posted on September 8, 2002 10:14:58 AM new
Well, that article sure put the horns on his head. These few facts alone show that Pure Evil comes in all colors, but the tend to reside in one political party up until now. The American people wonder why suicides would crash fully-fueled jetliners into World Trade Towers.
posted on September 8, 2002 12:05:56 PM new
White House Insiders: Bush is "Out of Control - http://www.mikehersh.com/article_86.shtml
[ edited by kennycam on Sep 8, 2002 12:18 PM ]
Colin Powell is no liberal or dove. As James Mann, a senior writer-in-residence at the Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote in the Washington Post: "Powell has been, throughout his career, a proponent of a strong national defense, an extensive military presence overseas and, more generally, a unique American role in the world. He supported the Star Wars program in the 1980s and resisted relaxing the ban on gays in the military in the 1990s." The Left and Right Have The Secretary All Wrong.
Mann added: "Powell served comfortably as the loyal military aide to Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, the most hawkish Cabinet member of that Reagan administration and the architect of unprecedented increases in the defense budget. Mann quotes Powell: 'To Weinberger and Reagan we owe the resurgence of the United States as a respected and credible military power.'"Bush is wrong to question his Secretary of State's loyalty because as Mann notes: "Powell turned down offers to become Clinton's secretary of state, primarily because he felt more in tune with the Republicans than with the Democrats on foreign policy."(Washington Post)
Powell is wrong if he thinks Bush seeks a diplomatic solution rather than a military confrontation. Even so, Powell is supporting Bush, at least so far. Therefore, the real divide between Bush and Powell has less to do with "undermining authority" than doctrinaire differences.
The Powell Doctrine on use of force reads as follows: "US troops should be sent into conflict only when vital US interests are at stake, where there is strong public support, where the objectives are clearly defined and limited, and where overwhelming force is used to accomplish the objective." (Washington Post)
Bush is abandoning the Powell Doctrine for a new doctrine unprecedented in American history. Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger is perplexed by Team Bush's demands that America and the World's leaders should trust one man's judgment -- without consultation or proof -- as justification for an unprovoked attack.
This is beyond a leap of faith. It is a mad jump to an illogical conclusion at odds with American honor and dignity. Our allies, military experts, and Republican Secretaries of State Kissinger, Baker, Eagleburger and Powell oppose this Bush Doctrine.
The US was founded as a nation of peace and commerce, not aggression and conquest. Powell -- and over two centuries of American policymakers have always considered war the last resort. Bush's Doctrine starts with the first strike use of massive deadly force in defiance of every American principle.
Bush's approach relies on "leveraged power" -- threats and use of force, even unprovoked first strikes for arbitrary purpose. Even absent adequate force, vital US interests, and clearly defined and limited objectives. Even over Congressional, allied and public opposition.
One military expert compares the international arena to law enforcement. The police have no interdictory authority. Until there is a crime, under the rule of law, the police have no jurisdiction. That's been our policy since 1776. George W. Bush believes differently, based on his personal sense of power and divine guidance.
Bush's sense of unquestionable authority drives him out of control when anyone defies him. Court decisions declaring his and Attorney General Ashcroft's actions unconstitutional and excessive infuriate Bush. People are questioning him on Iraq, and that makes Bush very angry.
posted on September 8, 2002 02:17:18 PM new
Like I keep saying: Bush thinks he's a dictator and has taken such steps to make himself one that sets unprescedented power grabs by himself in a class with Castro and other dictators in the world.
posted on September 8, 2002 03:49:20 PM new
You know most of the posters here travel around the web and read quaint little "commentaries" and from them weave these elaborate theories about what so and so believes and read into the tiniest actions of these people massive amounts of hidden meanings. From comments in other threads, I would have thought half of AW had statues of Powell on their nightstands. How many posts have we read about Powell resisting the forces of evil, etc, etc.? Powell the voice of reason. Now comes the big flip-flop. You know as much about Powell now as you did then: nothing.
posted on September 8, 2002 08:39:07 PM new
>He was a general in the US army, he take orders.
DS, there is a great deal of difference between an elisted person and a general, and it ain't about the pay. A general has a lot of political clout and can make decisions which affect the whole country and often history. You have generals confused with enlisted people who are so far down the scale that their job is to concentrate on washing the dishes or scrubbing the toilets without supervision.
You are also wrong in badmounthing the Internet's content. With as little info that major media outlets give these days, you take any established facts wherever you can and the Internet is good for that. When you have a better alternative to getting these sorts of facts, we'll all be waiting to hear it.
As far as people putting powell statues on shelves, who here was such an admirer of his that turned coat at this? Who?
posted on September 9, 2002 11:08:15 AM new
Interesting article, pclady. I had an idea: what if certain industries were outlawed for certain governments unless they met some higher ideal standards? The same factory that makes house-hold chemicals, let's say, could be used to make chemical weapons. Nasty dictatorships like Iraq's should then not be allowed to have a household chemicals factory until they meet international standards in good government. The same nuclear fascility that is used to make electricity can also be used to make weapons-grade radioactive materials. Therefore, until a country meets internatuions standards in government (and even economy), they can not have any nuclear power plants. If they do not dismantle the ones that they have, an international coelition will come by and take them out.
I knw the idea is not workable at this present time, so no hoo-hawing the idea on those grounds. But does it seem like a good ideal or what?
posted on September 9, 2002 11:25:57 PM new
There are three reasons not to trust Powell: (1) he is a military man (2) he is a Republican (3)he is in the Bush Administration.
That's why I say, if and only, he resigns would I consider him more moderate, resonable, and respectable. If he stays he's just one of the good old boy's, and part of the Bush gang.
Look's like he has made a turn around in the last couple of day's and is now mouthing Cheneys words.
posted on September 9, 2002 11:52:42 PM new
That's an interesting concept Borillar. Saddam won't let anyone look at his factories now. Enacting an international law governing household chemicals would most certainly have him in a tizzy. Interesting visual.
Clinton 1998
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
