Blow It Out Your Ear, Colin

By Nancy Greggs

So last week, Colin Powell proudly stood up and announced that he had spent two and a half hours trying to persuade Bush not to invade Iraq.

“I tried to avoid this war. I took him through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers.”

What followed was, as Mr. Powell would have us believe, absolutely inevitable.

Having failed to dissuade Georgie from launching a military operation that would destroy Iraq and its people, bankrupt our treasury, kill and maim countless American troops and innocent civilians, and bump up the unrest in the Middle East a few thousand notches, poor Colin had no choice but to get on board with the whole disastrous idea.

Really, there were absolutely no alternatives. Poor Colin was forced (probably at gun-point, but details are sketchy) to present his little dog-and-pony show in front of the UN, thus ensuring that the nation, and the world, would be led to believe that if the then-esteemed Colin Powell said it, it must be true.

Of course, some say Powell could have resigned and made his reasons for doing so public. But what good would that have done? The resignation of the Secretary of State would have been relegated to the back pages of newspapers everywhere, and the media would have discreetly displayed the name of his replacement on the bottom-screen crawl between stories about runaway brides and missing blonde teens – who would have noticed?

So what if Powell had publicly stated his reasons for resigning, the fact that the president was about to embark on a misadventure of mammoth proportions, the consequences of which would reverberate around the globe? Who would have listened to a general of the US Army, former National Security Advisor and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a man often discussed in political circles as the most likely person to become the first black president of the United States?

Let’s face it; a nobody like Colin Powell would never have gotten a minute of air-time to express his alarm over where the country was headed and, lacking any real credentials, no one would have paid an iota of attention if he had.

But he did spend two and a half hours trying his best to avoid war – an effort that the family members of dead American troops and Iraqi citizens will no doubt be comforted by for years to come. And in their comfort, they will undoubtedly forget that had he spent two and a half minutes announcing his resignation and the reasons for it, he might have had enough impact on the public’s thinking to turn the rush-to-war tide – and their kids might still be alive today.

There, there, Colin; you did your best to stop a war that your experience, your knowledge of military matters, and your gut told you was wrong – and that’s something to be proud of, isn’t it?

And you’re not alone. Over the next few weeks, months, years, the American public will undoubtedly be hearing similar tales from those who cheerleaded this war from day one and now remember – now that public opinion has turned against the war, and those who facilitated it – how they tried to stop the inevitable devastation, and how truly innocent they are in the great scheme of things.

It’s not like the world hasn’t heard this kind of thing before: “I merely put the Jews into the cattle-cars headed for Auschwitz. But I am not responsible for what happened to them after the train left the station.”

Just like you aren’t responsible, Colin – just like those who merely voted to sanction torture, but didn’t actually do the torturing themselves, aren't responsible for what transpired after they cast their votes.

I can’t help but be reminded of Marlon Brando’s line in “On the Waterfront”, when boxer Terry Malloy confronts his brother’s betrayal: “I could have been a contender. I could have been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am.”

You could have been a contender, Colin. Instead you chose to take the dives for the short money – and now you’ll spend the rest of your once-illustrious career trying to convince the world otherwise.

It’s a sad story, another Great American Tragedy. And if you think your fellow countrymen hold you in contempt now, wait until history passes judgment on your pitiful ass. Be thankful you won’t be around to hear it.

In fact, he might even be bigger. Because he KNEW. He knew it was all bullshit. He wasn't some mindless bushbot with a law degree from Pat Robertson whose only hope of achieving in gov't was to toady up to scum like Dumbya. He knew. And he can go fuck himself. I hope his nightmares are every bit as gruesome as those that I wish on DimSon, Cheney, and the rest. Rot in hell, Colin. I hope it was worth it.

And I will add, "Kiss my ass, General Powell. You had your chance. You failed.

:kick:

Harry Belafonte had a pretty accurate description of Colin.

representatives spent arguing against this war. Sure, he was in a much higher position and deserves more scorn, but I do find it odd that he gets universal hatred here while some of the Democrats who supported and made the case for this war get a pass just because they were politically motivated to change their tune faster.

horse-shit.

