Bush has no intention of talking to Iran: Powell »
Posted By jovial 1 year, 9 months ago in NewsWhile the Bush administration has insisted it has no intention of starting a war with Iran, a former United States Secretary of State claims President George W Bush never had any interest in negotiating with the Persian Gulf country.
Read Full Story at hindustantimes.com »
Submitted By:
jovial
Grew up In Brooklyn. Joined the Navy in 1976 stayed in 10 years. Aircraft Electronics tech. Worked for Major Govt. contractor then settled in California ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 75
-
0%
not2needy1 year, 9 months ago
Colin Powell is an honorable man, unlike the president who didn't get elected. Powell said:
My position in the remaining year and half (of my term) was that we ought to find ways to restart talks with Iran... But there was a reluctance on the part of the president to do that," Powell said.
I believe that, Bush has never wanted to make peace, there's no money in peace, lots of money for him and Cheney in war though!
Bush, the bottom feeding parasite!
Reply-
50%
jovial1 year, 9 months ago
Great comment! My sentiments exactly. All is forgiven for the faulty intelligence briefings of pre-Iraq war buildup.
Reply -
0%
deathray1 year, 9 months ago
Why would the Bush Administration try to talk to Iran...they might actually be successful at getting them to stop their proliferaton regime.
Kind of like North Korea.
But wait! We need to bomb them back to the stone age...
When China decides to stop supporting Iran, they'll cave. Until then, we have no leverage.
Reply -
0%
jordan111 year, 9 months ago
Powell is an honorable man, unlike the president who didn't get elected. Powell said:>>>>>
I disagree. Were he 'honorable' he'd have spoken up against this 'war' when it could have made a difference. Too late now.
Reply
-
-
-
-
DanmLiberalsComment removed: User banned.4 Replies
-
-
-
100%
miklkit1 year, 9 months ago
http://nightweed.com/angrygirl.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/wa
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/hackingdemocracy/
These sites are a small percentage of the information out there.
Reply -
0%
bubba21 year, 9 months ago
2000 election - decided by the Supreme Court. You know, the debacle of Florida and the "hanging chads" ...
2004 election - he was elected, but the amazing amount of voter fraud and vote rigging in Ohio in 2004 was what got him the magic number of electoral votes. Litigation is in progress on this one, too late to do anything about the election itself but NOT too late to prosecute and punish the perpetrators of the Ohio fraud. That especially includes Ken Blackwell, the mastermind of it all.
Reply-
-
50%
bubba21 year, 9 months ago
I was ANSWERING a question asked above by bhartzer. That is NOT "off topic", your favorite whine when you don't like what is posted.
And, here is some 'hyperbole' for you ...
61 paged complaint filed against Ken Blackwell - election fraud, vote dilution, vote suppression, recount fraud, and other violations --
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/do
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Spadecaller1 year, 9 months ago
After Cheney selected Bush to run for the Presidencey and after he was appointed President, Bush has been a dutiful puppet of the Cheney Administration. George was certainly not chosen for his communication skills or his ability to negotiate. He was chosen to carry out the militaristic corporate strategies as they were conveyed to him through Dick Cheney. The general media in this country ignores these facts because of who owns them. (GE etc.)
Reply-
-
25%
bubba21 year, 9 months ago
Spadecaller is perfectly capable of thinking for himself. I expect he would resent your implication that I am doing his thinking for him ...
Reply
-
-
-
0%
jovial1 year, 9 months ago
In a lot of Americans minds Bush wasn't supposed to have gotten elected. It is true that he was elected. Both times he was elected there was enormous controversy on whether he really won.
Reply -
0%
agentX1 year, 9 months ago
The episode of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles I'm watching right now has more bearing in reality than the Bush Admin's not negotiating with Iran. If they are supplying Shiite militia with weapons like we say they are, then now is the time to negotiate.
Reply -
0%
ChefEOD1 year, 9 months ago
Negotiate? Ya, sure. They are rapidly developing the technology to build their bombs and laughing at you gullible drones that come to their defense and question where is the "proof". Just what "proof" would satisfy you folks anyways? Probably nothing short of setting one off and announcing they did it, if even then.
"Iran will be able to develop enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear bomb and there is little that can be done to prevent it, an internal European Union document has concluded."
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/provider
Reply-
100%
bubba21 year, 9 months ago
"will be able ..."
Sure ... ANY country that is doing ANYTHING with nuclear energy is 'capable' of developing nuclear weapons.
The main issue is - IS Iran now actively working on building nuclear weapons? The answer is either 'maybe' or 'no'. There is NO proof that they are doing this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6167304.stm
North Korea ALREADY has nukes, HAS had them for years. Oh - Bush decided he 'could' negotiate with them, and now they HAVE agreed to a treaty.
Imagine that!
And we CANNOT do the SAME with Iran? Baloney!!
Bush won't talk with Iran because he doesn't WANT to. He wants to continue to FIND EXCUSES to JUSTIFY a bombing and then an invasion of Iran.
