"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism"

so the bush cabal thinks the only way to beat these terrorists is to slowly become like them?

 

A buddy of mine went to a conference on the West Coast a couple of weeks ago where Colin Powell was the keynote speaker. My buddy said Powell made many references to how he was "used" by the Bush Administration in regards to his famous pre-Iraq War appearance in front of the UN, and how the Bush Administration blew the response to 9/11 and is in the process of blowing the War on Terror. It was a conference on, ahem, management.

 

I think even the most staunchest Bush supporters would admit he's not an example of good management.

 

All politicans do this. That's why you don't have them speak at your events. it just gives them a forum to b**** for a couple of hours while you realize that you paid them 10s of thousands of dollars for this.

 

when Bush is no longer president, can he be invited in a forum and have him listen to the audience b**** about him for a couple of hours? he can make a fortune out of it

 

"Does al-Qaeda still constitute an 'existential' threat? I think it does, but not for the obvious reasons....It is not the people al-Qaeda might kill that is the threat. Our reaction is what can cause the damage. It's al-Qaeda plus our response that creates the existential danger."
- David Kilkullen, former Pentagon advisor and current senior advisor on counterterrorism for the State Department

This all is still very odd for me personally. Not to try to sound cool or anything but when I was a debate nerd in high school I wrote a case about the threat of foreign terrorism. The real harms of that case were not from terrorism itself but the response of our government. It did well and I felt the evidence (about the risk and result) was strong but it was just a stupid high school thing (in a world where ridiculous leaps of logic are made) that should not be playing out to any degree in the real world. A few years ago I got an email from my old partner who had tracked me down and that was what she brought up - she couldn't believe how right the whole thing ended up being.

 

"Used" is hardly the word for Powell's gutless or was it just routinely opportunistic behavior. It seems to be a long lasting pattern of Powell. The ultimate telflon man. Perhaps Powell can distance himself from his lies leading up to the Iraq War as he did after the the Iran Contra scandal. He can then live to play another useful role for his patrons.

 

Please Oh Pleeeeease, will 2008 get here so we can hopefully elect a president with some credibility. Somebody who will fight the War on Terror and not get distracted and diverted into nonsense that makes us less safe.

Speaking of debate, I'm usually very good at understanding both sides of a two-sided issue whether I'm neutral or support one side over the other. But the more I think about the Iraq invasion the more I cannot understand how ANYBODY can think it was really the right thing to do. One of my very best friends is the biggest Bush-lover there is. On every issue we discuss, this guy is logical, factual and reasonable when he argues his point. But when it comes to (1) Bush and (2) the Iraq war, he changes. From his defensive attitude on them (I've blasted him on this and he's loosened up a bit) to the circular reasoning to the connect the dots that don't connect at all, he just goes flat but he won't admit he's wrong. For some reason he just wants to believe Bush has done the right thing and is a good president. Sometimes I think Bush has a personal connection with some people that blinds them to sound reasoning. My friend still believes Saddam had WMDs but they were carted off to Syria before the invasion.

And, no, my friend is not named Dick Cheney.

 

That is called 'blind faith'.

 

Powell was gutless, plain and simple. He knew the Iraq campaign was wrong, said so in private, when he should have resigned and personally campaigned against it in public. Prior to that series of events leading up to his resignation, Powell was one of the most trusted officials in the administration, and one some people counted on to be an effective 'counterbalance' or moderating influence. He failed.

He should just admit that he was wrong and would've done things differently in retrospect -- trying to 'pass the buck' is beneath him -- and then he might be 'forgiven' by some.

On a side note, notice that the people leading this 'revolt' against the administration are Republicans. However, they're still not emboldened enough to become more vocal in their opposition to the policies of this administration. I am convinced that nothing less than the Republicans losing the House and/or Senate this upcoming elections will bring about a desirable change (internally) in the GOP; there needs to be a 'sense of urgency' for that to happen...

 

Good points, I sure hope Democrats get one of the houses at least and truely make Bush a lame duck. If Powell had gone against Bush while he was secretary of state he would be fired instantly, I guess he was gutless but you cann't fault him for that.

 

Yes you can. Powell was in a unique position and had a good chance at bringing the whole Iraq debacle to a grinding halt before it got really rolling, if he had spoken up early on. Think of the blood, treasure, and credibility saved if he had done that. Instead, he allowed himself to used as a fig leaf for the Bush Administration. How many "sensible" liberals and moderates thought, "I have my reservations about this war, but if Powell is behind it, it must be justified?"

 

Powell had people from many different political walks of life respect. Early on when opponents brought up Bush's lack of foreign affairs experience, many would point to Powell's position and say that Bush would be relying on quality advisors like that.

Powell had respect, and a good reputation behind his name(whether he did or didn't deserve all of it at that point is another debate). With his actions and inactions he squandered that.

 

Powell is gutless now in my opinion. What respect I had for the man is gone. He can no longer be trusted to do what is right. He willingly sold his soul and did the devil, I mean Bush's work.

 

I think it is his stupid loyalty to republican party. They only care what is right and wrong, or more accurately what people want and don't want, when they face elections.

I say give all politicians 2-year terms so that they are on tight leash all the time.

 

Wow- the democrats got a major break here.

Bringing major terrorist suspects to "trial" is/was a lynchpin of the Rovian strategy to force the WOT issue this election cycle. It is very well crafted- of course people want Mohammed Atta brought to justice. Any democrats who object to re-writing the Geneva conventions can be painted as protecting the terrorists.

Unfortunately for the rupublicans, some of their senators are so strongly against it (McCain and others) that they would not buckle to what must have been terribly strong pressure. Apparently closed door meetings went for hours yesterday. MSNBC ran a story this morning that claimed that even if it ruined his chances for presidency because of resentment within republican ranks, McCain wasn't backing down. God bless him. He's a difficult target, because he knows first-hand what it's like to suffer under those who pay no regard to the Geneva conventions.

In any case, the Rove agenda has suffered a big setback today, but it remains to be seen if it will prove fatal to this piece of legislation. If Bush doesn't get it pushed through soon, it will have to wait until after the elections- and lord knows who will be sitting in congress at that point.

This means that the republicans are not presenting a unified front, and therefore cannot paint all dems as 'weak on terror' as effectively, because dems can point to McCain and Powell as repubs who also disagree with the present course (which is to approve CIA torture techniques.)

 

Maybe there are still a few real Republicans left.