May be, december. My point is that it’s not surprising that Mr. Powell has changed his moderate tone to join step with the Administration now that crunch time approaches.
I can vouch that Schwarzkopf was in fact on the Today Show Wednesday morning. Katie Couric was interviewing him during the show’s first 30 minutes.
If you care to, one of us can start a thread in Cafe Society and get further testimony that Schwarzkopf was on the Today Show Wednesday morning.
Also, anyone right now can run a Google search on “Norman Schwarzkopf”, “Today Show”, and click on the www.msnbc.com/m/v/video_news.asp+%22Norman+Schwarzkopf%22,+%22Today+Show%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8"]CACHED version of Wednesday’s MSNBC TV News page.
The link may not work for very much longer, because Google goes out and caches more recent versions periodically.
Link above does not work. Just access that page via the Google search outlined above.
Colin Powell may be ambitious, but not for the title or the collateral problems of being President. He may simply want to become the most influential person in defining foreign policy in this administration, which he hasn’t been so far.
Now that it’s clear that Bush will not be dissuaded by mere facts or consideration of consequences or anyone elses’ views, if Powell keeps up saying responsible things in public he’ll simply be shunted aside and the children will be uncontrolled. By staying part of the team, he still has some influence that can be asserted privately.
At least I hope so.
Tried it, thanks. I got to the same page that I got by searching on Norman Schwarzkopf Today Show NBC. I still could find nothing saying that he was on the show, nor (obviously) giving any indication of what he might have said. They seemed to have descriptions of most of the other stuff that was on the show that day, but they leave Stormin Norman out in the cold, I guess.
Since you saw it, what did he say?
I have sent an email to the Today Show. I am very curious why this is so hard to find.
As to Colin Powell’s change of heart, I think that there must be a coded message in this quote from Dubya:
Maybe he has some dirt on Powell?
I also found further insight into Bush’s motivations for war:
Obviously, he just wants to give more hugs! Is that so wrong?
Here’s to hoping he doesn’t have to give any more.
ROFLMAO! 
Maybe the reason is media bias. Maybe Schwartzkopf’s opposition to the war was given widespread coverage, but his change of heart was not big news, since it didn’t agree with the media’s POV.
An instance of media bias seems to have happened two days ago, when 8 European leaders publicly announced their support for the US. The story was headline news in many other organs, but it didn’t even get reported in yesterday’s New York Times. (Maybe they consider support and praise for the US not to be a part of “All the news that’s fit to print.”
Or, consider the example of Retired General Brent Scowcroft. He got huge amounts of coverage after August 15, 2002, when he apparently recommended against attacking Iraq. But, he dropped off the radar screen when he changed his mind (or clarified his position).
I suspect that Schwartzkopf was invited to appear on NBC Today because he took an anti-war position. I hope that perky Katie Couric had a cow when he gave the “wrong” answer. :eek:
Hentor, are you seriously proposing that Bush is blackmailing Powell! And, he is advertising the blackmail by making coded comments! Please say I have misinterpreted your comment or that it was a joke.
I heard about that. On NPR no less. Better pull them back into the fold!
Well, perhaps he didn’t change his position, while Bush did (since, if you recall, he wasn’t quite ready to involve the UN and inspections, reportedly until Powell urged him to change his mind.
From your linked article:
It was a joke. Didn’t think I’d need to say that! You can’t take everything you read seriously, december. 
The picture of Schwarzkopf on that cached MSNBC.com page is attributed to “The Today Show”, as opposed to “AP” or “Reuters” That’s your proof he was on the show Wednesday.
It was a mixed bag. While Schwarzkopf expressed faith that Powell’s presentation next week would reveal damning evidence, he suprised me a lot by taking jabs at Donald Rumsfeld. Unfortunately, I didn’t get to hear the entire segment.
However, I was able to find a summary of his comments to Katie Couric here. Though the link is from Townhall.com, if you don’t hold the source against the article and just weigh it on its content, it proves to be a well-balanced piece. Note the quotes below:
bordelond, did the picture say that he was on the 1/30/03 show? I ask, because the only hits I have come up with are from his appearances on older Today Show shows. Can you link to the cached page you are talking about?
As to the townhall link you posted, the only problem is that it cites CNS news as its source (right there in the header, which unfortunately you didn’t include). Still waiting on a reply from the Today Show.
Um … I’m not clear on why that’s a problem. Plus, I’ve testified that I saw it myself. Why so dubious?
I cannot link directly to the cached page. A Google search on these terms:
"Norman Schwarzkopf", "Today Show"
brings up the appropriate MSNBC page as it’s first hit. You must click on the word “Cached” to the right of the URL given. There is a limited time that this cached page will be available.
On that cached page, you will see that the first story mentioned is a report about Bush’s SOTU address, which occured this past Monday. That establishes that Schwarzkopf’s pic is not from a 1/3/03 appearance.
Plus, I remember the black shirt he was wearing in the pic.
Would you like me to start a thread in Cafe Society to get further testimony?
Schwarzkopf was interviewed on MSNBC’s Hardball after the SOTUS:
From that liberal rag The Minneapolis Star Tribune 01/31/03. This is a lot less than the ringing endorsement implied by Cyber News Service.
Misread this originally … he was on the Wednesday, 1/29/03 Today show.
???
That’s essentially what he said on the Today show Wednesday. CNS did not report his words dishonestly.
