Originally Posted By Beaumandy McCain is a nice guy but a horrible Senator in many Republicans eyes. He has no chance at ever getting the GOP nomination. Here is a straw poll from Hugh Hewitt that just ended regarding GOP possibilities for president. McCain is not even close. Interesting, Condi Rice ranks VERY high on the " fantasy " ballot Total Votes: 12710 Main Ballot: Giuliani 3469 (27.3%) Allen 2507 (19.7%) Gingrich 1684 (13.2%) Romney 1185 (9.3%) Undecided 1109 (8.7%) McCain 656 (5.2%) Tancredo 569 (4.5%) Barbour 538 (4.2%) Brownback 421 (3.3%) Pawlenty 191 (1.5%) Huckabee 181 (1.4%) Hagel 74 (0.6%) Frist 74 (0.6%) Pataki 52 (0.4%) Fantasy Ballot: Rice 4910 (38.6%) Giuliani 1270 (10%) Bush 1100 (8.7%) Cheney 1011 (8%) Allen 987 (7.8%) Thompson 712 (5.6%) Gingrich 675 (5.3%) Romney 445 (3.5%) McCain 355 (2.8%) Tancredo 296 (2.3%) Undecided 246 (1.9%) Barbour 179 (1.4%) Brownback 172 (1.4%) Huckabee 96 (0.8%) Sanford 90 (0.7%) Pawlenty 63 (0.5%) Hagel 59 (0.5%) Frist 24 (0.2%) Pataki 20 (0.2%)
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <"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."> How many moderates lean right in congress? I see Republican moderates always taking up for the dems, yet not the other way around except once in awhile Joe Liebrerman. When Bush acts moderate his poll numbers drop like a rock.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I see Republican moderates always taking up for the dems, yet not the other way around except once in awhile Joe Liebrerman.> And Zell Miller. There are moderates on both sides, and I think Rush definitely goes a little overboard with his "moderates are liberals" ideas. That's why he's only right most of the time, and not all of the time.
Originally Posted By TiggerRulz Is there really any way the Guiliani is going to be the Republican nominee? Isn't he a pro-choice, pro gay rights Republican? Whether it's earned or not I consider him even more moderate (liberal?) then McCain.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<And Zell Miller.>> Doug I don't think Zell is a moderate anything. I think he is about as conservative as they get and a great man. I read his book and he does support the arts... that's the democrat in him. LOL Yes, Rush is right 98.3% of the time
Originally Posted By ElKay Powell is a perfect example of a smart, capable person that just isn't Presidential "timber". Just because one rises to the rank of a general or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doesn't make you the best leader or the most original thinker. Back in 2000, I thought Powell would have make a good alternative between Gore or Bush. He had the background on the basic level, plus he was an African-American that would be able to draw support from both Blacks and Whites. However, my feelings were rudely changed during his service as Sect'y. of State. I really thought Bush's rumor that he'd appoint Powell into his cabinate as windown dressing to show that Bush was both getting a competent foreign policy and someone that could draw some of the Black support away from Gore. Well I was only half right. Powell most likely did draw some Black support from Gore, but he was a pretty poor Sect'y. of State. From the beginning of Bush's term, it was clear that Powell wasn't going to get any autonomy from the White House and in fact Condi was the person who (for all the wrong reasons) set US foreign policy. Any self-respecting leader would have quietly resigned if he was stymed by other centers of authority. Instead, Powell swallowed his pride time and time and time again. The ultimate betrayal was Bush (?) asking Powell to go before the UN and give that disreputable justification for war against Iraq. Powell tried to cover his tattered reputation by saying that he spent several long days trying to sift out the garbage intell that Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith and others Bush neocons were peddling to the compliant news media, but Powell still let pretty blatant falsehoods to permeate his UN speech. However, Powell has the reputation of being a good soldier who will do what he is ordered to do with a crisp "yes, sir", no matter how onius that task is. Powell's tepid criticisms of the Bush decision to go to war makes it seem like he harbors a faint hope of being a compromise GOP candidate for President. However, even going back to his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal, plus his complicity pretty much knocks off what would have been the best African-American candidate for President for this generation.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<The ultimate betrayal was Bush (?) asking Powell to go before the UN and give that disreputable justification for war against Iraq.>> Moonbat Translation: I love Saddam and hope he wins his trial so he can be vindicated from this " illegal " war based on lies and oil.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Actually, it was based largely on the pre-planned neocon vision for the future of the Middle East. The fact that 9/11 happened such that people were pre-disposed to drink the Kool-Aid served to them just made it easier to accomplish.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <From the beginning of Bush's term, it was clear that Powell wasn't going to get any autonomy from the White House and in fact Condi was the person who (for all the wrong reasons) set US foreign policy.