Although I do entirely agree that they were guilty of swallowing it hook line and sinker without putting up resistance. They certainly did not give due consideration to what they were being shown and how they were being railroaded and the results of their laziness.

lacked political courage. They didn't bother to debate, to do their homework and to stand up against Bush just weeks before the 2002 midterms. They voted 'aye' on IWR and many have only belatedly come to acknowledge their horrendous mistake.

And also like Colin, their words are too fucking little, too fcuking late.

I hold BushCo, the GOP and all the enabling DEMS accountable for this invasion and occupation, death and destruction. None should get a pass. Read Neo-Conned Again.

None did. This is the REPUKES war - lock stock and barrel - THEY were the one that got up every chance they did to LOUDLY prclaim their SUPERIOR support for the war snd CALLED ALL DEMS traitors for daring to suggest otherwise! It is the REPUKES war - pure and simple.

The DEMS may have blindly TRUSTED that they were being told the truth, and FOLLOWED, but NO DEM was "making the case" for the war. They JUST went along for FEAR of being branded "unpatriotic" bullshit, etc. etc.

Their one and only mistake was TRUSTING the lying REPUKES - the lot of 'em - in the first place...

I used to respect him too...no more.

He did have his chance, and he blew it, big time...

I wonder how he can look at himself in the mirror anymore...

A waste of a man....

And of all the people he helped kill...

K&R, of course...

Thank you!

:hug:

where he has to read it every day. Doing so might help balance his karma.

K & R!

madness. :mad:

Great stuff! :hi: :thumbsup:

A few years late, and trillions of dollars short...

Banner head lines (perhaps) if at the UN just as he was about to give his speech and billions of human beings watching and wondering had been witness to this statement:

:Good Morning ladies and gentelman of the United Nations. I am Colin Powell and I am the Secretary of State for the United States of America. I am here to declare that I have every reason to believe that the Bush administration is railroading, obfuscating and deliberately lying to the people of the world about the threat to the United States and other countries by the regime of Sadam Hussein. That Sadam Husein is an evil and dangerous man there is no doubt, but at this time in history he is shackelled and basically a prisoner in his own country and only about one third of that country is under his control. I encourage the United Nations to continue to impose strict sanctions against the Regime of Sadam Husein with the exception of humanitarian aid that is delivered directly to the people of Iraq through humanitarian relief organizations. I also at this time tender my resignation as Secretary of State as I can no longer support an administration that is not willing to tell the truth nor work till the last possible moment to achieve its goals through peaceful means with the support of the United Nations and freedom loving peoples around the world."

I mean, you could have had the 101st Airborne with ya to back you up, but NO...you went in there...alone. And for...two...and a half...HOURS! About as long as John McCain faced the Viet Cong's torture, I think. And yet you came out alive, man! Alive, and never once did you let down your principles. You are to be hailed as a role model for all, particularly our young soldiers fighting in the field.




(Do I really have to add the "sarcasm" icon?)

My husband and I did not believe or trust Bush; but when Colin Powell spoke in front of the U.N., we felt there must be some truth to the nuclear weapons threat. How could someone in the military send his fellow soldiers and Marines into battle unless it was the last resort and totally necessary? At the time we watched Powell speak, our 19 year-old Marine son was 20 miles from the Iraqi border. I was terrified of him going to war but could not believe Powell would betray the troops. I have nothing but contempt for the man, and I agree that history will pass judgment on him in a harsh way.

Thank you for starting this thread.

... marinemom2004.

Unfortunately, the very successful marketing of Powell Possibilities came about in spite of his history of closing his eyes to minor things like ethics or international law. The latter came to the fore when the general tasked with going after Noriega was fired after pointing out that the action would violate international law; Powell gladly stepped up. And there are documents indicating that, way back in southeast Asia, his impressive capabilities didn't include patience when it came to gaining promotion. Plus, he clearly saw no conflict of interest in having his son head up the FCC during the time the "media" was rolling over and playing dead; it hurts the brain to even consider how the GOP would have reacted to anyone in the Clinton administration having kinfolk in such a position.

But there was a very, very brief moment when it seemed Powell couldn't stand it any more. Seemed. I'd just snapped the TV on and stopped in my tracks when the screen showed Powell, uncharacteristically squirming behind a podium, saying something about voters having the right to know that their votes count and that "we" cannot support the outcome of a flawed election...alas, he was talking about Ukraine. Perhaps he was squirming because even he knew, by then, that WE KNEW.

