Any chance Colin Powell will endorse Obama?

[Shayna]

Just a couple of sources:

Ex-Powell Aide Says Saddam-Weapons Threat Was Overstated

. . . Thielmann was a foreign service officer for 25 years. His last job at the State Department was acting director of the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs, which was responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat.

He and his staff had the highest security clearances, and saw virtually everything – whether it came into the CIA or the Defense Department.

. . .

At the time, Thielmann says that Iraq didn’t pose an imminent threat to the U.S.: “I think it didn’t even constitute an imminent threat to its neighbors at the time we went to war.”

And Thielmann says that’s what the intelligence really showed. For example, he points to the evidence behind Powell’s charge that Iraq was importing aluminum tubes to use in a program to build nuclear weapons.

Powell said: “Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries even after inspections resumed.”

“This is one of the most disturbing parts of Secretary Powell’s speech for us,” says Thielmann.

Intelligence agents intercepted the tubes in 2001, and the CIA said they were parts for a centrifuge to enrich uranium – fuel for an atom bomb. But Thielmann wasn’t so sure.

Experts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the scientists who enriched uranium for American bombs, advised that the tubes were all wrong for a bomb program. At about the same time, Thielmann’s office was working on another explanation. It turned out the tubes’ dimensions perfectly matched an Iraqi conventional rocket.

“The aluminum was exactly, I think, what the Iraqis wanted for artillery,” recalls Thielmann, who says he sent that word up to the Secretary of State months before.
Houston Wood was a consultant who worked on the Oak Ridge analysis of the tubes. He watched Powell’s speech, too.

“I guess I was angry, that’s the best way to describe my emotions. I was angry at that,” says Wood, who is among the world’s authorities on uranium enrichment by centrifuge. He found the tubes couldn’t be what the CIA thought they were. They were too heavy, three times too thick and certain to leak.

“Wasn’t going to work. They would have failed,” says Wood, who reached that conclusion back in 2001.

**Thielmann reported to Secretary Powell’s office that they were confident the tubes were not for a nuclear program. **Then, about a year later, when the administration was building a case for war, the tubes were resurrected on the front page of The New York Times.

“I thought when I read that there must be some other tubes that people were talking about. I just was flabbergasted that people were still pushing that those might be centrifuges,” says Wood.

. . .

Why would the secretary take the information that Thielmann’s intelligence bureau had developed and turn it on its head?

“I can only assume that he was doing it to loyally support the President of the United States and build the strongest possible case for arguing that there was no alternative to the use of military force,” says Thielmann. . .

What Exactly Colin Powell Knew Five Years Ago, and What He Told the World.

[Frylock]

@Renob

“House boy”? “Masters”? If any conservative had used this type of racist rhetoric against a liberal black person, can you imagine the uproar? But since it’s Colin Powell being targeted, I guess it’s OK, huh?

I don’t know Merijeek’s political persuasion, but I am a Liberal, and I’ve been sitting here for about ten minutes trying to figure out how best to chastise Merijeek. I ultimately decided not to because I’m not usually the best at that kind of thing. But I’ll register that I found his use of language ludicrous and morally deficient.

-FrL-

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@magellan01

But they trash Obama, yet the term is never used referring to them. Why can it be used for Williams and not the other Obama bashers? Think…think…

Because there is no betrayal when they do it. They’re just racists. Williams [ingratiates himself to racists.

But let’s open it up. Show me all these times, when it was used to refer to someone who supposedly sold out his own cultural group and that cultural group was not black.

I’ll wait.

I have no idea what you’re getting at with this point. I never said it was not a phrase specific to one cultural subset. They’re the ones who were enslaved.

Not the point of discussion with YOU, and you know it. But at least your looking for some safe haven is a good sign

If it’s “not the point of discussion with me,” then why did you ask me that question. The first thing I said in this whole discussion was that it did not apply to Powell. There’s no “safe haven” there. The term is not racist, but it doesn’t apply to Powell. Got it?

[WhyNot]

@Asimovian

I wasn’t attempting to weigh in on whether or not the use of the term was racist. I was disputing Dio’s assertion that the term didn’t imply a comparison to slavery.

Oh, nevermind then.

@magellan01

II ask of you what I asked of the other apologist: show me those instances in which the term was used to describe a man who “sold out his culture” where that culture wasn’t black America.

