Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

Powell, Then and Now

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: 97silverlsc

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Powell, Then and Now
By BOB HERBERT

Published: September 27, 2004

Secretary of State Colin Powell, discussing the Iraq war during an appearance at The Times on Friday, did not have the crisp certitude of the general who assured us in 1991 that the first gulf war was going almost precisely as planned.

Thirteen years ago Mr. Powell was the supremely confident, almost cocky, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At press briefings he would describe the plan for defeating Saddam Hussein's army, which had invaded and occupied Kuwait, as follows: "First we're going to cut it off, and then we're going to kill it."

He would detail the air, land and naval forces closing in on the Iraqis and say: "I'm not telegraphing anything. I just want everybody to know that we have a tool box that's full of tools, and I brought them all to the party."

He had every reason to be brash. The U.S.-led coalition went into the first gulf war with a coherent plan, extensive international support and overwhelming military superiority, including more than half a million American troops.

Last Friday, surrounded by reporters and editors, Secretary Powell had a decidedly different message. He refused to paint a rosy picture of the current war's progress. "We've got a tough road ahead of us," he said. He acknowledged that the resistance encountered by American troops was stronger than the administration had anticipated, and he added, "I'm not going to underestimate or understate the seriousness of the insurgency."

The resistance, he said, is a "black cloud" over U.S. efforts in Iraq.

Mr. Powell's candor was refreshing. But what we're not getting from the Bush administration is any sense of where we go from here with this war that never made sense, has cost more than 1,000 American lives, has further destabilized the Middle East and has energized the forces of terror that are the real threat to the U.S.

Bush administration officials are busy lowering expectations about the elections scheduled for January. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld now tells us it's fine if elections reach just three-quarters or four-fifths of the country. Secretary Powell, in an interview on CNN yesterday, said: "There will be polling stations that are shot at. There will be insurgents who will be out there who will try to keep people from voting."

No earthly amount of spin can make a credible case that Iraq is on the road to freedom and democracy.

Meanwhile, in yet another echo of Vietnam, American commanders in Iraq are begging for more troops. It was ever thus. Commanders thrust into these unwinnable wars against foreign insurgencies always believe that just a few thousand more troops will turn the tide. Americans were told again and again that there was light at the end of the tunnel in Vietnam. The troops sent into that nightmare would dryly remark that the light was coming from an onrushing train.

Rather than destroying an enemy army, which was the goal of the first gulf war, the U.S. military is now spinning its wheels in the Iraqi sand. No one is sure who or where the enemy is, or even what the U.S. mission is. And it is in that horrendous, senseless environment that American troops are getting shot to death or blown up or horribly maimed every single day.

At home, Americans seem to have forgotten what an ill-advised war can do to the United States. More than three decades after it was published, David Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest" should still be required reading. Lyndon Johnson had hoped Vietnam would be a short war, Mr. Halberstam wrote, and he was afraid of the political consequences if the true economic costs became visible:

"The result was that his economic planning was a living lie, and his administration took us into economic chaos: the Great Society programs were passed but never funded on any large scale; the war itself ran into severe budgetary problems (the decision in 1968 to put a ceiling on the American troops was as much economic as political); and the most important, the failure to finance the war honestly would inspire a virulent inflationary spiral which helped defeat Johnson himself. Seven years after the commitment of combat troops, that inflation was still very much alive and was forcing a successor Administration into radical, desperate economic measures in order to restore some financial balance."

We've been there, done that, and now we're doing it again.

Posted by: Katshot

Scarey but I believe it. Bush has opened Pandora's box and is either too stupid to realize it, or too arrogant to admit it.

Posted by: mespock

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katshot

Scarey but I believe it. Bush has opened Pandora's box and is either too stupid to realize it, or too arrogant to admit it.

Stupid !!! - This isn't a very wise man or men we have running our country.

Makes one scared to see what our future will be if he get 4 more wars oh I mean years.

I guess what ever goes wrong will get blamed on Clinton.

Posted by: Kbob

Bush told the country that this war would be long and hard in the beginning. The first Gulf War was much easier relatively speaking because we didn't take out Saddam's government and go into Baghdad, or anywhere north of Baghdad. We kicked them out of Kuwait, took out their army, slapped Saddam on the wrist, and left. This is not the same kind of war now. Our mission is both simple and complicated: stabilize Iraq so they can govern themselves. I will not hold onto the premise that this is a winnable situation forever, but neither will I succumb so easily that all is lost.