I usually just read people's posts, but the military discussions bring out the anger in me, as if I am not angry enough with everything else this administration has done.

Too late now.

He sold our nation out. He lied for "his" party.

And now he joins the long line of whiners who want us to feel sorry for them. Right. Like THAT will be happening.

people are Colin Powell and Condi Rice.....

I do thank you
Ben David

And I'm not giving him a free pass, but I do think he was misled in the U.N. testimony.

I really don't understand the hatred towards him, I feel sorry for him. He could not have stopped this war or changed the course of history...nobody in power was listening.

.
his actions. There is a very big difference.

Focus on a person's deeds and policies. When one leaves out the personalities one see the true issues. When one makes issues about a person then one loses.

It is not about hating people. It is about hating their actions.
.

He could have enabled the American people, through Congress to stop it

All repukes think that way...

Even if "nothing came of it" in terms of preventing the war, he could have resigned, refusing to lie to the American people about something so monstrous. He had to know that his particular influence in testimony before the UN would be considerable.

Therefore he is an immoral, cowardly, stinking scumbag. May he never know a moment's peace for all of eternity for the evil atrocities that he condoned and helped along.

Your wit and low level degree of sarcasm, it is just beautiful.

Thank you.

.
The historical similarities are striking. "... in the years that immediately followed the war, Longstreet committed what were to many Southerners three unpardonable sins. First, he openly criticized Lee for his actions at Gettysburg. While there is some debate about whether or not what Longstreet was reported to have said was actually what he did say, the effect of statements attributed to him, which he never denied, were the same. Second, he became a Republican, ..." "James Longstreet, A North Georgia Notable - Confederate General" by Brian Hampton (http://ngeorgia.com/people/longstreet.html)

The next series of years the people will be exposed to General Powell going around trying to salvage his tarnished reputation.

Feeling used Mr. Powell?
.

from the Nancy Greggs keyboard. The Powell family will go down in history as Bush crime family lieutenants and captains. The son Michael worked hand in glove with the Bush Ministry of Propaganda to ensure dissident voices had no outlet. They hate us for our morals and their lack thereof.

the title, alone, got a standing ovation of one at my computer this morning!

Thank you again, Nancy. You are a treaure.

TC

At least this test of character revealed the cracks, the flaws. We will now not have to face these weaknesses in Powell as president and be even more disappointed than we are now.

Brings to mind Nancy Pelosi's brave (sarcasm) letter. She agreed in secret to the electronic surveillance of Americans, but then covered herself, just in case the winds blew the other way:

...Until I understand better the legal analysis regarding the sufficiency of the authority which underlies your decision on the appropriate way to proceed on this matter, I will continue to be concerned.
Sincerely,
NANCY PELOSI

Get a spine Pelosi!

ignores his role in the cover-up of My Lai?

wonderful stuff.

I'd be impressed with him if he had resigned at the time and went public.

But perhaps that would have jeopardized his son's job at the FEC where they're making sure the Powell family stock holdings stay valuable.

This may sound harsh, but I mean it with my entire being. Everyone who enabled this criminal administration, carries the responsibility of all those deaths and injuries on their souls. Colin Powell and George Tenet are first in line! Every single voter in the 2004 election who put this administration back in the WH, is standing in that line. There is a special place in HELL for all of you. Long before the 2004 election, I have a collection of articles written about this cabal, and there were nearly half of this country following it minute by minute! How strange that the Dems had no problem seeing beyond all the lies and manipulations, and the rethugs saw whatever bullshit Bush/Cheney was serving up that day! The most amazing part of this nightmare, is that it continues today! Washington is jammed full of republican representatives who just refuse to put this country before their "Dictator"! Each and every one of them are in the line to Hell!

:hi:

And Thanks again, Nance, for another inspiring piece.

I am always most unimpressed with those who use the horror of the holocaust for cheap political attacks.

I do understand the great disappointment in the man for which we all had such high hopes, but whether you chose to see both sides of the coin or not does not change the fact that there are two sides. What is missing in your rant are any acknowledgement of the gray. I feel pity for Powell, not anger.

Do you have any comprehension of the pain this must have caused him? He could not stop the war. Nobody could. Direct your anger where it belongs...better yet, transform it into useful action, not useless "rants" against an already fallen one time hero.

