Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by tcmahoney, Sep 2, 2002.
Powell plans to leave after Bush's first term
I'd be shocked if the administration stays together in its current form for even 4 years. Its clear that they're really polarized about the Iraq thing. Either we go to Iraq, and the moderates fade away, or we don't go to Iraq and the hard-liners have to go. I wouldn't be surprised if Cheney, or even W. himself ends up being driven out by a scandal.
There is always significant turn-over in administrations after four years. Powell has a big ego, like a lot of "esteemed" politicians. They begin to believe their press clippings. Nothing to see here, move on.
Dont let the door hit you in the ass Powel.. time to bring in someone who isnt a Democrat posing as a Republican, also someone who isnt indecisive and is willing to FINISH a job.
Yeah, because Bush, who essentially dodged the draft by flying model airplanes in Texas during Vietnam, knows SO much more about Iraq and war in general than Powell, a highly decorated General who was one of the key figures in the 1st Iraq war. Right. Powell and Cheney are the only two people that actually make the W administration look intelligent.
We need Powell's expertise in war crimes with our dealing with Iraq. After all, Powell was instrumental in covering up an American war crime in Vietnam.
Cheney "essentially" dodged the draft as well.
I would tell Powell his assignment is to get
a peace agreement between Israel and the
Palestinians that leads to an independent
He needs something productive to do.
I'm assuming your speaking of Powell's supposed hand in covering up My Lai.If I remember correctly I dont think Powell actually "investigated" any particular incident, but actually investigated a broad accusation of brutality commited by US troops ,which he covered up.Many people make the mistake in accusing him of being part of MY Lai and the cover up, which there is absolutley zero evidence (Powell was in Washington when My lai happened). By focusing on My Lai , people make the mistake of ignoring the actual cover up Powell was part of.
Also people always seem to forget other "bits" about Powell.How fellow US advisors in 63 accused the ARVN of brutality and creating a climate of hostility amongst the Vietnamese populace..In typical Powell lapdog fashion he was quiet about the situation and some fellow advisors have come out and actually accused him of "advising" the AVRN into continueing with their methods.Which we now know was disasterous.....
hmm seems to be a patern with Colin, giving the wrong advice and it blowing up down the road.
Vietnam, Panama, Iraq.... youre not batting to well are you Mr Powell.
as far as comments about Powell being a decorated general... what a freaking joke.The man has essentially been a desk Jockey since he was injured in sixty-three.outside of six months of duty as an advisor he has seen no combat time .He has risen to his stature not becuase of what he has accomplished, but becuase he is a yes man .
Whatever anyone may think of him, he still knows the Iraqi situation a million times better than W. It's not just Powell who thinks war with Iraq is unnecessary either. Most of the cheif weapon inspectors have gone on record as saying that the Iraq problem would go away with the return of the random inspections. Bush doesn't want that though, he wants to wag the dog, and show off some more of his daisy cutters. Iraq has nothing to do with Bush's "War on Terror." It's just the easiest target that America's general public will approve of bombing. Notice Osama doesn't come up much anymore? Not surprising, as Bush doesn't care about finding Bin Laden now. Odd, considering that was why we blew Afghanistan to bits to begin with. Sure, we don't like Hussein, and sure, the Iraqi people would likely be better off without him, but who the hell are we to go over there and use our military to take care of it? Most of the rest of the world doesn't like Bush and thinks we'd all be better off without him. Would they be justified in forming an Army and taking over American government? I know there is a big difference between Bush and Hussein, but the idea is similar. Just because we don't like something, doesn't give us the right to change it by force. The "preemptive strike" crap is off base as well. Attacking another nation because they might, at some point down the road, attack you is wrong, and it's the first step towards an imperialist attitude. But that's okay you Bushies. The world is a happy place and we are the righteous ones who are allowed to decide the rest of the worlds fate. We can waste the lives of American soldiers so that our nation can achieve it's most desired goal. A 2nd term for W.
ps: Next to starting wars as a campaign strategy, a ************** at the office doesn't look so bad now.
Dude, what a load of crap. If Hitler was alive today and the Holocaust was spread all over CNN we wouldn't have the "right" to change it by force??
And, attacking another nation who threatens your existence is "wrong" and the first step towards imperialism??
Dude, stop regurgitating the crap your PoliSci professor is feeding you. If any American president in history had followed your advice we'd be speaking another language.
My theory is that Powell is distancing himself from Bush, just in case W loses. Plus who knows, Powell might just have some aspirations of running for some sort of office.
