Colin Powell is an honorable man, and he’s in a position to use his authority to make the world a better place. He’s not going to give that spot up to someone like Paul Wolfowitz, because I suspect he really does have his nation’s best interests at heart. Shades of Bill Rogers, eh?
But I bet if you mentioned “George C. Marshall” to that poor guy he would punch you in the face.
Furthermore, he ain’t the only member of the family about to face the music. We’re looking at the makings of a real family dynasty. The General has to be cognizant of that.
I suspect that someday, if things do manage to turn out all right, one former Prime Minister and one former Secretary of State will sit down to a quiet drink, and one of them is going to say, “I thought the goddamned Texans were supposed to ride the bulls, not the other way around.”
What I don’t get is that the former POTUS was indicted for lying about his sexual life. Why isn’t this POTUS indicted for lying and causing loss of American* lives?
*I do care about the loss of Iraqi lives, however, I thin k an indictment would stand on firmer ground if we’re talking about Americans.
Yes, lying about one’s sex life under oath is sooooooo much more evil than prosecuting an unjustified war. I mean, really, who wouldn’t choose killing a few thousand innocents over lying to the judge?
An interesting article. If this is what truly happened, then you can put me in the group of people who feel that Powell should have resgined then and there. To have the right gut feeling and eventually not act upon it anyway, is the same as being a liar in the first place, in practice.
And The Gaspode makes a good point. If the “under oath” caveat is what gets GWB off the hook, then I guess it’s up to the American voter to judge next year. But boy, I would love to see a POTUS again who would lie about blow jobs rather than WMD’s.
I lost any faith i had in Powell some time ago, and if the stuff quoted in the OP is true then i’m even more certain that he has failed in his job. I’m afraid i don’t buy the argument that he stayed so that they wouldn’t appoint a bigger hawk in his place–there are some things that need to be done on principle, and if he truly opposed what the Administration was doing he should have resigned.
Given that Powell is about the only moderate Republican in the Administration, his resignation would be a very significant gesture. I believe that there are many Americans who voted Republican because they genuinely believed in Bush’s promise of “compassionate conservatism,” and plenty of the same people probably supported the war against Iraq because they genuinely believed that the Administration was telling the truth. If Powell resigned and outlined his reasons, many of these people might really begin to question whether or not they made the right political decision. But while he’s still there, he serves as a sort of moderate legitimating force for Bush et al., in the eyes of many Americans. He’s always demonstrated the courage of his convictions in the past–he should do so now.
As Sofa King suggests, he may be sticking around to help out his son. However, having followed the FCC quite closely over the past year or so, i’m pretty concerned about Michael Powell. He seems to be much more of an ideologue than his father, and his current attempt to push radical deregulation through the FCC, in the face of strong opposition from some of the other commissioners, demonstrates a total abrogation of that agency’s regulatory role. Powell Jr. is little more than a former media company lawyer doing his best to serve his former clients and bosses at the expense of the public good.
Far be it from me to besmirch a political figure (well, ok, maybe not all that far) but…
Colin Powell simply seethes with gravitas and charisma, but these are characteristics of personality, and rather elusive ones at that. Mr. Powell is very impressive as a figure, but really, what has he done that would impress us so much if he had less “personality”?
Whatever illusions we may nurture as to his “integrity” must surely be dispelled by now. We are given to understand that he said “bullshit!” off camera. But when the time came to stand and deliver, he toed the line.
He may not foster any ambitions to replace his C in C, but that only means that he whores for a different coin. He is no better than any of the other girls on the street, his running sores are simply less obvious.
Oh, I wasn’t saying it was better, mind you. I’m just saying that on the whole, politicians lie daily to the American public, and that doing it under oath is the only time you can actually bust them on it with any real consequences - other than the occasions where the citizens decide to not re-elect them as a result.
elucidator, maybe, but I think what has not been said in this thread yet is that the administration has done all it can to keep Powell on a short leash and away from the cameras for a very long time.
Rumsfeld and Chaney are running this administration - of that there is little doubt. They have had many arguments with Powell about many things, and have seen to it that he does not have the power to get in their way.
If he did resign, then what? Have any of you noticed how many top folks are fleeing the ship? Ari Fleisher, though not well-liked by all, always supported Bush but is now taking off. Gen. Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, is leaving. Rummy wanted Gen. Franks to take the post next, but Franks decided to retire instead. People are either being forced out or want out because they want nothing more to do with the administration.
This adds a bit more the questions about why Powell stays in, I think.
I wonder if that’ll really happen (citizens deciding not to reelect him). I really do. Voters have short memories in general anyway, and his popularity is still fairly high, even with the downturn in economy. Plus, the Democrats don’t have anyone who seems strong enough to unseat him. Or is that just pessimism?
Gorgon, don’t forget Karl Rove. My opinion is that he’s the one running things, not necessarily Rumsfeld and Cheney. Rove has been widely credited with being the guy managing the administration’s policy. Not that the other two don’t have heavy influence, though.
dantheman, unfortunately, I don’t know what the guy has been up to since he won Bush the presidency.
Gaspode, while I certainly can’t answer the question, I have no doubt that the mudslinging is going to get very, very bad come election time. I think I’ll end up unplugging my TV.
My favorite part is the new claims that what they really meant wasn’t weapons but the possible means for making them. The Washington Post then basically debunked that claim with direct cites to where Bush and his minions did say weapons-repeatedly. It was worth a laugh.
Where are all those tons of weapons you lying sack of shit? Did Americans die because your inability to fix the economy caused you to wag the dog?
Lets see-- the massive tax favoring the rich will stimulate the economy: Failed.
War on Terror to get Osama: Failed.
Rebuild Afganistan and restore democracy: Failed so far.
Bring us out of the Recession: Failed.
Fiscal Discipline: Failed.
We have massive budget deficits, State Governments’ budgets are in crisis mode, unemployment is still not improving, our world standing is at an all-time low, the dollar is dropping like a rock, there is no sign the economy is improving, and now Curious George is facing re-election.
That depends on some other factors. Traditionally the economy has been the single most significant factor in presidential elections ("it’s the economy, stupid’) and if Bush doesn’t turn around the current economic slump that be a real problem for him. The loss of credibility caused by his failure to turn up WMDs in Iraq also hurts him.
On the other hand, the dems don’t really have a strong front runner of their own. Gore won’'t run again and the rest are a fairly uninspiring group. The one exception may be Howard Dean, the governor of Vermont, who still has some air of mystery and charisma to him. The rest are from congress, and Americans typically don’t like to elect presidents who emerge from congress (JFK is a notable exception).
So I would say it’s a toss up. Bush has done enough to hurt himself, but there’s no obvious dem to oppose him. I suspect it will be another close election that could go either way.
Dean seems like a good candidate, Diogenes, especially because he’s more of an outsider than most of the other candidates. But right now he’s in a pissing contest with John Kerry, so who knows.
Most of them seem to be all talk and blather - it’s one thing to be critical of how things are going, but if you want to run things, you should present your own plan. I think Gephardt is the only one to do this, with his health plan.
Gorgon, here are two cites from the Washington Post that reflect Rove’s growing influence:
I heard about this article a couple of days ago but could not find a link online. It pretty much confirms what we already knew about the evidence being made up
It’s a tough choice and not so clear cut. had he done that he would have served truth and justice and done some damage to America but he would have achieved little, if anything. He might have been replaced by someone worse. By staying on board he might have helped moderate the policies of the rest, out of control, government officials.
I can’t say I know enough about U.S. politics to offer an informed apinion, but isn’t it possible that there will be another republican trying to steal the primaries from GWB? Are we certain the GOP will support Bush? I mean, there are moderate republicans out there. Are they happy with Bush?
When a sitting president runs for reelection, chances are extremely good that he will get the support of his party over another candidate of the same party. So it’s not terribly likely that the Republican Party would support anyone else - unless they felt that his popularity had slipped so much that someone else in the party would stand a better chance of winning the next election.