Powell in Iraq

[Timber Loftis]

Arab Journalists Protest Shootings as Powell Visits Baghdad
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

Published: March 19, 2004

BAGHDAD, March 19 - Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, making a quick stop in Iraq, acknowledged today that bombing attacks had increased recently and got a taste of the political problems related to the violence when 30 journalists walked out of his news conference to protest the killing of two colleagues.

Mr. Powell's visit, which was unannounced and carried out under extremely tight security, was intended to highlight the progress under way in Iraq on the first anniversary of the start of the war, complementing a week of activities by President Bush and others.

Instead, his major public appearance in the Iraqi capital was jolted by the walkout by a group of Iraqi and Arabic journalists who charged that the occupation by American-led military forces had led to the killing of two journalists from Al Arabiya television network on Thursday.

Al Arabiya, a satellite news channel based in Dubai, reported that one of its cameramen had been killed and a reporter wounded by American soldiers. According to the report, the two men were in a car when American soldiers opened fire on another vehicle that was racing toward a checkpoint in Baghdad. An American military spokesman said the command was checking the report.

Mr. Powell said today that he regretted the incident and that "it will be looked into," but said he was "confident that it wasn't anything that was deliberate."

Noting the anniversary of the start of the war, Mr. Powell opened the news conference after the Iraqi walkout by hailing what he said were the signs of progress in Iraq, including the establishment of "freedoms to Iraqis of the kind they have never enjoyed before, as you just saw exercised a few moments ago."

At the secretary's side was L. Paul Bremer III, the American administrator, who had joined in discussions earlier with military leaders and with seven members of the 25-member Iraqi Governing Council, the handpicked group that is still struggling to decide what sort of interim government will take power in Baghdad on June 30.

There was no sign of progress in the impasse over the composition of that government, which is to take power when Iraq's sovereignty is restored on that date. A decision on the makeup of the interim government was supposed to have been made by the end of February but it has been postponed because of disagreements among Iraqi leaders.

Mr. Powell arrived in the early morning from Kuwait aboard a military transport plane and was then taken by helicopter to the occupation headquarters at one of Saddam Hussein's presidential palaces inside the secure perimeter on the Tigris River known as the green zone.

Meeting with a couple of hundred occupation employees in a cavernous meeting room that has been converted into a dining facility, Mr. Powell sought to assure everyone that the debate in the United States over the war did not mean that their work was unappreciated.

"You can be proud of what you and your buddies have done," Mr. Powell said as the audience cheered. "Let no one ever tell you otherwise."

[Timber Loftis]

On the same topic, more or less, here's an interesting Op-Ed from today's NY Times:
______________________
March 19, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Price of Freedom in Iraq
By DONALD H. RUMSFELD

WASHINGTON

This week, as we mark the one-year anniversary of the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, it is useful to recount why we have fought. Not long ago I visited South Korea, just as the Korean government was debating whether to send troops to Iraq. In Seoul, I was interviewed by a Korean journalist who was almost certainly too young to have firsthand recollection of the Korean War. She asked me, "Why should Koreans send their young people halfway around the globe to be killed or wounded in Iraq?"

As it happened, I had that day visited a Korean War memorial, which bears the names of every American soldier killed in the war. On it was the name of a close friend of mine from high school, a wrestling teammate, who was killed on the last day of the war. I said to the reporter: "It's a fair question. And it would have been fair for an American to ask, 50 years ago, `Why should young Americans go halfway around the world to be killed or wounded in Korea?' "

We were speaking on an upper floor of a large hotel in Seoul. I asked the woman to look out the window — at the lights, the cars, the energy of the vibrant economy of South Korea. I told her about a satellite photo of the Korean peninsula, taken at night, that I keep on a table in my Pentagon office. North of the demilitarized zone there is nothing but darkness — except a pinprick of light around Pyongyang — while the entire country of South Korea is ablaze in light, the light of freedom.

Korean freedom was won at a terrible cost — tens of thousands of lives, including more than 33,000 Americans killed in action. Was it worth it? You bet. Just as it was worth it in Germany and France and Italy and in the Pacific in World War II. And just as it is worth it in Afghanistan and Iraq today.

