Originally Posted By HyperTyper I'm growing a little weary of people thinking that Colin Powell walks on water, especially after Powell's selective outrage this week. A little background: Colin Powell was angry at those in the Bush administration who drew comparisons between John Murtha's criticism of war plans and the actions of Michael Moore. I understand Powell's coming to the defense of Murtha, who is apparently a good friend. Although I don't think the comparison to Moore was all that offensive (Moore and Murtha both make arguments based on false or incomplete assumptions), I don't take issue with Powell's being offended. What I'd like to know is where has Powell been in defending the president's honor? We have people on the left who have tossed the most outrageous accusations against Bush far more scathing than comparisons to a left-wing windbag with a video camera. Bush has been called a traitor, a murderer, a liar, a racist ... and these are just the epithets coming from prominent Democrat leadership! And where has Powell been? Private sources say Powell likes and respects Bush very much. So if Powell does not see Bush as the demon the left portrays, why is Powell so silent in defending his former boss? I suspect it may be that Powell enjoys the adoration of the media, who despise Bush. I think Powell's calculated defense (or lack thereof) reveals much about him. While he might be a stand-up guy, I don't perceive him as all that loyal or principled. I cannot say where he stands on most issues. He seems to take the John McCain "middle ground," whatever that is, preferring not to say anything that might offend the press. Hence, like McCain, he has become a rare Republican media darling ... one whose prounouncements are accepted as scripture, without question or deep examination. So for those who hope he runs in 2008, I would just say he is not the principled and forthright leader we have come to admire (or hate) in George W. Bush. If, however, you want a president who says what you want to hear (whatever that is), and avoids saying anything that annoys or offends, Powell might just be your man. I'll take someone else, thank you.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder I thought you just posted in another thread that Bush encourages differing points of view from within his own ranks. I guess that doesn't include Powell, who becomes unloyal and unprincipled if he doesn't toe the line. Nice.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "So for those who hope he runs in 2008, I would just say he is not the principled and forthright leader we have come to admire (or hate) in George W. Bush." Well, there's a lot to dispute just in the previous paragraph here. But nonetheless, there's been no indication from Powell he's inclined to run in 2008. His wife has been vehemently against it for years now, and didn't want him to take the Sec State job. COnsequently, there's no need for you or anyone else to start tearing him down in anticipation of 2008.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I thought you just posted in another thread that Bush encourages differing points of view from within his own ranks. I guess that doesn't include Powell, who becomes unloyal and unprincipled if he doesn't toe the line.> That's not what HyperTyper complained about.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut off-topic: hypertyper, never seen your name before and it brought something to mind. I think you might enjoy it... <a href="http://www.peeaanuut.com/albums/Misc-stuff/image001.gif" target="_blank">http://www.peeaanuut.com/album s/Misc-stuff/image001.gif</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip << I would just say he is not the principled and forthright leader we have come to admire (or hate) in George W. Bush.>> George W. Bush doesn't have enough principles to carry Colin Powell's jockstrap.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Roadtrip, who did you and STPH vote for again? It's not like anything has changed in the last year since the election except things getting better in Iraq and the ecomomy.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Roadtrip, who did you and STPH vote for again? It's not like anything has changed in the last year since the election except things getting better in Iraq and the ecomomy.>> I wasn't reacting as much to Bush as I was to HyperTyper's disgusting statement about Powell. Powell is a true American hero, and is doing Bush a WONDERFUL honor by keeping his mouth shut. It is fairly well known that Powell never favored our course of action in Iraq, but he lost that battle to Rumsfeld and the neocons. But instead of publicly saying “I told you soâ€, Powell tries to stay out of the limelight. Powell DOES like and respect Bush, but in the case of Iraq pretty clearly did not agree with his policy. Powell, being the class act that he is, remained loyal to the administration and took one for the team by giving testimony before the U.N. that he later came to regret. When the conservatives start criticizing TRUE WAR HEROS like Powell and McCain, you know just HOW DAMNED LOW they have sunk.