... he was apprised of the plans to invade Iraq, Powell was in a positon, as Secretary of State, to make an incredible impact on public thinking. He could have gone along with the Administration's program (based on flimsy, at best, intelligence that he himself recognized as such), or he could have made his position public, i.e. "Based on what I know, what I have seen, and what I have heard, I have grave misgivings about this entire venture, and the veracity of the facts that support it."

At that juncture, Powell had credibility with the public at large, regardless of any citizen's particular political affiliation, and such a pronouncement would have caused further questions to be asked, further scrutiny to be brought to bear.

Instead, he chose to go before the UN and make a presentation encouraging the invasion of Iraq -- even though he himself refused to deliver the entire bulk of "evidence" he had been provided, declaring it "bullshit".

As to my reference to the Holocaust, I was merely stating the obvious: history is replete with people like Powell, who are quick to disavow themselves of any responsibility for actions that lead to death, torture, and maiming of innocents after the regime they supported starts self-destructing - after people start asking questions about who was involved, and who could have sounded the alarm.

Whether you are impressed or unimpressed with that comparison is of no consequence to me, or to many others. The truth is the truth.

"At that juncture, Powell had credibility with the public at large, regardless of any citizen's particular political affiliation, and such a pronouncement would have caused further questions to be asked, further scrutiny to be brought to bear."

We all know what would have happened if Powell had done that... he would have been SAVAGED by the administration and the media as someone who had "lost it".

A freaking weapons inspector himself came forward and said it was all BS and he got accused to being a child molester and no one in the media cared to listen to what he had to say.

If Powell had resigned and done what you asked, he would have dismissed as a crazy, treasonous coward who was more interested in protecting terrorists than getting the job done and nothing would have changed.

Understand, I don't forgive Powell, nor Edwards, nor Clinton, nor Kerry, nor anyone else who helped enable this war, but we also have to be real about what power they did or did not have. I wouldn't trust any of them to make important decisions, but I don't believe any of them had a magic bullet that could have stopped this war.

... nor saying that Powell could have single-handedly stopped the war.

But I don't discount the impact Powell could have had on public opinion - unlike a weapons inspector (whose name you obviously don't remember). He had credentials.

But all of this is beside the point of my original post. Whether Powell could have changed public opinion, or caused hesitation among the gung-ho crowd or not (and I believe he could have), he's now publicly crying about how he spent two and a half hours trying to "avoid this war". Cry me a fuckin' river.

Two and a half minutes on CNN in an effort to alert the public to Bush's trumped-up intelligence might have changed things, or might not.

But his presentation in front of the UN did more than not change the course of BushCo. It persuaded many, who would otherwise have had misgivings about whether Bush was telling the unvarnished truth or not, reason to believe that the underlying intellgience was on the up-and-up and beyond reasonable doubt.

Powell had credibiliy, deserved or not -- and he used it to foster the need for invading Iraq, rather than using it to foster hesitation and further scrutiny.

I do remember the name of Scott Ritter, who was the most qualified person to speak on the subject, but was largely ignored and ridiculed for speaking out.

Other Generals were fired because they didn't fall in line or gave realistic estimates of what it would take.

I can't understand how you can even for a moment believe he would have accomplished anything.

Why spend all this time attacking a man, whatever you may think of him, who is not even part of the administration at the present moment?

Of holding Powell to a completely different standard than everyone else.

It is okay for Edwards to get on the floor of the Senate, ignore all the evidence, and lie to the American people telling us that Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America... he can be forgiven, but Powell, he is to be ridiculed.

In the end, I wouldn't vote for either one of them for any office, because they both proved that their judgement is horribly flawed. However, just as I wouldn't want Edwards' voice excluded from an administration, I also believe that Powell's voice should be heard as well... I just wouldn't give either of them the ability to make a decision, since they have both proven they are not capable of that.

pretend that he is innocent and he was mislead would be the travesty. Every single one of the people that got the US into this war must be held accountable.

Powells speach was the sell of all sells and because of who he was everyone didn't think twice about his presentation. He knew there were massive holes in his presentation, he knew the weapons inspectors had found nothing up to that point...and he knew they never would. He sold the war at the UN no one else did....


