The question everyone asks is what does it mean? One commentator said that generally endorsements do not mean much other than a brand name shortcut for voter information (it sounded like it came right out of the political science literature) that is inversely important to the prestige of the office. In other words, the higher the office, the less important the endorsement is. And I agree. I think endorsements for school board and city council candidates are far more important precisely because people have so much less information about the candidates.
We pay attention to newspaper endorsements as a sign as to how the candidate is doing less than a belief that a newspaper endorsement is really going to convince someone to vote one way or another.
The Colin Powell endorsement is different. First, Powell is one of those figures in American public life that seems to transcend partisanship. He is respected across the board except perhaps by the hard left. For that reason, his reputation is unimpeachable and in response you did not see Republicans yesterday able to discredit him or even attempt to. That’s telling.
Second, his words were powerful and they help convince those voters on the bubble to take a chance on Obama. If you are concerned about Obama’s foreign policy experience, Powell re-assures you. If you are concerned that Obama is risky and inexperienced, Powell reassures you.
Finally, any time you get an endorsement from the other side of the aisle it is a measure of how things are going for your campaign.
All of that would be true is Gen. Powell had opened his mouth to say he was voting for Barack Obama and nothing else.
But he did not stop there. His words are devastating if you are the Republicans or John McCain. He has known McCain for 25 years, he is a friend of John McCain, he supported John McCain a year ago. And now he is supporting Barack Obama.
For me, there is so much that we could focus on of what he said, but I think there are really two statements that stand out above all else and he gets into William Ayers, his judgment of selecting Sarah Palin, his demeanor during the time of economic crisis, the tone of the campaign, etc.
For me it was when he talked in plain terms about the Muslim charge, that is what I thought was powerful.
Gen. Powell says:
“I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, “Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.”
This is the point I made last week. Powell makes is stronger and more credibly than I could.
“Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian.”
This is where John McCain stopped, but Powell makes the same point I did.
“But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, “He’s a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.” This is not the way we should be doing it in America.”
And if that were not strong enough as a statement, General Powell hammers it home in a way that really made you feel that the General means every single word he said. This was not a gut decision, this was a well-thought out statement about America and the America that this hero in our country wants to see.
“I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son’s grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards–Purple Heart, Bronze Star–showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn’t have a Christian cross, it didn’t have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I’m troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.”
I am tired of anti-Muslim bigotry in this country. I am tired with the implication that if Obama is a Muslim, which he is not, that he must be associated with terrorists. There are Muslims who have fought and died for this country, who heeded the 9/11 call just as much as Christians and just as much as Jews and just as much a many Americans across all walks of life. John McCain is not a bigot, but John McCain did not get it either when the woman accused Obama of being an Arab and McCain said no he’s not, he’s a decent person. That’s not the right answer, Gen. Powell’s answer is.
Kareem Khan is a war hero with a bronze star and a purple heart and he was an American and he was a Muslim.
But that was not enough for General Powell. The line that the electorate is likely to hear for the next week’s is the line about Barack Obama being a “transformational figure.”
Here’s the full excerpt:
“So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we’ve got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities–and we have to take that into account–as well as his substance–he has both style and substance–he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world–onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I’ll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.”
Two other quick points. Powell gives Obama cover on the military issue:
“I have watched him over the last two years as he has educated himself, as he has become very familiar with these issues. He speaks authoritatively. He speaks with great insight into the challenges we’re facing of a military and political and economic nature. And he is surrounding himself, I’m confident, with people who’ll be able to give him the expertise that he, at the moment, does not have. And so I have watched an individual who has intellectual vigor and who dives deeply into issues and approaches issues with a very, very steady hand. And so I’m confident that he will be ready to take on these challenges on January 21st.”
Finally the issue of race. This is where I really got angry with Pat Buchanan yesterday. Buchanan implied that this was simply about race. I do not believe anyone who knows Gen. Powell believes that.
Brokaw to his credit asked the question because it needed to be addressed strongly and Gen. Powell did just that.
“If I had only had that in mind, I could have done this six, eight, 10 months ago.”
Then he really nailed it.
“I can’t deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president. And should that happen, all Americans should be proud–not just African-Americans, but all Americans–that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It will also not only electrify our country, I think it’ll electrify the world.”
I have seen many endorsements, I am not sure I have seen such powerful testimony on a wide array of issues from someone as respected as Gen. Powell. This endorsement will matter. It dominated the news cycle yesterday and will likely dominate again today. And it provides people on the bubble with a reason to vote for Obama. I cannot think of a stronger statement or a more powerful messenger.
For those who have not seen it, here is the video of it:
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Good!
Mr. Powell was one key figure who did not like what the Administration was doing so he stepped away. I feel he was used and abused by the Administration to promote the war in Iraq.
Good!
Mr. Powell was one key figure who did not like what the Administration was doing so he stepped away. I feel he was used and abused by the Administration to promote the war in Iraq.
Good!
Mr. Powell was one key figure who did not like what the Administration was doing so he stepped away. I feel he was used and abused by the Administration to promote the war in Iraq.
Good!
Mr. Powell was one key figure who did not like what the Administration was doing so he stepped away. I feel he was used and abused by the Administration to promote the war in Iraq.
During this Meet the Press interview,Colin Powell’s response to questions about his role in the build-up to the Iraqi invasion were evasive as he “stonewalled” the questions. He was determined to leave no opening for any suggestion that he knew what he SHOULD have done to prevent this catastrophe but was thwarted by his lifelong mind -set to follow the Commander’s orders. This does not detract from his powerful endorsement of Obama. I had hoped, perhaps asking too much of a man and his ego, that he would have answered more candidly those questions concerning his part in manufacturing political consent for the invasion of Iraq.
During this Meet the Press interview,Colin Powell’s response to questions about his role in the build-up to the Iraqi invasion were evasive as he “stonewalled” the questions. He was determined to leave no opening for any suggestion that he knew what he SHOULD have done to prevent this catastrophe but was thwarted by his lifelong mind -set to follow the Commander’s orders. This does not detract from his powerful endorsement of Obama. I had hoped, perhaps asking too much of a man and his ego, that he would have answered more candidly those questions concerning his part in manufacturing political consent for the invasion of Iraq.
During this Meet the Press interview,Colin Powell’s response to questions about his role in the build-up to the Iraqi invasion were evasive as he “stonewalled” the questions. He was determined to leave no opening for any suggestion that he knew what he SHOULD have done to prevent this catastrophe but was thwarted by his lifelong mind -set to follow the Commander’s orders. This does not detract from his powerful endorsement of Obama. I had hoped, perhaps asking too much of a man and his ego, that he would have answered more candidly those questions concerning his part in manufacturing political consent for the invasion of Iraq.
During this Meet the Press interview,Colin Powell’s response to questions about his role in the build-up to the Iraqi invasion were evasive as he “stonewalled” the questions. He was determined to leave no opening for any suggestion that he knew what he SHOULD have done to prevent this catastrophe but was thwarted by his lifelong mind -set to follow the Commander’s orders. This does not detract from his powerful endorsement of Obama. I had hoped, perhaps asking too much of a man and his ego, that he would have answered more candidly those questions concerning his part in manufacturing political consent for the invasion of Iraq.
“During this Meet the Press interview,Colin Powell’s response to questions about his role in the build-up to the Iraqi invasion were evasive as he “stonewalled” the questions. He was determined to leave no opening for any suggestion that he knew what he SHOULD have done to prevent this catastrophe but was thwarted by his lifelong mind -set to follow the Commander’s orders.”
Not true.
Powell never evaded the question: he answered it thusly, saying “I have never said anything to suggest I did not support going to war”:
GEN. POWELL: Well, let’s start at the beginning. I said to the president in 2002, we should try to solve this diplomatically and avoid war. The president accepted that recommendation, we took it to the U.N. But the president, by the end of 2002, believed that the U.N. was not going to solve the problem, and he made a decision that we had to prepare for military action. I fully supported that. And I have never said anything to suggest I did not support going to war. I thought the evidence was there. And it is not just my closing of the whole deal with my U.N. speech. I know the importance of that speech, and I regret a lot of the information that the intelligence community provided us was wrong. But three months before my speech, with a heavy majority, the United States Congress expressed its support to use military force if it was necessary. And so we went in and used military force. My unhappiness was that we didn’t do it right. It was easy to get to Baghdad, but then we forgot that there was a lot more that had to be done. And we didn’t have enough force to impose our will in the country or to deal with the insurgency when it broke out, and that I regret.
MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation…
GEN. POWELL: I also assure you that it was not a correct assessment by anybody that my statements or my leaving the administration would have stopped it.
MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation, because we now know that they did not exist, was it then a war of necessity or just a war of choice?
GEN. POWELL: Without the weapons of mass destruction present, as conveyed to us by the intelligence community in the most powerful way, I don’t think there would have been a war. It was the reason we took it to the public, it was the reason we took it to the American people to the Congress, who supported it on that basis, and it’s the presentation I made to the United Nations. Without those weapons of mass destruction then Iraq did not present to the world the kind of threat that it did if it had weapons of mass destruction.
“During this Meet the Press interview,Colin Powell’s response to questions about his role in the build-up to the Iraqi invasion were evasive as he “stonewalled” the questions. He was determined to leave no opening for any suggestion that he knew what he SHOULD have done to prevent this catastrophe but was thwarted by his lifelong mind -set to follow the Commander’s orders.”
Not true.
Powell never evaded the question: he answered it thusly, saying “I have never said anything to suggest I did not support going to war”:
GEN. POWELL: Well, let’s start at the beginning. I said to the president in 2002, we should try to solve this diplomatically and avoid war. The president accepted that recommendation, we took it to the U.N. But the president, by the end of 2002, believed that the U.N. was not going to solve the problem, and he made a decision that we had to prepare for military action. I fully supported that. And I have never said anything to suggest I did not support going to war. I thought the evidence was there. And it is not just my closing of the whole deal with my U.N. speech. I know the importance of that speech, and I regret a lot of the information that the intelligence community provided us was wrong. But three months before my speech, with a heavy majority, the United States Congress expressed its support to use military force if it was necessary. And so we went in and used military force. My unhappiness was that we didn’t do it right. It was easy to get to Baghdad, but then we forgot that there was a lot more that had to be done. And we didn’t have enough force to impose our will in the country or to deal with the insurgency when it broke out, and that I regret.
MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation…
GEN. POWELL: I also assure you that it was not a correct assessment by anybody that my statements or my leaving the administration would have stopped it.
MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation, because we now know that they did not exist, was it then a war of necessity or just a war of choice?
GEN. POWELL: Without the weapons of mass destruction present, as conveyed to us by the intelligence community in the most powerful way, I don’t think there would have been a war. It was the reason we took it to the public, it was the reason we took it to the American people to the Congress, who supported it on that basis, and it’s the presentation I made to the United Nations. Without those weapons of mass destruction then Iraq did not present to the world the kind of threat that it did if it had weapons of mass destruction.
“During this Meet the Press interview,Colin Powell’s response to questions about his role in the build-up to the Iraqi invasion were evasive as he “stonewalled” the questions. He was determined to leave no opening for any suggestion that he knew what he SHOULD have done to prevent this catastrophe but was thwarted by his lifelong mind -set to follow the Commander’s orders.”
Not true.
Powell never evaded the question: he answered it thusly, saying “I have never said anything to suggest I did not support going to war”:
GEN. POWELL: Well, let’s start at the beginning. I said to the president in 2002, we should try to solve this diplomatically and avoid war. The president accepted that recommendation, we took it to the U.N. But the president, by the end of 2002, believed that the U.N. was not going to solve the problem, and he made a decision that we had to prepare for military action. I fully supported that. And I have never said anything to suggest I did not support going to war. I thought the evidence was there. And it is not just my closing of the whole deal with my U.N. speech. I know the importance of that speech, and I regret a lot of the information that the intelligence community provided us was wrong. But three months before my speech, with a heavy majority, the United States Congress expressed its support to use military force if it was necessary. And so we went in and used military force. My unhappiness was that we didn’t do it right. It was easy to get to Baghdad, but then we forgot that there was a lot more that had to be done. And we didn’t have enough force to impose our will in the country or to deal with the insurgency when it broke out, and that I regret.
MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation…
GEN. POWELL: I also assure you that it was not a correct assessment by anybody that my statements or my leaving the administration would have stopped it.
MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation, because we now know that they did not exist, was it then a war of necessity or just a war of choice?
GEN. POWELL: Without the weapons of mass destruction present, as conveyed to us by the intelligence community in the most powerful way, I don’t think there would have been a war. It was the reason we took it to the public, it was the reason we took it to the American people to the Congress, who supported it on that basis, and it’s the presentation I made to the United Nations. Without those weapons of mass destruction then Iraq did not present to the world the kind of threat that it did if it had weapons of mass destruction.
“During this Meet the Press interview,Colin Powell’s response to questions about his role in the build-up to the Iraqi invasion were evasive as he “stonewalled” the questions. He was determined to leave no opening for any suggestion that he knew what he SHOULD have done to prevent this catastrophe but was thwarted by his lifelong mind -set to follow the Commander’s orders.”
Not true.
Powell never evaded the question: he answered it thusly, saying “I have never said anything to suggest I did not support going to war”:
GEN. POWELL: Well, let’s start at the beginning. I said to the president in 2002, we should try to solve this diplomatically and avoid war. The president accepted that recommendation, we took it to the U.N. But the president, by the end of 2002, believed that the U.N. was not going to solve the problem, and he made a decision that we had to prepare for military action. I fully supported that. And I have never said anything to suggest I did not support going to war. I thought the evidence was there. And it is not just my closing of the whole deal with my U.N. speech. I know the importance of that speech, and I regret a lot of the information that the intelligence community provided us was wrong. But three months before my speech, with a heavy majority, the United States Congress expressed its support to use military force if it was necessary. And so we went in and used military force. My unhappiness was that we didn’t do it right. It was easy to get to Baghdad, but then we forgot that there was a lot more that had to be done. And we didn’t have enough force to impose our will in the country or to deal with the insurgency when it broke out, and that I regret.
MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation…
GEN. POWELL: I also assure you that it was not a correct assessment by anybody that my statements or my leaving the administration would have stopped it.
MR. BROKAW: Removing the weapons of mass destruction from the equation, because we now know that they did not exist, was it then a war of necessity or just a war of choice?
GEN. POWELL: Without the weapons of mass destruction present, as conveyed to us by the intelligence community in the most powerful way, I don’t think there would have been a war. It was the reason we took it to the public, it was the reason we took it to the American people to the Congress, who supported it on that basis, and it’s the presentation I made to the United Nations. Without those weapons of mass destruction then Iraq did not present to the world the kind of threat that it did if it had weapons of mass destruction.
“Not True”
Yes, Colin Powell was adamant in his own defense on Meet the Press but his statements contradicted the wealth of on-the-record, documented information that has been written about his evaluation of this “intelligence” during this period. In the end, he chose to be the good soldier carrying out his Commander-in Chief Bush’s orders rather than challenging the orders as CIVILIAN Secretary of State Powell… a tragic failure. As was said, off-the-record, during the post-Irag invasion Congressional hearings..(paraphrasing)”he could have stopped this whole thing!”
“Not True”
Yes, Colin Powell was adamant in his own defense on Meet the Press but his statements contradicted the wealth of on-the-record, documented information that has been written about his evaluation of this “intelligence” during this period. In the end, he chose to be the good soldier carrying out his Commander-in Chief Bush’s orders rather than challenging the orders as CIVILIAN Secretary of State Powell… a tragic failure. As was said, off-the-record, during the post-Irag invasion Congressional hearings..(paraphrasing)”he could have stopped this whole thing!”
“Not True”
Yes, Colin Powell was adamant in his own defense on Meet the Press but his statements contradicted the wealth of on-the-record, documented information that has been written about his evaluation of this “intelligence” during this period. In the end, he chose to be the good soldier carrying out his Commander-in Chief Bush’s orders rather than challenging the orders as CIVILIAN Secretary of State Powell… a tragic failure. As was said, off-the-record, during the post-Irag invasion Congressional hearings..(paraphrasing)”he could have stopped this whole thing!”
“Not True”
Yes, Colin Powell was adamant in his own defense on Meet the Press but his statements contradicted the wealth of on-the-record, documented information that has been written about his evaluation of this “intelligence” during this period. In the end, he chose to be the good soldier carrying out his Commander-in Chief Bush’s orders rather than challenging the orders as CIVILIAN Secretary of State Powell… a tragic failure. As was said, off-the-record, during the post-Irag invasion Congressional hearings..(paraphrasing)”he could have stopped this whole thing!”
“GEN. POWELL: I also assure you that it was not a correct assessment by anybody that my statements or my leaving the administration would have stopped it.”
Why would he offer this unsolicited comment(he interrupted Brokar’s next question) unless he WAS considering speaking out or resigning. This unsolicited comment is a not convincing explanation for his tragic(generic definition) decision to follow orders.
“GEN. POWELL: I also assure you that it was not a correct assessment by anybody that my statements or my leaving the administration would have stopped it.”
Why would he offer this unsolicited comment(he interrupted Brokar’s next question) unless he WAS considering speaking out or resigning. This unsolicited comment is a not convincing explanation for his tragic(generic definition) decision to follow orders.
“GEN. POWELL: I also assure you that it was not a correct assessment by anybody that my statements or my leaving the administration would have stopped it.”
Why would he offer this unsolicited comment(he interrupted Brokar’s next question) unless he WAS considering speaking out or resigning. This unsolicited comment is a not convincing explanation for his tragic(generic definition) decision to follow orders.
“GEN. POWELL: I also assure you that it was not a correct assessment by anybody that my statements or my leaving the administration would have stopped it.”
Why would he offer this unsolicited comment(he interrupted Brokar’s next question) unless he WAS considering speaking out or resigning. This unsolicited comment is a not convincing explanation for his tragic(generic definition) decision to follow orders.
“Why would he offer this unsolicited comment…”
The comment was in fact solicited. Read the transcript.
“Why would he offer this unsolicited comment…”
The comment was in fact solicited. Read the transcript.
“Why would he offer this unsolicited comment…”
The comment was in fact solicited. Read the transcript.
“Why would he offer this unsolicited comment…”
The comment was in fact solicited. Read the transcript.
“his statements contradicted the wealth of on-the-record, documented information that has been written about his evaluation of this “intelligence” during this period.”
On-the-record, documented information?
You may be right — I don’t know. However, just to prove your point, please cite exactly where one could read this “on-the-record” documentation where Colin Powell contradicts himself. You may be confusing journalistic accounts which presumed to know Powell’s views, but in all likelihood were wrong and based on no statements by Powell.
“his statements contradicted the wealth of on-the-record, documented information that has been written about his evaluation of this “intelligence” during this period.”
On-the-record, documented information?
You may be right — I don’t know. However, just to prove your point, please cite exactly where one could read this “on-the-record” documentation where Colin Powell contradicts himself. You may be confusing journalistic accounts which presumed to know Powell’s views, but in all likelihood were wrong and based on no statements by Powell.
“his statements contradicted the wealth of on-the-record, documented information that has been written about his evaluation of this “intelligence” during this period.”
On-the-record, documented information?
You may be right — I don’t know. However, just to prove your point, please cite exactly where one could read this “on-the-record” documentation where Colin Powell contradicts himself. You may be confusing journalistic accounts which presumed to know Powell’s views, but in all likelihood were wrong and based on no statements by Powell.
“his statements contradicted the wealth of on-the-record, documented information that has been written about his evaluation of this “intelligence” during this period.”
On-the-record, documented information?
You may be right — I don’t know. However, just to prove your point, please cite exactly where one could read this “on-the-record” documentation where Colin Powell contradicts himself. You may be confusing journalistic accounts which presumed to know Powell’s views, but in all likelihood were wrong and based on no statements by Powell.
For what it’s worth, I googled this subject and found a waft of 2003 articles which claim Powell doubted some of the intelligence (not all of it), but those articles are not “on-the-record” or documented. Here is a good example from The Guardian. Here is another one from CNN from 2005, which is on the record and exposes intelligence doubts revealed in 2003, but does not claim Powell said anything about the intelligence he believed to be untrue or unsupported.
For what it’s worth, I googled this subject and found a waft of 2003 articles which claim Powell doubted some of the intelligence (not all of it), but those articles are not “on-the-record” or documented. Here is a good example from The Guardian. Here is another one from CNN from 2005, which is on the record and exposes intelligence doubts revealed in 2003, but does not claim Powell said anything about the intelligence he believed to be untrue or unsupported.
For what it’s worth, I googled this subject and found a waft of 2003 articles which claim Powell doubted some of the intelligence (not all of it), but those articles are not “on-the-record” or documented. Here is a good example from The Guardian. Here is another one from CNN from 2005, which is on the record and exposes intelligence doubts revealed in 2003, but does not claim Powell said anything about the intelligence he believed to be untrue or unsupported.
For what it’s worth, I googled this subject and found a waft of 2003 articles which claim Powell doubted some of the intelligence (not all of it), but those articles are not “on-the-record” or documented. Here is a good example from The Guardian. Here is another one from CNN from 2005, which is on the record and exposes intelligence doubts revealed in 2003, but does not claim Powell said anything about the intelligence he believed to be untrue or unsupported.
Colin Powell did not make contradicting public statements; this would have been equally vorboten for General Colin Powell. His closest associate and friend, Deputy Secretary of State…? offered multiple on-the-record statements(after the invasion) to journalists concerning Colin Powell’s skeptical evaluation of this “intellgence” in the build-up to the war. We have to assume that his closest colleague and friend was accurately describing Powell’s views.Collin’s argument that Congress also was convinced of the WMD intelligence and voted to explicitly go to war with Iraq is aslo unconvincing.I appreciate his courage in coming out to sincerely endorse Barak Obama knowing that he would be stepping back into the limlight and political fire concerning his tragic decision not to speak out or resign when he was Bush’s Secretary of State.
Colin Powell did not make contradicting public statements; this would have been equally vorboten for General Colin Powell. His closest associate and friend, Deputy Secretary of State…? offered multiple on-the-record statements(after the invasion) to journalists concerning Colin Powell’s skeptical evaluation of this “intellgence” in the build-up to the war. We have to assume that his closest colleague and friend was accurately describing Powell’s views.Collin’s argument that Congress also was convinced of the WMD intelligence and voted to explicitly go to war with Iraq is aslo unconvincing.I appreciate his courage in coming out to sincerely endorse Barak Obama knowing that he would be stepping back into the limlight and political fire concerning his tragic decision not to speak out or resign when he was Bush’s Secretary of State.
Colin Powell did not make contradicting public statements; this would have been equally vorboten for General Colin Powell. His closest associate and friend, Deputy Secretary of State…? offered multiple on-the-record statements(after the invasion) to journalists concerning Colin Powell’s skeptical evaluation of this “intellgence” in the build-up to the war. We have to assume that his closest colleague and friend was accurately describing Powell’s views.Collin’s argument that Congress also was convinced of the WMD intelligence and voted to explicitly go to war with Iraq is aslo unconvincing.I appreciate his courage in coming out to sincerely endorse Barak Obama knowing that he would be stepping back into the limlight and political fire concerning his tragic decision not to speak out or resign when he was Bush’s Secretary of State.
Colin Powell did not make contradicting public statements; this would have been equally vorboten for General Colin Powell. His closest associate and friend, Deputy Secretary of State…? offered multiple on-the-record statements(after the invasion) to journalists concerning Colin Powell’s skeptical evaluation of this “intellgence” in the build-up to the war. We have to assume that his closest colleague and friend was accurately describing Powell’s views.Collin’s argument that Congress also was convinced of the WMD intelligence and voted to explicitly go to war with Iraq is aslo unconvincing.I appreciate his courage in coming out to sincerely endorse Barak Obama knowing that he would be stepping back into the limlight and political fire concerning his tragic decision not to speak out or resign when he was Bush’s Secretary of State.
Colin Powell’s endorsement of O’Bama means nothing. Colin Powell was as aware as anybody in the Bush admin about WMD’s. It appears Colin endorses O”Bama based on skin color, and that’s the absolute worst reason to support someone for an elective office.
Colin Powell’s endorsement of O’Bama means nothing. Colin Powell was as aware as anybody in the Bush admin about WMD’s. It appears Colin endorses O”Bama based on skin color, and that’s the absolute worst reason to support someone for an elective office.
Colin Powell’s endorsement of O’Bama means nothing. Colin Powell was as aware as anybody in the Bush admin about WMD’s. It appears Colin endorses O”Bama based on skin color, and that’s the absolute worst reason to support someone for an elective office.
Colin Powell’s endorsement of O’Bama means nothing. Colin Powell was as aware as anybody in the Bush admin about WMD’s. It appears Colin endorses O”Bama based on skin color, and that’s the absolute worst reason to support someone for an elective office.
“I can’t deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president. And should that happen, all Americans should be proud–not just African-Americans, but all Americans–that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It will also not only electrify our country, I think it’ll electrify the world.”
Last time I checked, a person’s skin color wasn’t a credential to be President. Apparently Powell thinks otherwise.
I have seen many endorsements, I am not sure I have seen such powerful testimony on a wide array of issues from someone as respected as Gen. Powell. This endorsement will matter.
It shows Powell will sell out just about anybody. He is the one who stood in favor of the Iraq war, wanted us to go in and win. Mr. Patriotic. Then he endorses the Presidential candidate who wants us to lose, backstabbing our troops. This is Bush’s repayment for hiring Powell in the first place. Powell is untrustworthy.
Powell had his price. He sold out.
“I can’t deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president. And should that happen, all Americans should be proud–not just African-Americans, but all Americans–that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It will also not only electrify our country, I think it’ll electrify the world.”
Last time I checked, a person’s skin color wasn’t a credential to be President. Apparently Powell thinks otherwise.
I have seen many endorsements, I am not sure I have seen such powerful testimony on a wide array of issues from someone as respected as Gen. Powell. This endorsement will matter.
It shows Powell will sell out just about anybody. He is the one who stood in favor of the Iraq war, wanted us to go in and win. Mr. Patriotic. Then he endorses the Presidential candidate who wants us to lose, backstabbing our troops. This is Bush’s repayment for hiring Powell in the first place. Powell is untrustworthy.
Powell had his price. He sold out.
“I can’t deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president. And should that happen, all Americans should be proud–not just African-Americans, but all Americans–that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It will also not only electrify our country, I think it’ll electrify the world.”
Last time I checked, a person’s skin color wasn’t a credential to be President. Apparently Powell thinks otherwise.
I have seen many endorsements, I am not sure I have seen such powerful testimony on a wide array of issues from someone as respected as Gen. Powell. This endorsement will matter.
It shows Powell will sell out just about anybody. He is the one who stood in favor of the Iraq war, wanted us to go in and win. Mr. Patriotic. Then he endorses the Presidential candidate who wants us to lose, backstabbing our troops. This is Bush’s repayment for hiring Powell in the first place. Powell is untrustworthy.
Powell had his price. He sold out.
“I can’t deny that it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president. And should that happen, all Americans should be proud–not just African-Americans, but all Americans–that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It will also not only electrify our country, I think it’ll electrify the world.”