Posted by: Katshot

I love it when people use the phrase "stabilize the Middle East". Like THAT's possible right?

Posted by: Asakha

Seems it has never been possible in the last milleniums. Every religions claim this part of the world and fight for it. Not gonna stop because US came in.

But what happened to the first prority of Bush ? You know, finding Ben Laden ? He must be laughing his ass out... Soon there'll be more dead in IRAQ than what he did September 11th.

And as far as I remember, when US first went to IRAQ, it was suppose to be faster than what's going on. You know, they first went there to find mass destruction weapons which UN never found (and US neither). Then the "mission" changed to take Saddam out of there.

For me, Bush only wanted to scare americans, much easier to win election this way. What kind of country would hunt for mass destruction weapon and allow automatic riffle to be sold and used by anyone ? Here in Canada, we had much less trouble with violent crime since those weapons were banned... But again, what Bush would be ready to do to win another election...

My 2 canadian cents... (which are worth more and more !!)

Posted by: Kbob

With all due respect, please spare me the "Canada is so much better than the US" speech. I've studied the violent crime rates here and there and they aren't that much different, especially since the US has a much better crime tracking system so we know what our crime rate is, as opposed to you up there where you don't.

If scaring people to go into Iraq was so good for Bush for re-election, why is it a neck and neck race? Because it never was about that, and saying so is just another "scare" tactic.

Europe has historically been a continent of constant warfare. Do you believe that the US had a lot to do with the stability that has taken place there the last few decades? If you don't, you really are living on another planet and have no idea what you're talking about. Imagine the chaos and wars that would have occurred if we had just abandoned Europe and Japan after the capitulation of the axis powers. We cannot abandon Iraq either.

Posted by: Katshot

Unfortunately, I believe that if you REALLY think Europe and the Middle East are comparable regions and people, you are very mis-informed. Bush DID in fact use the "war on terror" as a tool to further his own agenda. The problem is he couldn't even do THAT right. Blunder after blunder has left us in quite a hole.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katshot

Unfortunately, I believe that if you REALLY think Europe and the Middle East are comparable regions and people, you are very mis-informed. Bush DID in fact use the "war on terror" as a tool to further his own agenda. The problem is he couldn't even do THAT right. Blunder after blunder has left us in quite a hole.

They are comparable in the context that you stated, yes. Bush DID NOT use this to further an agenda. And the problem as I see it is the naysayers eroding public confidence, causing political dissent. Warfare is not a perfect science. And the Middle East has had long periods of relative stability in its history, fyi.

Posted by: Asakha

I never said Canada was better than US. I said Canada had much less violent crime (especially from bikers) since the rifles were ban in US. Why ? Because we have a 6000km frontier between us and it's quite easy to bring legal weapons from US which are illegal in Canada.

As for Europe, it isn't the same than IRAQ. It isn't some kind of fanatics who wish to conquer the world, but a guy who mistreat his people.

And I don't say Kerry is any better than Bush, in fact Kerry doesn't even seem to know what to do. If I was an american, I would vote for an independant or wouldn't vote at all.

p.s. Canada is so much better !

[quote=Kbob]With all due respect, please spare me the "Canada is so much better than the US" speech. I've studied the violent crime rates here and there and they aren't that much different, especially since the US has a much better crime tracking system so we know what our crime rate is, as opposed to you up there where you don't.

Posted by: Katshot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

Nice term, "relative stability". Relative to what? the Middle East is nowhere near comparable to Europe, are you nuts? Hell, even Ireland isn't as bad as the Middle East. The biggest problem with the Middle East is that there truely is no way to truely stabilize the region. That's why most world powers have pretty much left it alone. Reminds me of an old story, remember the "Tar Baby"? And this is what's wrong with complaints from anyone concerning plans for the Middle East (specifically Iraq) or the lack thereof. I would challenge ANYONE to come up with a good plan to get us out of the mess Bush got us into, including Bush. Why do you think the Bush administration has been looking so bad with respect to Iraq? Because Bush has gotten himself (and us) into a true no-win situation. Yeah sure, Bush supporters will point out any holes in Kerry's plans they can find, and I'm sure there'll be plenty. But try to remember that if Bush had any great ideas, I'm sure he's already tried them and failed. So what DO you do about a no-win situation? Try what Bush has done, stay the course and hope for SOMETHING good to happen! Great plan.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asakha

p.s. Canada is so much better !