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Powell is a true American hero, and is doing Bush a WONDERFUL honor by keeping his mouth shut. It is fairly well known that Powell never favored our course of action in Iraq, but he lost that battle to Rumsfeld and the neocons. But instead of publicly saying “I told you soâ€, Powell tries to stay out of the limelight.<< Exactly. Powell could have gone off and really trashed this whole thing, and he hasn't. And yet, he still gets knocked by some. A-mazing.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>He seems to take the John McCain "middle ground," whatever that is<< It's called not being beholden to a strict, my-way-or-the-highway far right party line. The fact that both men seem actually REASONABLE when speaking, especially when compared to some of the hysterics on the far political extremes, is exactly what we need MORE of.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>So if Powell does not see Bush as the demon the left portrays, why is Powell so silent in defending his former boss?<< Maybe he doesn't worship him.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< It's called not being beholden to a strict, my-way-or-the-highway far right party line. The fact that both men seem actually REASONABLE when speaking, especially when compared to some of the hysterics on the far political extremes, is exactly what we need MORE of. >>> And that's exactly why Powell will likely face an avalanche of personal attacks from the far right should it look like he has a chance at the Republican nomination in 2008. Just look at the relentless attacks on McCain from his fellow Republicans - the far right is scared stiff that a moderate could win the nomination, as then they've lost their cause no matter who wins the general election. I can't see Powell or McCain pushing the religious right's agenda to theocratize our gov't, and Powell or McCain might actually stand up for traditional Republican principles of limited scope and size of government and fiscal responsibility. They will be fought fiercely - just you watch.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> I thought you just posted in another thread that Bush encourages differing points of view from within his own ranks. I guess that doesn't include Powell, who becomes unloyal and unprincipled if he doesn't toe the line. Nice. Nothing I said criticized Powell for any differing views he may have with Bush. I didn't even touch that subject. What I don't get is why he comes running to defend Murtha's honor, but is mum about Bush's, which has been under far more severe attack. I expect either Powell has a big personal beef with Bush that he won't let on about, or he doesn't want to ruin his relationship with the press. Some people have surmised Powell is till bitter about his presentation to the U.N. Powell has been on the record as saying that was a dark day. For the life of me, I don't know why. Powell is a big boy. He didn't have to sign-on to any presentation in which he didn't have confidence. >>> COnsequently, there's no need for you or anyone else to start tearing him down in anticipation of 2008. But others want him to run, and won't let it go, despite the Powells' stated plans. I guess you could say I am likewise befuddled why there is such commotion about the candidacy of a man who has clearly shown no intention of running. >>> hypertyper, never seen your name before and it brought something to mind. I think you might enjoy it... I DID enjoy it. Very cool! I don't get here much these days, so that's why my user name is rarely seen. RoadTrip, your anger at what I said is precisely what bothers me about Powell fans. Why is he somehow above criticism? Because he's a war hero? What is so 'disgusting' about wondering why Powell finds Murtha's critics so offensive, but he seems to find nothing offensive about the extreme invective directed towards Bush and Condoleeza Rice (who has been the recipient of some particularly nasty treatment). Just because a person has earned 'war hero' status, that does not preclude that person from making mistakes or having flaws, nor does it bar us, the public, from examining and questioning their words and actions (or lack thereof). What John McCain did at war was fantastic, but I sure am annoyed at plenty of his doings in the Senate. If you think I am trashing anyone's war record, read what I wrote again. >>> Powell, being the class act that he is, remained loyal to the administration and took one for the team by giving testimony before the U.N. that he later came to regret. If Powell felt opposition to the war that strongly, he should have resigned immediately. True, it's admirable to follow a leader's policy in spite of personal disagreement ... to a point. But with a difference in policy views that big, I don't know how Powell expected to effectively reperesent Bush as Secretary of State. He should have left earlier. >>> and is doing Bush a WONDERFUL honor by keeping his mouth shut. If Powell has substantive and supported grievances regarding how Iraq was handled by the administration, I don't care if he honors Bush or not ... he should be honest and up-front about why. I like Bush, but I don't mind criticism ... as long as it's honest. (Richard Clarke's was not.) Again, I think Powell trying to keep a foot in both camps. I'm just wishing Powell would be less selective about his indignation, and call Kennedy, Dean, Gore and others to task for the completely unfounded and vile