Attention, Don Rumsfeld: Here's What You've Yearned For

In an excerpt from his book on former SecDef Donald Rumsfeld, Brad Graham quotes Mr. "Stuff Happens" thusly on the subject of the hated media:

Part of the formula, Rumsfeld added, involved pillorying him along with Bush and Cheney but sparing Powell and Rice. As an example, he noted accusations that Bush and Cheney had lied about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction in making the case for the invasion of Iraq. "They never say Colin Powell lied," Rumsfeld asserted. "They don't say Condi lied."

Don? This thing on? Here you go: Colin Powell lied. Condi lied. I've said it before. I'll say it again. I'm sure HuffPo hasn't made it into your briefing folders, so just check out "Smooth Moves" on iTunes. Or "Gym Buds."

Maybe you're buying into the whole "Negroes have a free pass" thing that some older white guys cling to, as a way of feeling victimized while simultaneously being unbelievably privileged. No matter. Colin lied. Condi lied. You lied. Your protege Dick Cheney lied. Male, female, black, white -- the entourage is linked, bonded in mendacity. Relax. It's not just about you.

Although you're a big part of it.

Comments

[Russycle]

I'm not so sure Powell lied. I mean, trusting your colleagues and taking their case to the UN even though you have doubts is a bit of a gray area. But I'm no expert on Powell, if I have it wrong please set me straight.

[been2there]

I think that Powell couldn't believe that a PRESIDENT would lie--but I don't think he was really sure of the situation. Damned if hedid and damned if he didn't. I think Rice lied, knew she was lying, and just didn't care.

[pyro]

"I think that Powell couldn't believe that a PRESIDENT would lie--but"

In my mind it's more that maybe Powell (as myself at first) couldn't believe that a president would lie about something so freaking important and consequential.

We were wrong.

But I don't think Powell lied. I do wish I knew. But I don't. I feel like he was totally used.

[RepugsOut08]

Powell had been there before in the first Gulf War. He knew the arguments against going all the way to Baghdad. The arguments that became obvious as we got bogged down in the quagmire of 'Operation Iraqi Freedom.'
Anyone who took the time to read a casual article on the region, could see that we were headed for a calamity. The only reason Bush was able to get enough people to back that invasion, was by lying to them about WMDs and a 9/11 connection.
As for the WMDs, all a person had to do to debunk them, was to look at the first Gulf War. We had a huge coalition of supporters from around the world, including nations from the Middle East. Why? Because they saw Saddam's army on the move as a real threat.
Flash forward to 2003, and W can barely get a ragtag group of nations to help. Add to that, UN inspectors inside Iraq finding nothing, and you'd have to be pretty gullible to have believed in WMDs. I don't happen to believe Powell is a gullible man. Why he did what he did, is up to him to tell us.

[twofish]

The only people who felt threatened by Saddam's armies were our buddies in Iran. Bush Sr. handed out huge bundles of money to bring in all those "allies." It was about oil, not freedom, not democracy, not even about putting the King of Kuwait back on his throne (which we did rather than organizing elections). Those "freedom" and "democracy" slogans are all about selling their wars to the rubes (that's us).

[JGatsby]

Powell is one of the few republicans and probably the only person from the Bush administration that I still have some respect for. His "Powell Doctrine" that he established while in the Pentagon was a set of principles describing when the US should get into a war that I think should be re-established now. The Iraq war was about as perfect a test case as you could find for an example that contradicted every principle in the Powell doctrine. I think when you look at his UN performance, the question of whether he was actually lying or not can never be answered definitively. However, I also think it really doesn't matter. He knew people like Cheney, Rumsfield, and Wolfewitz from previous administrations and should have been able to tell from their track record (dating back to "team B" a group of analysts working for them in the Reagan white house that concocted a complete set of lies about the Russians in order to justify more defense spending) that he couldn't take what they said at face value. Whether he actually lied or just decided not to continue asking hard questions is irrelevant. He failed when the country needed him most.

[Angelaaaa]

I'm not sure what is worse. Knowing the parameters of a certain course of action. In fact, knowing them so well you devise a Doctrine to clarify them. And then ignoring it.

Or acting out of ignorance and and cupidity to achieve the same result.

