Colin Powell resigns
 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ell/index.html

Further Cabinet resignations expected
Monday, November 15, 2004 Posted: 10:46 AM EST (1546 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has submitted his resignation to President Bush, the White House said on Monday.

Powell is the most prominent of four Cabinet officials whose resignations will be announced Monday, sources told CNN.

The others will be Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman, Education Secretary Rod Paige and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, the sources said.

Powell told his senior staff that he planned to stay on until a replacement was confirmed, State Department officials said.

State Department officials told CNN that Bush and Powell decided mutually that it was time for him to go.

The officials said that Powell plans to keep working on a number of key issues, including North Korean nuclear talks, the Iraqi elections scheduled for January and Middle East peace process.

Powell was scheduled to travel to Egypt next week for a conference on Iraq.

A senior official said Monday that the State Department was trying to arrange a meeting between Powell and the new Palestinian leadership, but added the details have not been worked out. A date and place have not been set, the official said.

The official made the comment after Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath told reporters in Gaza City that Powell was expected to meet with the leadership next week in the West Bank.

Rumors have swirled about Powell's role in a second Bush administration, but neither the president nor the secretary had spoken publicly about his future.

Last week, when asked if he wanted Powell to stay on to oversee the Mideast peace process Bush told reporters: "I'm proud of my secretary of state. He's done a heck of a good job."

Powell told reporters that he had had several conversations with the president, but would not comment on what they said.

And the Education Secretary, Rod Paige bailed too. And the Energy Secretary and the Agriculture Secretary. Like rats deserting a sinking ship. . . .

It is not uncommon for the Cabinet to change in a second term. So, this is not that out of the ordinary. Having said that, it is widely assumed and somewhat known that Powell and the Pentagon clashed. Sadly, Powell is the one that resigned.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

but aren't you a little terrified it will be out of the frying pan and into the fire. I agree CP made mistakes, but he was the ONLY voice of reason in that warmongering tribe :shrug: I shudder to think what will come next!!!!!!!

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=6816698

Rice Is Top Candidate to Replace Powell -Sources
Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:03 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - National security adviser Condoleezza Rice emerged as the likely candidate on Monday to replace resigning Secretary of State Colin Powell, Republican sources said.

Rice has been President Bush's national security adviser since Bush took office in January 2001 and has been one of his closest confidantes. She was previously the provost of Stanford University.

Knowledgeable Republican sources described Rice as the likely successor to Powell, whose resignation was announced on Monday. A successor to Powell was not expected to be announced on Monday.

© Reuters 2004. All Rights Reserved.

He was certainly the voice of reason when it came to lying his ass off at the UN.

Again, he was far from perfect, but imagine Rumsfeld and the other warmongers without him :shrug: I fear what comes next. McCain is a possibility. He would be okay I guess - or at least comparatively so.

Look up the Powell Doctrine in his ****ty autobiography, he's just as much a warmonger as the rest of 'em.

McCain is garbage. He has no spine, he's a yes man.

We will never agree with that perception of Powell :wavey:

Once again, I think you expect too much from politicians, esp. anyone W would appoint. I am more of a realist I guess and see good even when there is bad, and trust me, there is a lot of bad these days!!!!! :eek:

Nope, I'll never understand your admiration and good words for a man who was told time and time again that metal tubes in Iraq were not (and could not) to be used for centrifuge, yet he stated they could, without a shadow of a doubt, at the UN. He also presented fake and doctored photos to the UN.

Nope, I don't like men like John McCain who will do anything to keep a fellow party politician in office, even if it means badmouthing your friend, like he did to John Kerry, or if it means supporting policies you wholeheartedly disagree with. Or if it means unconditionally supporting a man who accused you of sleeping around, having kids out of wedlock, pressing the issue of your wife's drug addiction, and spreaded the rumour that you had sex with female Korean's while you were a POW. He sold out and gets no respect from my white ass.

Again, there is never going to be a perfect person. I think your standards are too high. I mean you had good words for Kerry and he was hardly perfect and in fact supported the war :shrug: and, in accordance with the Powell Doctrine, thought the US should have sent more troops there and struck Iraq harder than we did. Yet, you have stated you wanted him to win because he was the lesser of two evils - no fault there because that is how I felt :cool: Thus, I see no difference in my good words for Powell for being and doing the same thing. Again, he was the ONLY voice of reason within this tribe of malfeasance - but he is and was far from perfect.

If not wanting my Secretary of State to go to the UN and present FALSE information is having too high of a standard, then your standards are too low.

