Colin Powell left=not good

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 4:57 pm

My gut instinct is Powell left because he couldn't stomach the administrations way of doing things and although I approve of some of those things he didn't like I felt much safer knowing he was in the mix. It's like someone just took the brakes off my ferrari right after I hit fifth gear!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:03 pm

Well as I just heard, Condi is taking his place. Feel any better?

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:05 pm

"Feel any better?"

uh, no? Do you?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:10 pm

Vander wrote:"Feel any better?"

uh, no? Do you?

Your objections?

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:24 pm

Rice is not as qualified as Powell, and IMO, won't garner the same level of respect. I think Powell was less of a strict Bush loyalist, though he was still somewhat loyal. I believe this gave his opinions on matters a little more credibility than someone who would just parrot the party line.

I'm not saying Powell is the greatest thing since peanut butter, but I view this as a downgrade.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:14 pm

Well Powell certainly never had any state dept. experience when he took the job. Then again how does one become qualified for such a position? As To Rice I guess we'll have to wait to pass judgement.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:25 pm

Alot of stories out about how he and Rhumsfield would really get into it. I so wish it was Rum that left.

Sirian · Post by **Sirian** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:38 pm

Vander wrote:I think Powell was less of a strict Bush loyalist, though he was still somewhat loyal.

Somewhat loyal?

When General Powell worked as an advisor to President Ronald Reagan, he made a particular policy recommendation that the President was initially against. There were a minority of advisors in favor of this concept, but Powell was passionate about it and he persuaded the President to give it a try. The idea did not work out. When the President faced the music at a press conference and was asked about this move, was asked whose idea it was, President Reagan said, "It was my idea. I made the decision to try this. I was wrong." He covered for Powell, took all the heat onto himself.

After the press conference, Colin Powell told some confidantes, "I would do anything for that man."

There are reasons why General Powell is a Republican. His loyalties to George W. Bush are stronger than you imagine. And even if privately he holds any grievance against Mr. Bush, he would never show it. That isn't what President Reagan would have done, and Reagan is Powell's hero and example for a host of reasons.

I have heard that Powell didn't like the traveling. He made more phone calls than he should have and less personal meetings than he could have. I'm sure his reasons for exiting the job are many, but he never was one to shrink away from voicing his opinions. So much so, that he himself has admitted that the Presidency would not be for him, because it would be too constraining on him, not a good fit for his talents and his personality. Whatever his reasons for leaving, though, you can be sure they do not include petulance at not getting enough of his way within the administration. He is too big of a man for that.

- Sirian

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 7:06 pm

woodchip wrote:
Vander wrote:"Feel any better?"

uh, no? Do you?
Your objections?

My personal objections are that Rice is very much a hawk, and I think we need someone more moderate, like Powell, heading the state department.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 7:07 pm

Yes, somewhat loyal. Mostly keeping his disagreements with policy below the radar, but not always.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 7:49 pm

I don't think it is good either overall, but remember Powell did give the famed WMD UN talk that turned out to be wrong. That talk alone showed to me he made the wrong judgement calls at crunch time, so I don't know if it's really a huge deal to me at this point. Brakes on the ferrari is right, but he never could stop the car.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 8:06 pm

Bird, Powell was relying on the same info as supplied by the Clinton era CIA. I'm not sure that Powell should be accused of a fau paux there-in.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Mon Nov 15, 2004 11:01 pm

Changing of the gaurd. Our government does this all the time. Couple more years and everyone who is there recycles again.

Thats what is great about this country.

Tricord · Post by **Tricord** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 5:27 am

What, everyone washes out before they get a chance to become competent?

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 7:01 am

I'm just curious to see what method they use to get Cheney out of there and replace him with someone runnable.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 7:11 am

Genghis wrote:I'm just curious to see what method they use to get Cheney out of there and replace him with someone runnable.

I'm convinced they will do it.
It seems like a smart move politically for their party and although it would be an obvious political tactic (unless the guy really dies or something) with all the anti-Cheney sentiment that the left has ginned up it will be fun to watch them complain that he is replaced.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 7:30 am

Cheney will stay. Why does he have to be replaced for someone "more runnable"? He may very well and most likey will not run for president anyway. the rebublicans have any number of 2008 candidates for the oval office. It is the democrats who are weak in this area.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:56 am

woodchip wrote:Cheney will stay. Why does he have to be replaced for someone "more runnable"? He may very well and most likey will not run for president anyway.

That's just it, he wont run and so the republican candidate in '08 would be on equal ground as the democrat candidate.
If they brought in someone, say Giuliani for example, and he was allowed to attend to certain duties that left him looking good...negotiate with allies on favorable terms for the U.S. to participate in the World Court...be credited for advising the president on policy that results in improvements in our lives....use Air Force 1 as a backdrop for his campaign rallys....be the one who came up with the strategy that captures bin Laddin or further cripples al Queda....

The possibilities are endless and none of them are available to the democrat candidate.

That, and the number one reason (other than pissing off Hillary), people generally don't turn out at the polls to change the leadership if things are already running well.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:55 am

Tricord wrote:What, everyone washes out before they get a chance to become competent?

No, everyone washes out so new ideas and people with different leadership qualities get a run at keeping the country on it's feet. It's like an oil change for a vehicle. Keep in mind we're the only super power remaining. Apparently we've been doing something right. Just like with anything though you'll get bad oil every now and then. This isn't one of those times however.