I think Wilkerson is upset and frustrated at how Colin Powell was set up. I don’t think Condelisa Rice’s PhD is going to help her get out of the mess once Dick and Bush start to point the finger at her. These guys would shoot their own grandmothers if it meant they could stay in office longer.

One thing is certain; these people have committed treason against the American People by using Patriotism as their tool.

An old wife’s tale says that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Both Cheney and Rumsfield were raised by parents who supported Hitler. Their parents were Nazi’s. Both of their character is showing through, but for all those who have passed so late.

The only thing we can do is hope for people like Cindy Sheehan to make a difference. She has been this administration’s stumbling block.

When Scott Ritter went public and stated that Iraq had no WMD, Cheney and Karl Rove when on a character assassination spree to discredit this man. Where is his apology? It’s a good thing now that less people believe them.

Maybe there will be justice. And it’s not for the people who don’t like this “War on Terror”. Because the apparent “Terror” is within.

Here’s something even more interesting. Late yesterday CST the link was removed from CNN’s web site. Last night this didn’t even make the news. Hummmmm.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today1_wilkerson_20051129.ram

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/

What hasn’t been clear is exactly what problems Wilkerson is blaming on the cabal. Did the cabal fix the pre-war intelligence? Did it make the decision to invade and somehow push that decision on the president? Did it botch the post-invasion?

Christ…

The Sound of Patriots
Submitted by the cubist on Fri, 2005-10-21 22:36.
The Army and Marines have been shabbily treated, and they know it. The Colonel hints that he speaks for the common wisdom among the best and brightest of those at least in the generation he taught. If things have reached such a pass that a career field-grade officer and Naval War College professor—the deputy to the past Secretary of State—thinks the situation is so bad that professional soldiers may be seriously considering armed revolution to rid the nation of these stupid Republican traitors, then Iraq must be even worse than we can know, even as the Gulf devastation is.

What a story. And nobody whispers a word about it but a few on the net, and some foreign newspapers. Nice work, Lambert and Corrente.

In defense of my take on these elements, I say that Wilkerson himself is one of the professional soldiers who seems here to be considering the prospect of armed revolution. He is a professional diplomat, of high order. So he speaks in metaphors, the lingua franca of the diploma. He even points to this very skill when he speaks of using the Declaration of Independence in study classes with his tutored students. And after he speaks about metaphors, he refers to the Declaration as calling the people “to throw off tyranny, to throw off ineptitude.� The inept and tyrannical Bush administration? (“Cabal� is a word historically associated with treason). He clearly implies that the time is getting close for a return to the principles of the Declaration, and that the circumstances Americans faced then may parallel what we face now. And the Declaration is nothing less than a call to join an armed revolution to overthrow tyranny. There is thus at least one soldier who seems to be considering it, and I think his reference at the opening to his former students hints at his saying what they may not say. In my view, he hints at the possible overthrow of King George.
Posted by: the cubist at October 25, 2005 02:51 AM

We are in Iraq today because the Republican party needed to do something to insure that they remained in control after the 2002 mid-term elections.

At that time the American people were beginning to focus on domestic issues where the administration did not have any advantage over the Democrats. As they have repeatedly demonstrated, the Republican party is expert at setting the forum for debate. By diverting public attention to “terrorism” and the serious issues of war, they shut-down all other debate. The nation and Colonel Wilkerson were busy debating the content of the administrations arguments about whether or not WMDs were there rather than questioning why the issue had suddenly become pressing.

I do not believe that the Democrats were fooled for a minute, they simply lacked the courage to run the risk of having the American people reject them as “unpatriotic” or weak. I blame the American public for the lack of critical thinking that justified those fears and the news media fo failing to adequately pursue the question “Why now?”. There was not any “new intelligence” presented during the entire debate to justify the presence of an immediate crisis. Of course that was because the crisis was not related to Iraq but to internal US politics.

I do not argue that the US mid-term elections were the only reason for the invasion. I firmly believe that there were many in the administration who wanted to invade Iraq for a number of other reasons, one of which might actually been a fear of WMD (and of course there is always oil). The precipitous “rush to war” however was driven by the desire to keep everyone off-balance and predictably get the people to rally around their president. The move was expertly executed, even the debate of whether their were WMDs or not actually helped obscure the fact that there was no immediate need to do this.

By timing the push and war when they did they were able to guarantee that the issue would persist through the presidential elections and while the negative consequences of the war might have become an issue in 2004, the big issues were all longer-term and unlikely to be a problem for the election. I am sure that the idea looked better and better and “group-think” took over in the White House. Not only would they sway the election, but they would make changes that they believed were in the best long-term interests of the country, make some money for their supporters, and install a free-market economy in Iraq (democracy is not the goal, it is grudgingly accepted as a companion to free-market economics).

I have no doubt that may of the individuals firmly believe these things are desirable, just as they believe that they will be forgiven for lying “in the best interests of the country”. This demonstrates their utter contempt for democracy. In my view an informed electorate is the basis of democracy and voters should make decisions based on the issues. Most of the Republican party appears to believe in “paternalism”. where “good” people do what is best for the nation and don’t bother the public with the details of their deliberations. It is OK (in their minds) to bend the truth in order to do what they feel is necessary. The ends justify the means. This is reminiscent of the Soviet Union under Stalin, the rationalization of all sorts of horrible behavior for the future good.

The problem is that it is our goal not to have an “end” so how can you justify it with “the means”?

