PDA

View Full Version : Rice and Powell on opposite sides--- It's Finally happened.


RVD
May 1st, 2006, 01:33 AM
I was wondering when the truth would finally come out, however late. And as if following a script, Condoleezza "Lap-Dog" Rice defends her sugardaddy, Bush. And Colin "late-as-usual-waffler" Powell finds his courage and his tongue.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12563754/
Rice on defensive over strength of U.S. forces
Forced to defend prewar planning after Powell raises issue of troop levels

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060430/060430_rice_hmed_11a.hmedium.jpg
Updated: 7:41 p.m. ET April 30, 2006

WASHINGTON - Just back from Baghdad and eager to discuss promising developments, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice found herself knocked off message Sunday, forced to defend prewar planning and troop levels against an unlikely critic — Colin Powell, her predecessor at the State Department.

For the Bush administration, it was a rare instance of an in-house dissenter going public.

On Rice’s mind was the political breakthrough that had brought her and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to Iraq last week and cleared the way for formation of a national unity government.

Yet Powell sideswiped her by revisiting the question of whether the U.S. had a large enough force to oust Saddam Hussein and then secure the peace.

He said he advised Bush before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 to send more troops to Iraq, but that the administration did not follow his recommendation.

Journey through the past
Rice, Bush’s national security adviser during the run-up to the war, neither confirmed nor denied Powell’s assertion. But she spent a good part of her appearances on three Sunday talk shows reaching into the past to defend the White House, which is trying to highlight the positive to a public increasingly skeptical in this election year of the president’s conduct of the war and concerned about the large U.S. military presence.

“I don’t remember specifically what Secretary Powell may be referring to, but I’m quite certain that there were lots of discussions about how best to fulfill the mission that we went into Iraq,” Rice said. :lol:

“And I have no doubt that all of this was taken into consideration. But that when it came down to it, the president listens to his military advisers who were to execute the plan,” she told CNN’s “Late Edition.”

Powell, in an interview broadcast Sunday in London, said he gave the advice to now retired Gen. Tommy Franks, who developed and executed the Iraq invasion plan, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld while the president was present.

Powell: ‘I made case’ for more troops
“I made the case to General Franks and Secretary Rumsfeld before the president that I was not sure we had enough troops,” Powell said in an interview on Britain’s ITV television. “The case was made, it was listened to, it was considered. ... A judgment was made by those responsible that the troop strength was adequate.”

In an interview with AARP The Magazine released Sunday, Powell did not say what advice he gave Bush about whether to go to war. Known to be less hawkish than Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and some other presidential advisers, Powell implied he had been more cautious.

“The decisions that were made were not made by me or Mr. Cheney or Rumsfeld. They were made by the president of the United States,” he said.

“And my responsibility was to tell him what I thought. And if others were going in at different times and telling him different things, it was his decision to decide whether he wanted to listen to that person or somebody else.”

Rice: Bush ‘listened’ to all concerned
Rice said Bush “listened to the advice of his advisers and ultimately, he listened to the advice of his commanders, the people who actually had to execute the war plan. And he listened to them several times,” she told ABC’s “This Week.”

“When the war plan was put together, it was put together, also, with consideration of what would happen after Saddam Hussein was actually overthrown,” Rice said. :eek:

In January, Pentagon officials acknowledged that Paul Bremer, the senior U.S. official in Iraq during the first year of the war, told Rumsfeld in May 2004 that a far larger number of U.S. troops were needed to effectively fight the insurgency, but his advice was rejected.

Bremer said his memo to Rumsfeld suggested 500,000 troops were needed — more than three times the number there at the time.

Rice calls for looking forward
“There will be time to go back and look at those days of the war and, after the war, to examine what went right and what went wrong,” Rice said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” :lol:

“But the goal and the purpose now is to make certain that we take advantage of what is now a very good movement forward on the political front to help this Iraqi government,” she said.

Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the 1991 Gulf War and is known for his belief in deploying decisive force with a clear exit strategy in any conflict.

“The president’s military advisers felt that the size of the force was adequate; they may still feel that years later. Some of us don’t. I don’t,” Powell said. “In my perspective, I would have preferred more troops, but you know, this conflict is not over.”

“At the time, the president was listening to those who were supposed to be providing him with military advice,” Powell said. “They were anticipating a different kind of immediate aftermath of the fall of Baghdad; it turned out to be not exactly as they had anticipated.”

Rumsfeld has rejected criticism that he sent too few U.S. troops to Iraq, saying that Franks and generals who oversaw the campaign’s planning had determined the overall number of troops, and that he and Bush agreed with them. The recommendation of senior military commanders at the time was about 145,000 troops. :hehehe:

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

John A Roark
May 1st, 2006, 02:06 AM
I have always seen Powell as a George Marshall, not a George Patton.

Pheobo
May 1st, 2006, 02:17 AM
Oh no...someone must have torn a hole in the universe again..

Infiniti2001
May 1st, 2006, 06:47 AM
Colin Powell is so sad :o He could have saved this country so much grief but it was like he lost his will. :rolleyes:

drake3781
May 1st, 2006, 07:07 AM
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060430/060430_rice_hmed_11a.hmedium.jpg


Is that a real picture, or is it doctored, or is it just a really strange angle/perspective? Because she looks like a munchkin, or some type of dwarflike being with a small body and oversized head.


The sad part of all of this is that I think as a whole the American people don't care. We have seen so much corruption and mismanagement from this Administration and its political allies, and it doesn't seem to bother most/enough people enough to change anything. Or even to want to talk about it. It seems to me that this Administration can do ANYTHING including violating our civil liberties, ruining the country financially, buying influence, illegally undermining poliitical opponents, making mistakes that have cost thousands their lives and injured tens of thousands more, and turning most of the world against us.

Why is that? By-product of living in such a time-constrained culture? Having too much wealth and too many entertainment options? Spoiled and complacent by not having had to face a true enemy in our lifetime?

Infiniti2001
May 1st, 2006, 08:09 AM
The pic is real alright :lol: The woman insist on rolling that weave with sponge rollers :haha:

fnuf7
May 1st, 2006, 08:27 AM
What's Colin actually doing right now? Cos you never hear much from him even though he at least used to be extremely high profile, I'm surprised we haven't had more interviews from him like this one since he finished being Sec of State...