Last time I checked, a person’s skin color wasn’t a credential to be President. Apparently Powell thinks otherwise.
I have seen many endorsements, I am not sure I have seen such powerful testimony on a wide array of issues from someone as respected as Gen. Powell. This endorsement will matter.
It shows Powell will sell out just about anybody. He is the one who stood in favor of the Iraq war, wanted us to go in and win. Mr. Patriotic. Then he endorses the Presidential candidate who wants us to lose, backstabbing our troops. This is Bush’s repayment for hiring Powell in the first place. Powell is untrustworthy.
Powell had his price. He sold out.
I’m sure you’re thinking of Richard Armitage.
“his statements contradicted the wealth of on-the-record, documented information that has been written about his evaluation of this “intelligence” during this period.”
I might have misread this earlier. Did you mean that the “on-the-record documented information” shows that Colin Powell had concluded prior to our invasion of Iraq that Powell did not believe the intelligence which he repeated before the U.N.?
When you state that “(Armitage) offered multiple on-the-record statements (after the invasion) to journalists concerning Colin Powell’s skeptical evaluation of this ‘intellgence’ in the build-up to the war” that does not contradict what Powell himself has said. That is, Powell has said he formed his own group (which included Armitage) to review the intelligence prior to the invasion and he removed intelligence which the group did not believe was supported. The Armitage statements (as far as I know) don’t contradict this. He seems to be saying that Powell was skeptical of some of the intelligence and that intelligence he would not bring before the U.N. However, what Powell said to the U.N., Powell believed to be true and well supported — wrong though he was.
I’m sure you’re thinking of Richard Armitage.
“his statements contradicted the wealth of on-the-record, documented information that has been written about his evaluation of this “intelligence” during this period.”
I might have misread this earlier. Did you mean that the “on-the-record documented information” shows that Colin Powell had concluded prior to our invasion of Iraq that Powell did not believe the intelligence which he repeated before the U.N.?
When you state that “(Armitage) offered multiple on-the-record statements (after the invasion) to journalists concerning Colin Powell’s skeptical evaluation of this ‘intellgence’ in the build-up to the war” that does not contradict what Powell himself has said. That is, Powell has said he formed his own group (which included Armitage) to review the intelligence prior to the invasion and he removed intelligence which the group did not believe was supported. The Armitage statements (as far as I know) don’t contradict this. He seems to be saying that Powell was skeptical of some of the intelligence and that intelligence he would not bring before the U.N. However, what Powell said to the U.N., Powell believed to be true and well supported — wrong though he was.
I’m sure you’re thinking of Richard Armitage.
“his statements contradicted the wealth of on-the-record, documented information that has been written about his evaluation of this “intelligence” during this period.”
I might have misread this earlier. Did you mean that the “on-the-record documented information” shows that Colin Powell had concluded prior to our invasion of Iraq that Powell did not believe the intelligence which he repeated before the U.N.?
When you state that “(Armitage) offered multiple on-the-record statements (after the invasion) to journalists concerning Colin Powell’s skeptical evaluation of this ‘intellgence’ in the build-up to the war” that does not contradict what Powell himself has said. That is, Powell has said he formed his own group (which included Armitage) to review the intelligence prior to the invasion and he removed intelligence which the group did not believe was supported. The Armitage statements (as far as I know) don’t contradict this. He seems to be saying that Powell was skeptical of some of the intelligence and that intelligence he would not bring before the U.N. However, what Powell said to the U.N., Powell believed to be true and well supported — wrong though he was.
I’m sure you’re thinking of Richard Armitage.
“his statements contradicted the wealth of on-the-record, documented information that has been written about his evaluation of this “intelligence” during this period.”
I might have misread this earlier. Did you mean that the “on-the-record documented information” shows that Colin Powell had concluded prior to our invasion of Iraq that Powell did not believe the intelligence which he repeated before the U.N.?
When you state that “(Armitage) offered multiple on-the-record statements (after the invasion) to journalists concerning Colin Powell’s skeptical evaluation of this ‘intellgence’ in the build-up to the war” that does not contradict what Powell himself has said. That is, Powell has said he formed his own group (which included Armitage) to review the intelligence prior to the invasion and he removed intelligence which the group did not believe was supported. The Armitage statements (as far as I know) don’t contradict this. He seems to be saying that Powell was skeptical of some of the intelligence and that intelligence he would not bring before the U.N. However, what Powell said to the U.N., Powell believed to be true and well supported — wrong though he was.
SATAN: “Last time I checked, a person’s skin color wasn’t a credential to be President. Apparently Powell thinks otherwise.”
Your inference is disingenuous. Powell never implied what you have concluded.
Powell did say “it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president.”
Anyone who does not understand the obvious truth in Gen. Powell’s comment is ignorant. Consider our history, where most blacks in this country began as slaves and where this one black man (well, half-black man) may wind up. Even our great early leaders who were not racists (such as JQ Adams and Alexander Hamilton) would be surprised that white racism in America had declined enough to allow a non-white to be elected president in a popular vote.
Consider that the Great Emancipator, Abe Lincoln, said this three years before he was elected president: “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together.”
“This endorsement will matter.”
It only will matter if in swing states it 1) brings people who would have voted for McCain to vote for Obama or 2) brings people to vote for Obama who would not have voted. I doubt there will be many in the first group. However, I could see some in the latter category, such as veterans, who might not want to vote for a non-vet over a war hero, to vote for Obama when considering Gen. Powell’s endorsement. Yet even with those, I can’t see (at this late date) many people really acting on this endorsement. I think there was only one really significant endorsement in the last year: Oprah’s. For better or worse, she is far more influential in our country than Gen. Powell is.
It shows Powell will sell out just about anybody.
Sell out means Powell stands to benefit from this endorsement. That is nonsense. Not only does Powell not need the money or the prestige or the position, but he could have had as much prefering McCain.
SATAN: “Then he endorses the Presidential candidate who wants us to lose, backstabbing our troops.”
You might have made this statement without blushing a year ago. However, given that President Bush has agreed with the Iraqi government on the need for a timeline to withdraw, and given that that is the Obama plan, to call this “backstabbing our troops” is balderdash.
SATAN: “Last time I checked, a person’s skin color wasn’t a credential to be President. Apparently Powell thinks otherwise.”
Your inference is disingenuous. Powell never implied what you have concluded.
Powell did say “it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president.”
Anyone who does not understand the obvious truth in Gen. Powell’s comment is ignorant. Consider our history, where most blacks in this country began as slaves and where this one black man (well, half-black man) may wind up. Even our great early leaders who were not racists (such as JQ Adams and Alexander Hamilton) would be surprised that white racism in America had declined enough to allow a non-white to be elected president in a popular vote.
Consider that the Great Emancipator, Abe Lincoln, said this three years before he was elected president: “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together.”
“This endorsement will matter.”
It only will matter if in swing states it 1) brings people who would have voted for McCain to vote for Obama or 2) brings people to vote for Obama who would not have voted. I doubt there will be many in the first group. However, I could see some in the latter category, such as veterans, who might not want to vote for a non-vet over a war hero, to vote for Obama when considering Gen. Powell’s endorsement. Yet even with those, I can’t see (at this late date) many people really acting on this endorsement. I think there was only one really significant endorsement in the last year: Oprah’s. For better or worse, she is far more influential in our country than Gen. Powell is.
It shows Powell will sell out just about anybody.
Sell out means Powell stands to benefit from this endorsement. That is nonsense. Not only does Powell not need the money or the prestige or the position, but he could have had as much prefering McCain.
SATAN: “Then he endorses the Presidential candidate who wants us to lose, backstabbing our troops.”
You might have made this statement without blushing a year ago. However, given that President Bush has agreed with the Iraqi government on the need for a timeline to withdraw, and given that that is the Obama plan, to call this “backstabbing our troops” is balderdash.
SATAN: “Last time I checked, a person’s skin color wasn’t a credential to be President. Apparently Powell thinks otherwise.”
Your inference is disingenuous. Powell never implied what you have concluded.
Powell did say “it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president.”
Anyone who does not understand the obvious truth in Gen. Powell’s comment is ignorant. Consider our history, where most blacks in this country began as slaves and where this one black man (well, half-black man) may wind up. Even our great early leaders who were not racists (such as JQ Adams and Alexander Hamilton) would be surprised that white racism in America had declined enough to allow a non-white to be elected president in a popular vote.
Consider that the Great Emancipator, Abe Lincoln, said this three years before he was elected president: “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together.”
“This endorsement will matter.”
It only will matter if in swing states it 1) brings people who would have voted for McCain to vote for Obama or 2) brings people to vote for Obama who would not have voted. I doubt there will be many in the first group. However, I could see some in the latter category, such as veterans, who might not want to vote for a non-vet over a war hero, to vote for Obama when considering Gen. Powell’s endorsement. Yet even with those, I can’t see (at this late date) many people really acting on this endorsement. I think there was only one really significant endorsement in the last year: Oprah’s. For better or worse, she is far more influential in our country than Gen. Powell is.
It shows Powell will sell out just about anybody.
Sell out means Powell stands to benefit from this endorsement. That is nonsense. Not only does Powell not need the money or the prestige or the position, but he could have had as much prefering McCain.
SATAN: “Then he endorses the Presidential candidate who wants us to lose, backstabbing our troops.”
You might have made this statement without blushing a year ago. However, given that President Bush has agreed with the Iraqi government on the need for a timeline to withdraw, and given that that is the Obama plan, to call this “backstabbing our troops” is balderdash.
SATAN: “Last time I checked, a person’s skin color wasn’t a credential to be President. Apparently Powell thinks otherwise.”
Your inference is disingenuous. Powell never implied what you have concluded.
Powell did say “it will be a historic event for an African-American to become president.”
Anyone who does not understand the obvious truth in Gen. Powell’s comment is ignorant. Consider our history, where most blacks in this country began as slaves and where this one black man (well, half-black man) may wind up. Even our great early leaders who were not racists (such as JQ Adams and Alexander Hamilton) would be surprised that white racism in America had declined enough to allow a non-white to be elected president in a popular vote.
Consider that the Great Emancipator, Abe Lincoln, said this three years before he was elected president: “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together.”
“This endorsement will matter.”
It only will matter if in swing states it 1) brings people who would have voted for McCain to vote for Obama or 2) brings people to vote for Obama who would not have voted. I doubt there will be many in the first group. However, I could see some in the latter category, such as veterans, who might not want to vote for a non-vet over a war hero, to vote for Obama when considering Gen. Powell’s endorsement. Yet even with those, I can’t see (at this late date) many people really acting on this endorsement. I think there was only one really significant endorsement in the last year: Oprah’s. For better or worse, she is far more influential in our country than Gen. Powell is.
It shows Powell will sell out just about anybody.
Sell out means Powell stands to benefit from this endorsement. That is nonsense. Not only does Powell not need the money or the prestige or the position, but he could have had as much prefering McCain.
SATAN: “Then he endorses the Presidential candidate who wants us to lose, backstabbing our troops.”
You might have made this statement without blushing a year ago. However, given that President Bush has agreed with the Iraqi government on the need for a timeline to withdraw, and given that that is the Obama plan, to call this “backstabbing our troops” is balderdash.
Excuse me, but where was all this concern for muslims concsience before?
Powell didn’t have problems with Iraq until the media claims it is unpopular, then safely jumps ships and backs his political adversaries?!!
Excuse me, but where was all this concern for muslims concsience before?
Powell didn’t have problems with Iraq until the media claims it is unpopular, then safely jumps ships and backs his political adversaries?!!
Excuse me, but where was all this concern for muslims concsience before?
Powell didn’t have problems with Iraq until the media claims it is unpopular, then safely jumps ships and backs his political adversaries?!!
Excuse me, but where was all this concern for muslims concsience before?
Powell didn’t have problems with Iraq until the media claims it is unpopular, then safely jumps ships and backs his political adversaries?!!
“Last time I checked, a person’s skin color wasn’t a credential to be President. Apparently Powell thinks otherwise.”
I think Powell would agree with you based on his comments.
“Last time I checked, a person’s skin color wasn’t a credential to be President. Apparently Powell thinks otherwise.”
I think Powell would agree with you based on his comments.
“Last time I checked, a person’s skin color wasn’t a credential to be President. Apparently Powell thinks otherwise.”
I think Powell would agree with you based on his comments.
“Last time I checked, a person’s skin color wasn’t a credential to be President. Apparently Powell thinks otherwise.”
I think Powell would agree with you based on his comments.
Two other quick points. Powell gives Obama cover on the military issue:
“I have watched him over the last two years as he has educated himself, as he has become very familiar with these issues. He speaks authoritatively. He speaks with great insight into the challenges we’re facing of a military and political and economic nature. And he is surrounding himself, I’m confident, with people who’ll be able to give him the expertise that he, at the moment, does not have. And so I have watched an individual who has intellectual vigor and who dives deeply into issues and approaches issues with a very, very steady hand. And so I’m confident that he will be ready to take on these challenges on January 21st.”
That was very poetic. It really moved me. Brought a tear to my eye. Just one problem though:
THAT QUOTE DIDN’T SAY A GODDAMNED THING!!!
What insight? Insight how? What does Obama say on Iraq that is so great to you? How does he show he knows one thing about Iraq General?!!!
Who is he surrounding himself General who you think knows a goddamned thing about military issues? How do these individuals display military knowledge?!!!!
What expertise??!!!! Who? How!!!
Two other quick points. Powell gives Obama cover on the military issue:
“I have watched him over the last two years as he has educated himself, as he has become very familiar with these issues. He speaks authoritatively. He speaks with great insight into the challenges we’re facing of a military and political and economic nature. And he is surrounding himself, I’m confident, with people who’ll be able to give him the expertise that he, at the moment, does not have. And so I have watched an individual who has intellectual vigor and who dives deeply into issues and approaches issues with a very, very steady hand. And so I’m confident that he will be ready to take on these challenges on January 21st.”