There should be no sympathy for this man, he was supposed to be the top in his field and with that comes responsibility. He failed....

But I'm not talking about Powell pesuading the admin to change course - they wouldn't have. But Powell had PUBLIC RECOGNITION (which the others did not have).

Do you really believe that had the SEC of STATE suddenly resigned, the media wouldn't have been all over that story, and his reasons WHY? I think THAT would have had an impact, yes.

Besides, all of this is moot. My point is that with all of his misgivings, amid the "bullshit" they gave him as facts (his words, not mine), he got behind the war effort one hundred percent. And now he wants us to know that he "tried" ...

"Do you really believe that had the SEC of STATE suddenly resigned, the media wouldn't have been all over that story, and his reasons WHY? I think THAT would have had an impact, yes."

No, I don't. When Kristie Todd Whitman publicly stormed out and even wrote books on how she was being ignored and marginalized, the media treated it with a big Y A W N.

The media was afraid of being labelled disloyal... unpatriotic. If Powell resigned and was thus labelled disloyal by the administration, we both know what the media would have done... carried the torch for the administration just as they did when ANYONE, no matter how credible, came out against them.

"My point is that with all of his misgivings, amid the "bullshit" they gave him as facts (his words, not mine), he got behind the war effort one hundred percent. And now he wants us to know that he "tried" ..."

One could simply point out that was HIS JOB. If I worked in a company and my boss told me to do something that I thought was wrong, I could express that to him/her. Argue with him/her, but, in the end, I have a choice, I can either do as I am ordered, or quit. If I choose to do as I am ordered, I have to put my doubts and misgivings aside and put 100% of my effort into the task, which is what he did. That is the way the military works as well.

Yes, I believe he should have quit and I hold him responsible for his failure to do so.

I also hold John Kerry, John Edwards, Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden and the other enablers responsible for failing to do their job at all, because their job wasn't to carry the torch for the administration, it was to act as a check/balance and they failed miserably.

... during a lead-up to war. Big difference.

As for doing his job, I ain't buying that.

Suppose you worked for a pharmaceutical company, and your boss told you to go out and promote, distribute and sell a drug that had shown very questionable test results, and could be fatal. Would you just say, "Well, that's my job, so I'll do it"? I think not.

Powell had enough experience and expertise to KNOW the underlying "facts" he'd been handed supporting the existence of WMDs was questionable at best -- and bullshit at its worst. He KNEW that people were going to die, that this war was going to have disastrous consequences not only for our troops and the people of Iraq, but the world.

"Suppose you worked for a pharmaceutical company, and your boss told you to go out and promote, distribute and sell a drug that had shown very questionable test results, and could be fatal. Would you just say, "Well, that's my job, so I'll do it"? I think not."

Putting aside that this happens everyday and would be a viable defense, there is a HUGE distinction that can be made here, and an important one.

One could dismiss all the evidence as BS and still not think the war, in concept, was a terrible idea. I would personally disagree with that; however, one could argue that the concept of freeing the Iraqi people from a brutal dictatorship is not an evil goal. Whereas selling a drug that will kill people for profit is just pure evil. There is no potential upside in your scenario.

What you said here simply isn't true, "He KNEW that people were going to die, that this war was going to have disastrous consequences not only for our troops and the people of Iraq, but the world."

He knew people were going to die, but I doubt he KNEW the rest. He may have feared that consequence, but he also may have hoped that it worked... we don't know, because we weren't in his head and to declare otherwise is incorrect. For all we know, he may have wanted to see a free and democratic Iraq and hoped for that outcome and despite believing the evidence was cooked, hoped for the best result, knew it was going to happen with or without him and chose to stay in the hopes he could guide it that way.

... as to what he hoped the outcome would be. But he is now stressing the fact that he spent two and a half hours trying to dissuade Bush from acting. Apparently his knowledge and military experience had already led him to conclude what the outcome would most likely be, and that it would be a disaster. Otherwise, why try to talk Bush out of it?

I don't think my comparison to the drug company was that off-point. If you KNEW that the underlying test results for that drug were missing, or inflated, or had been jazzed-up in any way -- wouldn't you suspect that there was something VERY WRONG going on here?

The MINUTE Powell screamed "bullshit" over what he had been told to state before the UN, he should have questioned the entire conduct of the WH and the Iraq war promoters, as well as their motives.

