GREAT quote

[wordsmythe]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...son-iraq_x.htm

See if you can find it!

Ex-Powell aide: Bush 'too aloof' on post-war Iraq plans
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff says President Bush was "too aloof, too distant from the details" of post-war planning, allowing underlings to exploit Bush's detachment and make bad decisions.
In an Associated Press interview Monday, former Powell chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson also said that wrongheaded ideas for the handling of foreign detainees after Sept. 11 arose from a coterie of White House and Pentagon aides who argued that "the president of the United States is all-powerful," and that the Geneva Conventions were irrelevant.

Wilkerson blamed Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and like-minded aides. Wilkerson said that Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror assaults, because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard."

Wilkerson suggested his former boss may agree with him that Bush was too hands-off about Iraq.

"What he seems to be saying to me now is the president failed to discipline the process the way he should have and that the president is ultimately responsible for this whole mess," Wilkerson said.

He said Powell now generally believes it was a good idea to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but may not agree with either the timing or execution of the war. Wilkerson said Powell may have had doubts about the extent of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein but was convinced by then-CIA Director George Tenet and others that the intelligence girding the push toward war was sound.

Powell was widely regarded as a dove to Cheney's and Rumsfeld's hawks, but he made a forceful case for war before the United Nations Security Council in February, 2003, a month before the invasion. At one point, he said Saddam possessed mobile labs to make weapons of mass destruction that were never found.

Wilkerson criticized the CIA and other agencies for allowing mishandled and bogus information to underpin that speech and the whole administration case for war.

He said he has almost, but not quite, concluded that Cheney and others in the administration deliberately ignored evidence of bad intelligence and looked only at what supported their case for war.

A newly declassified Defense Intelligence Agency document from February 2002 said that an al-Qaeda military instructor was probably misleading his interrogators about training that the terror group's members received from Iraq on chemical, biological and radiological weapons. Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi reportedly recanted his statements in January 2004.

A presidential intelligence commission also dissected how spy agencies handled an Iraqi refugee who was a German intelligence source. Codenamed Curveball, this man who was a leading source on Iraq's purported mobile biological weapons labs was found to be a fabricator and alcoholic.

On the question of detainees picked up in Afghanistan and other fronts on the war on terror, Wilkerson said Bush heard two sides of an impassioned argument within his administration. Abuse of prisoners, and even the deaths of some who had been interrogated in Afghanistan and elsewhere, have bruised the U.S. image abroad and undermined fragile support for the Iraq war that followed.

Cheney's office, Rumsfeld aides and others argued "that the president of the United States is all-powerful, that as commander in chief the president of the United States can do anything he damn well pleases," Wilkerson said.

On the other side were Powell, others at the State Department and top military brass, and occasionally then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Wilkerson said.

Powell raised frequent and loud objections, his former aide said, once yelling into a telephone at Rumsfeld: "Donald, don't you understand what you are doing to our image?"

Wilkerson also said he did not disclose to Bob Woodward that administration critic Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, joining the growing list of past and current Bush administration officials who have denied being the Washington Post reporter's source.

[lurker]

Wordy, Wordy, Wordy; the most important thought in the whole article is in black.

Originally Posted by wordsmythe

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...son-iraq_x.htm

See if you can find it!

Ex-Powell aide: Bush 'too aloof' on post-war Iraq plans
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff says President Bush was "too aloof, too distant from the details" of post-war planning, allowing underlings to exploit Bush's detachment and make bad decisions.
In an Associated Press interview Monday, former Powell chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson also said that wrongheaded ideas for the handling of foreign detainees after Sept. 11 arose from a coterie of White House and Pentagon aides who argued that "the president of the United States is all-powerful," and that the Geneva Conventions were irrelevant.

Wilkerson blamed Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and like-minded aides. Wilkerson said that Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror assaults, because "otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard."

Wilkerson suggested his former boss may agree with him that Bush was too hands-off about Iraq.

"What he seems to be saying to me now is the president failed to discipline the process the way he should have and that the president is ultimately responsible for this whole mess," Wilkerson said.

He said Powell now generally believes it was a good idea to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but may not agree with either the timing or execution of the war. Wilkerson said Powell may have had doubts about the extent of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein but was convinced by then-CIA Director George Tenet and others that the intelligence girding the push toward war was sound.

Powell was widely regarded as a dove to Cheney's and Rumsfeld's hawks, but he made a forceful case for war before the United Nations Security Council in February, 2003, a month before the invasion. At one point, he said Saddam possessed mobile labs to make weapons of mass destruction that were never found.

Wilkerson criticized the CIA and other agencies for allowing mishandled and bogus information to underpin that speech and the whole administration case for war.

He said he has almost, but not quite, concluded that Cheney and others in the administration deliberately ignored evidence of bad intelligence and looked only at what supported their case for war.

A newly declassified Defense Intelligence Agency document from February 2002 said that an al-Qaeda military instructor was probably misleading his interrogators about training that the terror group's members received from Iraq on chemical, biological and radiological weapons. Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi reportedly recanted his statements in January 2004.

A presidential intelligence commission also dissected how spy agencies handled an Iraqi refugee who was a German intelligence source. Codenamed Curveball, this man who was a leading source on Iraq's purported mobile biological weapons labs was found to be a fabricator and alcoholic.

On the question of detainees picked up in Afghanistan and other fronts on the war on terror, Wilkerson said Bush heard two sides of an impassioned argument within his administration. Abuse of prisoners, and even the deaths of some who had been interrogated in Afghanistan and elsewhere, have bruised the U.S. image abroad and undermined fragile support for the Iraq war that followed.

Cheney's office, Rumsfeld aides and others argued "that the president of the United States is all-powerful, that as commander in chief the president of the United States can do anything he damn well pleases," Wilkerson said.

On the other side were Powell, others at the State Department and top military brass, and occasionally then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Wilkerson said.

Powell raised frequent and loud objections, his former aide said, once yelling into a telephone at Rumsfeld: "Donald, don't you understand what you are doing to our image?"

Wilkerson also said he did not disclose to Bob Woodward that administration critic Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, joining the growing list of past and current Bush administration officials who have denied being the Washington Post reporter's source.

And that's what you've got to get into your head. These terrorists don't give a damn about conventions and we have to forget about being nice to them. They look at us as being weak in our efforts to coddle them.

Here's some cold-blooded reality:

9/11 was an attack on the US by Islamicist fanatics, orchestrated by Egyptian strategists, staffed with Jihadists recruited from around the Arab world, and paid for largely by Saudi religious zealots. So why didn't they launch the attack with elements of the Egyptian and Saudi air forces? Because within six hours there would have been no more Egyptian and Saudi air forces, and within six weeks, no Egyptian and Saudi governments, either. Our deterrence against conventional attack, or even nuclear attack from a nation-state, is so credible and muscular that such a thing has become literally unthinkable.

But how do we deter people who want to die? How do we deter people who need only the skill and the means to push a button on a briefcase, or open a box cutter and be prepared to do bloody work with it? How do we deter the assassin lost in the crowd at the Superbowl? How do we deter enemies who are so dispersed, so ethereal and fragmentary, that hostile governments can arm and shelter them knowing full well that we will not retaliate with a nuclear attack against millions of genuine innocents in Cairo, or Tehran, or Riyadh?

If a suitcase nuke detonates in Times Square, or Long Beach harbor, or outside the Capitol building, what do we do? Nuke Mecca? Incinerate Damascus? Because -– so help me God, I tremble to say it -– that is exactly the response our enemies would hope for. They care not a whit about their own people because they have no allegiance to anyone but themselves and their vision of a vengeful and bloodthirsty Allah. A million, ten million innocents under American mushroom clouds are just that many more martyrs gone to paradise. It is they, not we, who dream of a clash of civilizations, with its promised sweeping away of the decadent and godless by the blood and faith of the Believer.

What we learned on 9/11 is that there are people out there who are not deterrable. Given the chance -– given the weapons -– these people will strike without any regard to consequences. The ultimate horror of a world enveloped in nuclear fire is just peachy keen with them if it will bring about the New Caliphate. We love death the way you Americans love life, they say. They are not kidding. They are serious. You can pretend otherwise, but that will not make it change. There are people who are determined to kill us for who we are and what we believe. They can not be deterred.

But they can be defeated.

And so your friend, Mr. Wilkerson wants to blame his leaders for being aloof without knowing or realizing that his presence was problematic and 'under-foot' while among those leaders.

Don't blame yourself for missing it Wordy. Most of the elite media misses it too.

[wordsmythe]

I'm not sure what your point is because the greater point of this article somes from this quote: "What he seems to be saying to me now is the president failed to discipline the process the way he should have and that the president is ultimately responsible for this whole mess," Wilkerson said.

Your choice of quote has very little to do with anything.

This war on terrorists would be a lot easier on us if we would have some international support like we had right after 9/11 and the idiots in charge crapped all over it.

Your own quote makes my point:
"9/11 was an attack on the US by Islamicist fanatics, orchestrated by Egyptian strategists, staffed with Jihadists recruited from around the Arab world, and paid for largely by Saudi religious zealots. So why didn't they launch the attack with elements of the Egyptian and Saudi air forces? Because within six hours there would have been no more Egyptian and Saudi air forces, and within six weeks, no Egyptian and Saudi governments, either. Our deterrence against conventional attack, or even nuclear attack from a nation-state, is so credible and muscular that such a thing has become literally unthinkable. "

None of that has ANYTHING To do with Iraq and this ill conceived war.

I don't really blame you for trying to confuse the issue. It's a typical tactic when the right wingers want to try to scare people into line and keep them from thinking for themselves.

[lurker]

Originally Posted by wordsmythe

I'm not sure what your point is because the greater point of this article somes from this quote: "What he seems to be saying to me now is the president failed to discipline the process the way he should have and that the president is ultimately responsible for this whole mess," Wilkerson said.

Your choice of quote has very little to do with anything.

This war on terrorists would be a lot easier on us if we would have some international support like we had right after 9/11 and the idiots in charge crapped all over it.

Your own quote makes my point:
"9/11 was an attack on the US by Islamicist fanatics, orchestrated by Egyptian strategists, staffed with Jihadists recruited from around the Arab world, and paid for largely by Saudi religious zealots. So why didn't they launch the attack with elements of the Egyptian and Saudi air forces? Because within six hours there would have been no more Egyptian and Saudi air forces, and within six weeks, no Egyptian and Saudi governments, either. Our deterrence against conventional attack, or even nuclear attack from a nation-state, is so credible and muscular that such a thing has become literally unthinkable. "

None of that has ANYTHING To do with Iraq and this ill conceived war.

I don't really blame you for trying to confuse the issue. It's a typical tactic when the right wingers want to try to scare people into line and keep them from thinking for themselves.

wordy, see if you can find a map of the area and whip your crayola on it.

If we succeed in stabilizing Iraq, we will have fully neutralized the biggest threat to the area, a place called IRAN. That bunch of nutcase Ayatolas running Iran into the ground will be completely surrounded by nations who will have a serious interest in keeping a boot on their necks.

[Highwayman]

So Colonel Lawrence (Larry) Wilkerson (ret) has an opinion. It must have been a slow news day.

I don't really blame you for trying to confuse the issue. It's a typical tactic when the left wingers want to try to scare people into line and keep them from thinking for themselves.

(Damn, that sounds familiar.)

[K C Muffin]

Hey, Wordie - welcome back. For a while, there, I thought we lost ya. Gosh, there's nothin' like somebody bending the truth for us and trying to shove it down our democratic throats!

[TexKan]

Nawww Wilkerson didn't have an opinion - he said it was all Powell's opinion. Last time I read ole Colin's book - I didn't get the feeling he needed ANYONE - especially an assistant to speak for him on anything.

If Powell thinks these things (which he well might) he will / would say them. He may altho feel that this is the wrong time to try to cause chaos and undermine a necessary military tatic. The Middle East has been a well stratigiized chess game for years - I think we are just seein the "check mate" move.

Yeah it's messy - but war is never nice. Want a nice war?.....go rent a video game. Ya know the term "loose lips sink ships" could be more true now than during WW II.

Colin Powell is a man of integrity - He wouldn't be useing some one else as a mouthpiece.

Lastly it's not just us US citizens that hear this blasting of our sitting president. I know as a voter - when the Democrats are in power I show respect - it's my duty to those who are serving. The democrats really seem to appreciate that - too bad they don't do the same thing.

Dems and Reps all get their turn - it's called voting and the electoral college - no ONE party has the answer - Hitler tried that - it wasn't real popular.........So show some respect and wait your turn.......it'll come back to the Democrats then everyone will be mad at them and the Republicans will head it up again. It's called "democracy" for a reason. We should do a better job at respecting it - both Rep and Dem........and Ind for those who have a wishy washy view on politics like me.........

[K C Muffin]

and while I'm bein' a postmenopausal biotch, Lurker - don't EVER use that color again. I need to go to the optometrist and get my lens prescription rewritten!!! j/k

[TexKan]

poor Lurker....he's havin a rough nite...........LOL

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by TexKan

poor Lurker....he's havin a rough nite...........LOL

I don’t think Lurker was the only one.