Jim

he chose poorly last year.

The Saddam who came out of his hiding place, looking like a homeless person, mumbling something about “making a deal” with the U.S. confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that we had utterly failed in assessing the threat presented by this man. Now our intellegence understands that Saddam’s big concern was Iran, and that his refusal to admit that there were no WMDs was posturing on his part.

We need to hold accountable the consevative paranoid mind set that is incapable of rational threat assessment. This mindset is obssessed with the idea of being infallable and showing that we’re tough. I like the way their attitude was charactarized by Molly Ivins as

“the familiar tinniness of the fake machismo I know so well from George W. Bush and all the other frat boys who never went to Vietnam and never got over the guilt.”

Why didn’t Chris ask Col. Wilkerson why he voted for Bush the second time? For most Americans, the only way we have to hold politicians accountable is by voting or not voting for them. So what good is his complaining now, when he helped put Bush and Cheney in office for another 4 years.

Looking back five or six years ago, I imagine Cheney and Rumsfeld coaching Bush. Cheney says, ‘They’re nothing but deck of cards. Nothing but a house of cards.”

Cheney is referring to the Congress and to the Fourth Estate (media) and to FDA and the FCC and the State Department and to the entire bureaucracy of the federal government.

They continue their coaching. “We will be remembered in history. Never mind the details or the detractors. Details are only important to bean counters and foot soldiers. And our deteractors, they’re laughable. Ignore them. They’re just a deck of cards.”

Then Cheney and Rumsfeld conclude, “We shall lead, and our country and the world will follow.”

Instead what I heared tonight was Col Wilkerson “walking back” these statements, backing down from the very points that he made initially wherby he was so moved to “come put” and blow the whistle in the first place!

I was taken aback to here him fall in line with the Administration’s current line of defense against allegations of purposely manipulating intelligence whereby they were all just “wrong”…….I sat here with my Jaw on the floor as he just ended up parroting the BS that the Administration is now using as a defense……

I swear to god, After hearing the Col’s Backpeddaling tonight regarding the handling of Intel, I am starting to feel like the whole reason Col Wilkerson came out in the first place was to send up a “weather balloon” and take the temperature of Public Opinion for a future ressurection for Colin Powell. I am not buying the fact that Larry and Colin “Don’t Talk Anymore” and that they are now “estranged” because Sec. Powell did not approve of Col Wilkerson breaking ranks with his “Inside Baseball” look into the policy machine. I feel that we are still being mislead.

This line of talk is incredible, and maddening. Wilkerson reinforces Bush’s latest line, that the Democrats came to the same wrong conclusion, so it’s somehow okay. THE POLLS SHOW THAT THE PEOPLE REALIZE THE DEMOCRATS ARE COWARDLY WEASELS TOO! This is not a valid excuse.

“All intelligence sources agreed”. No, all intelligence sources that the authorities chose to cite agreed. THAT’S WHY THEY CHOSE TO CITE (ONLY) THEM.

This huge error is not one of degree, like we thought Sadaam had enough WMD to kill 100,000 people, but he only had enough to kill 15,000 people. NO! The difference between one WMD and no WMD is infinite!

At least Wilkerson admits that the intelligence was wrong; Bush cannot even admit that, incredibly, although it is beyond doubt that it was wrong and manipulated.

Powell is as complicit in war crimes as Cheney and Rumsfeld. He took an oath to the American people that he violated KNOWINGLY and REPEATEDLY. Show them all no mercy.

Also, does he have any theories, looking back, to explain why Hussein behaved the way he did before the war?

Republicans, for 8 years under Clinton, were so hungry, so desperate for the whole enchilada, that they put a weak but appealing man up in 2000 who is not presidential material, not strong enough to lead. But they felt he could win for them. Thus we were promised Cheney and Rumsfeld and Powell for weight and experience. They were suppose to guide Bush. They were to assure us. We could trust them.

So the country really voted for an oligarchy, not a presidency. In addition, before 9/11, Bush seemed to need purpose, something to hang his presidency on, to give him, his presidency
meaning. And so we have the consequences.

while it was a relief to hear you speak about the events leading us to unprovoked initiation, I am sad to say I think Mr. Powell needs to re examine his priorities.

Is his loyalty to his president more dear to him then his loyalty to his country?

It is his OBLIGATION to present testimony on what you have had to say, whether he agrees or disagrees with your evaluation

whether he gives formal or informal testimony, never the less, it is his duty to to make clear what has happened to this country

If he feels all is well and good in our policies, then he needs to refute your his former chief of staff’s criticism of the president

If on the other hand, what you’ve said is true, it’s his responsibility to hold the people responsible to account, and he must do this to the best of his ability.

He has become a vital component of the checks and ballances that are were placed in our government for just such occasion as we are witness in these times of unprovoked war

Will he answer the call of his country?

Or will he bow to the will of men who put our government at peril.

Thank you for your past and continuing public service, for speaking the truth on how we arrived at this mess.

My main concern before the March 2003 invasion was, and still is, spreading regional instability. All the national borders within the region bordered by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey can be described as artificial, imposed, as they were, by outside powers. If Iraq’s borders unwravel, will not other national borders be likewise destabilized? And what are the regional powers named above likely to do in such a scenario?

In short, what chance do you see for the outbreak of a larger regional war? Is an ongoing American presence needed to stave off such a grave scenario?

Thank you.