Why? That would stretch the analogy to the breaking point. If a white person did it, people would call him a “poseur” or a “wigger” or “reverse oreo”.

[Marley23]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I think what you’re missing is that the phraseology in question is intended to disparage voluntary subservience and obsequiousness towards whites. It’s black people choosing to be submissive, and acting live “slaves,” especially when those actions are detrimental to black people as a whole.

That’s true. I agree with you that it doesn’t apply, but I still think it’s an awful thing to say in the first place for the reasons I gave earlier.

[Renob]

@Diogenes the Cynic

Because there is no betrayal when they do it. They’re just racists. Williams [ingratiates himself to racists.

So let me get this straight – it’s racist to be opposed to Barack Obama but it’s not racist to call someone a “house boy”?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Asimovian

“House niggers” were still slaves. Slaves that were held in slightly higher esteem by their masters and much lower esteem by their non-house peers, but slaves nonetheless. Calling a modern black man a “houseboy” is comparing him to a slave. I don’t quite understand how you’re arguing otherwise.

I’m saying it doesn’t compare “black people” collectively to slaves. It compares a certain kind of modern behavior to a certain kind of historical behavior – and as I said upthread, it denotes a voluntary subservience.

[magellan01]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I guess you lack a little knowledge of histiry here. Slaves who worked in the house were often better taken care of than slaves who worked in the field. Many times, thos house slaves, seeking the good opinion and continued (comparatively) privelged treatment from the masters, often participated in the degradation of the field slaves and, informed to the masters about their activities and betrayed any plans to escape. Betraying escape plans was a voluntary activity. Modern American blacks who seek to ingratiate themselves to the white power elite by denigrating fellow blacks are thus comparable to those betrayers of old.

Wow. Thanks for providing all this great information I already know, which goes to why the term refers to blacks. Now how about answering the questions I asked of you.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Renob

So let me get this straight – it’s racist to be opposed to Barack Obama but it’s not racist to call someone a “house boy”?

No. Fox News is racist and it’s not racist to call somebody a house boy.

[Miller]

@Frylock

I don’t know Merijeek’s political persuasion, but I am a Liberal, and I’ve been sitting here for about ten minutes trying to figure out how best to chastise Merijeek. I ultimately decided not to because I’m not usually the best at that kind of thing. But I’ll register that I found his use of language ludicrous and morally deficient.

-FrL-

Also a liberal here, and I’ll second what Frylock said, and add in a side of amusement at watching Diogenes flail about trying to prove that it’s not racist.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@magellan01

Wow. Thanks for providing all this great information I already know, which goes to why the term refers to blacks. Now how about answering the questions I asked of you.

It doesn’t refer to “blacks.” You really have a reading comprehension problem. And I’ve answered every question you’ve asked, so you’ll have to be more specific.

[The_Understander]

I’m betting Colin Powell will stay out of sight completely–this man could have had a great shot at the Presidency and stated quite unequivocally that he did not want it. He is not a seeker of the spotlight, at least, not as of now.

And FTR, if you’re not black, best to stay out of the briar patch of calling him anything that does relate to the dark days of slavery. It’s still too hot, even if I understand the sentiment.

I* am * amused at the outrage coming from the conservative wing of the SDMB on this
one, and look forward to reading the same invective hurled toward Geraldine Ferraro re: her comments regarding Barack Obama during the primaries. I’m sure a quick search will yield a bumper crop of condemnation for those comments, ehe?

One more thing–since I am black, I “can” say it-- Colin Powell is an Uncle Tomming house nigger for selling out his principles and going along with the bullcrap the Administration sold the American people as regards Iraq. And so are Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfelt, et cetera.

[Frylock]

@Diogenes the Cynic

None of that is racist. Just because it’s insulting, doesn’t mean it’s racist. And it isn’t the mere employment by white people, it’s the selling out of one’s own cultural group for the benefit of another. When Juan Williams is trotted out by Fox News for the expressed purpose of being the black guy who trashes Obama, he’s a house boy.

So Juan Williams is a house boy because he’s selling out his “cultural group,” where in this case his relevant cultural group his his race. He is a house boy because he is selling out his race for the sake of another.

The very idea that he ought not to “sell out” his “race” is racist. Since that’s the basis for your use of the term House Boy, your use of the term is racist.

