Showing posts with label colin powell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label colin powell. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

The Need For Adult Supervision

I owe Colin Powell an apology but yahoo news owes me and the rest of its readers an apology as well.

Last night I read this account of General Powell's appearance on Larry King live on yahoo news. This particular part of the article made it seem as if Powell was totally blaming Henry Louis Gates for his arrest.

Powell, interviewed by CNN's Larry King, criticized the way Gates dealt with Sgt. James Crowley, a white officer who responded to reports of a possible break-in by arresting the black professor at his home on a charge of disorderly conduct. The charge was soon dropped.

Gates "might have waited a while, come outside, talked to the officer, and that might have been the end of it," said Powell, one of the nation's most prominent African Americans.

"I think he should have reflected on whether or not this was the time to make that big a deal," he said.


snip

But, he said, "when you are faced with an officer trying to do his job and get to the bottom of something, this is not the time to get in an argument with him. I was taught that as a child.

"You don't argue with a police officer," Powell said.


Now the thing of it is, Colin Powell did say those things. But conspicuously absent from the write up was what Powell had to say about the arrest itself. So lets roll the tape.



So even if he felt like Professor Gates handled it wrong, he STILL felt that he shouldn't have been arrested. He even goes as far as to say that "adult supervision" should have taken over. So while the yahoo news article gives you the impression that General Powell was saying the arrest was all Gates' fault, thats not really what he said.

For my part I apologize for overreacting and calling Powell a "sellout mofo".

Sunday, July 5, 2009

More Powell Less Palin

I am not in the habit of giving Republicans good advice, but if I were I would definitely tell them that right now they need to try to look to people like Colin Powell for guidance on how to make a comeback, not people like Sarah Palin.


Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Somebody Has Been Reading The Polling

Looks like Colin Powell made Dick Cheney BOW DOWN



I bet Cheney picks his fights a little better next time.

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Schism

This morning two prominent Republicans went on Sunday shows and dismissed the small tent philosphy embraced by both Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney. Colin Powell and Tom Ridge, both military veterans, calmly and thoughtfully put forth their case for their visions of the Republican Party going forward. Now seeing as how neither man is in office or running for office they could speak their mind without having to carry water for the wingnut base. Now they didn't present the exact same case, but one thing was for certain with both of them. Neither man believed the Republican Party can make a comeback if they listen to people like Rush Limbaugh. Now here is the thing, Rush Limbaugh is one of the most polarizing people in America let alone inside the Republican Party. But right now the GOP is not just trying to shore up its base, its also trying to reach out to independents and people in the middle. That is a fight that normally they would be fighting against the Democrats but it turns out that it seem clear now that they will also be fighting for them within the party.

I believe that today is a watershed moment. There are now two totally conflicting views of the party and sooner or later people are going to have to chose. The reason for this is that the Rush Limbaugh wing of the party wants to expel the Colin Powell/Tom Ridge wing. But they aren't going anywhere and while they would never say publicly that Rushbo needs to haul his fat ass, I am sure privately they think HE is the one that needs to go. So who will the majority of Republicans back? Who will those independents who lean Republican line up behind? The truth is it doesn't matter what the numbers end up being. What matter is I think what we are seeing now are two irreconcilable wings of one party. So unless there is some kind of miraculous kum by yah moment it would seem that it is now the destiny of the Republican Party to fracture off into at least two separate entities. I don't know how soon the public split will happen but it would seem that the private split is already in play. I do believe that we need at least two viable political parties in this country as a form of checks and balances, but until the Republicans or Republican lites get their shit together, they won't have the capacity to fulfill that role. If I could hazard a guess I am betting when the moderate wing of the Republican Party emerges as something else, Colin Powell may just be their standard bearer.



Watch CBS Videos Online


What Didn't That Moron Screw Up?

Just when you thought you had a good grasp on all that President Bush had screwed up in his eight years in office all of a sudden a story like this comes out.

While in Washington, Netanyahu argued that Israel already dismantled settlements in the Gaza Strip, going beyond the road map, and was rewarded with the takeover of Gaza by the Hamas militant group and hundreds of rockets raining on Israeli towns, Israeli sources said. Still, shortly after he returned to Israel, the government tore down an unauthorized outpost, Maoz Esther. Israel is committed under the road map to remove about 26 such outposts, typically small groups of rudimentary structures with a few families. Settlers began rebuilding Maoz Esther almost immediately.


Netanyahu spokesman Mark Regev said there are no plans for a full settlement freeze. "The issue of settlements is a final status issue, and until there are final status arrangements, it would not be fair to kill normal life inside existing communities," he said.

Regev said the Israeli government is relying on "understandings" between former president George W. Bush and former prime minister Ariel Sharon that some of the larger settlements in the occupied West Bank would ultimately become part of Israel, codified in a letter that Bush gave to Sharon in 2004. In an interview with The Washington Post last year, Sharon aide Dov Weissglas said that in 2005, when Sharon was poised to remove settlers from Gaza, the Bush administration arrived at a secret agreement -- not disclosed to the Palestinians -- that Israel could add homes in settlements it expected to keep, as long as the construction was dictated by market demand, not subsidies.

Elliott Abrams, a former deputy national security adviser who negotiated the arrangement with Weissglas, confirmed the deal in an interview last week. "At the time of the Gaza withdrawal, there were lengthy discussions about how settlement activity might be constrained, and in fact it was constrained in the later part of the Sharon years and the Olmert years in accordance with the ideas that were discussed," he said. "There was something of an understanding realized on these questions, but it was never a written agreement."

Regev said Israeli and U.S. negotiators are discussing the degree to which the terms of the 2004 letter will apply under the new administration, but U.S. officials indicated that Obama wants to move beyond the 2004 letter and hold Israel to its commitments under the road map. "The bottom line is we expect all the parties in the region to honor their commitments, and for the Israelis, that means a stop to settlements, as the president said," a senior administration official said.



So to recap President Bush four years ago entered into a secret agreement with Israel with no guidance from nor connsultation with Congress that was in direct conflict with his public pronouncements of being serious about peace in the Middle East. Thankfully so far President Obama has shown that he is indeed serioous about a two state solution between Israel in Palestine and he has pressed Bibi Netanyahu on halting the settlements as have members of the leadership in Congress, something that hasn’t happened in the past. But that doesn't change the fact that while we were fighting a war in Iraq that many in the Middle East felt was a war against Islam, here was our neocon President unilaterally giving concessions to Israel over land he had absolutely no right to grant them. Who in the hell in his Administration recommended that letter? Was it Colin Powell? Condi Rice? Dick Cheney? What possible benefit would have ever come from such an arrangement?

I think by now most of us realize that one of the major factors threatening our national security is continued unrest between Israel and Palestine and yet Bush effectively insured that not only would that unrest continue, it would probably get worse as the settlements keep expanding. Not only that he probably did more to undermine the more moderate Abbas leader and usher in Hamas just with that one “secret” agreement. Hell is it even legal for President Bush to enter into such an arrangement all on his own? That’s what the hell I want to know. Now lets be real here, Presidents of this country have a long history of allowing Israel more latitude than any of our other “allies” but what Bush did, in my opinion, went way beyond the pale. He had Condi Rice going to promote the “Annapolis” agreements all throughout the Middle East during his second term, knowing full well he already had undermiined those agreements all on his own. And now any road to a true lasting two state solution is made even more complicated than before. Tell me why any Arab countries would trust the US to be an honest broker in these negotiations now after hearing about this secret agreement.

Unbelievable.

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Its Going Down

I know several Republicans holding elected office have come out recently in support of Dick Cheney but as Colin Powell goes on "Face the Nation" tomorrow ostensibly to do some push back on his critics in the far right wing of the party including Cheney, will these same officials have to make a choice? Will they be made to choose between Powell's vision of the party going forward or Dick Cheney's? Remember Cheney himself said the other day "there is no middle ground".

Stay tuned because this may be the fight that ends up fracturing the party permanently.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

There you have it

What would you say if someone asked you whether it would be better politically for the Republicans to follow Rush Limbaugh or Colin Powell?

Who do you think most rational Republicans would choose? Remember I said rational.

I give you one guess as to who former Vice President Dick Cheney chose this morning on "Face The Nation".



I can only pray that the rest of the Republicans follow his advice.

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Did Colin Powell Know About And Or Endorse Torture?

Rachel Maddow stepped up to the plate and questioned former Secretary of State Colin Powell as to his role in approving the torture techniques used on the detainees at GITMO. I don't think Powell did himself any favors by coming off like he didn't know what was going on and that he wasn't sure if waterboarding and other techniques constituted torture. But Rachel has to be applauded for actually questioning him on this point. Now what I want to know is when Condi Rice will be questioned similarly since she too would have been in those priciples meetings.