> I don't think that was clear at all. I think Sec. Powell did have a problem getting all the different factions in the State Department to follow his lead, something Sec. Rice seems to have a better handle on. <Any self-respecting leader would have quietly resigned if he was stymed by other centers of authority. Instead, Powell swallowed his pride time and time and time again.> And you base this scenario on what? Anonymous leaks by liberals in the State Department to liberal press columnists? <The ultimate betrayal was Bush (?) asking Powell to go before the UN and give that disreputable justification for war against Iraq.> That "disreputable justification" was the overwhelming consensus of the intelligence community.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Actually, it was based largely on the pre-planned neocon vision for the future of the Middle East.> Yes, imagine the nerve of those guys. Thinking that the Middle East would be better off governed by democracies rather than tyrants. Or that people living free and prosperous lives would be less likely to commit terrorist attacks.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Interesting article about Powell's former chief-of-staff here: <a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10246394/" target="_blank">http://msnbc.msn.com/id/102463 94/</a> "In an Associated Press interview, former Powell chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson also said President Bush was “too aloof, too distant from the details†of postwar planning. Underlings exploited Bush’s detachment and made poor decisions, Wilkerson said. Wilkerson blamed Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and like-minded aides. He said Cheney must have sincerely believed that Iraq could be a spawning ground for new terror assaults, because “otherwise I have to declare him a moron, an idiot or a nefarious bastard.â€" (snip) (on treatment of detainees) "Cheney’s office, Rumsfeld aides and others argued “that the president of the United States is all-powerful, that as commander in chief the president of the United States can do anything he damn well pleases,†Wilkerson said." (snip) "On Iraq, Wilkerson said Powell may have had doubts about the extent of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein but was convinced by then-CIA Director George Tenet and others that the intelligence behind the push toward war was sound. He said Powell now generally believes it was a good idea to remove Saddam from power but may not agree with either the timing or execution of the war. “What he seems to be saying to me now is the president failed to discipline the process the way he should have and that the president is ultimately responsible for this whole mess,†Wilkerson said." And my favorite paragraph, "He said he has almost, but not quite, concluded that Cheney and others in the administration deliberately ignored evidence of bad intelligence and looked only at what supported their case for war." How long before the noise machine starts "swiftboating" this 16-year aide to Colin Powell?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <How long before the noise machine starts "swiftboating" this 16-year aide to Colin Powell?> There's no need. His own words undermine the ideal that the administration skewed evidence, and I've quoted him in other threads. The rest of his comments are sour grapes. From what I've read, some of our worst mistakes in Iraq came about because the Administration let the State Department have their way.
Originally Posted By ElKay "From what I've read, some of our worst mistakes in Iraq came about because the Administration let the State Department have their way." Sorry Dougie, comic books just don't cut it. The State Dept's. own bureau of intel. had serious doubts about the charges that Undersect'y. of Defense Feith's Special Plans group got so very wrong. Also the State Dept. drew up fairly detailed plans in anticipation for the reconstruction for Iraq. Powell's staff offered Rummy's boobs (Wolfowitz and Feith) those plans, but were to bugger off, that Iraq's reconstruction was going to be a DoD show and they appointed Bremmer as the American "procounsel". And we all know how well things have been going since then. Finally, Powell urged the White House and the DoD NOT to condone the use of torture on terror suspects, because it would come back and tear down our stature with the rest of the world. Blame it on Powell, even though he was pushed out of the planning on Iraq before or after, just as long as you don't blame Bush. That's how it goes for necons--right? Pathetic :-(
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The State Dept's. own bureau of intel. had serious doubts about the charges that Undersect'y. of Defense Feith's Special Plans group got so very wrong.> Because they had their own misguided ideas. "This is the kind of short-sightedness that State and the CIA have shown all along in Iraq. Foggy Bottom resisted Baghdad's liberation for years and its Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs all but refused to disburse the nearly $100 million that Congress appropriated for the INC, even as war loomed. As for Langley, the CIA figured it didn't need an Iraqi opposition, predicting Baathist and Republican Guard defections that never occurred." <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003624" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ editorial/feature.html?id=110003624</a> <Also the State Dept. drew up fairly detailed plans in anticipation for the reconstruction for Iraq. Powell's staff offered Rummy's boobs (Wolfowitz and Feith) those plans, but were to bugger off, that Iraq's reconstruction was going to be a DoD show and they appointed Bremmer as the American "procounsel".> The wonderful thing about anonymous sources is that they can claim anything and no one can check it out. From the same article: "The FIF could have been the backbone of a new Iraqi security force. But with the war over, and State Department officials again calling shots at the coalition reconstruction office, the FIF was forcibly disbanded instead." Here's an article about how the State Department consistantly undermined the Iraqi National Congress: <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003317" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/ editorial/feature.html?id=110003317</a> My understanding is that the Defense Department lobbied for quickly setting up an Iraqi government, and that the State was the one that argued for a longer reconstruction. If you've got sources that say otherwise, please present them. <Finally, Powell urged the White House and the DoD NOT to condone the use of torture on terror suspects, because it would come back and tear down our stature with the rest of the world.> Neither the White House or the DoD condone the use of torture, so I'm not sure what your point is. <Blame it on Powell, even though he was pushed out of the planning on Iraq before or after, just as long as you don't blame Bush.> I don't blame Powell. No party has been 100% correct, and no party has been 100% wrong.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<How long before the noise machine starts "swiftboating" this 16-year aide to Colin Powell?>> <There's no need. His own words undermine the ideal that the administration skewed evidence, and I've quoted him in other threads.> Okay, so the answer to the original question seems to be "about one thread." Whatever Wilkerson may have said while he was still at State, he's now obviously much freer to say what he really believes. As for 36, that's just opinions from the editorial staff of the WSJ, but it's typically the kind of stuff you like to call "proof."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Okay, so the answer to the original question seems to be "about one thread." > My quotations in the other thread in no way impugned Mr Wilkerson. <Whatever Wilkerson may have said while he was still at State, he's now obviously much freer to say what he really believes.> I believe the quotes were comments he made after leaving the State Department. <As for 36, that's just opinions from the editorial staff of the WSJ, but it's typically the kind of stuff you like to call "proof."> I never claimed they were proof. But the Wall Street Journal is a highly respected newspaper. What is Elkay's source?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Okay, so the answer to the original question seems to be "about one thread." >> <My quotations in the other thread in no way impugned Mr Wilkerson.> Hence the smiley. You didn't swiftboat Wilkerson, merely tried to dismiss him as sour grapes and all that. But I don't put it past certain radio hosts, etc. <<Whatever Wilkerson may have said while he was still at State, he's now obviously much freer to say what he really believes.>> <I believe the quotes were comments he made after leaving the State Department.> I'd be interested in seeing the quotes, and when they were made. Plus, in the above quote he didn't say they "skewed" intelligence (that was your word), but rather that "Cheney and others in the administration deliberately ignored evidence of bad intelligence and looked only at what supported their case for war." And he said he hadn't even quite concluded that. But his complaints were also broader than that, as detailed in post 33. <<As for 36, that's just opinions from the editorial staff of the WSJ, but it's typically the kind of stuff you like to call "proof.">> <I never claimed they were proof. But the Wall Street Journal is a highly respected newspaper. What is Elkay's source?> I have no idea. But I also know that the WSJ news pages are more highly regarded than the editorial page (where opinionjournal comes from), which is widely regarded (quite rightly) as right-wing-agenda driven, at the expense sometimes of any sense of objective observance. And yes, there are left-wing organs that do the same.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Wilkerson's quotes came from a speech on October 19, 2005. <a href="http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Wilkerson" target="_blank">http://www.thewashingtonnote.c om/archives/Wilkerson</a>%20Speech%20--%20WEB.htm <But I also know that the WSJ news pages are more highly regarded than the editorial page (where opinionjournal comes from), which is widely regarded (quite rightly) as right-wing-agenda driven, at the expense sometimes of any sense of objective observance.> I'll agree that the WSJ's editorial page leans right, but I don't believe that it is widely regarded that it leans right "at the expense sometimes of any sense of objective observance."
