Dowd: The House of Broken Toys | Powell/Woodward

[nostamj]

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 bête 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.

[LittleApple81]

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*?:

[SoDesuKa]

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.

[cosmicdot]

6. 'need to negatively mention Clinton'

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

[supercrash]

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

[mn9driver]

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.

[BigBigBear]

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.

[placton]

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.

[pippin]

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.

[nostamj]

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?