Kerry never went to the UN and presented utterly false and made-up information in an effort to sway other nations into engaging in an unjust war. Kerry voted to authorize force once all inspections were properly made and a true coalition was formed. And he voted to authorize forced not only based on the false information that Colon Polyp presented at the UN, but also based on evidence that the American people were never shown, the same evidence that numerous seantors have now debunked as more lies from this administration.

No, I am just not selective in my application of my low standards :wavey:

Again, you and I supported Kerry even though he said the same things Powell did and he authorized W to go to war when Kerry had been specifically told the WMD stuff was bogus prior to the vote. Even knowing this, I still voted for Kerry - thus my hypocrisy and my, IMO, refreshing willingness to call it exactly that :cool:

There was an article in the, I think, NYTimes that specifically refutes this. The source, whose name I forget, specifically said Kerry was lying and Kerry knew full and well that the whole WMD issue was a red herring. Yet, he voted for the war anyway. Plus, do you really believe Kerry actually thought for one minute that W was gonna wait. If so, what's that about the bridge in Brooklyn being for sale :laugh: :cool:

But I never said Kerry wasn't a f*cker for voting to authorize force. :shrug: You don't seem to see the difference: it was not John Forbes Kerry who went to the UN and presented knowingly false evidence in an effort to get more support for an unjust war that was unpopular around the world through and through. Those, my friend, are not the actions of a "voice of reason."

I am just saying that I am willing to say I use lower standards. I am willing to say Colin P. is not perfect, but what we get as his replacement may be worse. How that differs from from voting for Kerry as the lesser of two evils is beyond me - but if it works for you - so be it :cool:

I don't believe that. Why would he knowingly vote for something that he knew was bogus, while at the same time just starting to rev up his presidential campaign? It would come back to bite him in the ass easily. The logic in that article escapes me.

But, you've also said that Kerry was a "ringleader" in trying to get Clinton to go to war with Iraq in '98 and I set you straight on that one. ;)

Therein lies your problem: you don't hold your politicians and leaders responsible for the ****ty (and illegal) things they do because politics has gotten so disgusting that you've lowered your standards to accept such ****.

Make excuses and apologize for Colon Polyp, I sure won't.

If you think that showering Iraq with missles in 98 (which Kerry advocated based ont he WMD theory) and the possibility of SH retaliating (as he did before and threatened to do then) on Israel could not have lead to all out war in the middle east - then this debate is pointless because you are refusing to admit to the facts. Again, when the D's do it, no one minds. When the R's do it, everyone's hair is suddenly on fire :shrug:

You're refusing to admit the facts. Go read the joint senate letter that Kerry sent to Clinton and get back to me. I've posted it a million times before and it never quite gelled with your interpretation of it. ;)

Then, why did you vote for Kerry, who still says he would have voted for the war in Iraq even knowing what he knows now. He was for it.

In the end, I wish there were better alternatives, but there are not. So, I chose the lesser of the evils and willingly admit I wish it could be better. Never have I said CP was a great guy or anything like that. I just said he was the voice of reason in that group of people who wanted to go to war immediately and completely by pass the U.S. :shrug:

I have read it. But, it does not obviate the fact that a huge war in the Middle East could have resulted in that missle campaign, which Kerry was for - are you suggesting Kerry opposed it :laugh: :rolleyes:

Because in order for any change to take place in American politics that allow room for parties other than the big two, we have to start acting now and that means ousting the Bush regime ASAP. We can't pussyfoot around and just say 'We'll change things in another twenty years.' I'm not opposed to a third party candidate and anyone who doesn't have **** for brains would tell you that in order for us to make third party candidates more visible, we must get rid of the Republican machine for quite a few years. You have to change what you can when you can.

I agree and I, unlike you, will readily admit that I lower my standards to do just that - thus, my vote for Kerry, who was by no means my ideal :cool:

The letter urged for Clinton to take the necessary actions to see what was up with Saddam and his weapons. The letter explicitly said "including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites." :shrug: It said if appropriate, nothing more.

It isn't a matter of lowering your standards, it's a matter of changing what you can when you can. Bush is so far down the line when it comes to my standards that I'd vote for Tony Blair or Kim Jung Il before I marked the ballot for him. :shrug:

CONCERN OVER RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN IRAQ
(Senate - October 09, 1998)

HON. CARL LEVIN

in the Senate

October 9, 1998

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq's actions and urging the President `after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.'

At the outset, I believe it would be useful to review the events that led up to the requirement for the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. At the time that Iraq unlawfully invaded and occupied its neighbor Kuwait, the UN Security Council imposed economic and weapons sanctions on Iraq .

After Iraqi forces had been ousted from Kuwait by the U.S.-led coalition and active hostilities had ended, but while coalition forces were still occupying Iraqi territory, the UN Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, conducted a review of Iraq's history with weapons of mass destruction and made a number of decisions in April 1991 to achieve its goals, including a formal cease fire.