Well, that was a problem because CNS was the source for december’s post, and the only source I had seen. And no offense, but I would have no way of evaluating your claim. However, thanks to your directions, I was able to find the cached page and saw the photo you described. Thanks. I’m still curious to hear what he said, but Squink’s find was helpful to get a sense of where he stands.
My claim was for slant, not outright dishonesty. On the other hand, if we want to get real nitpicky, the CNS headline of 1/29 did read “Schwarzkopf Reassured; More Information Coming”. It’s now the 31st, and no more information has been forthcoming :eek:
Damn those dishonest, lying righties. They should at least publish a retraction
Let’s cut to the chase – do you think CNS would fabricate a fictional Schwarzkopf appearance on the Today Show? I say that’s too egregious for them to get away with – the Net is not that unreliable. CNS might put spin on someone’s words, but I don’t believe they’d fabricate a story from whole cloth. What say you?
BTW, no personal offense taken … over the Net, you don’t know me from Adam. I can understand.
Well, I hadn’t heard of them before, so I asked december who they were. There are some who would make up such a story, so I wouldn’t make any claims about the overall reliability of the net.
I simply wanted to confirm what they said. Looking back on the material their bias was evident, but I think my perception of it was enhanced by december’s link title, which indicated that Schwarzkopf was “convinced to support the war by Bush’s speech.” I don’t think that this conclusion was supported by what he said, given what I have seen of it anyway.
Bottom line: I’m just a skeptical bastard, is all.
Elvis: Who’s being “dissuaded from facts?” Powell? Or you?
Does it cause your partisan heart the least bit of pause that Rep. Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, says the intelligence information Powell is going to share Feb. 5 is compelling enough to justify what Bush and Blair want to do in Iraq?
emphasis mine:
People who’ve seen the evidence know Saddam Hussein is playing games with the U.N. Period.
I also find interesting the arguments of those who think action in Iraq is incongruous with the War on Terror.
Let’s look at a timeline:
September-October 2001: Exhibiting what I would characterize as incredible restraint in the aftermath of Sept. 11, the Bush administration investigates, makes international consultations, and attempts to force the Taliban government to comply with turning over top Al Qaeda officials whom the country had been harboring and allowing to train there. The Taliban refuses, and the U.S. goes into Afghanistan, removes the Taliban from power, and destroys Al Qaeda’s support base and training apparatus.
It could most decidedly be argued that U.S. restraint and patience made this effort less effective. It is apparent to me, however, that Osama Bin Laden was killed in the bombing that was part of this effort. Won’t ask anybody to prove a negative, but I will ask them to point to a period in time in recent history when OBL was this incommunicado for this length of time.
September 2001 to present - Intelligence and law enforcement agencies lead a worldwide manhunt for Al Qaeda leaders and cells. Scores of arrests occur around the globe and occur to this day.
Some Democrats, and those here, have indicated war in Iraq will be a “distraction” from the war on terror. Cite? The intelligence and law enforcement efforts, both in the U.S. and abroad, appear to have been continual and unwavering since the morning of September 11, 2001. Quite a bit of evidence can be pointed to that indicates this effort has thwarted further terrorist attacks, and I’ll be happy to dig up cites if you’d like.
So, after taking care of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and parallel to the ongoing intelligence and law enforcement effort worldwide, where does the Bush administration turn its attention in the context of this post-9/11 world?
It immediately turns to the the world’s most powerful rogue regimes - ones with expressed dislike of the U.S., recent evidence of erratic, aggressive behavior, and evidence that they are building weapons of mass destruction and/or harboring and supporting terrorist activities.
Bush outlines the worst among these threats in his “Axis of Evil” speech in January 2002, only weeks after the main fighting in Afghanistan has stopped.
Of the three, who poses the greatest threat at that time? Clearly, it’s Iraq. Saddam Hussein has demonstrably not taken the actions he told the U.N. he would in order to end the 1991 Gulf War. The U.N. not only hasn’t done anything about it, it almost seems to have given up. (the weapons inspectors leaving more than four years ago)
There is no nation on the earth that has more to fear from Islamic terrorists, with the exception of Israel, than the United States of America. No one will argue Saddam Hussein’s dislike for the U.S., which thwarted his power- and land-grab in Kuwait.
Evidence exists that terrorist groups and anti-U.S.-and-Israel nations that previously had no interest in one another, or were even enemies, are allying. Cite
North Korea’s bizarre recent aggressive actions notwithstanding, what other nation has invaded a neighbor in recent years? Has launched missiles, unprovoked, at a neighbor? Has used weapons of mass destruction? Has stockpiled weapons of mass destruction? Has thumbed its nose at the world community over these important security issues?
There is one. Iraq.
You’ll get no argument from me that North Korea’s recent actions are serious, and will cause us and the rest of the world great difficulty. It seems that Kim Jong-Il, however, wants to resolve this situation diplomatically, and that he is trying to force a non-aggression pact between North Korea and the USA, in return for his backing down on his nuclear aims. Cite
There is no similar indication as to why Saddam Hussein would be stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. The evidence of Saddam’s aims is quite apparent from his actions in 1990-91.
Anyone who doesn’t see Iraq as the next leg in post-9/11 U.S. security interests, not separate from but parallel to the ongoing intelligence and law enforcement effort against Al Qaeda … I don’t want to accuse you of being deliberately obtuse. But I don’t know how you can look at the same evidence I’m looking at and reach that conclusion.