PDA

View Full Version : ****n Powell rides off into the sunset



LordNeon
04-19-2004, 11:46 AM
Sounds like Powell is on his way out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/19/politics/19POWE.html?ei=5006&en=35a570a7b07846eb&ex=1083038400&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=

"Critics of Mr. Powell in the hawkish wing of the administration said they were startled by what they saw as his self-serving decision to help fill out a portrait that enhances his reputation as a farsighted analyst, perhaps at the expense of Mr. Bush. Several said the book guaranteed what they expected anyway, that Mr. Powell will not stay as secretary if Mr. Bush is re-elected."

I foresee Powell coming out in public against some of the Bush staffers, and the Bushies responding with slanderous attacks against Powell, like they did against Joe Wilson, Paul O'Neill, Clarke, etc.

Tragic. Why did Powell whore himself out to this administration? How did he let himself be marginalized by maniacs like Cheney?

kmac12
04-19-2004, 12:39 PM
For one, the ny times is a very liberal paper. They skew many articles.

I think the relationship between Bush and Powell is being overanalyzed. The Democrats have always hated that Powell joined this administration. This is because they usually try to downplay any republican minorities and he is highly respected.

Why did he whore himself out to this admin?

Face it! He is a Republican!!

He may not stay on as S of State, but many of them do not continue the full 8 years anyways.

He may not have agreed fully with the President on things, but I highly doubt he will come out and trash them if he leaves his post. He just isn't like that.

I hope he runs in 2008 (after Bush finishes his second term ;) )

blaker00
04-19-2004, 01:22 PM
powell already said a long time ago that he wont be in the next administration.

kmac12
04-19-2004, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by blaker00
powell already said a long time ago that he wont be in the next administration.

I was suprised that he accepted the position in the first place.

When he didn't run for Pres, I thought it was because his wife wanted him home. I guess there was more to it than that.

LordNeon
04-19-2004, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
For one, the ny times is a very liberal paper. They skew many articles.

I think the relationship between Bush and Powell is being overanalyzed. The Democrats have always hated that Powell joined this administration. This is because they usually try to downplay any republican minorities and he is highly respected.

Why did he whore himself out to this admin?

Face it! He is a Republican!!

He may not stay on as S of State, but many of them do not continue the full 8 years anyways.

He may not have agreed fully with the President on things, but I highly doubt he will come out and trash them if he leaves his post. He just isn't like that.



No one said he wasn't a Republican, but one got the impression he had more integrity than to stick with the liars and crooks that compose the current admin.

As for him running for president .. dream on. The GOP will never nominate a pro-choice black Republican candidate. They'll lose all their Southern voters.

kmac12
04-19-2004, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon No one said he wasn't a Republican, but one got the impression he had more integrity than to stick with the liars and crooks that compose the current admin.

Liars and crooks is your opinion and obviously not his.


As for him running for president .. dream on. The GOP will never nominate a pro-choice black Republican candidate. They'll lose all their Southern voters.

I disagree.

If he were to make it through the primaries, then he would be their nominee. I think he could do it.

I remember many prominent Republicans saying that they would back him if he were to run. You are just skeptical due to your radical left-wing views. ;)

LordNeon
04-19-2004, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
If he were to make it through the primaries, then he would be their nominee. I think he could do it.


You may think so, but the GOP bosses know better.

Black candidate = loss of the redneck vote.
Pro-choice candidate = loss of the Christian right vote.

Without those constituencies. the Republicans will lose every time.

kmac12
04-19-2004, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by LordNeon


You may think so, but the GOP bosses know better.

Black candidate = loss of the redneck vote.
Pro-choice candidate = loss of the Christian right vote.

Without those constituencies. the Republicans will lose every time. [/B]

Again, you are incorrect. The Republican party is much broader than rednecks and christians. That is like me saying that liberals are all a bunch of hippies and 'save the earth' freaks. It is a very poor assessment on your part. ;)

As for losing votes? Who else would they vote for? They definately would not vote for democrats. If anything, they would not vote and as history has shown Republicans vote more often than democrats (the whole 'low turnout is better for republicans' argument).

LordNeon
04-19-2004, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
Again, you are incorrect. The Republican party is much broader than rednecks and christians. That is like me saying that liberals are all a bunch of hippies and 'save the earth' freaks. It is a very poor assessment on your part. ;)

As for losing votes? Who else would they vote for? They definately would not vote for democrats. If anything, they would not vote and as history has shown Republicans vote more often than democrats (the whole 'low turnout is better for republicans' argument).

