorrectly at the time. A little more diplomacy would have gone a long way.

Gichin13
March-30th-2005, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by Larry


Um, I think a lot of Americans would support a war with North Korea.

The ones that don't remember that little complication called China. I don't think South Korea would be really happy about the idea, either.

All true.

spanishomelette
March-31st-2005, 02:04 AM
Are there UN resolutions dealing with N. Korean WMD accountablity?

Iraq was the only country where there were several, specific resolutions regarding the verification of WMDs dismantling/removal..with the last resolution stating "serious consequences" would result from non-compliance with this final resolution.

Of course, even with Powell's presentation, support for a subsequent, war-approval resolution never materialized.

Chief skin
March-31st-2005, 05:22 AM
LOUD!! they packaged this war up nice and neat with a pretty red white and blue bow and pounded the WMD angle time and time again. Then just to make sure the nation was terrorized enoughed had Saddam in bed with Bin laden. Now that the truth is out they spin it into bad intel, freedom for millions, democracy for the region, blah, blah. Powell os a good soldier

Thiebear
March-31st-2005, 05:54 AM
They pounded 5 different reasons leading up to the war. But the WMD was the sexiest and that got the most play in the media...

Powell also talked about the WMD as 'is' not as 'if'. We were loud about the buildup and the 17 resolutions and the Genocide and the spread of democracy... It's what you do when your trying to get 30+ other countries to join you. You don't whisper to get all your allies you Saber Rattle and shield bang... Ask Billy Blanks you gotta be motivated to "Geterdone"!

I'd a voted for him as President as I thought he had the backbone of Bush and the smooth talk of Clinton... But without that combo I'll stick witht he backbone...

Mad Mike
March-31st-2005, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by T.E.G.
I sense a thread of badmouthing of Powell coming on.

edit...not to be baiting in any way...

I would suggest that Powell is incorrect though about the US being too loud. What we were, IMHO, was unclear about our real intentions.

Had Bush et al. made the assertion that we were going to Iraq to dispose of an evil tyrant (and not simply for violations of WMD) - I think a lot of the negative press would have been nipped in the bud.

There will still have been protestors - but had the press been directed to look at Saddam's more closely (rather than the WMD issue) - I think the spin of the war would have been much much much better.

But, hindsight is always 20/20.

And you would be incorrect....


Bush State of the Union address
January 29, 2002

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOL...ush.speech.txt/

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

...

And we have a great opportunity during this time of war to lead the world toward the values that will bring lasting peace. All fathers and mothers, in all societies, want their children to be educated and live free from poverty and violence. No people on Earth yearn to be oppressed, or aspire to servitude, or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police.

If anyone doubts this, let them look to Afghanistan, where the Islamic "street" greeted the fall of tyranny with song and celebration. Let the skeptics look to Islam's own rich history -- with its centuries of learning, and tolerance, and progress.

America will lead by defending liberty and justice because they are right and true and unchanging for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. We have no intention of imposing our culture -- but America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law ... limits on the power of the state ... respect for women ... private property ... free speech ... equal justice ... and religious tolerance.

America will take the side of brave men and women who advocate these values around the world -- including the Islamic world -- because we have a greater objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment. We seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror.

People just ignored it.:doh:

stevenaa
March-31st-2005, 06:17 AM
"With Colin Powell on board, it added a legitimacy to the intel, but the rest of the world saw right threw it, and negged us"

BS. The rest of the world didn't question him having WMD's. That was never the reason they gave for not joining us.