With respect to Iraq's history, the Security Council noted Iraq's threat during the Gulf War to use chemical weapons in violation of its treaty obligations, Iraq's prior use of chemical weapons, Iraq's use of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks, and reports that Iraq attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear weapons program contrary to its treaty obligations.

After reviewing Iraq's history, the Security Council decided that `Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision' of its weapons of mass destruction programs and all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers and conditioned the lifting of the economic and weapons sanctions on Iraq's meeting its obligations, including those relating to its weapons of mass destruction programs.

To implement those decisions, the Security Council authorized the formation of a Special Commission, which has come to be known as UNSCOM, to `carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself' and requested the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to carry out similar responsibilities for Iraq's nuclear program. Additionally, the UN Security Council decided that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire weapons of mass destruction and called for UNSCOM to conduct ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's compliance. The detailed modalities for these actions were agreed upon by an exchange of letters in May 1991 that were signed by the UN Secretary General, the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq .

Thus, Iraq unconditionally accepted the UN Security Council's demands and thereby achieved a formal cease-fire and the withdrawal of coalition forces from its territory.

Mr. President, UNSCOM has sought to carry out its responsibilities in as expeditious and effective way as possible. UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler and his teams, however, have been confronted with Iraqi obstacles, lack of cooperation and lies. As UNSCOM has noted in its own document entitled `UNSCOM Main Achievements': `UNSCOM has uncovered significant undeclared proscribed weapons programmes, destroyed elements of those programmes so far identified, including equipment, facilities and materials, and has been attempting to map out and verify the full extent of these programmes in the face of serious efforts to deceive and conceal. UNSCOM also continues to try to verify Iraq's illegal unilateral destruction activities. The investigation of such undeclared activities is crucial to the verification of Iraq's declarations on its proscribed weapons programmes.'

Mr. President, I will not dwell on the numerous instances of Iraq's failure to comply with its obligations. I would note, however, that in accepting the February 23, 1998 Memorandum of Understanding that was signed by the UN Secretary General and Iraq's Deputy Foreign Minister, that ended Iraq's prior refusal to allow UNSCOM and the IAEA to perform their missions, the UN Security Council warned Iraq that it will face the `severest consequences' if it fails to adhere to the commitments it reaffirmed in the MOU. Suffice it to say that on August 5, 1998, Iraq declared that it was suspending all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, except some limited monitoring activities.

In response, on September 9, 1998, a unanimous UN Security Council condemned Iraq's action and suspended its sanctions' reviews until UNSCOM and the IAEA report that they are satisfied that they have been able to exercise their full range of activities. Within the last week, Iraq's Deputy Foreign Minister refused to rescind Iraq's decision. Throughout this process and despite the unanimity in the UN Security Council, Iraq has depicted the United States and Britain as preventing UNSCOM and the IAEA from certifying Iraqi compliance with its obligations.

To review, Iraq unlawfully invaded and occupied Kuwait, it's armed forces were ejected from Kuwait by the U.S.-led coalition forces, active hostilities ceased, and the UN Security Council demanded and Iraq accepted, as a condition of a cease-fire, that its weapons of mass destruction programs be destroyed and that such destruction be accomplished under international supervision and permanent monitoring, and that economic and weapons sanctions remain in effect until those conditions are satisfied.

Mr. President, by invading Kuwait, Iraq threatened international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. By its failure to comply with the conditions it accepted as the international community's requirements for a cease-fire, Iraq continues to threaten international peace and security. By its refusal to abandon its quest for weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, Iraq is directly defying and challenging the international community and directly violating the terms of the cease fire between itself and the United States-led coalition.

Mr. President, it is vitally important for the international community to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to allow UNSCOM and the IAEA to carry out their missions. To date, the response has been to suspend sanctions' reviews and to seek to reverse Iraq's decision through diplomacy.

Mr. President, as UN Secretary General Kofi Annan noted when he successfully negotiated the memorandum of agreement with Saddam Hussein in February, `You can do a lot with diplomacy, but of course you can do a lot more with diplomacy backed up by fairness and force.' It is my sincere hope that Saddam Hussein, when faced with the credible threat of the use of force, will comply with the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. But, I believe that we must carefully consider other actions, including, if necessary, the use of force to destroy suspect sites if compliance is not achieved.