He would have had a time in the shadows of public life, but by now, I believe he'd be a leading
Republican Presidential candidate.

He'd now be the only Republican leader with any real credibility.

That is the same logic I use against the war enablers, who voted yes on the IWR, but am often told it is faulty.

Excuses like, "it was inevitable anyway", "We weren't voting for the war, but for the inspectors" (which Iraq had agreed to let in a month earlier so that is a lie) and any other number of reasons given to excuse the actions.

John Edwards co-authored the IWR. Spoke out against Howard Dean on many occassions (even after the election, when he reminded the country that Howard Dean doesn't speak for him). However, for some reason people are willing to accept his mea culpa and crocodile tears about this war, but want to hold Colin Powell's feet to the fire. As late as 2004, Edwards was STILL supporting his IWR vote (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=apXyrHjc4RSs&refer=us). He also uttered these brilliant words, "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America" and of course this gem, "We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." However, as we all now know, we didn't KNOW anything of the sort and he knew that at the time... that "he used them on his own people" was a crap argument.

So, pick one... you can't have it both ways. Either it is ONLY bush's war and you have to forgive those who had doubts, but "jumped on board" like Edwards, Kerry, Clinton and the other enablers, including Powell

OR

You hold them all to the same standard.

And please, for the love of the gods, don't try to draw some idiotic distinction between Powell's speech to the UN and Edwards' speech on the floor of the senate.. in the end, they BOTH advocated war making completely false claims.

... Edwards did not make a presentation before the UN - and, in so doing, in front of the world - based on information he was given, having declared much of it 'bullshit' that he refused to include.

Edwards was not the Secretary of State, nor did he have Powell's military and government experience - which means he did not have the requisite credibility, nor the public's ear, to the extent that Powell did.

It is foolish to hold everyone to the same standard, as you say, when it is obvious that not everyone involved was on a level playing field.

I hold a lot of people responsible, Dems and Republicans alike, for swallowing Bush's lies -- for the simple reason that they were dealing with George W. Bush, and therefore had ample reason to suspect everything that came out of his mouth.

But Colin Powell was in a position to change public opinion had he spoken out. He chose not to, and instead chose to support a war based on intelligence he knew to be suspect. The fact that he is now publicly crying about the fact that he spent two and a half hours trying to divert disaster is a classic example of adding insult to injury.

In the end, you are just giving powers to Powell that he didn't have. He was in no position to stop anything. In fact, he was in LESS of a position than the people who voted for it, because all he could have done is come out against it and then been Dixie Chicked and forgotten.

You are absolutely fooling yourself if you think Colin Powell would have made any difference.

... is viewed as being on the same level as the Dixie Chicks in the public's eye.

Powell now wants sympathy because he "tried to stop the war". Even if he couldn't stop it, if he was so sure it was the WRONG thing to do, why didn't he just quietly resign, instead of using his credibility and position to support and encourage it in front of the country, and the world?

I didn't compare Powell to the Dixie Chicks... I said he would have been "Dixie Chicked" the same way Scott Ritter was.

That basically means that IF Powell had come out against the war and left the administration they would have ATTACKED him the same way they did anyone and everyone who opposed them, including their own people. Look how they treaded General Shinseki when he was honest about what it would take.

Look how they have treated Kristie Todd Whitman... she has been marginalized as "disloyal" and dismissed completely by them, the media and most of the public.

As for Powell's motives, you said he "wants sympathy" and maybe that is right and maybe he just wants people to understand how much this person in office doesn't listen to other opinions... who knows, his motives aren't part of the point.

My point is that Powell is being attacked, while Edwards is being marginally embraced, yet, they did almost the exact same thing. I don't trust either of them... I don't forgive either of them and I don't see how someone can hold one's feet to the fire and let the other go without being a hypocrite.

... I was merely pointing out that Powell had a track-record and stature that the others didn't, plus the recognition factor with the public.

All of that aside, my feelings about Powell are thus: He declared much of the information he was given in support of the WMD story as "bullshit". I would assume that any intelligent person would also be leary of the rest of the information.