That was very poetic. It really moved me. Brought a tear to my eye. Just one problem though:
THAT QUOTE DIDN’T SAY A GODDAMNED THING!!!
What insight? Insight how? What does Obama say on Iraq that is so great to you? How does he show he knows one thing about Iraq General?!!!
Who is he surrounding himself General who you think knows a goddamned thing about military issues? How do these individuals display military knowledge?!!!!
What expertise??!!!! Who? How!!!
Two other quick points. Powell gives Obama cover on the military issue:
“I have watched him over the last two years as he has educated himself, as he has become very familiar with these issues. He speaks authoritatively. He speaks with great insight into the challenges we’re facing of a military and political and economic nature. And he is surrounding himself, I’m confident, with people who’ll be able to give him the expertise that he, at the moment, does not have. And so I have watched an individual who has intellectual vigor and who dives deeply into issues and approaches issues with a very, very steady hand. And so I’m confident that he will be ready to take on these challenges on January 21st.”
That was very poetic. It really moved me. Brought a tear to my eye. Just one problem though:
THAT QUOTE DIDN’T SAY A GODDAMNED THING!!!
What insight? Insight how? What does Obama say on Iraq that is so great to you? How does he show he knows one thing about Iraq General?!!!
Who is he surrounding himself General who you think knows a goddamned thing about military issues? How do these individuals display military knowledge?!!!!
What expertise??!!!! Who? How!!!
Two other quick points. Powell gives Obama cover on the military issue:
“I have watched him over the last two years as he has educated himself, as he has become very familiar with these issues. He speaks authoritatively. He speaks with great insight into the challenges we’re facing of a military and political and economic nature. And he is surrounding himself, I’m confident, with people who’ll be able to give him the expertise that he, at the moment, does not have. And so I have watched an individual who has intellectual vigor and who dives deeply into issues and approaches issues with a very, very steady hand. And so I’m confident that he will be ready to take on these challenges on January 21st.”
That was very poetic. It really moved me. Brought a tear to my eye. Just one problem though:
THAT QUOTE DIDN’T SAY A GODDAMNED THING!!!
What insight? Insight how? What does Obama say on Iraq that is so great to you? How does he show he knows one thing about Iraq General?!!!
Who is he surrounding himself General who you think knows a goddamned thing about military issues? How do these individuals display military knowledge?!!!!
What expertise??!!!! Who? How!!!
I’m guessing the quote didn’t move you to tears. I’m also wondering what your angle is on this. I’m guessing you simply disagree with Obama–which is fine, but conflating agreement with knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Frankly, I’ll take Powell’s word and experience over that of an angry and anonymous internet blogger any day.
I’m guessing the quote didn’t move you to tears. I’m also wondering what your angle is on this. I’m guessing you simply disagree with Obama–which is fine, but conflating agreement with knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Frankly, I’ll take Powell’s word and experience over that of an angry and anonymous internet blogger any day.
I’m guessing the quote didn’t move you to tears. I’m also wondering what your angle is on this. I’m guessing you simply disagree with Obama–which is fine, but conflating agreement with knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Frankly, I’ll take Powell’s word and experience over that of an angry and anonymous internet blogger any day.
I’m guessing the quote didn’t move you to tears. I’m also wondering what your angle is on this. I’m guessing you simply disagree with Obama–which is fine, but conflating agreement with knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Frankly, I’ll take Powell’s word and experience over that of an angry and anonymous internet blogger any day.
“Then he endorses the Presidential candidate who wants us to lose, backstabbing our troops.”
I hope you bothered to listen to what he said-
Question-
was it then a war of necessity or just a war of choice?
GEN. POWELL: Without the weapons of mass destruction present, as conveyed to us by the intelligence community in the most powerful way, I don’t think there would have been a war. It was the reason we took it to the public, it was the reason we took it to the American people to the Congress, who supported it on that basis, and it’s the presentation I made to the United Nations. Without those weapons of mass destruction then Iraq did not present to the world the kind of threat that it did if it had weapons of mass destruction.
Now if we were to work our way out of Iraq and concentrate on the people who attacked us on 9/11 – would that be a loss or a win? If we win in Iraq (in your mind) what exactly are the spoils of our victory? Is it the sense of winning or is it something more meaningful than that? What do we really gain in winning a war that should have never started?
“Losing” the Vietnam war had an immediate negative impact on those Vietnamese who supported us. Beyond those people, I can not see that the Vietnam loss has had a lasting negative impact – the country is turning to capitalizm.
“Then he endorses the Presidential candidate who wants us to lose, backstabbing our troops.”
I hope you bothered to listen to what he said-
Question-
was it then a war of necessity or just a war of choice?
GEN. POWELL: Without the weapons of mass destruction present, as conveyed to us by the intelligence community in the most powerful way, I don’t think there would have been a war. It was the reason we took it to the public, it was the reason we took it to the American people to the Congress, who supported it on that basis, and it’s the presentation I made to the United Nations. Without those weapons of mass destruction then Iraq did not present to the world the kind of threat that it did if it had weapons of mass destruction.
Now if we were to work our way out of Iraq and concentrate on the people who attacked us on 9/11 – would that be a loss or a win? If we win in Iraq (in your mind) what exactly are the spoils of our victory? Is it the sense of winning or is it something more meaningful than that? What do we really gain in winning a war that should have never started?
“Losing” the Vietnam war had an immediate negative impact on those Vietnamese who supported us. Beyond those people, I can not see that the Vietnam loss has had a lasting negative impact – the country is turning to capitalizm.
“Then he endorses the Presidential candidate who wants us to lose, backstabbing our troops.”
I hope you bothered to listen to what he said-
Question-
was it then a war of necessity or just a war of choice?
GEN. POWELL: Without the weapons of mass destruction present, as conveyed to us by the intelligence community in the most powerful way, I don’t think there would have been a war. It was the reason we took it to the public, it was the reason we took it to the American people to the Congress, who supported it on that basis, and it’s the presentation I made to the United Nations. Without those weapons of mass destruction then Iraq did not present to the world the kind of threat that it did if it had weapons of mass destruction.
Now if we were to work our way out of Iraq and concentrate on the people who attacked us on 9/11 – would that be a loss or a win? If we win in Iraq (in your mind) what exactly are the spoils of our victory? Is it the sense of winning or is it something more meaningful than that? What do we really gain in winning a war that should have never started?
“Losing” the Vietnam war had an immediate negative impact on those Vietnamese who supported us. Beyond those people, I can not see that the Vietnam loss has had a lasting negative impact – the country is turning to capitalizm.
“Then he endorses the Presidential candidate who wants us to lose, backstabbing our troops.”
I hope you bothered to listen to what he said-
Question-
was it then a war of necessity or just a war of choice?
GEN. POWELL: Without the weapons of mass destruction present, as conveyed to us by the intelligence community in the most powerful way, I don’t think there would have been a war. It was the reason we took it to the public, it was the reason we took it to the American people to the Congress, who supported it on that basis, and it’s the presentation I made to the United Nations. Without those weapons of mass destruction then Iraq did not present to the world the kind of threat that it did if it had weapons of mass destruction.
Now if we were to work our way out of Iraq and concentrate on the people who attacked us on 9/11 – would that be a loss or a win? If we win in Iraq (in your mind) what exactly are the spoils of our victory? Is it the sense of winning or is it something more meaningful than that? What do we really gain in winning a war that should have never started?
“Losing” the Vietnam war had an immediate negative impact on those Vietnamese who supported us. Beyond those people, I can not see that the Vietnam loss has had a lasting negative impact – the country is turning to capitalizm.
I’m guessing the quote didn’t move you to tears. I’m also wondering what your angle is on this. I’m guessing you simply disagree with Obama–which is fine, but conflating agreement with knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Frankly, I’ll take Powell’s word and experience over that of an angry and anonymous internet blogger any day.
Powell’s word? What is his word? What does Powell say specifically in this statement about Obama’s abilities? Read his quote for yourself. How is Obama qualified? How is his team qualified? How?
Again, read his quote for yourself. He is unspecific.
I’m guessing the quote didn’t move you to tears. I’m also wondering what your angle is on this. I’m guessing you simply disagree with Obama–which is fine, but conflating agreement with knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Frankly, I’ll take Powell’s word and experience over that of an angry and anonymous internet blogger any day.
Powell’s word? What is his word? What does Powell say specifically in this statement about Obama’s abilities? Read his quote for yourself. How is Obama qualified? How is his team qualified? How?
Again, read his quote for yourself. He is unspecific.
I’m guessing the quote didn’t move you to tears. I’m also wondering what your angle is on this. I’m guessing you simply disagree with Obama–which is fine, but conflating agreement with knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Frankly, I’ll take Powell’s word and experience over that of an angry and anonymous internet blogger any day.
Powell’s word? What is his word? What does Powell say specifically in this statement about Obama’s abilities? Read his quote for yourself. How is Obama qualified? How is his team qualified? How?
Again, read his quote for yourself. He is unspecific.
I’m guessing the quote didn’t move you to tears. I’m also wondering what your angle is on this. I’m guessing you simply disagree with Obama–which is fine, but conflating agreement with knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Frankly, I’ll take Powell’s word and experience over that of an angry and anonymous internet blogger any day.
Powell’s word? What is his word? What does Powell say specifically in this statement about Obama’s abilities? Read his quote for yourself. How is Obama qualified? How is his team qualified? How?
Again, read his quote for yourself. He is unspecific.
“Powell’s word? What is his word? What does Powell say specifically in this statement about Obama’s abilities? “
He said Obama was qualified, that’s all I needed to know coming from Powell. What did you need him to say in order to convince you?
“Powell’s word? What is his word? What does Powell say specifically in this statement about Obama’s abilities? “
He said Obama was qualified, that’s all I needed to know coming from Powell. What did you need him to say in order to convince you?
“Powell’s word? What is his word? What does Powell say specifically in this statement about Obama’s abilities? “
He said Obama was qualified, that’s all I needed to know coming from Powell. What did you need him to say in order to convince you?
“Powell’s word? What is his word? What does Powell say specifically in this statement about Obama’s abilities? “
He said Obama was qualified, that’s all I needed to know coming from Powell. What did you need him to say in order to convince you?
He said Obama was qualified, that’s all I needed to know coming from Powell. What did you need him to say in order to convince you?
Oh, I don’t know. How about WHAT MAKES OBAMA QUALIFIED???!!!!
WHAT MAKES HIS TEAM QUALIFIED????!!!!
How about that for starters?
He said Obama was qualified, that’s all I needed to know coming from Powell. What did you need him to say in order to convince you?
Oh, I don’t know. How about WHAT MAKES OBAMA QUALIFIED???!!!!
WHAT MAKES HIS TEAM QUALIFIED????!!!!
How about that for starters?
He said Obama was qualified, that’s all I needed to know coming from Powell. What did you need him to say in order to convince you?
Oh, I don’t know. How about WHAT MAKES OBAMA QUALIFIED???!!!!
WHAT MAKES HIS TEAM QUALIFIED????!!!!
How about that for starters?
He said Obama was qualified, that’s all I needed to know coming from Powell. What did you need him to say in order to convince you?
Oh, I don’t know. How about WHAT MAKES OBAMA QUALIFIED???!!!!
WHAT MAKES HIS TEAM QUALIFIED????!!!!
How about that for starters?
“Oh, I don’t know. How about WHAT MAKES OBAMA QUALIFIED???!!!!
WHAT MAKES HIS TEAM QUALIFIED????!!!!
How about that for starters?”
I don’t care what Powell says or thinks.
I’m voting for Obama as a Democrat because the Republicans have shown themselves to be genuinely unqualified to be running the country:
deficit spending, gas prices, stock market, lack of job creation, poor planning in Iraq and Afghanistan…
“Oh, I don’t know. How about WHAT MAKES OBAMA QUALIFIED???!!!!
WHAT MAKES HIS TEAM QUALIFIED????!!!!
How about that for starters?”
I don’t care what Powell says or thinks.
I’m voting for Obama as a Democrat because the Republicans have shown themselves to be genuinely unqualified to be running the country:
deficit spending, gas prices, stock market, lack of job creation, poor planning in Iraq and Afghanistan…
“Oh, I don’t know. How about WHAT MAKES OBAMA QUALIFIED???!!!!
WHAT MAKES HIS TEAM QUALIFIED????!!!!
How about that for starters?”
I don’t care what Powell says or thinks.
I’m voting for Obama as a Democrat because the Republicans have shown themselves to be genuinely unqualified to be running the country:
deficit spending, gas prices, stock market, lack of job creation, poor planning in Iraq and Afghanistan…
“Oh, I don’t know. How about WHAT MAKES OBAMA QUALIFIED???!!!!
WHAT MAKES HIS TEAM QUALIFIED????!!!!
How about that for starters?”
I don’t care what Powell says or thinks.
I’m voting for Obama as a Democrat because the Republicans have shown themselves to be genuinely unqualified to be running the country:
deficit spending, gas prices, stock market, lack of job creation, poor planning in Iraq and Afghanistan…
LET ME BE CLEAR: any references to bullets or snipers will be immediately deleted and your IP address and message noted and sent to appropriate authorities. There will be none of that here.
LET ME BE CLEAR: any references to bullets or snipers will be immediately deleted and your IP address and message noted and sent to appropriate authorities. There will be none of that here.
LET ME BE CLEAR: any references to bullets or snipers will be immediately deleted and your IP address and message noted and sent to appropriate authorities. There will be none of that here.
