Mugato: Why don't these people all just go somewhere and kill themselves to silence the screams of all the people they killed for no reason and stop writing books about it?

No. Keep them writing. The tone-deaf ignoramuses seem hell bent on condemning themselves in the court of public opinion? So be it.

Let them live a long life, die alongside loving family and friends and be buried in front of an audience of thousands. And then let history wipe its rancid, pimply ass with their memory.

Cewley: i lied to the UN.

And we're done in one.

We would have also accepted:
"We lied the country into a war"
"Our so-called 'justification' was pure bullshiat."
"Screw the soldiers. They're expendable. We'll recruit more from America's inner cities."
"Spending taxpayer money to us is like giving a hooker a welfare check on Friday night. And we're the 'fiscal conservatives.'"

ifarkthereforiam: Nadie_AZ: Can we please arrest these assholes for misleading an entire nation to war on false evidence?

This x 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000.......infinity.

infinity plus 2

He sold out and lied for the Bush administration so that his son could get the top spot with the FCC. And it worked, as his son has gone on to a lifetime of top plutocratic positions within the government. The Bush administration did the same thing with former Joints Chief of Staff Richard Meyers, who rolled over and played dead for them, letting that farktard Rumsfeld run the war and occupation of Iraq without objection, so that his niece could chosen over more qualified people to a top position with the newly created Department of Homeland Security.

But then again Colin Powell has a history of being a lying bastard. During the Vietnam war he was THE key player for the government in attempting to cover up the My Lai massacre. Something which everyone conveniently forgot because of what he did for the nation during Desert Storm against Iraq, keeping the politicians off of Schwarzkopf and insisting on building a coalition.

Would he have been a good president? I don't know, but he certainly would have continued being a tool of the military industrial complex. There would be no debate on whether to go to war against Iran with him, we would have already done it.

JohnnyC: I remember watching his speech to the UN and thinking that he was the last Republican I respected... and that was over because I knew he was lying. The moment when it happened is etched in my brain. The way things have been going, he'll likely be the last Republican I ever had respect for too.

I was pretty sure we were going to be taken to war with Iraq the first time I heard 9/11 and Saddam or Iraq mentioned in the same sentence by the Bush admin.

I thought the run-up to the war was bogus, but Powell's speech to the UN made me rethink that, simply because I believed he had integrity. Once it started, I hoped every "leak" that we had found the mobile chemical labs, or the WMD stockpiles, would pan out because I really wanted to believe that our reasons for invading another country were legitimate. I didn't want to accept that we would sell our soul as a country like I now know we did.

While Powell is complicit in this tragedy, it looks like he's trying to set the record straight and call W and his cronies on their bullshiat. It doesn't buy him redemtpion -- I think Powell, like any soldier, realizes that once you've compromised your integrity, it can never be restored -- but if telling his story of how things ran off the rails helps us avoid the same mistakes in the future, then he needs to tell it.

Wheyfaring Stranger: While Powell is complicit in this tragedy, it looks like he's trying to set the record straight and call W and his cronies on their bullshiat. It doesn't buy him redemtpion -- I think Powell, like any soldier, realizes that once you've compromised your integrity, it can never be restored -- but if telling his story of how things ran off the rails helps us avoid the same mistakes in the future, then he needs to tell it.

That's not what he's doing though.

He's making money off of a book promoting his own "leadership".



This isn't a "Learn from my dreadful. unforgivable mistakes" book. It's a "Read this and you can be nearly as awesome as I am" book.

There was no debate about whether President Bush's plans for Iraq were a good idea?

Well, you and the rest of his advisors all failed, then, at keeping him in check. I hope History will judge you all as harshly for this as she will him.

Philip Francis Queeg: Wheyfaring Stranger:
He's making money off of a book promoting his own "leadership"


He's not making money, he's creating jobs.

After all, he's still a Republican, as far as I know

So now can we start the war crimes trials?

Colin Powell should be thanking his lucky stars that he isn't living out his golden years as an unidicted disgraced war criminal like the rest of the Bush administration chickenhawks.

AdolfOliverPanties: On one side we have a guy who never thought twice about sending thousands of Americans and other coalition forces into Iraq to go after someone who had not attacked us while abandoning the search for the guy who did.