Bush wants to attack Iran, period. He will REFUSE anything that would interfere with his plans, and he will CONTINUE to find 'excuses' to 'justify' his actions when they are taken.
Reply -
-
0%
Chiyonofuji1 year, 9 months ago
North Korea doesn't have any resources we want to control, nor is it in proximity to any resources we want to control. When I say 'we' I am referring to the power structure of the United States.
Control the world's primary energy source and you can control the world. Our whole involvement in the middle east has never been about freedom and democracy, in fact until two decades ago it wasn't even been about energy, since up until then very little of our energy came from there. However most of the rest of the developed and developing world were heavily dependant on Middle Eastern oil.
One reason that Cheney is so bent out of shape about Putin playing the energy card with Europe is that he is muscling in on our old game. Given the instability our ham-handed meddling and intervention has fomented, Putin, and Russia are starting to look more reliable as both a guarantor and a stable energy source. That reduces our power and influence on the world stage.
I believe we should negotiate .
Reply
-
-
0%
neuroticus1 year, 9 months ago
Yes, it is obvious that Iran is pursuing a nuclear bomb.
(BTW, this doesn't mean we should invade them.)
Reply -
0%
jeffery11 year, 9 months ago
Another right-wing apologist. You show a great ability to forget history, such as what incompetence it took to force Iran to think it may have to develop something to protect itself (Hint: Bush including them in his "Axis of Evil" and then illegally invading Iraq).
Iran could be a problem ONLY because the right-wing is in control and has no understanding of diplomacy in general and of Iran, Iraq, the Middle East, Afghanistan, etc. in specific. Remove the right-wing from power and voila! the problem de-escalates on its own.
Here's but one bit of evidence of the disingenuousness of the administration's dealing with Iran and with the American people:
"Leverett says he finds it "really quite curious" that Secretary Rice is pleading a memory lapse on an Iranian offer shortly after the Iraq war to, among other things, recognize Israel."
Flynt Leverett is a former CIA Mideast analyst and National Security Council staffer during President Bush's first term.
Reply
-
-
0%
Tango571 year, 9 months ago
I just watched a Bill Richardson clip tonight where he announced negotiations with N. Korea is working. He mentioned the same needs to happen in the middle east. The problem with that which we all know is this; George is unable to engage in a coherent conversation, much less negotiate with the middle east. I don't know of one person in his administration who is capable of such dialogue. Unless the democrats are willing to start the negotiations, I can assume war with Iran is emminant. It's just a matter of when.
Reply -
0%
Nixon71 year, 9 months ago
The President is a crackhead criminal who stole billions and murdered millions.
His neocon enablers are hardly much better.
Reply-
0%
ChefEOD1 year, 9 months ago
President Clinton also negotiated what seemed to be a good treaty with N. Korea. We know now it was a farce and they were laughing behind our backs; accepting our "peace offering" of building that same nuclear complex that they then used to manufacture their weapons grade materials and bombs, that same reactor they now "promise" to shut down. We should of course move forward with these negotiations but there absolutely must be some means of unquestionable verification - like total destruction of the facility for starters. In the end we will still get shafted, the leadership of N. Korea as proven too many times that they are masters of deceit.
Reply-
0%
bubba21 year, 9 months ago
That is not correct about Clinton and North Korea.
When North Korea tried to make more plutonium under President Bill Clinton, he said he would go to war to stop them. He had plans prepared for the attack. The North Koreans backed down.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/dprk_nu
They stopped their nuclear program. North Korea did not separate a gram of plutonium while Bill Clinton was in office. He also stopped their missile tests.
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/agreedframew
George Bush walked away from the deal in his first months in office. In March 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell said he wanted "to continue the process begun under Clinton." Bush refused. Bush just made excuses in order to walk away from negotiations.
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.as
Reply
-
-
-
0%
oldgringo1 year, 9 months ago
Kserkhar...I used to get angry with your constant posting of this "ugly American" crap until I read that you are from India, perhaps the nastiest most corrupt country on earth. Your country promotes child slavery, has a horrlble caste system that ensures perpetual poverty for millions and an aids epidemic second only to the continent of Africa. India's corruption problem is horrendous, from the politcal arena to the private sector, where the wealthy can purchase degrees, government and private job positions and even kill the poor without fear of retribution from the authorities. I could go on and on, but the bottom line is, you, my friend, live in a very large glass house. No wonder you're so angry.
Reply -
0%
random17341 year, 9 months ago
Bush sees talking to someone, without forcing them to acced to your wishes before the talks, as tantamount to giving them anything they want while we get screwed.
This is not a good way to look at diplomacy. Diplomacy is talking to achive your goals rather than spending lives to achive them. Bush has not figured out that talking doesn't commit us to anything until treaties are signed. It opens the door so that people can talk about the things the don't like that the other one is doing and find ways to resove conflicts without resulting to bloodshed.
I think it is way past time for a little more talking and a lot less bloodshed!