Didn't you guys in Quebec want to split from Canada?? Seriously, Quebec City is one of those places that I want to see in my lifetime. It looks awesome to me. Anyway, viva la difference!

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katshot

Nice term, "relative stability". Relative to what? the Middle East is nowhere near comparable to Europe, are you nuts?

I strongly disagree that any part of the world is a lost cause. I don't wish to get into some kind of intellectual match with you to prove the many different parts and peoples of the world that were brutal and/or chaotic and/or oppressive throughout the course of history that are no longer that way for one reason or another (including war). Saying things like "the Middle East will never be at peace" or something similar has racial undertones in it that I despise. I'm not accusing you of doing that, but that is the root of those statements. The Middle East used to be something that it is not now. It used to be the greatest and most enlightened region of the world. You may disagree with our involvement there, but I'm not nuts. History should never be ignored.

And for the sake of comparison and clarification, we have had a period of "relative stability" in North America for about 140 years.

Posted by: Katshot

So you're saying that "relative stability" refers to no wars among their own people (like our civil war) right? Sorry, I don't buy that. The Middle East region has been tearing itself apart for a LONG TIME. And I'm not just talking about a century or two. I'm also not looking for an intellectual match either. Lord knows I'm no authority on this subject so reaching the limits of my knowledge would not be hard. I'm just trying to point out that we shouldn't have gotten involved in this mess, specifically not in the way that we did. But that's not an option anymore is it? So the point at hand must be, "so where do we go from here?" And as I said before, THAT's a good question. Bush has proven that HE has no idea, so it's time to try something (or someone) else.

Posted by: Kbob

I really do understand your points, Katshot. I think most of the country and the world is in agreement with you on that. I'm just trying to point out a different point of view. You don't have to agree with me on the timeline of events in the Middle East as it's historically recorded. I acknowledge that the history of the Mid East the last few centures has been anything but peaceful for any real length of time. I was just making a broad observation that things can and do change (even after centuries of constant warfare) if we persevere, as this has happened before. Again, I realize you may disagree. And we disagree on who is the best man to lead us in that endeavor.

Posted by: Katshot

We'll agree to disagree then. But as for who should run the country, if everyone could put politics aside and show some guts, we'd do a lot better. The problem is most people are affraid of the unknown and that will cause them to vote for Bush. You see it in life everyday. People staying with a bad situation rather than take a chance on something new. This country really has turned into a bunch of sheep!

Posted by: Kbob

No offense meant here, but "it's the candidate, stupid!"

Posted by: MonsterMark

Anybody supporting Kerry for President and is worried about foreign affairs is unfortuantely misguided. He has no plan, he will change directions whenever political pressure is applied. He will consort with the enemy. He will transfer our sovereignty over to the United Nations. He will attempt to push us toward Socialism. On and on and on.

I hate to be so over-the-top on this guy but I have spent the last 8 weeks looking at this guy top to bottom and the only thing going for him is that he is the Democratic nominee, so that guarantees him 42% of the vote. That 42% will vote for bozo the clown if his name has a (D) after it. After all, over 60% admit their support for Kerry is actually a "anybody but Bush" vote, so that proves my point.

We need to stay the course. Bring Democracy to Iraq. Iran is already moving to Democracy, at least in the age group of 15-30, which I beleive is almost 50% of the poluation over there. Other nations will follow. Look what is happening in China with the emergence of a whole new middle class. The internet will continue to inform people around the world that "democracy" is where happiness is at. Where you can raise your family and standard of living simultaneously, and in peace.

Baby steps, one at a time. We are so used to instant gratification in this country. Win a war in 48 hours. Don;t want any casualties. Transform a people and government in 1 year. Come on, time to get real.

Posted by: Asakha

Yes, there's some "Québécois" who wants to split, but not everyone, hence why it isn't done yet. The "Parti Québécois" political party, which tried twice in the last 25 years to get the independance (and even then, it was only a political independance, they wanted to keep some stuff from Canada like the army (lol, wonder which one) and the money but never managed to get over 50% of the votes for the independance (though in 1994 they've got 49.5%).

The reason it doesn't work is mainly because the reasons they had in the '70s aren't there anymore, especially the protection of the french language.

And yes, Quebec is a beautiful city, especially the old part which stayed almost unchanged since the war against the England.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

Didn't you guys in Quebec want to split from Canada?? Seriously, Quebec City is one of those places that I want to see in my lifetime. It looks awesome to me. Anyway, viva la difference!