Posted on 05/01/2006 6:40:58 AM PDT by NotchJohnson
POWELL WANTED MORE TROOPS
Headline this morning screams 'COLIN POWELL WANTED MORE TROOPS IN IRAQ!' What does this mean? Well, it means once again, that the entire Bush Administration and the United States Military is filled with morons, and only Colin Powell had the answer --- oh, and the media, of course. Actually not really. But that's what Democrats and the mainstream media would have you believe.
Colin Powell said he didn't think there were enough troops in Iraq after the war to impose order. Fine...he's right. There weren't enough troops there to impose order. But can't anyone with 2 eyeballs see that...not just Colin Powell? In addition, this was up to the Generals in the field...they were asked time and time again if they needed more troops. They said they did not.
During the time in question, Colin Powell was the Secretary of State, not the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President of the United States or the Defense Secretary. His opinion, while well-qualified, was just that..an opinion. Did we need more troops in the aftermath of the war? Maybe, but maybe not.
What we really needed to do was not fire the entire Iraqi Army...and have them impose order. We also needed to crack down on the Baghdad looters on day one. There is where the tone for lawlessness was established. Thank you, Paul Bremer. But Colin Powell's comments will get all the press and attention...but it's really too late for them to mean anything. Unless Powell is selling a book or running for office or something.
Powell is a second-guesser. I have no respect for leaders who are constantly wringing their hands over decisions already made.
Put a sock in it Colin. You ain't in the administration any more. (Wonder what he's up to)?
He is stealing Coulter's writing style. lol
Wonder what would happen if the MSM was in charge? Think Clinton Administration.
I think it's disgusting, too, that he joined the Generals. But I never liked Powell as Secy of State -- he is way too PC, way to pro-Palestinian and touchy-feely. I think he's going to join Hillary as VP/ 2008.
Powell is a disloyal backstabber. He climbed to his 4 star rank over the backs of many other, more qualified officers and he's never lost his knack for duplicity. In fact, we can thank him for having to go after Saddam a second time, because he is the one who persuaded Bush the elder from finishing him off in '91.
Powell also may have wanted "Sharks with frikkin' laser beams attached to their heads!" but he lost in the arguments and he should STFU!!!
Powell, audtioning for the VP slot against LGraham?
If Powell had been in charge, D-Day would been June 6th 1949 or later.
Absolutely false. Read more.
Well, there is that nagging issue of Turkey not allowing the 4th ID at the last minute. Seems like a failure of diplomacy, Powell's job, resulted in an entire division of the most advanced US military technology to be taken out of the initial assault.
Powell should shut hie cake-hole.
These are six Clinton Generals, I can't help but think this was carefully planned to cause Bush to fail. What do they care about their careers they already reached the rank to retire with a good pension. They should have been fired for dereliction of duty.
If the 4th did come from the north and at the start, I think they could have squeezed a lot of the insurgency. I do blame Powell for not getting Turkey on board.
It was not Powell's plan to cause Bush to fail. Powell has a reputation of being fiercely loyal to the United States and to the Commander-in-Chief.
It is true that Powell did want more troops and stated this in 2002. How hard is that to comprehend? He was wounded in Vietnam for Christ's sake.
Why discredit an American who served with honor? What're you a bunch of liberal wanks? Go rub Michael Moore's belly or something.
What is is doing is what he does best, which is to make Colin Powell look good.
Powell's portfolio was the State Department and he failed in that mission. If we are looking to fix blame, he was on his advise to go to the UN and to put ourselves into the hands of the French, who with their usual perfidy were more interested in sticking it in our eye than in doing anything about Saddam. Furthermore, it was owing to failed diplomacy in Turkey that we were unable to invade Iraq from the north. Everyone is agreed that that would have made a big difference, but State blew that. What about them apples, General Powell!
Powell is the main damned reason Bush I didn't take out Saddam in the early 90s.... Hes a good man, but his world view, particularly in military affairs was too shaped by Vietnam to be incredibly valid.
He was more affraid of what pictures of the burned out cars and tanks in the desert would do to support back home, than taking out an international war criminal.
Much ado about nothing... Generals on the ground were good, and Powell should not be second guessing them.
Hmmm.........sounds so "Demonratic". *~*
As usual, Boortz can never admit that he made a mistake. It was quite clear to the generals that asking for more troops was the "wrong" answer.
Uh-oh........that last line! I think I'm gonna hurl my Honey-Nut Cheerio's! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.