LET ME BE CLEAR: any references to bullets or snipers will be immediately deleted and your IP address and message noted and sent to appropriate authorities. There will be none of that here.
I remember watching Powell at the UN selling Bush’s war. I remember the French Foreign Secratary cajoling Powell with a mocking speech and grin revealing that Powell’s speech was all bullshit. Believe me if the French Foreign Secratary knew the truth Powell did or should have also known it.
I think of Powell the same way I think of the Nobel Committee giving the peace prize to Kissenger, anything that comes there after, from that source, is meaningless.
Powell was a good soldier to the end. The problem is that he wasn’t a soldier he was the Secratary of State.
I remember watching Powell at the UN selling Bush’s war. I remember the French Foreign Secratary cajoling Powell with a mocking speech and grin revealing that Powell’s speech was all bullshit. Believe me if the French Foreign Secratary knew the truth Powell did or should have also known it.
I think of Powell the same way I think of the Nobel Committee giving the peace prize to Kissenger, anything that comes there after, from that source, is meaningless.
Powell was a good soldier to the end. The problem is that he wasn’t a soldier he was the Secratary of State.
I remember watching Powell at the UN selling Bush’s war. I remember the French Foreign Secratary cajoling Powell with a mocking speech and grin revealing that Powell’s speech was all bullshit. Believe me if the French Foreign Secratary knew the truth Powell did or should have also known it.
I think of Powell the same way I think of the Nobel Committee giving the peace prize to Kissenger, anything that comes there after, from that source, is meaningless.
Powell was a good soldier to the end. The problem is that he wasn’t a soldier he was the Secratary of State.
I remember watching Powell at the UN selling Bush’s war. I remember the French Foreign Secratary cajoling Powell with a mocking speech and grin revealing that Powell’s speech was all bullshit. Believe me if the French Foreign Secratary knew the truth Powell did or should have also known it.
I think of Powell the same way I think of the Nobel Committee giving the peace prize to Kissenger, anything that comes there after, from that source, is meaningless.
Powell was a good soldier to the end. The problem is that he wasn’t a soldier he was the Secratary of State.
“I remember the French Foreign Secratary cajoling Powell with a mocking speech and grin revealing that Powell’s speech was all bullshit.”
If you are refering to the February 14, 2003 speech at the U.N. by French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dominique de Villepin, your memory is incorrect. He never said nor implied that the intelligence refered to by Powell was inaccurate. In fact, never in any speech did the French government publicly doubt the intelligence pronounced by the American government. They might have had doubts, of course. But they did not publicly express them in the manner you suggest or in any other manner. Further, as I have read the history, the French intelligence services (as well as the British and Russian and German) believed this gist of the American story: that Saddam possessed chemical and biological weapons, that he possessed missiles which might be armed with those weapons, and that he was pursuing nuclear weapons technology. As we now know, the U.S. intelligence was bad — as was the intelligence of all of those other powers.
“I remember the French Foreign Secratary cajoling Powell with a mocking speech and grin revealing that Powell’s speech was all bullshit.”
If you are refering to the February 14, 2003 speech at the U.N. by French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dominique de Villepin, your memory is incorrect. He never said nor implied that the intelligence refered to by Powell was inaccurate. In fact, never in any speech did the French government publicly doubt the intelligence pronounced by the American government. They might have had doubts, of course. But they did not publicly express them in the manner you suggest or in any other manner. Further, as I have read the history, the French intelligence services (as well as the British and Russian and German) believed this gist of the American story: that Saddam possessed chemical and biological weapons, that he possessed missiles which might be armed with those weapons, and that he was pursuing nuclear weapons technology. As we now know, the U.S. intelligence was bad — as was the intelligence of all of those other powers.
“I remember the French Foreign Secratary cajoling Powell with a mocking speech and grin revealing that Powell’s speech was all bullshit.”
If you are refering to the February 14, 2003 speech at the U.N. by French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dominique de Villepin, your memory is incorrect. He never said nor implied that the intelligence refered to by Powell was inaccurate. In fact, never in any speech did the French government publicly doubt the intelligence pronounced by the American government. They might have had doubts, of course. But they did not publicly express them in the manner you suggest or in any other manner. Further, as I have read the history, the French intelligence services (as well as the British and Russian and German) believed this gist of the American story: that Saddam possessed chemical and biological weapons, that he possessed missiles which might be armed with those weapons, and that he was pursuing nuclear weapons technology. As we now know, the U.S. intelligence was bad — as was the intelligence of all of those other powers.
“I remember the French Foreign Secratary cajoling Powell with a mocking speech and grin revealing that Powell’s speech was all bullshit.”
If you are refering to the February 14, 2003 speech at the U.N. by French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dominique de Villepin, your memory is incorrect. He never said nor implied that the intelligence refered to by Powell was inaccurate. In fact, never in any speech did the French government publicly doubt the intelligence pronounced by the American government. They might have had doubts, of course. But they did not publicly express them in the manner you suggest or in any other manner. Further, as I have read the history, the French intelligence services (as well as the British and Russian and German) believed this gist of the American story: that Saddam possessed chemical and biological weapons, that he possessed missiles which might be armed with those weapons, and that he was pursuing nuclear weapons technology. As we now know, the U.S. intelligence was bad — as was the intelligence of all of those other powers.
RIFKIN: “He never said nor implied that the intelligence refered to by Powell was inaccurate.”
I need to modify that. In his U.N. address, de Villepin did doubt one part of the intelligence spoken of by Colin Powell. He said this:
“Ten days ago, the US Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, reported the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. Given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links.”
My overly broad statement — “He never said nor implied that the intelligence refered to by Powell was inaccurate” — was only meant to say that the French (publicly and based on their own intelligence) did not doubt our basic views on Saddam’s WMD status, wrong though it was.
RIFKIN: “He never said nor implied that the intelligence refered to by Powell was inaccurate.”
I need to modify that. In his U.N. address, de Villepin did doubt one part of the intelligence spoken of by Colin Powell. He said this:
“Ten days ago, the US Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, reported the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. Given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links.”
My overly broad statement — “He never said nor implied that the intelligence refered to by Powell was inaccurate” — was only meant to say that the French (publicly and based on their own intelligence) did not doubt our basic views on Saddam’s WMD status, wrong though it was.
RIFKIN: “He never said nor implied that the intelligence refered to by Powell was inaccurate.”
I need to modify that. In his U.N. address, de Villepin did doubt one part of the intelligence spoken of by Colin Powell. He said this:
“Ten days ago, the US Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, reported the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. Given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links.”
My overly broad statement — “He never said nor implied that the intelligence refered to by Powell was inaccurate” — was only meant to say that the French (publicly and based on their own intelligence) did not doubt our basic views on Saddam’s WMD status, wrong though it was.
RIFKIN: “He never said nor implied that the intelligence refered to by Powell was inaccurate.”
I need to modify that. In his U.N. address, de Villepin did doubt one part of the intelligence spoken of by Colin Powell. He said this:
“Ten days ago, the US Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, reported the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. Given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links.”
My overly broad statement — “He never said nor implied that the intelligence refered to by Powell was inaccurate” — was only meant to say that the French (publicly and based on their own intelligence) did not doubt our basic views on Saddam’s WMD status, wrong though it was.
FWIW, this is de Villepin’s complete speech:
I would like to thank Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei for the information they have just given us on the continuing inspections in Iraq. I would like to express to them again France's confidence and complete support in their mission.
You know the value that France has placed on the unity of the Security Council from the outset of the Iraq crisis. This unity rests on two fundamental elements at this time:
We are pursuing together the objective of effectively disarming Iraq. We have an obligation to achieve results. Let us not cast doubt on our common commitment to this goal. We shoulder collectively this onerous responsibility which must leave no room for ulterior motives or assumptions. Let us be clear: Not one of us feels the least indulgence towards Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime.
In unanimously adopting resolution 1441, we collectively expressed our agreement with the two-stage approach proposed by France: the choice of disarmament through inspections and, should this strategy fail, consideration by the Security Council of all the options, including the recourse to force. It was clearly in the event the inspections failed and only in that scenario that a second resolution could be justified.
The question today is simple: Do we consider in good conscience that disarmament via inspections is now leading us to a dead-end? Or do we consider that the possibilities regarding inspections presented in resolution 1441 have still not been fully explored?
In response to this question, France has two convictions:
The first is that the option of inspections has not been taken to the end and that it can provide an effective response to the imperative of disarming Iraq;
The second is that the use of force would be so fraught with risks for people, for the region and for international stability that it should only be envisioned as a last resort.
So what have we just learned from the report by Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei? That the inspections are producing results. Of course, each of us wants more, and we will continue together to put pressure on Baghdad to obtain more. But the inspections are producing results.
In their previous reports to the Security Council on January 27, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director-general of the IAEA had identified in detail areas in which progress was expected. Significant gains have been made on several of these points:
In the chemical and biological areas, the Iraqis have provided the inspectors with new documentation. They have also announced the establishment of commissions of inquiry led by former officials of weapons programs, in accordance with Mr. Blix's requests;
In the ballistic domain, the information provided by Iraq has also enabled the inspectors to make progress. We know exactly the real capabilities of the Al-Samoud missile. The unauthorized programs must now be dismantled, in accordance with Mr. Blix's conclusions;
In the nuclear domain, useful information was given to the IAEA on important points discussed by Mr. ElBaradei on January 27: the acquisition of magnets that could be used for enriching uranium and the list of contacts between Iraq and the country likely to have provided it with uranium.
There we are at the heart of the logic of resolution 1441 which must ensure the effectiveness of the inspections through precise identification of banned programs then their elimination.
We all realize that the success of the inspections presupposes that we obtain Iraq's full and complete cooperation. France has consistently demanded this.
Real progress is beginning to be apparent:
Iraq has agreed to aerial reconnaissance over its territory;
It has allowed Iraqi scientists to be questioned by the inspectors without witnesses;
A bill barring all activities linked to weapons of mass destruction programs is in the process of being adopted, in accordance with a long-standing request of the inspectors;
Iraq is to provide a detailed list of experts who witnessed the destruction of military programs in 1991.
France naturally expects these commitments to be durably verified. Beyond that, we must maintain strong pressure on Iraq so that it goes further in its cooperation.
Progress like this strengthens us in our conviction that inspections can be effective. But we must not shut our eyes to the amount of work that still remains; questions still have to be cleared up, verifications made, and installations and equipment probably still have to be destroyed.
To do this, we must give the inspections every chance of succeeding:
I submitted proposals to the Council on February 5;
Since then we have detailed them in a working document addressed to Mr. Blix and M. ElBaradei and distributed to Council members.
What is the spirit of these proposals?
They are practical, concrete proposals that can be implemented quickly and are designed to enhance the efficiency of inspection operations.
They fall within the framework of resolution 1441 and consequently do not require a new resolution. <
They must support the efforts of Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei: The latter are naturally the best placed to tell us which ones they wish to adopt for the maximum effectiveness of their work.
In their report they have already made useful and operational comments. France has already announced that it had additional resources available to Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei, beginning with its Mirage IV reconnaissance aircraft.
Now, yes, I do hear the critics:
There are those who think that the inspections, in their principle, cannot be the least effective. But I recall that this is the very foundation of resolution 1441 and that the inspections are producing results. One may judge them inadequate but they are there.
There are those who believe that continuing the inspection process is a sort of delaying tactic to prevent military intervention. That naturally raises the question of the time allowed Iraq. This brings us to the core of the debates. At stake is our credibility, and our sense of responsibility Let us have the courage to see things as they are.
There are two options:
The option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest. But let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace. Let us not delude ourselves; this will be long and difficult because it will be necessary to preserve Iraq's unity and restore stability in a lasting way in a country and region harshly affected by the intrusion of force.
Faced with such perspectives, there is an alternative in the inspections which allow us to move forward day by day with the effective and peaceful disarmament of Iraq. In the end is that choice not the most sure and most rapid?
No one can assert today that the path of war will be shorter than that of the inspections. No one can claim either that it might lead to a safer, more just and more stable world. For war is always the sanction of failure. Would this be our sole recourse in the face of the many challenges at this time?
So let us allow the United Nations inspectors the time they need for their mission to succeed. But let us together be vigilant and ask Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei to report regularly to the Council. France, for its part, proposes another meeting on March 14 at ministerial level to assess the situation. We will then be able to judge the progress that has been made and what remains to be done.
Given this context, the use of force is not justified at this time.
There is an alternative to war: disarming Iraq via inspections. Furthermore, premature recourse to the military option would be fraught with risks:
The authority of our action is based today on the unity of the international community. Premature military intervention would bring this unity into question, and that would detract from its legitimacy and, in the long run, its effectiveness.
Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region. It would compound the sense of injustice, increase tensions and risk paving the way to other conflicts.
We all share the same priority—that of fighting terrorism mercilessly. This fight requires total determination. Since the tragedy of September 11 this has been one of the highest priorities facing our peoples. And France, which was struck hard by this terrible scourge several times, is wholly mobilized in this fight which concerns us all and which we must pursue together. That was the sense of the Security Council meeting held on January 20, at France's initiative.
Ten days ago, the US Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, reported the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. Given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links. On the other hand, we must assess the impact that disputed military action would have on this plan. Would not such intervention be liable to exacerbate the divisions between societies, cultures and peoples, divisions that nurture terrorism?
France has said all along: We do not exclude the possibility that force may have to be used one day if the inspectors' reports concluded that it was impossible to continue the inspections. The Council would then have to take a decision, and its members would have to meet all their responsibilities. In such an eventuality, I want to recall here the questions I emphasized at our last debate on February 4 which we must answer:
To what extent do the nature and extent of the threat justify the immediate recourse to force?
How do we ensure that the considerable risks of such intervention can actually be kept under control?
