Powell, WMDs, And The Iran Deal (Revelation 13:7)

 
Colin Powell has no credibility to judge Iran accord: Analyst
PressTV

Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell has no credibility to judge Iran’s nuclear program since he supported the decision to invade Iraq under a false pretext during the administration of George W. Bush, a political commentator in New York City says.

“Colin Powell now is standing on the side of people who say that the Iran [nuclear] deal with the P5+1 has very strong and more than sufficient verification procedures and that’s exactly the point that he has no credibility on,” said Don DeBar, an anti-war activist and radio show host.

“Powell is a man who spoke of hallucinatory weapons of mass destruction [in Iraq] 13 years ago, [he] now speaks about the adequacy of the protections against another hallucinatory nuclear weapons program,” DeBar told Press TV on Monday.

Powell, who is also a retired four-star general, has repeatedly emphasized his continued support for US involvement in the Iraq war since his departure from the State Department.

On Sunday, Powell expressed support for the nuclear accord with Iran and dismissed critics’ concerns over its implementation.

“It’s a pretty good deal,” he said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “I think a very vigorous verification regime has been put into place.”

On his Twitter account, US President Barack Obama thanked Powell on Sunday for his support.
“It’s bewildering to me to figure out exactly how to comment on this because there’s so many nested contradictions on almost every aspect of it,” DeBar said.

Iran and the P5+1 group of countries – the US, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany – announced the conclusion of nuclear negotiations in the Austrian capital, Vienna, on July 14.

Beast Of The Sea Is Delusional (Revelation 13:7)

George W. Bush: U.S. Is Safer Because We Invaded Iraq

The Huffington Post  | By Igor Bobic

 

Posted: 11/12/2014 1:09 pm EST Updated: 3 hours ago

 

Former President George W. Bush isn’t done spinning the Iraq War, one of the longest and costliest conflicts in U.S. history, as a net positive for both nations.

Discussing his new book 41: A Portrait of My Father, which touches on his father’s legacy, Bush was asked on NPR Wednesday morning whether he thought Iraq is safer now compared with when Saddam Hussein was in power. The answer that followed was a vague “hypothetical” of Hussein’s capabilities had the U.S. not intervened — under what many believe to be false pretenses.

“One could envision a nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq. The man, Saddam Hussein, would have a lot of revenue as a result of high prices of oil,” Bush said. “And even though there wasn’t, you know, a — we found a dirty bomb, for example — he had the capacity to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. And so there’s — you know, it’s all very hypothetical.”

“I could argue that we’re much safer without Saddam,” he added. “And I would argue that the people of Iraq have a better shot at living in a peaceful — a peaceful state.”

A “hypothetical” where Iraqis have “a better shot” at peace is a far cry from democratic nation-building, given recent developments — the rise of the Islamic State, for one – that have yet to give way to stability.

But Bush argued that his successor was to blame, because the U.S. failed to maintain a troop presence in the country. He noted that “in 2009 and 2010, the violence in Iraq was settling down. And the democracy, even though it was not perfect — kind of like ours was initially not perfect — was beginning to work.”

H/T The Washington Post