To the GOP? Hero.

On the other side we have the guy who resumed the hunt for the guy who DID attack us, found him, weighed the risks and worked with the military to devise a plan, sent in a small efficient team to do the job and killed the motherfarker.

To the GOP? Grandstanding coward.


I don't generally like to debase myself by resorting to broad-brush strokes of lowbrow commenting, but Republicans are farking stupid.

After consultation with the judges, we'll allow it.

TV's Vinnie: "By then, the President did not think war could be avoided,"

FTF Colin.

Yes, George W. Bush is the single, best argument against legalizing pot. Just look at what that stoner did while under the influence. I blame Cheney for making the runs and keeping him supplied.

way south: kg2095: They can say that they really believed that Iraq had WMDs, but the UN had weapons inspectors in Iraq right up until just before the invasion. Their opinion was that there was no WMDs.

Iraq at one point had WMD's because we paid them to buy some and they used what they bought on civilians.
So the problem here would be trusting a UN inspector when we had good reason to believe otherwise.

Saddam is one of our own dogs that bit us, just like the Taliban but with a much more powerful army. The man himself was a long standing annoyance to many and his passing isn't regrettable.
Most everyone agrees he had to go, we're just arguing about the method.

We can pretend to have only short term memory and 20/20 hindsight, which would make this look like it was entirely Bush's fault. That doesn't account for why quite a few people from both sides of the aisle agreed with it, even when they must have known the Arab spring would be coming a decade later.

/Sometimes you don't need a conspiracy to explain things.
/"It was a good idea at the time" is a perfectly defensible reason.

Are you implying that there was NO anti-war movement prior to the invasion?

Lunaville: way south: kg2095: They can say that they really believed that Iraq had WMDs, but the UN had weapons inspectors in Iraq right up until just before the invasion. Their opinion was that there was no WMDs.

Iraq at one point had WMD's because we paid them to buy some and they used what they bought on civilians.
So the problem here would be trusting a UN inspector when we had good reason to believe otherwise.

Saddam is one of our own dogs that bit us, just like the Taliban but with a much more powerful army. The man himself was a long standing annoyance to many and his passing isn't regrettable.
Most everyone agrees he had to go, we're just arguing about the method.

We can pretend to have only short term memory and 20/20 hindsight, which would make this look like it was entirely Bush's fault. That doesn't account for why quite a few people from both sides of the aisle agreed with it, even when they must have known the Arab spring would be coming a decade later.

/Sometimes you don't need a conspiracy to explain things.
/"It was a good idea at the time" is a perfectly defensible reason.

Are you implying that there was NO anti-war movement prior to the invasion?

There is always an anti war movement. Even for wars that most would think are easily justified, like WW2.
What I'd imply is that many of the people who say Iraq was a bad idea, especially politicians, didn't decide so until years after we were balls deep in it and there were elections to win.

relaxitsjustme: A lot of Americans were on the fence about Iraq until Colin sold them on the idea of WMD because he was the one guy people felt like they could trust. Bush Co owns this one all by themselves.

The Democrats agreed to war when it was popular to do so, and disagreed when it was popular to do so.
Its nice that they found their spines in time for the 2008 election but lets not pretend that they never had a choice.
If our politicians bought into a war and ignored the supposedly obvious, because of a nice sales pitch by Powell, then they are fools.

I see no reason for you or me to apologize for fools.

way south: relaxitsjustme: A lot of Americans were on the fence about Iraq until Colin sold them on the idea of WMD because he was the one guy people felt like they could trust. Bush Co owns this one all by themselves.

The Democrats agreed to war when it was popular to do so, and disagreed when it was popular to do so.
Its nice that they found their spines in time for the 2008 election but lets not pretend that they never had a choice.
If our politicians bought into a war and ignored the supposedly obvious, because of a nice sales pitch by Powell, then they are fools.

I see no reason for you or me to apologize for fools.

It's a wee bit easier to agree to something you would normally disagree to when the information given to you is deliberately incorrect in such a way as to make you want to agree to it.

Lunaville: TV's Vinnie: "By then, the President did not think war could be avoided,"

FTF Colin.

Yes, George W. Bush is the single, best argument against legalizing pot. Just look at what that stoner did while under the influence. I blame Cheney for making the runs and keeping him supplied.