Today, in a world of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and states that sponsor the former and pursue the latter, defending freedom means we must confront dangers before it is too late. In Iraq, for 12 years, through 17 United Nations Security Council resolutions, the world gave Saddam Hussein every opportunity to avoid war. He was being held to a simple standard: live up to your agreement at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf war; disarm and prove you have done so. Instead of disarming — as Kazakhstan, South Africa and Ukraine did, and as Libya is doing today — Saddam Hussein chose deception and defiance.

Repeatedly, he rejected those resolutions and he systematically deceived United Nations inspectors about his weapons and his intent. The world knew his record: he used chemical weapons against Iran and his own citizens; he invaded Iran and Kuwait; he launched ballistic missiles at Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain; and his troops repeatedly fired on American and British aircraft patrolling the no-flight zones.

Recognizing the threat, in September 2002 President Bush went to the United Nations, which gave Iraq still another "final opportunity" to disarm and to prove it had done so. The next month the president went to Congress, which voted to support the use of force if Iraq did not.

And, when Saddam Hussein passed up that final opportunity, he was given a last chance to avoid war: 48 hours to leave the country. Only then, after every peaceful option had been exhausted, did the president and our coalition partners order the liberation of Iraq.

Americans do not come easily to war, but neither do Americans take freedom lightly. But when freedom and self-government have taken root in Iraq, and that country becomes a force for good in the Middle East, the rightness of those efforts will be just as clear as it is today in Korea, Germany, Japan and Italy.

As the continuing terrorist violence in Iraq reminds us, the road to self-governance will be challenging. But the progress is impressive. Last week the Iraqi Governing Council unanimously signed an interim Constitution. It guarantees freedom of religion and expression; the right to assemble and to organize political parties; the right to vote; and the right to a fair, speedy and open trial. It prohibits discrimination based on gender, nationality and religion, as well as arbitrary arrest and detention. A year ago today, none of those protections could have been even imagined by the Iraqi people.

Today, as we think about the tens of thousands of United States soldiers in Iraq — and in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world fighting the global war on terrorism — we should say to all of them: "You join a long line of generations of Americans who have fought freedom's fight. Thank you."

Donald H. Rumsfeld is the secretary of defense.

[Skunk]

While I was in Normandy last year I paid my respects in the war cemetaries and couldn't help but wonder at why the ground was rumbling and shaking.

I asked myself why that was and then the answer became clear.
In WWII my countrymen fought to liberate an ally that had been invaded by a belligerent foreign power. A few years later, when North Korea invaded the South, my countrymen answered the call and went to the assistance of South Korea.

Fifty years later, my country was playing the part of the belligerent power invading countries without just cause - and that was why the ground was shaking - 10,000 heros turning in their graves makes for a small earthquake...

[Chewbacca]

Donald H. Rumsfeld Americans do not come easily to war....

Poppycock! We rushed headlong into war, ill-prepared for occupation, not even letting the UN finish their inspection work because of "imminent threat" that did not even exist. Put some fear into the people, and we will easily march to war.

This "gentleman's" title should be changed to secretary of offense or even better the secretary of warmongering and spin-doctoring.

[Timber Loftis]

Yeah, 12 years and 17 UN resolutions -- those impatient American gits.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yeah, 12 years and 17 UN resolutions -- those impatient American gits.

Straight from the GOP talking points on this topic, how original.

You mean we did nothing for 12 years? No sanctions? No bombings? No weapons inspections? If all these things failed then why have no WMD's been found? Why has no link to Al queda been found? Would have waiting 6 months made the outcome any different? If we had taken more time to properly prepare for occupation, to properly equip our forces, would things have been different? Would support at home been any more or less if the war wasn't sold on the false premises of imminent threat/Al Queda connection?

12 years and 17 un resolutions (none of which implicity authorized invasion, regime change, and/or occupation) irrelevant and aside, during the time period from late 2002- early 2003 we were pushed into war based on imminent threat/WMDs. Yeppers, quite impatiently we did rush IMO.

[Timber Loftis]

I think I've been saying the # of years and resolutions was an important factor for quite a long time. Before the GOP had "talking points" and before Colin Powell was making a case for war. It may to be completely my thought -- I mean we do discuss news articles here -- but the "how original" comment is an attempt at what kind of an insult? I mean, I think it misses the mark.