Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dowd: The House of Broken Toys | Powell/Woodward

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
nostamj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 09:22 AM
Original message
Dowd: The House of Broken Toys | Powell/Woodward
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/opinion/18DOWD.html

When Colin Powell decided that Dick Cheney's crazy "fever," as he called the vice president's obsession with linking 9/11 and Saddam, was leading the country into a war it did not need to fight, he should have bared his heart to the president and made his case using the Powell doctrine with overwhelming force. Mr. Bush probably wouldn't have listened. He was in Mr. Cheney's gloomy sway, and Rummy's bellicose sway. And W. felt competitive with his more popular top diplomat.

But Mr. Powell should have tried. And if the president didn't listen, the secretary should have quit not let himself be used by the vice president and his "Gestapo office" of Pentagon neocons, as Mr. Powell referred to them, to put a diplomatic fig leaf on a predetermined war plan and to present bogus intelligence to the U.N.

He knew his word held enormous weight around the world. And he knew he was the only one, out of all the officials in on the clandestine rush to war, who had fought in a war. He should have spoken up for all those soldiers who would fight and die and be maimed for Dick Cheney's nutty utopian dream of bombing the world into freedom, and W.'s dream of being so forceful with Saddam, the slime bag who survived his father's war, that he would forever banish his family's bte noire the wimp factor.

<snip>

The plans for invading "The House of Broken Toys," as the C.I.A. referred to Iraq, may not have been sitting on his desk, but he secretly started planning with Rummy for war with Iraq in November 2001, and with Tommy Franks starting the next month. Once they were thick into the planning, the president couldn't turn back, of course. That would make him like the loathed Bill Clinton a lot of bold talk and not much action not like "The Man," as Mr. Cheney called his warrior president.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LittleApple81 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. Good article. But two points:
1. Why doesn't she acknowledge the NYT was guilty by becoming a shill for the administration and allowing Judith Miller to write her continued roll to war based on Chalabi's lies?
2. Last Paragraph: Why does she need to negatively mention Clinton when she is talking about Bush*?:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoDesuKa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Dowd and Clinton
When Clinton was president, Dowd did nothing but attack him - consistently and viciously. She was just as fixated on Clinton as she now accuses Cheney of being fixated on Iraq. She never said anything good about Clinton. I used to scan her column for the word "Clinton" and if it was there, I didn't bother to read it. Dowd has a nutty streak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicdot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. 'need to negatively mention Clinton'
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 10:29 AM by cosmicdot
she's obsessed with it ... can hardly write without doing it ... really sick if you ask me

for the longest time she would never write anything negative about Bush* ... but, now, if she does, you can count on the odds that Clinton's name or the term Clinton-esque will be there

with most of these pundits, one would think we've only had 2 presidents in our history ... one elected, one selected
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
supercrash Donating Member (412 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
2. Ummm
I really don't like how they put the blame on Powell

The American people could have stopped the war...but at the time...most Americans wanted war in Iraq

I blame Americans, they are a foolish bunch, they could not see what the rest of the planet was able to see before the war
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mn9driver Donating Member (877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Americans couldn't see it because the media in this country
is controlled by corporate interests and didn't allow them to see it. I don't believe Americans are foolish; they've been lied to by institutions and leaders that do not have their best interests at heart.

Americans "wanted" war in Iraq because their only sources of information told them repeatedly that it was the right thing to do. Most Americans don't read the newspaper regularly; their primary window on the world is through television and radio. Even today, with only a few exceptions, TV and radio continue to call the war in Iraq the "WAR ON TERROR", accompanied by tense, inspirational music.

Americans are generally a smart bunch, with an unfortunate history of occasionally being led astray by "trusted" institutions. The public eventually figures it out--until next time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigBigBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Americans wanted a war
because of 9/11, and because we were told that getting Saddam would even it up.

Some of us didn't believe that, but most of us did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
placton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Mr. Bear, you are correct!
Any Muslim or Arab nation would have been accepted. Herr Bush was sad about rumors that Saddam wanted to "off" Daddy, and he was gonna make amends - using the bodies of hundreds of soldiers and thousands of innocents to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pippin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
7. never mind Powell where the hell were
the Democrat Congress and Senate? They certainly didn't say "boo." Instead they bootlicked Bush Co. and gave him the green light to start this disaster in Iraq. Remember Daschle, Gephardt, Pelosi et. al--a whole bunch of sell outs if you ask me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nostamj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. but, weren't they all LIED to?

don't the bushies have full responsibility for completely overstating (if blatant lies can be parsed as 'overstatements') the rationale for an invasion of Iraq?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Nov 24th 2014, 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC