|Colin Powell Laying It On In '03|
Yeah. Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Yeah, Right.
(photo from cbsnews.com)
After my review, I can't fault anybody for being leery of this deal, and I support our federal reps for trying to put the brakes on it. One of my main concerns about the political chatter created by this brouhaha is that supporters of the agreement are leaning heavily on General Colin Powell's assessment of it as "a pretty good deal." That's what he told Meet The Press the other day and his comments have been moving with the force and speed of a prairie fire in South Dakota. This to me is amazing, considering how Powell's duplicitous presentation to the United Nations at the advent of the Iraq war in 2003 gave so much credibility to the Bush administration's ill-conceived causus belli for sending our troops into that expensive and interminable quagmire.
A couple of years ago, the Huffington Post's exhaustive and comprehensive recap of Powell's activities and utterances during the rhetorical build-up to the war included phrases like "unambiguous lies," "fabricated evidence," and "deception by omission." The HuffPo piece, written by Jonathon Schwarz, is titled "Lie After Lie After Lie: What Colin Powell Knew . . . And What He Said." Schwarz concludes that Powell has "never been held accountable for his actions and it's extremely unlikely he ever will be." That's somewhat of an understatement, considering that Powell has not only been given a pass for his egregious lapse of judgement, but has risen to the the status of an informed and influential authority on this generation's dealings with another power in that part of the world, Iran. Powell may indeed have it right with respect to the Iran nuclear deal, but I can't trust the judgement of someone who was so easily duped by the minions of another White House that was using him as political window dressing for its schemes. If Powell has made a point-by-point response to the HuffPo piece, I haven't seen it, but will welcome and post it here if provided to me. As to the terms of the deal, Iran's President Hassan Rouhani said at his swearing-in two years ago that "transparency is the key to opening a new chapter of mutual trust." Truer and
|President Rouhani Wants "Transparency"|
So How Come It Isn't In This Deal?
(photo from www.deliberation.info)
Meantime, if I need to heed the words of a phalanx of retired generals and admirals who have taken the time and trouble to sound off on this deal, I have some at hand. Here's a list of 190 and their jointly signed letter in opposition to the agreement. Their collection of backgrounds and expertise strikes me as much weightier and more informed than Powell's, a general who has already shown himself to be a willing part of a scam that cost this country plenty. I know it's too late to stem the inertia built into the approval of the Iran deal, but I'm glad that unlike the virtually unquestioning support that the Iraq war got, we have a solid bloc of federal reps that are on the record as saying "not so fast."