It wasn't the pot it was the booze and the cocaine together for so long.

way south: The Democrats agreed to war when it was popular to do so, and disagreed when it was popular to do so.
Its nice that they found their spines in time for the 2008 election but lets not pretend that they never had a choice.
If our politicians bought into a war and ignored the supposedly obvious, because of a nice sales pitch by Powell, then they are fools.

I think the main problem was that in 2000 too many of our politicians were science illiterate. There were too many things that didn't make sense to me, and I knew the whole thing was bullshiat after the Bush administration started talking about mobile biowar labs that looked more like moonshine stills on wheels.

zarberg: It's a wee bit easier to agree to something you would normally disagree to when the information given to you is deliberately incorrect in such a way as to make you want to agree to it.

Its also foolish to trust a member of the opposition party on any subject without verifying it for yourself. Especially for a war.
I don't believe Washington has changed. Its been the same cesspool of disagreement since the days of our forefathers, and its also no secret that politicians will lie or cheat to get what they want.

If one politicians goes along with what his opponent says, pleading ignorance is not a defense. They were hired to think things through and they did so to their own satisfaction.
Because all they were thinking about then was how to get money and votes.
All they are thinking about now is how to get money and votes.

Whether a war was legal or not is irrelevant to them if they can say it was not, after they did all the paperwork themselves, and get you to buy that excuse.
Just the same as they can make an illegal war action later and tell you everything is OK because it just happened to turn out favorable this time.

Not that I disagree with having wars. Its simply disingenuous to have two sets of standards for judging them.

Its also foolish to trust a member of the opposition party on any subject without verifying it for yourself. Especially for a war.
I don't believe Washington has changed. Its been the same cesspool of disagreement since the days of our forefathers, and its also no secret that politicians will lie or cheat to get what they want.

If one politicians goes along with what his opponent says, pleading ignorance is not a defense. They were hired to think things through and they did so to their own satisfaction.
Because all they were thinking about then was how to get money and votes.
All they are thinking about now is how to get money and votes.

Whether a war was legal or not is irrelevant to them if they can say it was not, after they did all the paperwork themselves, and get you to buy that excuse.
Just the same as they can make an illegal war action later and tell you everything is OK because it just happened to turn out favorable this time.

Not that I disagree with having wars. Its simply disingenuous to have two sets of standards for judging them.


Even the CIA was lying at that point. Seems hard for a Washington politician to "independently verify" something when the main resource for getting the information in the first place is on the lying side.

way south: Its also foolish to trust a member of the opposition party on any subject without verifying it for yourself. Especially for a war.

How do you verify something like that given the way national security works?

your both sides are bad concern trolling is complete fail here. And, for the record, most of the liberally libs I know were against Iraq from the very first mention of it. I'm not saying both sides are great, but I don't see how you could honestly expect all our legislators to have their own individual world-wide spy networks for this kind of thing.

Even if they all had that info, why would we consider telling a lie with falling for it to be equally bad? The former is far worse.

way south: Not that I disagree with having wars

How could you ever personally support a war without having your own independent access to all top secret information and verification of everything?

Smackledorfer: Even if they all had that info, why would we consider telling a lie with falling for it to be equally bad? The former is far worse.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice...

What are we supposed to think when Democrats claim to have been fooled for every war spending and patriot act related vote between 9/11 and the 2008 elections?

I don't think they were tricked, personally. I doubt that anyone who voted for the war was really listening to that part of the CIA briefing about tank deployments or terror threats. They saw the war in terms of popularity for themselves.
They had their reasons for siding with the Republicans. When the war went tits up, they wanted to lie about how shallow that reasoning was.

Smackledorfer: How could you ever personally support a war without having your own independent access to all top secret information and verification of everything?

Because no such thing as a perfectly objective/independent viewpoint exists when talking about war. Our intelligence services get information from the biased people who live in these shiatholes and slit one another's throats on a regular basis. The president has to pick sides.

Its reasonable to say you made a decision based on the data provided at the time. Not so reasonable to call everyone from the POTUS down a liar just to save your own hide.

/I'm sure You'd agree it wasn't reasonable when Republicans did it to Obama.

You're insane.