In any case, in such an eventuality, it is indeed the unity of the international community that would guarantee its effectiveness. Similarly, it is the United Nations that will be tomorrow at the center of the peace to be built whatever happens.
Mr. President, to those who are wondering in anguish when and how we are going to cede to war, I would like to tell them that nothing, at any time, in this Security Council, will be done in haste, misunderstanding, suspicion or fear.
In this temple of the United Nations, we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. The onerous responsibility and immense honor we have must lead us to give priority to disarmament in peace.
This message comes to you today from an old country, France, from a continent like mine, Europe, that has known wars, occupation and barbarity. A country that does not forget and knows everything it owes to the freedom-fighters who came from America and elsewhere. And yet has never ceased to stand upright in the face of history and before mankind. Faithful to its values, it wishes resolutely to act with all the members of the international community. It believes in our ability to build together a better world.
FWIW, this is de Villepin’s complete speech:
I would like to thank Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei for the information they have just given us on the continuing inspections in Iraq. I would like to express to them again France's confidence and complete support in their mission.
You know the value that France has placed on the unity of the Security Council from the outset of the Iraq crisis. This unity rests on two fundamental elements at this time:
We are pursuing together the objective of effectively disarming Iraq. We have an obligation to achieve results. Let us not cast doubt on our common commitment to this goal. We shoulder collectively this onerous responsibility which must leave no room for ulterior motives or assumptions. Let us be clear: Not one of us feels the least indulgence towards Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime.
In unanimously adopting resolution 1441, we collectively expressed our agreement with the two-stage approach proposed by France: the choice of disarmament through inspections and, should this strategy fail, consideration by the Security Council of all the options, including the recourse to force. It was clearly in the event the inspections failed and only in that scenario that a second resolution could be justified.
The question today is simple: Do we consider in good conscience that disarmament via inspections is now leading us to a dead-end? Or do we consider that the possibilities regarding inspections presented in resolution 1441 have still not been fully explored?
In response to this question, France has two convictions:
The first is that the option of inspections has not been taken to the end and that it can provide an effective response to the imperative of disarming Iraq;
The second is that the use of force would be so fraught with risks for people, for the region and for international stability that it should only be envisioned as a last resort.
So what have we just learned from the report by Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei? That the inspections are producing results. Of course, each of us wants more, and we will continue together to put pressure on Baghdad to obtain more. But the inspections are producing results.
In their previous reports to the Security Council on January 27, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director-general of the IAEA had identified in detail areas in which progress was expected. Significant gains have been made on several of these points:
In the chemical and biological areas, the Iraqis have provided the inspectors with new documentation. They have also announced the establishment of commissions of inquiry led by former officials of weapons programs, in accordance with Mr. Blix's requests;
In the ballistic domain, the information provided by Iraq has also enabled the inspectors to make progress. We know exactly the real capabilities of the Al-Samoud missile. The unauthorized programs must now be dismantled, in accordance with Mr. Blix's conclusions;
In the nuclear domain, useful information was given to the IAEA on important points discussed by Mr. ElBaradei on January 27: the acquisition of magnets that could be used for enriching uranium and the list of contacts between Iraq and the country likely to have provided it with uranium.
There we are at the heart of the logic of resolution 1441 which must ensure the effectiveness of the inspections through precise identification of banned programs then their elimination.
We all realize that the success of the inspections presupposes that we obtain Iraq's full and complete cooperation. France has consistently demanded this.
Real progress is beginning to be apparent:
Iraq has agreed to aerial reconnaissance over its territory;
It has allowed Iraqi scientists to be questioned by the inspectors without witnesses;
A bill barring all activities linked to weapons of mass destruction programs is in the process of being adopted, in accordance with a long-standing request of the inspectors;
Iraq is to provide a detailed list of experts who witnessed the destruction of military programs in 1991.
France naturally expects these commitments to be durably verified. Beyond that, we must maintain strong pressure on Iraq so that it goes further in its cooperation.
Progress like this strengthens us in our conviction that inspections can be effective. But we must not shut our eyes to the amount of work that still remains; questions still have to be cleared up, verifications made, and installations and equipment probably still have to be destroyed.
To do this, we must give the inspections every chance of succeeding:
I submitted proposals to the Council on February 5;
Since then we have detailed them in a working document addressed to Mr. Blix and M. ElBaradei and distributed to Council members.
What is the spirit of these proposals?
They are practical, concrete proposals that can be implemented quickly and are designed to enhance the efficiency of inspection operations.
They fall within the framework of resolution 1441 and consequently do not require a new resolution. <
They must support the efforts of Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei: The latter are naturally the best placed to tell us which ones they wish to adopt for the maximum effectiveness of their work.
In their report they have already made useful and operational comments. France has already announced that it had additional resources available to Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei, beginning with its Mirage IV reconnaissance aircraft.
Now, yes, I do hear the critics:
There are those who think that the inspections, in their principle, cannot be the least effective. But I recall that this is the very foundation of resolution 1441 and that the inspections are producing results. One may judge them inadequate but they are there.
There are those who believe that continuing the inspection process is a sort of delaying tactic to prevent military intervention. That naturally raises the question of the time allowed Iraq. This brings us to the core of the debates. At stake is our credibility, and our sense of responsibility Let us have the courage to see things as they are.
There are two options:
The option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest. But let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace. Let us not delude ourselves; this will be long and difficult because it will be necessary to preserve Iraq's unity and restore stability in a lasting way in a country and region harshly affected by the intrusion of force.
Faced with such perspectives, there is an alternative in the inspections which allow us to move forward day by day with the effective and peaceful disarmament of Iraq. In the end is that choice not the most sure and most rapid?
No one can assert today that the path of war will be shorter than that of the inspections. No one can claim either that it might lead to a safer, more just and more stable world. For war is always the sanction of failure. Would this be our sole recourse in the face of the many challenges at this time?
So let us allow the United Nations inspectors the time they need for their mission to succeed. But let us together be vigilant and ask Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei to report regularly to the Council. France, for its part, proposes another meeting on March 14 at ministerial level to assess the situation. We will then be able to judge the progress that has been made and what remains to be done.
Given this context, the use of force is not justified at this time.
There is an alternative to war: disarming Iraq via inspections. Furthermore, premature recourse to the military option would be fraught with risks:
The authority of our action is based today on the unity of the international community. Premature military intervention would bring this unity into question, and that would detract from its legitimacy and, in the long run, its effectiveness.
Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region. It would compound the sense of injustice, increase tensions and risk paving the way to other conflicts.
We all share the same priority—that of fighting terrorism mercilessly. This fight requires total determination. Since the tragedy of September 11 this has been one of the highest priorities facing our peoples. And France, which was struck hard by this terrible scourge several times, is wholly mobilized in this fight which concerns us all and which we must pursue together. That was the sense of the Security Council meeting held on January 20, at France's initiative.
Ten days ago, the US Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, reported the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. Given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links. On the other hand, we must assess the impact that disputed military action would have on this plan. Would not such intervention be liable to exacerbate the divisions between societies, cultures and peoples, divisions that nurture terrorism?
France has said all along: We do not exclude the possibility that force may have to be used one day if the inspectors' reports concluded that it was impossible to continue the inspections. The Council would then have to take a decision, and its members would have to meet all their responsibilities. In such an eventuality, I want to recall here the questions I emphasized at our last debate on February 4 which we must answer:
To what extent do the nature and extent of the threat justify the immediate recourse to force?
How do we ensure that the considerable risks of such intervention can actually be kept under control?
In any case, in such an eventuality, it is indeed the unity of the international community that would guarantee its effectiveness. Similarly, it is the United Nations that will be tomorrow at the center of the peace to be built whatever happens.
Mr. President, to those who are wondering in anguish when and how we are going to cede to war, I would like to tell them that nothing, at any time, in this Security Council, will be done in haste, misunderstanding, suspicion or fear.
In this temple of the United Nations, we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. The onerous responsibility and immense honor we have must lead us to give priority to disarmament in peace.
This message comes to you today from an old country, France, from a continent like mine, Europe, that has known wars, occupation and barbarity. A country that does not forget and knows everything it owes to the freedom-fighters who came from America and elsewhere. And yet has never ceased to stand upright in the face of history and before mankind. Faithful to its values, it wishes resolutely to act with all the members of the international community. It believes in our ability to build together a better world.
FWIW, this is de Villepin’s complete speech:
I would like to thank Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei for the information they have just given us on the continuing inspections in Iraq. I would like to express to them again France's confidence and complete support in their mission.
You know the value that France has placed on the unity of the Security Council from the outset of the Iraq crisis. This unity rests on two fundamental elements at this time:
We are pursuing together the objective of effectively disarming Iraq. We have an obligation to achieve results. Let us not cast doubt on our common commitment to this goal. We shoulder collectively this onerous responsibility which must leave no room for ulterior motives or assumptions. Let us be clear: Not one of us feels the least indulgence towards Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime.
In unanimously adopting resolution 1441, we collectively expressed our agreement with the two-stage approach proposed by France: the choice of disarmament through inspections and, should this strategy fail, consideration by the Security Council of all the options, including the recourse to force. It was clearly in the event the inspections failed and only in that scenario that a second resolution could be justified.
The question today is simple: Do we consider in good conscience that disarmament via inspections is now leading us to a dead-end? Or do we consider that the possibilities regarding inspections presented in resolution 1441 have still not been fully explored?
In response to this question, France has two convictions:
The first is that the option of inspections has not been taken to the end and that it can provide an effective response to the imperative of disarming Iraq;
The second is that the use of force would be so fraught with risks for people, for the region and for international stability that it should only be envisioned as a last resort.
So what have we just learned from the report by Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei? That the inspections are producing results. Of course, each of us wants more, and we will continue together to put pressure on Baghdad to obtain more. But the inspections are producing results.
In their previous reports to the Security Council on January 27, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director-general of the IAEA had identified in detail areas in which progress was expected. Significant gains have been made on several of these points:
In the chemical and biological areas, the Iraqis have provided the inspectors with new documentation. They have also announced the establishment of commissions of inquiry led by former officials of weapons programs, in accordance with Mr. Blix's requests;
In the ballistic domain, the information provided by Iraq has also enabled the inspectors to make progress. We know exactly the real capabilities of the Al-Samoud missile. The unauthorized programs must now be dismantled, in accordance with Mr. Blix's conclusions;
In the nuclear domain, useful information was given to the IAEA on important points discussed by Mr. ElBaradei on January 27: the acquisition of magnets that could be used for enriching uranium and the list of contacts between Iraq and the country likely to have provided it with uranium.
There we are at the heart of the logic of resolution 1441 which must ensure the effectiveness of the inspections through precise identification of banned programs then their elimination.
We all realize that the success of the inspections presupposes that we obtain Iraq's full and complete cooperation. France has consistently demanded this.
Real progress is beginning to be apparent:
Iraq has agreed to aerial reconnaissance over its territory;
It has allowed Iraqi scientists to be questioned by the inspectors without witnesses;
A bill barring all activities linked to weapons of mass destruction programs is in the process of being adopted, in accordance with a long-standing request of the inspectors;
Iraq is to provide a detailed list of experts who witnessed the destruction of military programs in 1991.
France naturally expects these commitments to be durably verified. Beyond that, we must maintain strong pressure on Iraq so that it goes further in its cooperation.
Progress like this strengthens us in our conviction that inspections can be effective. But we must not shut our eyes to the amount of work that still remains; questions still have to be cleared up, verifications made, and installations and equipment probably still have to be destroyed.
To do this, we must give the inspections every chance of succeeding:
I submitted proposals to the Council on February 5;
Since then we have detailed them in a working document addressed to Mr. Blix and M. ElBaradei and distributed to Council members.
What is the spirit of these proposals?
They are practical, concrete proposals that can be implemented quickly and are designed to enhance the efficiency of inspection operations.
They fall within the framework of resolution 1441 and consequently do not require a new resolution. <
They must support the efforts of Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei: The latter are naturally the best placed to tell us which ones they wish to adopt for the maximum effectiveness of their work.
In their report they have already made useful and operational comments. France has already announced that it had additional resources available to Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei, beginning with its Mirage IV reconnaissance aircraft.
Now, yes, I do hear the critics:
There are those who think that the inspections, in their principle, cannot be the least effective. But I recall that this is the very foundation of resolution 1441 and that the inspections are producing results. One may judge them inadequate but they are there.
There are those who believe that continuing the inspection process is a sort of delaying tactic to prevent military intervention. That naturally raises the question of the time allowed Iraq. This brings us to the core of the debates. At stake is our credibility, and our sense of responsibility Let us have the courage to see things as they are.
There are two options:
The option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest. But let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace. Let us not delude ourselves; this will be long and difficult because it will be necessary to preserve Iraq's unity and restore stability in a lasting way in a country and region harshly affected by the intrusion of force.
Faced with such perspectives, there is an alternative in the inspections which allow us to move forward day by day with the effective and peaceful disarmament of Iraq. In the end is that choice not the most sure and most rapid?
No one can assert today that the path of war will be shorter than that of the inspections. No one can claim either that it might lead to a safer, more just and more stable world. For war is always the sanction of failure. Would this be our sole recourse in the face of the many challenges at this time?
So let us allow the United Nations inspectors the time they need for their mission to succeed. But let us together be vigilant and ask Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei to report regularly to the Council. France, for its part, proposes another meeting on March 14 at ministerial level to assess the situation. We will then be able to judge the progress that has been made and what remains to be done.
Given this context, the use of force is not justified at this time.
There is an alternative to war: disarming Iraq via inspections. Furthermore, premature recourse to the military option would be fraught with risks:
The authority of our action is based today on the unity of the international community. Premature military intervention would bring this unity into question, and that would detract from its legitimacy and, in the long run, its effectiveness.
Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region. It would compound the sense of injustice, increase tensions and risk paving the way to other conflicts.
We all share the same priority—that of fighting terrorism mercilessly. This fight requires total determination. Since the tragedy of September 11 this has been one of the highest priorities facing our peoples. And France, which was struck hard by this terrible scourge several times, is wholly mobilized in this fight which concerns us all and which we must pursue together. That was the sense of the Security Council meeting held on January 20, at France's initiative.
Ten days ago, the US Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, reported the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. Given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links. On the other hand, we must assess the impact that disputed military action would have on this plan. Would not such intervention be liable to exacerbate the divisions between societies, cultures and peoples, divisions that nurture terrorism?
France has said all along: We do not exclude the possibility that force may have to be used one day if the inspectors' reports concluded that it was impossible to continue the inspections. The Council would then have to take a decision, and its members would have to meet all their responsibilities. In such an eventuality, I want to recall here the questions I emphasized at our last debate on February 4 which we must answer:
To what extent do the nature and extent of the threat justify the immediate recourse to force?
How do we ensure that the considerable risks of such intervention can actually be kept under control?
In any case, in such an eventuality, it is indeed the unity of the international community that would guarantee its effectiveness. Similarly, it is the United Nations that will be tomorrow at the center of the peace to be built whatever happens.
Mr. President, to those who are wondering in anguish when and how we are going to cede to war, I would like to tell them that nothing, at any time, in this Security Council, will be done in haste, misunderstanding, suspicion or fear.
In this temple of the United Nations, we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. The onerous responsibility and immense honor we have must lead us to give priority to disarmament in peace.
This message comes to you today from an old country, France, from a continent like mine, Europe, that has known wars, occupation and barbarity. A country that does not forget and knows everything it owes to the freedom-fighters who came from America and elsewhere. And yet has never ceased to stand upright in the face of history and before mankind. Faithful to its values, it wishes resolutely to act with all the members of the international community. It believes in our ability to build together a better world.
FWIW, this is de Villepin’s complete speech:
I would like to thank Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei for the information they have just given us on the continuing inspections in Iraq. I would like to express to them again France's confidence and complete support in their mission.
You know the value that France has placed on the unity of the Security Council from the outset of the Iraq crisis. This unity rests on two fundamental elements at this time:
We are pursuing together the objective of effectively disarming Iraq. We have an obligation to achieve results. Let us not cast doubt on our common commitment to this goal. We shoulder collectively this onerous responsibility which must leave no room for ulterior motives or assumptions. Let us be clear: Not one of us feels the least indulgence towards Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime.
In unanimously adopting resolution 1441, we collectively expressed our agreement with the two-stage approach proposed by France: the choice of disarmament through inspections and, should this strategy fail, consideration by the Security Council of all the options, including the recourse to force. It was clearly in the event the inspections failed and only in that scenario that a second resolution could be justified.
The question today is simple: Do we consider in good conscience that disarmament via inspections is now leading us to a dead-end? Or do we consider that the possibilities regarding inspections presented in resolution 1441 have still not been fully explored?
In response to this question, France has two convictions:
The first is that the option of inspections has not been taken to the end and that it can provide an effective response to the imperative of disarming Iraq;
The second is that the use of force would be so fraught with risks for people, for the region and for international stability that it should only be envisioned as a last resort.
So what have we just learned from the report by Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei? That the inspections are producing results. Of course, each of us wants more, and we will continue together to put pressure on Baghdad to obtain more. But the inspections are producing results.
In their previous reports to the Security Council on January 27, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director-general of the IAEA had identified in detail areas in which progress was expected. Significant gains have been made on several of these points:
In the chemical and biological areas, the Iraqis have provided the inspectors with new documentation. They have also announced the establishment of commissions of inquiry led by former officials of weapons programs, in accordance with Mr. Blix's requests;
In the ballistic domain, the information provided by Iraq has also enabled the inspectors to make progress. We know exactly the real capabilities of the Al-Samoud missile. The unauthorized programs must now be dismantled, in accordance with Mr. Blix's conclusions;
In the nuclear domain, useful information was given to the IAEA on important points discussed by Mr. ElBaradei on January 27: the acquisition of magnets that could be used for enriching uranium and the list of contacts between Iraq and the country likely to have provided it with uranium.
There we are at the heart of the logic of resolution 1441 which must ensure the effectiveness of the inspections through precise identification of banned programs then their elimination.
We all realize that the success of the inspections presupposes that we obtain Iraq's full and complete cooperation. France has consistently demanded this.
Real progress is beginning to be apparent:
Iraq has agreed to aerial reconnaissance over its territory;
It has allowed Iraqi scientists to be questioned by the inspectors without witnesses;
A bill barring all activities linked to weapons of mass destruction programs is in the process of being adopted, in accordance with a long-standing request of the inspectors;
Iraq is to provide a detailed list of experts who witnessed the destruction of military programs in 1991.
France naturally expects these commitments to be durably verified. Beyond that, we must maintain strong pressure on Iraq so that it goes further in its cooperation.
Progress like this strengthens us in our conviction that inspections can be effective. But we must not shut our eyes to the amount of work that still remains; questions still have to be cleared up, verifications made, and installations and equipment probably still have to be destroyed.
To do this, we must give the inspections every chance of succeeding:
I submitted proposals to the Council on February 5;
Since then we have detailed them in a working document addressed to Mr. Blix and M. ElBaradei and distributed to Council members.
What is the spirit of these proposals?
They are practical, concrete proposals that can be implemented quickly and are designed to enhance the efficiency of inspection operations.
They fall within the framework of resolution 1441 and consequently do not require a new resolution. <
They must support the efforts of Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei: The latter are naturally the best placed to tell us which ones they wish to adopt for the maximum effectiveness of their work.
In their report they have already made useful and operational comments. France has already announced that it had additional resources available to Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei, beginning with its Mirage IV reconnaissance aircraft.
Now, yes, I do hear the critics:
There are those who think that the inspections, in their principle, cannot be the least effective. But I recall that this is the very foundation of resolution 1441 and that the inspections are producing results. One may judge them inadequate but they are there.
There are those who believe that continuing the inspection process is a sort of delaying tactic to prevent military intervention. That naturally raises the question of the time allowed Iraq. This brings us to the core of the debates. At stake is our credibility, and our sense of responsibility Let us have the courage to see things as they are.
There are two options:
The option of war might seem a priori to be the swiftest. But let us not forget that having won the war, one has to build peace. Let us not delude ourselves; this will be long and difficult because it will be necessary to preserve Iraq's unity and restore stability in a lasting way in a country and region harshly affected by the intrusion of force.
Faced with such perspectives, there is an alternative in the inspections which allow us to move forward day by day with the effective and peaceful disarmament of Iraq. In the end is that choice not the most sure and most rapid?
No one can assert today that the path of war will be shorter than that of the inspections. No one can claim either that it might lead to a safer, more just and more stable world. For war is always the sanction of failure. Would this be our sole recourse in the face of the many challenges at this time?
So let us allow the United Nations inspectors the time they need for their mission to succeed. But let us together be vigilant and ask Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei to report regularly to the Council. France, for its part, proposes another meeting on March 14 at ministerial level to assess the situation. We will then be able to judge the progress that has been made and what remains to be done.
Given this context, the use of force is not justified at this time.
There is an alternative to war: disarming Iraq via inspections. Furthermore, premature recourse to the military option would be fraught with risks:
The authority of our action is based today on the unity of the international community. Premature military intervention would bring this unity into question, and that would detract from its legitimacy and, in the long run, its effectiveness.
Such intervention could have incalculable consequences for the stability of this scarred and fragile region. It would compound the sense of injustice, increase tensions and risk paving the way to other conflicts.
We all share the same priority—that of fighting terrorism mercilessly. This fight requires total determination. Since the tragedy of September 11 this has been one of the highest priorities facing our peoples. And France, which was struck hard by this terrible scourge several times, is wholly mobilized in this fight which concerns us all and which we must pursue together. That was the sense of the Security Council meeting held on January 20, at France's initiative.
Ten days ago, the US Secretary of State, Mr. Powell, reported the alleged links between al-Qaeda and the regime in Baghdad. Given the present state of our research and intelligence, in liaison with our allies, nothing allows us to establish such links. On the other hand, we must assess the impact that disputed military action would have on this plan. Would not such intervention be liable to exacerbate the divisions between societies, cultures and peoples, divisions that nurture terrorism?
France has said all along: We do not exclude the possibility that force may have to be used one day if the inspectors' reports concluded that it was impossible to continue the inspections. The Council would then have to take a decision, and its members would have to meet all their responsibilities. In such an eventuality, I want to recall here the questions I emphasized at our last debate on February 4 which we must answer:
To what extent do the nature and extent of the threat justify the immediate recourse to force?
How do we ensure that the considerable risks of such intervention can actually be kept under control?
In any case, in such an eventuality, it is indeed the unity of the international community that would guarantee its effectiveness. Similarly, it is the United Nations that will be tomorrow at the center of the peace to be built whatever happens.
Mr. President, to those who are wondering in anguish when and how we are going to cede to war, I would like to tell them that nothing, at any time, in this Security Council, will be done in haste, misunderstanding, suspicion or fear.
In this temple of the United Nations, we are the guardians of an ideal, the guardians of a conscience. The onerous responsibility and immense honor we have must lead us to give priority to disarmament in peace.
This message comes to you today from an old country, France, from a continent like mine, Europe, that has known wars, occupation and barbarity. A country that does not forget and knows everything it owes to the freedom-fighters who came from America and elsewhere. And yet has never ceased to stand upright in the face of history and before mankind. Faithful to its values, it wishes resolutely to act with all the members of the international community. It believes in our ability to build together a better world.
The statement that General Colin Powell makes about Sarah Palin not being qualified to serve as President if duty calls in his statement supporting Barack Obama I find to be disagreeable because Sarah Palin has actually served more time in elective office than even Barack Obama has since she was first elected to office in 1992as the Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska before Barack Obama was first elected as a state senator in Illinois also she is the only candiate on either of the two major political party Presidential Tickets to have any type of background holding an elective office with an “Executive” job discription as having been the Mayor of Wasilla and the present Governor of Alaska.
Also, she is the only candidate running on either these two tickets that has a background of serving in local elective office especilly of a small town a perspective that many holders of such high elective offices haven’t historically had. Small rural communities have their issues also that need attention from high levels of government such as the Federal Government as well but there interests often get overlooked. Another reson to support the McCain/Palin Republican Party ticket to bring someone as an office holder into high elective office in the Federal Government that understands and appreciates such issues such as Sarah Palin.
If you want more information about Republican Party V.P. Nominee Sarah Palin you can always contact the following source:
http://www.johnmccain.com
and/or
YOLO COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY (YCRP)
HEADQUARTERS (HQ)
526 MAIN STREET
WOODLAND CA 95695-3434
Primary Contact Person: Mr. Steve Venables:
(530) 406-1400
E-Mail: steve@wt.webmail.com
Website: http://www.yologop.org
The statement that General Colin Powell makes about Sarah Palin not being qualified to serve as President if duty calls in his statement supporting Barack Obama I find to be disagreeable because Sarah Palin has actually served more time in elective office than even Barack Obama has since she was first elected to office in 1992as the Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska before Barack Obama was first elected as a state senator in Illinois also she is the only candiate on either of the two major political party Presidential Tickets to have any type of background holding an elective office with an “Executive” job discription as having been the Mayor of Wasilla and the present Governor of Alaska.
Also, she is the only candidate running on either these two tickets that has a background of serving in local elective office especilly of a small town a perspective that many holders of such high elective offices haven’t historically had. Small rural communities have their issues also that need attention from high levels of government such as the Federal Government as well but there interests often get overlooked. Another reson to support the McCain/Palin Republican Party ticket to bring someone as an office holder into high elective office in the Federal Government that understands and appreciates such issues such as Sarah Palin.
If you want more information about Republican Party V.P. Nominee Sarah Palin you can always contact the following source:
http://www.johnmccain.com
and/or
YOLO COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY (YCRP)
HEADQUARTERS (HQ)
526 MAIN STREET
WOODLAND CA 95695-3434
Primary Contact Person: Mr. Steve Venables:
(530) 406-1400
E-Mail: steve@wt.webmail.com
Website: http://www.yologop.org
The statement that General Colin Powell makes about Sarah Palin not being qualified to serve as President if duty calls in his statement supporting Barack Obama I find to be disagreeable because Sarah Palin has actually served more time in elective office than even Barack Obama has since she was first elected to office in 1992as the Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska before Barack Obama was first elected as a state senator in Illinois also she is the only candiate on either of the two major political party Presidential Tickets to have any type of background holding an elective office with an “Executive” job discription as having been the Mayor of Wasilla and the present Governor of Alaska.
Also, she is the only candidate running on either these two tickets that has a background of serving in local elective office especilly of a small town a perspective that many holders of such high elective offices haven’t historically had. Small rural communities have their issues also that need attention from high levels of government such as the Federal Government as well but there interests often get overlooked. Another reson to support the McCain/Palin Republican Party ticket to bring someone as an office holder into high elective office in the Federal Government that understands and appreciates such issues such as Sarah Palin.
If you want more information about Republican Party V.P. Nominee Sarah Palin you can always contact the following source:
http://www.johnmccain.com
and/or
YOLO COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY (YCRP)
HEADQUARTERS (HQ)
526 MAIN STREET
WOODLAND CA 95695-3434
Primary Contact Person: Mr. Steve Venables:
(530) 406-1400
E-Mail: steve@wt.webmail.com
Website: http://www.yologop.org
The statement that General Colin Powell makes about Sarah Palin not being qualified to serve as President if duty calls in his statement supporting Barack Obama I find to be disagreeable because Sarah Palin has actually served more time in elective office than even Barack Obama has since she was first elected to office in 1992as the Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska before Barack Obama was first elected as a state senator in Illinois also she is the only candiate on either of the two major political party Presidential Tickets to have any type of background holding an elective office with an “Executive” job discription as having been the Mayor of Wasilla and the present Governor of Alaska.
Also, she is the only candidate running on either these two tickets that has a background of serving in local elective office especilly of a small town a perspective that many holders of such high elective offices haven’t historically had. Small rural communities have their issues also that need attention from high levels of government such as the Federal Government as well but there interests often get overlooked. Another reson to support the McCain/Palin Republican Party ticket to bring someone as an office holder into high elective office in the Federal Government that understands and appreciates such issues such as Sarah Palin.
If you want more information about Republican Party V.P. Nominee Sarah Palin you can always contact the following source:
http://www.johnmccain.com
and/or
YOLO COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY (YCRP)
HEADQUARTERS (HQ)
526 MAIN STREET
WOODLAND CA 95695-3434
Primary Contact Person: Mr. Steve Venables:
(530) 406-1400
E-Mail: steve@wt.webmail.com
Website: http://www.yologop.org
“The statement that General Colin Powell makes about Sarah Palin not being qualified to serve as President if duty calls in his statement supporting Barack Obama I find to be disagreeable because Sarah Palin has actually served more time in elective office than even Barack Obama”
That misses completely the objection to Palin. It’s not and has nothing to do with her electoral service and everything to do with her fundamental lack of detailed knowledge on a whole range of policy issues.
Obama during the course of his campaign has demonstrated an ability to learn the issues and policy concerns, you may not agree with him, but he has come along way during the course of his campaign. He’s obviously bright, articulate, and has a good grasp of the issues at this point. I think most people are comfortable with his qualifications.
Palin is a different story. She froze up at the soft-ball questions Katie Couric threw at her, and before that Charles Gibson. Her answers during the debate amounted to a string of talking points with no demonstrated understanding of the issues and little depth or detail.
Frankly given that demonstrated performance, she could have been in public office for forty years and not be qualified. But she hasn’t been in public office for forty years. She served as part-time mayor of a town of 9000 and then a part-time governor of the 4th smallest state in population.
She was not a good choice and most people I think question McCain’s judgment about that.
“The statement that General Colin Powell makes about Sarah Palin not being qualified to serve as President if duty calls in his statement supporting Barack Obama I find to be disagreeable because Sarah Palin has actually served more time in elective office than even Barack Obama”
That misses completely the objection to Palin. It’s not and has nothing to do with her electoral service and everything to do with her fundamental lack of detailed knowledge on a whole range of policy issues.
Obama during the course of his campaign has demonstrated an ability to learn the issues and policy concerns, you may not agree with him, but he has come along way during the course of his campaign. He’s obviously bright, articulate, and has a good grasp of the issues at this point. I think most people are comfortable with his qualifications.
Palin is a different story. She froze up at the soft-ball questions Katie Couric threw at her, and before that Charles Gibson. Her answers during the debate amounted to a string of talking points with no demonstrated understanding of the issues and little depth or detail.
Frankly given that demonstrated performance, she could have been in public office for forty years and not be qualified. But she hasn’t been in public office for forty years. She served as part-time mayor of a town of 9000 and then a part-time governor of the 4th smallest state in population.
She was not a good choice and most people I think question McCain’s judgment about that.
“The statement that General Colin Powell makes about Sarah Palin not being qualified to serve as President if duty calls in his statement supporting Barack Obama I find to be disagreeable because Sarah Palin has actually served more time in elective office than even Barack Obama”
That misses completely the objection to Palin. It’s not and has nothing to do with her electoral service and everything to do with her fundamental lack of detailed knowledge on a whole range of policy issues.
Obama during the course of his campaign has demonstrated an ability to learn the issues and policy concerns, you may not agree with him, but he has come along way during the course of his campaign. He’s obviously bright, articulate, and has a good grasp of the issues at this point. I think most people are comfortable with his qualifications.
Palin is a different story. She froze up at the soft-ball questions Katie Couric threw at her, and before that Charles Gibson. Her answers during the debate amounted to a string of talking points with no demonstrated understanding of the issues and little depth or detail.
Frankly given that demonstrated performance, she could have been in public office for forty years and not be qualified. But she hasn’t been in public office for forty years. She served as part-time mayor of a town of 9000 and then a part-time governor of the 4th smallest state in population.
She was not a good choice and most people I think question McCain’s judgment about that.
“The statement that General Colin Powell makes about Sarah Palin not being qualified to serve as President if duty calls in his statement supporting Barack Obama I find to be disagreeable because Sarah Palin has actually served more time in elective office than even Barack Obama”
That misses completely the objection to Palin. It’s not and has nothing to do with her electoral service and everything to do with her fundamental lack of detailed knowledge on a whole range of policy issues.
Obama during the course of his campaign has demonstrated an ability to learn the issues and policy concerns, you may not agree with him, but he has come along way during the course of his campaign. He’s obviously bright, articulate, and has a good grasp of the issues at this point. I think most people are comfortable with his qualifications.
Palin is a different story. She froze up at the soft-ball questions Katie Couric threw at her, and before that Charles Gibson. Her answers during the debate amounted to a string of talking points with no demonstrated understanding of the issues and little depth or detail.
Frankly given that demonstrated performance, she could have been in public office for forty years and not be qualified. But she hasn’t been in public office for forty years. She served as part-time mayor of a town of 9000 and then a part-time governor of the 4th smallest state in population.
She was not a good choice and most people I think question McCain’s judgment about that.
Is it about race?
Only one person knows for sure…and that’s Powell.
Powell claims that he’s not happy with the “rightward shift” of the Republican party.
Any merit in his accusation???
Listen to Republican Senator Michelle Bachmann
Click to watch Senator Michelle Bachmann’s interview
So…what do you think??. Is Powell just imagining things?
Is it about race?
Only one person knows for sure…and that’s Powell.
Powell claims that he’s not happy with the “rightward shift” of the Republican party.
Any merit in his accusation???
Listen to Republican Senator Michelle Bachmann
Click to watch Senator Michelle Bachmann’s interview
So…what do you think??. Is Powell just imagining things?
Is it about race?
Only one person knows for sure…and that’s Powell.
Powell claims that he’s not happy with the “rightward shift” of the Republican party.
Any merit in his accusation???
Listen to Republican Senator Michelle Bachmann
Click to watch Senator Michelle Bachmann’s interview
So…what do you think??. Is Powell just imagining things?
Is it about race?
Only one person knows for sure…and that’s Powell.
Powell claims that he’s not happy with the “rightward shift” of the Republican party.
Any merit in his accusation???
Listen to Republican Senator Michelle Bachmann
Click to watch Senator Michelle Bachmann’s interview
So…what do you think??. Is Powell just imagining things?
“So…what do you think??. Is Powell just imagining things?”
Well, I guess that must settle it. Colin Powell is anti-American because he is impressed with Barack Obama. Thanks to Michelle Bachmann for clearing that up.
I was feeling so confused about the issue until then.
“So…what do you think??. Is Powell just imagining things?”
Well, I guess that must settle it. Colin Powell is anti-American because he is impressed with Barack Obama. Thanks to Michelle Bachmann for clearing that up.
I was feeling so confused about the issue until then.
“So…what do you think??. Is Powell just imagining things?”
Well, I guess that must settle it. Colin Powell is anti-American because he is impressed with Barack Obama. Thanks to Michelle Bachmann for clearing that up.
I was feeling so confused about the issue until then.
“So…what do you think??. Is Powell just imagining things?”
Well, I guess that must settle it. Colin Powell is anti-American because he is impressed with Barack Obama. Thanks to Michelle Bachmann for clearing that up.
I was feeling so confused about the issue until then.
Watch the language, Fred Mac.
Watch the language, Fred Mac.
Watch the language, Fred Mac.
Watch the language, Fred Mac.
So now you’re taking down posts because they use b***s***. Oh my! I guess you will just be talking to yourself from now on. Its all really gotten to be boring right wing nonsense anyway. DPD,Rifkin and Shor make up most of the posts anyway. Attacking firefighters, teachers, etc. So fire away just remember you are only talking to yourselves and as a result you are becoming isolated from reality.
So now you’re taking down posts because they use b***s***. Oh my! I guess you will just be talking to yourself from now on. Its all really gotten to be boring right wing nonsense anyway. DPD,Rifkin and Shor make up most of the posts anyway. Attacking firefighters, teachers, etc. So fire away just remember you are only talking to yourselves and as a result you are becoming isolated from reality.
So now you’re taking down posts because they use b***s***. Oh my! I guess you will just be talking to yourself from now on. Its all really gotten to be boring right wing nonsense anyway. DPD,Rifkin and Shor make up most of the posts anyway. Attacking firefighters, teachers, etc. So fire away just remember you are only talking to yourselves and as a result you are becoming isolated from reality.
So now you’re taking down posts because they use b***s***. Oh my! I guess you will just be talking to yourself from now on. Its all really gotten to be boring right wing nonsense anyway. DPD,Rifkin and Shor make up most of the posts anyway. Attacking firefighters, teachers, etc. So fire away just remember you are only talking to yourselves and as a result you are becoming isolated from reality.
By the way have you noticed fewer and fewer people posting. Don’t you wonder why?
By the way have you noticed fewer and fewer people posting. Don’t you wonder why?
By the way have you noticed fewer and fewer people posting. Don’t you wonder why?
By the way have you noticed fewer and fewer people posting. Don’t you wonder why?
I’m not really worried about it, hits are way up. When you post, you acknowledge the terms of the agreement, I don’t want profanity on this blog. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
I’m not really worried about it, hits are way up. When you post, you acknowledge the terms of the agreement, I don’t want profanity on this blog. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
I’m not really worried about it, hits are way up. When you post, you acknowledge the terms of the agreement, I don’t want profanity on this blog. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
I’m not really worried about it, hits are way up. When you post, you acknowledge the terms of the agreement, I don’t want profanity on this blog. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
August 1 2008 dpd said:
“Ron I call bs on this.”
Hey its your blog.
Bye Bye
August 1 2008 dpd said:
“Ron I call bs on this.”
Hey its your blog.
Bye Bye
August 1 2008 dpd said:
“Ron I call bs on this.”
Hey its your blog.
Bye Bye
August 1 2008 dpd said:
“Ron I call bs on this.”
Hey its your blog.
Bye Bye
bs is not the same spelling it out.
And I’m sure we won’t miss ya!
bs is not the same spelling it out.
And I’m sure we won’t miss ya!
bs is not the same spelling it out.
And I’m sure we won’t miss ya!
bs is not the same spelling it out.
And I’m sure we won’t miss ya!
should say: not the same AS spelling it out…
should say: not the same AS spelling it out…
should say: not the same AS spelling it out…
should say: not the same AS spelling it out…
“By the way have you noticed fewer and fewer people posting. “
Hard to say, there are 38 comments here and 29 comments from the other post from yesterday, 67 posts is not a slow day. Today’s had less response, people probably talked out on the Measure N after three straight days of coverage.
“By the way have you noticed fewer and fewer people posting. “
Hard to say, there are 38 comments here and 29 comments from the other post from yesterday, 67 posts is not a slow day. Today’s had less response, people probably talked out on the Measure N after three straight days of coverage.
“By the way have you noticed fewer and fewer people posting. “
Hard to say, there are 38 comments here and 29 comments from the other post from yesterday, 67 posts is not a slow day. Today’s had less response, people probably talked out on the Measure N after three straight days of coverage.
“By the way have you noticed fewer and fewer people posting. “
Hard to say, there are 38 comments here and 29 comments from the other post from yesterday, 67 posts is not a slow day. Today’s had less response, people probably talked out on the Measure N after three straight days of coverage.
But how many of the posts are from the same 3 or 4 people. Anyway I was just using the same expletive that DPD used, emulation being the finest form of flattery. But I guess its okay to write bs but not to spell it out. I guess since the finest form of leadership is by example we should fill our posts with things like fy and mf,and that would be okay? It shows you the problem of censorship and drawing arbitrary lines. As the Steve Earle song says “F the FCC.” FCC or DPD its all censorship to me.
But how many of the posts are from the same 3 or 4 people. Anyway I was just using the same expletive that DPD used, emulation being the finest form of flattery. But I guess its okay to write bs but not to spell it out. I guess since the finest form of leadership is by example we should fill our posts with things like fy and mf,and that would be okay? It shows you the problem of censorship and drawing arbitrary lines. As the Steve Earle song says “F the FCC.” FCC or DPD its all censorship to me.
But how many of the posts are from the same 3 or 4 people. Anyway I was just using the same expletive that DPD used, emulation being the finest form of flattery. But I guess its okay to write bs but not to spell it out. I guess since the finest form of leadership is by example we should fill our posts with things like fy and mf,and that would be okay? It shows you the problem of censorship and drawing arbitrary lines. As the Steve Earle song says “F the FCC.” FCC or DPD its all censorship to me.
But how many of the posts are from the same 3 or 4 people. Anyway I was just using the same expletive that DPD used, emulation being the finest form of flattery. But I guess its okay to write bs but not to spell it out. I guess since the finest form of leadership is by example we should fill our posts with things like fy and mf,and that would be okay? It shows you the problem of censorship and drawing arbitrary lines. As the Steve Earle song says “F the FCC.” FCC or DPD its all censorship to me.
40 posts 10 named posters
40 posts 10 named posters
40 posts 10 named posters
40 posts 10 named posters