Mr. President, the Iraqi people are suffering because of Saddam Hussein's noncompliance. The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. It is most unfortunate that they have been subjected to economic sanctions for more than seven years. If Saddam Hussein had cooperated with UNSCOM and the IAEA from the start and had met the other requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions, including the accounting for more than 600 Kuwaitis and third-country nationals who disappeared at the hands of Iraqi authorities during the occupation of Kuwait, those sanctions could have been lifted a number of years ago. I support the UN's oil-for-food program and regret that Saddam Hussein took more than five years to accept it. In the final analysis, as the Foreign Ministers of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, comprising the Gulf Cooperation Council stated at the time of the February crisis: `responsibility for the result of this crisis falls on the Iraqi regime itself.'

I ask that the letter to the President be printed in the Record.

The letter follows:
U.S. SENATE,

Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, October 9, 1998.

The President,
The White House, Washington, DC.


Dear Mr. President: We are writing to express our concern over recent developments in Iraq .

Last February, the Senate was working on a resolution supporting military action if diplomacy did not succeed in convincing Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the disclosure and destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This effort was discontinued when the Iraqi government reaffirmed its acceptance of all relevant Security Council resolutions and reiterated its willingness to cooperate with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in a Memorandum of Understanding signed by its Deputy Prime Minister and the United Nations Secretary General.

Despite a brief interval of cooperation, however, Saddam Hussein has failed to live up to his commitments. On August 5, Iraq suspended all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, except some limited monitoring activity.

As UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler told us in a briefing for all Senators in March, the fundamental historic reality is that Iraq has consistently sought to limit, mitigate, reduce and, in some cases, defeat the Security Council's resolutions by a variety of devices.

We were gratified by the Security Council's action in unanimously passing Resolution 1194 on September 9. By condemning Iraq's decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, by demanding that Iraq rescind that decision and cooperate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA, by deciding not to conduct the sanctions' review scheduled for October 1998 and not to conduct any future such reviews until UNSCOM and the IAEA, report that they are satisfied that they have been able to exercise the full range of activities provided for in their mandates, and by acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council has sent an unambiguous message to Saddam Hussein.

We are skeptical, however, that Saddam Hussein will take heed of this message even though it is from a unanimous Security Council. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that without the intrusive inspections and monitoring by UNSCOM and the IAEA, Iraq will be able, over time, to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.

In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Sincerely,

Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski.

Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.
_______________________________________________________________

If they did not agree with Clinton's determination of necessary, etc., where are all of the Kerry soundbytes and Kerry quotes lambasting Clinton for it :rolleyes: In fact, Kerry years later was still shrieking about the WMD years and the clear and present danger they posed :shrug: I cannot believe you actually are suggesting that Kerry thought or thinks Clinton made a mistake by bombing Iraq. He supported it then and he supports it now. Nice try though :wavey:

What does that say? "Including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites."

Nice try, doll, but I never suggested such a thing. :wavey:

Yep. He thought it was bs too, but he couldn't break rank. Member when he had to try to sell the war plan, and he stopped in the middle, said "this is bull****", and tossed a stack of papers in disgust?
A knowledgeable political friend of mine intimated that these people leaving may smell indictments coming down the pike... :laugh:

Yet still went to the UN and sold it...

So what are you suggesting? I said Kerry supported bombing Iraq in 1998. He urged the Pres. to do so if necessary and the Pres. did just that. Kerry has never come out against that action and was still calling for Iaq to be held accountable - through military action if necessary - up until the current war. AND - he still says he would vote the same - only he now conveniently and with hindsight says we should have waited, etc. How am I wrong here. Are you agreeing with me :eek:

well, but he had to. I don't like Powell or anything, but he couldn't really break rank with that, part of the job description and all.

and Kerry backed him up the whole way and he knew it was B.S. :shrug: Yet, Kerry gets the pass and the votes for Pres. and CP gets flamed even when his replacement could be FAR worse than he was. That's fair :laugh:

As I've said every time we've gotten into this particular argument, I am suggesting that Kerry never jumped up and down and screamed for a war with Iraq back in '98, which is exactly what you used to state every time the topic came up. ;)

Then we agree even though you are, as usual, playing with semantics so as to avoid admitting I am 100% correct laugh: :wavey: :rolleyes:

Again, my original post said that leaving CP in would be better than almost anyone W would nominate. I think that that change would be almost certainly for the worse. I mean you would rahter have Condi Rice and CP :eek:

He couldn't have resigned then? BULL****. He could have refused to lie to the global community.

Show me proof, I submit you cannot.

Boy, Kerry sure was so vocal in his opposition to it. Phew, I can remember having to lower the volume on my t.v. set in accordance :rolleyes:

Again, if you think Kerry did not advocated it, then you are mistaken and completely unsupported by the facts. But, in all fairness, if you have some quotes where Kerry disagreed with Clinton deeming it necessary to use force, which Kerry clearly advocated Clinton do, then let's see them - I think I'll be waiting a long long time for those to appear :laugh: :wavey: