"Zeno"
wrote in message
news:242ao3tph4gmo5juna8ehm0ijf9qojb0gc@4ax.com...> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:51:01 -0700, Rich Travsky
>
hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>>>Zeno wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:20:52 +1100, "Seon Ferguson"
gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>Bush fooled everyone, he even fooled me.
>>>
>>> Was Colin Powell fooled ?
>>
>>He went along with it, you tell us, Zero.
>>
>>RT
>
> I haven't researched it.
I guess not.
> I would think it would be telling enough to realize that he bailed his
> job as secretary of state soon after his UN speech.
The speech to the U.N. was given February 5th of 2003. Powell served as
Secretary of State until January 26th of 2005. The word "soon" is not
exactly well-defined, but I don't think most people would call 10 days shy
of two years "soon after" giving the speech.
> Also, he should have been keenly aware that the military strategic
> consequences (Powell was a army general) of holding Iraq is crucial to
> winning a long term war against islamo-fascists. With Iraq the US can
> deploy people with weapons, authorized to shoot, against the
> islamo-fascists, instead of civilians against the islamo-fascists.
Powell warned Bush "If you break it, you own it" regarding Iraq.
Documentation has surfaced (Woodward's "fly-on-the-wall" book) that
indicates he tried to dissuade Bush from invading "unless absolutely
necessary", but was overruled by the Cheney/Rumsfeld mentality that the
whole thing would take "six days . . . six weeks . . . I doubt six months".
Powell did NOT view occupation of Iraq as crucial to anything. He was fed
bogus intelligence . . . just like Congress was . . . that indicated that
Saddam was rebuilding his WMD program. There's no indication that he ever
viewed it as a convenient base of operations in this fight you think we have
with some sort of vast group of "islamo-fascists". And that's not a
legitimate justification, even if it were true, for invading and occupying
another sovereign nation.