-FrL-

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Miller

Also a liberal here, and I’ll second what Frylock said, and add in a side of amusement at watching Diogenes flail about trying to prove that it’s not racist.

Tell me how it’s racist.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Frylock

So Juan Williams is a house boy because he’s selling out his “cultural group,” where in this case his relevant cultural group his his race. He is a house boy because he is selling out his race for the sake of another.

He is participating in the denigration of black people by his support and cheerleading for the racist demonization of Jermiah Wright (and by extension, Obama).

The very idea that he ought not to “sell out” his “race” is racist.

How about the idea that he shouldn’t denigrate his race and help to perpetuate racist stereotypes and the painting of angry black people as evil?

[Renob]

@Diogenes the Cynic

No. Fox News is racist and it’s not racist to call somebody a house boy.

Why? Since Fox News leans to the right? That makes them automatically racist? I find it interesting that you have such a finely tuned sense of racism that you can affix that label to Fox News but you jump through hoops to justify the usage of a cleary racist term. Interesting world you live in.

@Enfant

One more thing–since I am black, I “can” say it-- Colin Powell is an Uncle Tomming house nigger for selling out his principles and going along with the bullcrap the Administration sold the American people as regards Iraq. And so are Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfelt, et cetera.

Black, white, whatever – calling someone an “Uncle Tomming house nigger” is just ignorant. You get no pass because of your skin color. It’s just as racist when you use it, since it stems from the racist thought that having a certain skin color means that you must think a certain way. In your view “black=liberal.” That type of stereotype is certainly racist in my book.

And in this view if a black person isn’t a liberal then he is some kind of race traitor. It’s the same type of thinking that leads Klansmen to label liberal whites race traitors, except somehow calling someone an “Uncle Tomming house nigger” is more socially acceptable.

[mlees]

@mlees

Don’t you see that your making an issue of Juan Williams’ loyalty to Fox News solely in regards his ethnicity? That’s (soft) racism, I think.

Before a moderator lands on me with both feet for name calling, let me clarify:

I do not think Diogenes is a racist or a race hater.

By “soft” racism, I mean in the absent minded kind of way, the way a statement made, not intended to insult, but never-the-less shows a bias or stereotype.

Someone opening a fried chicken stand in Harlem because they think that all black folk like fried chicken is not attempting to belittle anyone, but still holds a bias/stereotype in thinking as it relates to his target customers, based on race.

My apologies to Dio if I worded my quoted post poorly. I did not mean to offend.

[Liberal]

Juan is also Britt Hume’s whipping boy. Britt just loves to glare at him, and spit lessons at him after Juan says something stupid (which happens frequently enough). And then there’s Mara (Liasson), allegedly with NPR. Her job is to set up softies for Bill Kristol, so he can wear his Cheshire grin while sounds that resemble words ooze from his mouth like a syrupy river of rhetoric. The only person Fox News has that’s worth more than a wad of snot is Chris Wallace. He’s biased, to be sure, but he hides it better than anyone at FNC — and frankly, better than most on other networks, like Lou Dobbs or Joe Scarborough.

[Frylock]

@Diogenes the Cynic

He is participating in the denigration of black people by his support and cheerleading for the racist demonization of Jermiah Wright (and by extension, Obama).

How about the idea that he shouldn’t denigrate his race and help to perpetuate racist stereotypes and the painting of angry black people as evil?

You’re right, he shouldn’t denigrate his race, because he shouldn’t denigrate any race.

But you didn’t call him a house boy because he denigrated any race. You called him that because he denigrated his own race. You’re telling him what he should and should not do because of his race. You’re using his race as part of your moral judgment of his actions. You are using the term, then, in a racist fashion.

If all you’re upset about is his denigration of a race, then you should call him a racist. Instead, you’re upset about his denigration of his own race. This view that people owe a special loyalty to their own race above all others is racist.

There are other reasons your use of the term is racist, but I’ll just leave it at that for now.

-FrL-

[WhyNot]

@mlees

Someone opening a fried chicken stand in Harlem because they think that all black folk like fried chicken is not attempting to belittle anyone, but still holds a bias/stereotype in thinking as it relates to his target customers, based on race.

Is somebody opening a fried chicken stand in Harlem because they did some market research and found that 80% of the residents would most likely shop at a new chicken stand racist?

That is - same action, different motivation. One is basing a decision on skin color, the other on behavior. Are both of them racist?