He could have resigned (in a public way or not). Instead, he stayed -- and he didn't just sit on the sidelines as others in the admin beat the war drums. He went before the UN, and the world, and stated - uncategorically or unqualified in any way - that Iraq had WMDs. And that statement coming from someone of his experience, and in his position as Sec of State, certainly impacted public opinion.

My essay was about Colin Powell, NOT John Edwards or anyone else. In expressing my opinion about one person and their recent statements, I do not find it necessary to compare that person to anyone or everyone else.

This was my opinion of what Powell did, and what he is now publicly saying about it. That's all.

We have a differing opinion on whether he would have had an effect. I don't believe his resignation would have had any more impact than Scott Ritter's statements or Kristie Todd Whitmans resignation when it came to environmental issues. I believe he would have been marginalized and dismissed, just like everyone else was.

What I do find amazing and what my point was(and this was not meant to be directed at you specifically, but instead to a general feeling I see from many people) is people's willingness to forgive and forget with John Kerry, John Edwards, Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden, etc.., but not someone like Powell. (Keep in mind, I don't forgive ANY of them.)

Technically speaking Powell's job was to work for the administration, whereas Senator's job should be to question the administration. In a weird way, if anyone should be forgiven first, it should be Powell, who was doing his job. (I don't forgive him!!!).

No one even knew who Ritter was before this whole mess, and Whitman's stance on evironmental concerns could never garner the attention that a sitting Sec of State would garner on the topic of an impending war.

Of course, had Powell resigned and blown the whistle as it were, the admin would have been out in full force to discredit him. However, trashing THE Colin Powell and trashing an unknown (at the time) weapons inspector would be very different tasks. Powell would have been much more difficult to discredit.

As S of S, the public perception was, and is, that Powell was an insider who KNEW every detail of the plans underfoot within the admin, knew what was being trumped-up, what lies were about to be told. Had he said, "I have to resign, because there's shit going on here I cannot get on board with," it would have resonated - and the credibility of the WH would have been damaged to some extent before they had a chance to get the damage-control rhetoric in place.

As for Edwards, Kerry, et al, my essay was simply NOT about them. Nor was I attempting to comment on every single person or politician involved.

Personally, my biggest problem with any Dem who voted for this disaster is simply the fact that they KNEW that Bush, Cheney and the whole cabal could not be TRUSTED to tell the truth about anything. That truism had been established long before invading Iraq was being seriously discussed.

They ALL should have known better - but they chose to ignore all of the warning signs, which were plentiful by that juncture, and allowed themselves to be misled by a known liar.

They were able to trash and marginalize their own generals, their own cabinet members. The media was terrified of going against them in any way.

I see no evidence at all to suggest that Powell's resignation would have had a different effect. Do you really REALLY believe the media would have challenged the administration if Powell resigned? If actual weapons inspectors couldn't do it... other generals couldn't do it... leaders of other nations couldn't do it... I simply don't see how you can think that Powell's resignation would have made the media do their job.

... that the media would have "done their job". Challenge the Admin? Not a chance in hell.

However, it's not like if he HAD resigned, the media wouldn't have mentioned it. And any statement he made as to the reasons behind his resignation would have been impossible to ignore.

He was the Sec of State during a lead-up to war - I think more than a few eyebrows would have been raised, and more than a few questions asked, had he suddenly left his post.

Sec of State during a lead-up to war resigns and this would be buiried in the back pages? nah! not by a long shot...

If the media wasn't going to do their job, would 1 or 2 raised eyebrows have made any difference at all?

Again, I am not forgiving his actions, just stating that I don't believe the outcome would have been any different UNLESS he did it prior to the IWR. His stepping down at that time MAY have forced the dems to rally against the resolution and not fear the upcomming election.

However, once that resolution was in place... it was all over but the dying and I don't think there was anything he could have done to stop it.

Outside of the U.S. most people had NEVER heard of the Dixie Chicks and unless I am mistaken the Dixie Chicks did NOT speak at the UN. Colin Powell's speech was pivotal in getting at least some Democrats on board. Colon Powell's crime is one of Commission not just one of Omission.
I am still angry at Hillary and at each and every Democrat who signed onto this war. I NEVER believed bushCo, I did not understand why any Democrat could believe them either...but it was Colon's speech that helped seal the deal in the minds of many Americans.

n/t

such a public protest would have slowed the wheels down quite a bit.