Give me a break, "Dude." For starters, while I don't like Hussein, he's nowhere near the same level as Hitler. I could just as easily compare Bush to Hitler (taking over a foreign government to institute our "better, more righteous way," the smug attitude, the belief in his own superiority). The majority of people outside of the US and England see the errors in Bush's Iraq policy.
I for one would love to see some proof of this "threat to our existance" before I would support Bush and his little invasion. Unfortunately, Bush loves to keep his proof for things like this "top secret." If it exists, share the info with the people. I'm not talking about the simple existance of weapons either, (because that could be solved by reinstating the weapons inspectors). I want to see proof that they have the weapons AND have direct plans to use them against us. Yeah, taking over another nation's government because we don't like who's in charge is the first step towards imperialism. I for one would also LOVE to see what any of the crap in Iraq has to do with Bin Laden and Al Queda. With Bush and co not being very forthcoming, I'll judge the facts by myself. Right now, the facts are:
1: There is no proof that Iraq has anything to do with AlQueda, nor that they have or have developed any weapons of mass destruction.
2: There is no proof that Iraq is planning any strikes against the US.
3: If there is supposedly so large a threat posed by Iraq, why are we not already attacking. Could we possibly be waiting until November? What? You mean this is an election year?! I'm shocked.
Bush is wagging the dog. Based on the information openly available, if you believe otherwise, you probably also think the O'Reilly Factor really is a "no-spin zone."
PS: I only regurgitate due to illness or alcohol. I form my own opinions based on the facts that I see. Some people here should try that sometime.
Wait a minute...Ian is comparing Hussein to Hitler? He's a threat to our existence?
I've gotta take this guy off my ignore list...he's high comedy.
Who's with me...Ian is a parody of the stupidest, most lemming-like dittohead.
Why, of course, right after getting his ass kicked in Russia, Hitler would've turned his attention westward and invaded the US. We'd all be speaking German right now...imagine the shame.
That's a bunch of schiesse.
It's true! For instance, if Andrew Johnson hadn't stuck to his guns, you'd all be speaking like Cleetus, the slack-jawed Yokel!
powell is distancing himself from bush and his administration for a good reason...
if the man ran against bush in the next election he would have a good chance at defeating him, or for that matter any democrat put out there in 2004. he is someone that dances the line between the two parties in a way that W talked before his election and has done a very poor job of since.
I feel bad for Powell. A Republican who thinks for himself but acts for the good of his bosses and gets slaughtered for it from all sides. His speech this morning was an embarrassment, and he knew it.
The fact that Republicans now dislike him only shows just how little tolerance the GOP has for anyone who doesn't fit their religious zealot automaton model. Ralph Reed is probably the inside favorite to replace Powell.
i honestly think that powell would probably like to leave the administration now...
i mean who wants to go down with a sinking ship?
Good lord, I'm agreeing with Superdave. What is this world coming to! As for Powell, I have to think his leaving is a sign of one of two things:
1: He's gearing up to make a presidential run in 2004 (maybe with John McCain, wouldn't that be a riot!)
or, more likely in my opinion
2: He's just fed up with politics. He has always been one of those people who kind of wanted to be in politics but not really. Maybe his first taste of the big time left a bad taste in his mouth (Insert Clinton joke here).
Not only that. Powell has excellent expertise to deal with foreign conflict and represent the US interests. He has always shown a sensitivity that many say americans dont have.
Between this thread and a quote from another one about GW solving the entire middle east situation,
I've not laughed this hard in quite awhile.
Geez, I know many of you guys are morons but I certainly didn't think I had to lead you from point A to point B by the hand. Ok, kiddies, here we go:
Mr McCullough (although I have a hard time believing he's older than 15 from most of his posts) said "just because we don't like something doesn't give us the right to change it"...you know, like a freaking BLANKET STATEMENT. He goes on to say that just because some nation may threaten us in the future it would be "wrong" to attack them...yes, another freaking BLANKET STATEMENT. So, to counter his weak argument, I took an example where Hitler was alive today and the Holocaust was BLANKETED all over the TV. Would we not have the "right" to take him out? Where is the comparison between Hitler and Hussein?? A blanket statement should survive any challenge and McCullough's statements obviously fall flat on their face in the wake of the Hitler example. You all bought into his attempt to sidestep that fact by implying that I made a linear connection between Hitler and Hussein when I did nothing of the sort. Back to school for you clowns, now, and be sure to think when you read next time.