Of course there are more people in the GOP than that, but those are two of its most dependable base constituencies. They can't afford to lose them, ever, just as Democrats can't afford to lose their own base groups.

Would the hicks/Bible-thumpers vote for Democrats instead? Probably not, but like you say, they might go third party (there's all that talk about Roy Moore running) or not vote at all. That "low voter turnout" is only a good thing for Republicans if Democratic voters don't come out to vote.

OkiJake
04-20-2004, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by kmac12

I hope he runs in 2008 (after Bush finishes his second term ;) )

kmac12
04-20-2004, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by LordNeon
Of course there are more people in the GOP than that, but those are two of its most dependable base constituencies. They can't afford to lose them, ever, just as Democrats can't afford to lose their own base groups.

Would the hicks/Bible-thumpers vote for Democrats instead? Probably not, but like you say, they might go third party (there's all that talk about Roy Moore running) or not vote at all. That "low voter turnout" is only a good thing for Republicans if Democratic voters don't come out to vote.

Again, I do not buy into the theory that the Republican party is made up of bible thumping sheep and hicks. All of the Republicans that I know, would chose the candidate who is the republican nominee. Yes, some people in this country would vote for a third party if that was an option, but that number would be similar numbers who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 or Pat Buchanan in any of his runs (IMO).

As for the low voter turnout, I was just trying to make the point that more Republicans usually go out and vote than Democrats. As a whole, they are more consistent, so I do not see them staying home just because a candidate is pro-choice.

Personally, I wish that everyone would vote. Even if it meant more Dems voting.

kmac12
04-20-2004, 08:08 AM
"In an interview Monday in which he disputed suggestions by Woodward that he was out of the loop and dragooned into supporting President Bush on the war, Powell confirmed that the White House had told administration officials to cooperate with Woodward's 'Plan of Attack'....

But the secretary of state told reporters Monday that "when the president decided that we had to go down the road of military action, it was a road I knew was there all along, and I was as committed as anyone else to see the end of this [Iraqi] regime."

"My support was willing, and it was complete," Powell said, although he also conceded that he "will always plead guilty to being cautious about matters having to do with war and peace."

Powell also took issue with the impression left by Woodward's characterization of the meetings on January 11 between Cheney, Rumsfeld and Prince Bandar, during which they discussed war plans, and his own meeting with Bush two days later in which the president is quoted as telling Powell, "I really think I'm going to have to do this."

Powell said the idea that Bandar was given information that was not being shared with the secretary of state is incorrect.

"I was included in all of the military planning preparations. I was briefed on a regular basis," said Powell, a retired Army general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "I was intimately familiar with the plan. I was aware that Prince Bandar was being briefed on the plan." '


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/20/woodward.book/index.html

So, I guess Powell is a liar too. ;)

mariners216
04-20-2004, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
So, I guess Powell is a liar too. ;)
nah, just a "good soldier."

kmac12
04-20-2004, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by mariners216
nah, just a "good soldier."

Wow, more 'Bush is a liar and all his administration are mindless followers that lie for him' humor. Very funny.

It's one big conspiracy isn't it?

Starsky
04-20-2004, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
Wow, more 'Bush is a liar and all his administration are mindless followers that lie for him' humor. Very funny.

It's one big conspiracy isn't it?


You would be surprised by how many Democrats believe junk like this. They are so desperate they are turning to conspiracies and fringe theories.

mariners216
04-20-2004, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by kmac12
Wow, more 'Bush is a liar and all his administration are mindless followers that lie for him' humor. Very funny.

It's one big conspiracy isn't it?
No. You, along with Starsky, missed my point.

Alot of people have said that even though Powell knew that the war in Iraq was a war that didn't have to be fought, he backed up his president because he's still a "good soldier" (referring to his days in the army).

Get it now?

kmac12
04-20-2004, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by mariners216
No. You, along with Starsky, missed my point.

Alot of people have said that even though Powell knew that the war in Iraq was a war that didn't have to be fought, he backed up his president because he's still a "good soldier" (referring to his days in the army).

Get it now?

I misconstrued your statment.

It is just a common defense for libs or dems to accuse someone in the administration of lying. I thought your reference to 'good soldier' meant that he was willing to lie for the pres. My apologies.

libremag
04-20-2004, 04:16 PM
The Powell of today is not the Powell of the early '90s. It's like he got his balls caught in the political lawnmower, and lost them. But he still strikes me as a nice, honorable man. Capitol Hill must be a frigging rough 'suit-and-tie-ghetto'.