I do believe that the onus is on those who know better, to ensure their actions reflect that knowledge. That is why I also believe that ,while Powell is the most sympathetic of the neo-cons, he is also the most ethically flawed. He, more than anyone, would have understood what the consequences of these actions could be.

[frank1569]

Really? Not sure Powell lied?

"In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours... Saddam Hussein had not been able to build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction for the last 10 years".

Nine months later, Powell was claiming just the opposite x100.

So, either the General lied, repeatedly, or he is so f@#king stupid that he was simply duped by geniuses like Cheney, Wolfie, Feith, Rummy, Tenet, and the rest of war-crimes team...

[Jannsmoor]

Russycle,
The difficulty you are having is you do not perceive anyone as having a duty to tell the truth. Let us say a drunk staggers out of a bar late at night and shouts "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction." Is that qualitatively different than the President of the United States saying the same thing? Of course it is. The words are exactly the same but the duty of the speaker is entirely different. When a drunk makes some stupid drunken statement, no one cares, but when the President says the same thing in an attempt to lead a nation to war, thus spending trillions of dollars and leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, he has a duty to be careful, exacting, and 100% truthful in his statements. I feel for Powell, but in asserting the truthfulness of his statements, he put his credibility on the line. His assertions were simply not sufficiently proven to put forward as truth. And because he had a duty of 100% truthfulness, they fall into the category of lies.

[GreatNews27]

It's not a lie(or a crime) if you don't get punished. So far, no crimes at all in government. How special.

[elbzee]

Gives ya a nice warm & comfy feeling, doesn't it?

[ChangeYet]

Harry, for some reason my comments to your posts have a hard time getting past the moderators.

In exchange for 3 1/2 hours of your life, you too can understand why we go to w ar based on lies and why we stay there. As a bonus, you will learn why we are giving bail outs to the bankers.

Watch it here and now.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3776750618788792499&ei=2Ys_Spr4HpLqqAO76IWWBQ&q=project+for+a+new+american+century&hl=en

[ChangeYet]

My bad, here is the link I really meant to post.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7757684583209015812&ei=to0_SrD-K6iQrgPI4-iVBQ&q=federal+reserve&hl=en

The link on the original post is a must watch as well, it explains where are tax dollars are going.

[metropolan]

You lost me at "My bad".

[WmC]

Rummy wanted all of the intelligence gathering to be done by the defense department. He wanted the defense department to have the full responsibility for managing the Iraq occupation. Yet he was the last person in the Bush administration (if not the world) to realize the occupation had been badly botched and had actually created the insurgency. He was a poster boy for Bush incompetence.

[jsgaetano]

Conservatives- perpetually the victims, no matter what the situation.

The world cries for the plight of the poor little conservative!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

Colin Powell lied. Condi lied. I lied.

I'm a war criminal.

Obama is protecting me.

And there is nothing that you can do about it.

[Suzanne525]

Justice Dept and/or Congress are the departments handling this. Obama is NOT the prosecutor. Be patient but don't let up. Prosecuting former Pres/VP and cabinet secs will be difficult and highly divisive to this country. Which is why the cases MUST be airtight. That doesn't happen overnight.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

Not only is Rumsfeld being protected, other war criminals are as well.

[marignymitch]

Obama is protecting all American war criminals in this case. And has admitted to doing so repeatedly. You'd think they'd be more nicer to him.

[tompoe]

Brad Graham did NOT write a book on former Secretary Rumsfeld. He wrote a book on war criminal Secretary Rumsfeld. Please, Shearer, don't mislead your readers.

[demfriend]

Rummy must be drinking the same "denial joy juice" Cheney, Bush Jr and the "friends of the same (Rush, O'Reilly and Fox news) and has yet to figure out like the rest of the denial parade that we and some of the media know the degree of lies and manipulation they did to get the USA into the wars and Iraq. Saddam would have probably played along with getting the terrorist as he didn't like them either. The Taliban and others would have been sectioned off probably and we might be 4000 plus soldiers alive and many more not injured and suffering as well as a stable Iraq. But Bush wanted the guy who tried to kill "daddy" and to be a war president at all costs....and the price was too much and who knows how long we and our kids will be paying.