criticisms they have leveled against Bush. Why he can't do that simple thing, to encourage a return to civility, is beyond me. >>> It's called not being beholden to a strict, my-way-or-the-highway far right party line. Yet there are some professional 'moderates' that take pride in being beholden to a strict middle-of-the-road position on nearly everything. I'm not really impressed with those who straddle the fence on most issues so as not to offend those on either side. That's not being principled ... it's being populist. I actually favored McCain initially in the 2000 election. But I could never figure-out where the man stood because he would adjust his views constantly, depending on who was interviewing him. It was absolutly befuddling. War heroics ... absolutely. But political leadership is another thing altogether.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Yet there are some professional 'moderates' that take pride in being beholden to a strict middle-of-the-road position on nearly everything.<< I don't know that Powell or McCain fit into that category. McCain has supported the war as has Powell, though maybe not as stridently as some would prefer. There are a lot of conservatives who with the benefit of all that has come to light since the war began that have misgivings about how this thing was launched, executed and how it will turn out in the long run. By forcing people to rally 'round the president or be called wishy washy or not conservative enough and sidelining them, it discourages truly thinking over the issue and perhaps learning some lessons from it for the future.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<By forcing people to rally 'round the president or be called wishy washy or not conservative enough and sidelining them, it discourages truly thinking over the issue and perhaps learning some lessons from it for the future.>> All good conservatives must learn to Goosestep with the rest of them. You didn’t know that Kar2oonman? Well, then you must be a liberal.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Just look at the relentless attacks on McCain from his fellow Republicans - the far right is scared stiff that a moderate could win the nomination, as then they've lost their cause no matter who wins the general election.> I haven't noticed any "relentless attacks" on Senator McCain. I have noticed that some people have disagreed with him on several issues, and have noted the fact.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <By forcing people to rally 'round the president or be called wishy washy or not conservative enough and sidelining them, it discourages truly thinking over the issue and perhaps learning some lessons from it for the future.> No one is "forcing people to rally 'round the president". What would be nice, however, is not the constant looking back, and historical revisions. Especially when it comes without any helpful advice on how to proceed in the present.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I haven't noticed any "relentless attacks" on Senator McCain. I have noticed that some people have disagreed with him on several issues, and have noted the fact. >>> I have. We see it here on WE, complete with name-calling. I hear it in my office among the people that listen to the noise machine, who immediately respond to any mention of McCain with the voice mimic that Rush Limbaugh uses. Speaking of Rush Limbaugh, here's what he had to say about McCain earlier this month. Refer to <a href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_111805/content/truth_detector.member.html" target="_blank">http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/ho me/daily/site_111805/content/truth_detector.member.html</a> : The segment appears to be driven by the vote on ANWR drilling. He refers to a group of moderate northeast Republicans that voted against ANWR as "McCain Republicans." He has a picture along with the transcript of McCain doctored in Photoshop to look like Teddy Roosevelt, complete with pince nez. He applies the label RINO, Republicans in Name Only, which you may recognize from some other posts here. He says regarding McCain and others: "I don't care if they're Republican liberals or Democrat liberals, they're still liberals. They're not 'moderates.' Don't hit me with that. There's no such thing as a moderate. A moderate is just a liberal disguise, and they are doing everything they can to derail the conservative agenda." He makes it very clear that a moderate Republican is simply not acceptable to him, and I believe that this is representative of the far right wing of the party, which is the segment that's current in control of the party. They will not accept a McCain or a Powell as their nominee in 2008 - mark my words. And they will fight it with personal attacks whenever necessary.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I'm not a Rush 24/7 member, so I can't refer to the link, but I don't see any personal attacks in the comments you quoted. I see disagreement with policies.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <"There's no such thing as a moderate. A moderate is just a liberal disguise, and they are doing everything they can to derail the conservative agenda."> That tells you pretty much all you need to know about Limbaugh and his ilk.