Reply -
0%
walden31 year, 9 months ago
who cares what powell has to say now. he went before the UN and the world and threw so much BS that his eyes are brown. he was the one man who may have been able to head iraqmire off at the pass and instead he chose to be the loyal foot soldier. the dead and injured lay at powell's feet the same as they lay at cheney, bush, rumsfeld, rice and others' feet.
Reply-
0%
Candida1 year, 9 months ago
walden3,
You are right, but I still give him credit for speaking up. Perhaps he is trying to head off a second disaster now (or is it the third?)
Reply
-
-
0%
fars1 year, 9 months ago
Iran has the right to protect its interests in the region.
FACTS:
-Iran was subject to exploitation of its natural recourses by US.
-Iran was subject to 1953 coupe orchestrated by CIA to overthrow the democratically elected prime minister of Iran because he tried to nationalize the oil industry.
-US backed the shah of Iran and supported his slaying of innocent people.
-US backed Saddam Hussein to go to war with Iran.
-US sold WMD to Saddam that was used in Iran.
-US is trying to dominate the Middle East, Iran's part of the world.
I think Iran has enough reasons to be on bad terms with US and try to develop whatever it takes to protect itself. Peaceful talks could help the situation not another war.
Reply -
-
0%
neuroticus1 year, 9 months ago
Well, obviously. At this point, the members of Congress who are not actively pushing for his removal from office are essentially allowing humans rights to be ****** on.
And the American citizens who are not demanding the Constitution be amended to include the rights of repeal, recall, initiative, and referendum are essentially saying it's OK to ****** on us.
Seriously, do you (and your grandchildren) want to keep going through this sort of stuff ad nauseum until you die? If you do, then you deserve what you get.
(not talking to fars directly, but to everyone in general)
Reply
-
-
0%
Albmore1 year, 9 months ago
As a former veteran,let me remind everyone, Powell was the man who planned and won the first Gulf war for our nation. He had also warned Bush that the a new war moving into Bagdad would open pandoras Box. Although Powell was the spokes man who presented the case to the world, we should remember that he was also under the authority of the commander in Chief. Powell is a very intellegent man. I was proud to serve under him and believe he would make an outstanding president if he ever was to run.
Reply-
DanmLiberalsComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
-
-
100%
disraeli1 year, 9 months ago
I assume that Powell's comments relay the administration and Bush's position of several years ago. I hope (and it maybe a forlorn hope) that the unmitigated disaster that no negotiations position has wrought in Iraq will lead them to talk this time instead of invade.
I have a hard time believing that Bush is that stupid, that simple or that blind to not see that war as the first option in resolving international disputes is foolhardy in the extreme. I hope he does not make a believer out of me.
Reply -
100%
Amazing11 year, 9 months ago
If Bush wants to start a war, let him go face off with Achmindinejad (I know that's not the correct spelling). At the end of the day, the guy that wins their little go-round of fisticuffs is declared winner and we all go home.
Or, they could sit down and talk. Like real people. Put everything out on the table with an eye to finding things they can agree about and then working from there.
Iran has offered to help. Flat turn down from Chimpee. Just like after Katrina hit, Cuba offered medical teams to help. Another flat turn down. How arrogant!
Reply -
0%
Albmore1 year, 9 months ago
Schartzkopf was the general in Iraq the major plans came from Powell who was incharge of the military at that time. I had met schwarzkopf in Saudi Arabia. It was also Powell who stopped the serge back then that we would not have the problems we have now. This is something Schwartykopf disagreed with and that is why he was quickly out of the pictur at the end of the war.
Reply -
0%
jordan111 year, 9 months ago
I think it's clear that bush won't talk to Iran. Figured that out all by myself, and don't need Powell to tell me that. Congress needs to meet with Iran, if bush won't.
Reply -
-
-
0%
toph19731 year, 9 months ago
Neocons are sheep, but I wouldn't call them patriotic. They voted in a cokehead that believes that the constitution is invalid. He made an oath to uphold the constitution, which he has not done. Anyone that supports this traitor is unamerican, and unpatriotic. I think that we should send in all of the neocons to clean up this bogus mess that their hero started.
Reply
-
-
0%
Paulalois151 year, 9 months ago
It goes to show the immaturity of the Current President as well as the staff he has surrounding him.
There is always room for discussion.
Bush is no diplomat, he never has been. He might do well on the comedy circuit as it seems this is his inclination, and only plays at being serious. He does not possess the intellect, the will nor does he have the aptitude for international relations. In other words, what defines a statesman, GW Bush is not.
Reply-
100%
deathray1 year, 9 months ago
I oompletely agree with you; I guess you didn't perceive the irony in my statement when you decided to give it a ngative vote...
Reply
-
-
100%
Albmore1 year, 9 months ago
Yes and that is also the reason that he left. I would love to see him and Giliani on a ticket together.I know its oposing parties but two good leaders.
Reply
Add a Comment
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.