Hypothetically, do you think Powell could get the Republican nod in 2008, and if so, would you vote for him? I know i sure would. Discussion ensues......
Actually, a friend and I were just discussing what Bush must "have" on Powell to have gotten him to roll over so quickly and severely on this Iraq thing. He suggested maybe a deal is already in the works for Powell to take over as veep? Anyway, until recently, I had a lot more respect for the guy (despite the fact that he repeatedly lied to us re: Gulf War I), but this "house boy" routine of late has really made him look dumb. He's gone from being the voice of reason and worldliness to simply a puppet for Bush's language in a very short time.
Re: Re: Powell Presidency? Would there be a "fear of unemployment" factor there? Ordinary people would do many inordinary things because of that. But is Powell ordinary?
I don't have a link to the story but I believe Powell in an interview during the 2000 campaign was asked whether he would ever run for POTUS. His comments said while he thought it would be nice his wife was against it because she was basically afraid he'd be shot by a white extremist.
Re: Re: Re: Powell Presidency? Yes, Colin Powell would find it very difficult to make any money in the private sector.
I think Powell's stands on abortion, affirmative action, and other social issues would make it unlikely he could get the GOP nomination. If they had lost in 2000, then maybe they'd make that desperation play of nominating someone based on his chance of winning, as opposed to voting for the candidate they agree with. But that didn't happen.
Re: Re: Powell Presidency? Or, perhaps, he has seen the evidence that you and your "friend" (imaginary, I suppose) are not privy to? Give him a little more credit. I doubt he'd sell out the nation for a measley VP choice.
The reason Powell rolled over is because his reputation for forthrightness and honesty has been ludicrously overstated over the course of his extremely fortunate career. I'd sooner vote for Roger Clinton's coke dealer. So, did Powell ever clear up that whole My Lai investigation thing? Yeah, so what if Powell is the best choice in the current junta. That's like being the best shortstop in Kazakhstan.
I think Powell is one of the people who would make a worse president than even George W Bush. The only reason so many like him is because he never says anything, so no one can contradict him. Powell has no idea what it really takes to be a leader, and all of his few actions show it. All he really cares about is the prestige of the United States military. If the Iraq adventure turns into a fiasco, it will be largely his fault.
Such strong language for one of our finest generals! Did any of you Powell bashers bother to read his autobiography? I did, and it sure showed that he is the man of high character we made him out to be. He is a very unique individual in Amercian politics, and for you liberals to discredit all he's done just because you differ with his opinion on Iraq is awful. Powell doesn't know what is takes to be a leader!? You better take that back right now.I'm pretty sure when you go from an ROTC lieutenant to the Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff, you have to display exemplary leadership and he did. Powell served bravely in Vietnam as a capatain, and continued to rise in rank as he was placed at the other end of the Fulda gap. His men were at ground zero for what would be the soviet invasion of western europe. Then he became a general, and rose until he was the CJCoS, the highest position in the military. Yea, you're right, Powell doesn't know what it takes to be a leader. I suggest you study up on someone before you attempt to discredit their entire career.
Do you know what the "auto" in autobiography means? Wait till you see my autobiography...I'll be a candidate for sainthood, and I'm neither dead nor Catholic!!!
Typical liberal diversion tactics. Way to pick out one sentence in my post and comment. I cited his autobiography because he explained where he was deployed, and how he rose in the ranks. From this, i took away the impression that he is a good man. Now pony up to the claims that Powell isn't a leader.
Your whole list consists of nothing but what position he rose to and where he was sent, not anything he did. Powell was only an expert at playing "The Game". I don't see anything in his past that suggests he took a single risk. His own Powell Doctrine is a document designed to avoid risktaking. Here is some interesting info: http://www.usvetdsp.com/story13.htm
Without getting into any discussion of whether or not he is a worthy Presidential candidate, politically I have little doubt that he could win the general election. But as superdave notes, most of the things on which he's taken a public stance are not in the GOP platform. So he would have a very tough time getting the nomination. Regardless, based on previous efforts to recruit him, I'd guess that he does not want the job.
Holy ************, of course I would consider voting for Powell. Christ almighty, if he had been President we'd have the same friggin' situation now, except our allies would actually be allied with us. This guy has a job like everyone else in the world and he has constraints because of it. The difference between he and the current president is that Powell is worthy of about 10 times as much respect. And from a foreign standpoint, at least he had the ability to see the importance of engaging our allies and other countries before 911 gave the current administration the impetus to engage in foreign affairs. If the current administrations ratings go lower, there will be those in the Republican party who will feel it is necessary for them to court Powell even harder, if they fear the possiblity of a democratic takeover. Thanks for the house-boy comment by the way. Nothing like injecting a little racism into this thing.
Do you even know what the Powell Doctrine is? It's using overwhelming force in conflict and it involves high risk. Any conflict involves risk but the Powell Doctrine tries to minimize the risk as much as possible, i.e., limit casualties. How can you be critical of that? And as for the article, it could not lack any further credibility if a six year old made up a story and wrote it on construction paper with a crayon. Faulting Powell for what happened in Somalia? That's rediculous. First of all it was Gen. Garrison that asked for the AC-130's, not Powell and it was Clinton that turned him down. Last time anyone checked, the POTUS has more say than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or the commander of Task Force Ranger. If you're going to fault anyone there, fault Clinton who has a history of weak responses in regards to conflict(Hey Osama, we refuse to take you prisoner even though the Sudanese offered you to us, but in a couple years, we'll fire some cruise missles your way in a symbolic show of force). And here's a good idea, let's bash Powell for people he worked under in the White House while he was coming through the ranks. You aren't bashing any Dems. for their association with renting out the White House or their weak foreign policy. Pull your head out of the sand.
> Do you even know what the Powell Doctrine is? > Any conflict involves risk but the Powell Doctrine > tries to minimize the risk as much as possible, Exactly. The man is about not taking risks. The Powell Doctrine is built on the assumption of World War II style conflicts. It fails in many situations. For example, police actions are supposed to contain problems, not solve them. A Powell Doctrine response would be too slow and too clumsy. Powell Doctrine responses are also too slow in cases where the target is holding some kind of ace, such as Saddam holding his own oil fields hostage. By taking so much time to pile up 250,000 troops and seek international and domestic consensus (and failing), we have given time and pressure to Saddam. > Faulting Powell for what happened in Somalia? Was he not in a position of power? Did he not have a responsability to be part of the discussion? He could have at least been on the record as being against Clinton's decision.