Interesting discussion from Sunday's talk show.
v/r
Mike
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bes...ef=videosearch
Printable View
Interesting discussion from Sunday's talk show.
v/r
Mike
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bes...ef=videosearch
Of course, I have the upmost respect for GEN Powell and agree with most of what he says. I think he feels somewhat betrayed by the Republican Party, which one could certainly understand. I will always believe that Powell was opposed to Iraq from day one, but because he's a good Soldier, he did what the President told him to (support the invasion, go to the UN). I would argue that the invasion of Iraq violated the principles of the Doctrine that bears his own name.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeF
I was listening to talk radio this morning, and of course some of the conservative hosts are already bashing him, and brandishing him as a traitor, which is preposterous, of course. One even insinuated that he has betrayed the troops, which is even more insane.
His comments in DADT were interesting, all things considered. I think the real issue is, which he failed to point out:
We are cutting waivers for former felons to enlist and we won't take a gay person? What message does that send? Of course, Powell didn't really take a position, but he insisted that Congress review it.
I enjoyed the interview as well. I feel kinda bad for Powell - so many on the left hate him (and always will) because he "sold the war" at the UN and didn't fall on his sword, while the right has never much trusted him, especially now since he's taken them to task.
As for DADT, there seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence the "policy" is being ignored in many places in the military. I agree with Powell that it should be reopened for study and examination. Personally, I think DADT should go away sooner rather than later, but am reticent on making such a social change in the midst of two wars with an overstretched Army.
Wow. I got the exact opposite impression of Powell. He strikes me as a skilled insider who is very good at marketing himself as the thoughtful, pragmatic moderate. His response on DADT struck me as the only thing that he said on the program that was not a calculated position staked out for personal benefit. I don't think that he feels betrayed by the Republican Party because I don't think that he ever felt any connection to it.
Powell joined the Republican Party because it was to his benefit. It makes him appear pragmatic and distinguishes him among those who view politics in terms of identity (very few prominent black Republicans). Any time that he wants attention, he can oppose some Republican position and the media will eat it up. For the next four years, he can be the prominent Republican who supports everything that Obama does and, by extension, create the impression that Obama is a bipartisan leader of such tremendous judgment that even a prominent Republican agrees with him. Better yet, he is now the former Bush cabinet member who is firmly in the camp of Obama. This is solid gold in terms of his marketability. He's already made millions in speaking fees. He's well positioned to make millions more over the next four years.
Just to be clear, I'm not knocking him. He no longer holds a public office. He's just a public personality now, just like Al Gore. I don't think he's got any responsibility to us anymore. He might believe everything that he says and have a good reason to. Or maybe he is giving support to some positions in order to keep up media exposure so that he has greater credibility on more important issues. Who knows? But I don't believe that a guy who has been around Washington this long has been - or even feels - "betrayed." He's smarter and more skilled than that. His star power has not been this great since 96 when two Presidential candidates were seeking his endorsement. I think he's been playing the Republican Party and the media like fiddles. Frankly, good for him. I've got no love for politicians or journalists.
"By George, I think he's got it..." :wry:
Watching Colin Powell's "mini non-campaign for President when he really didn't run" back in the day, I was turned off by his obvious lack of core beliefs and tendency to say exactly what he thought people wanted to hear, audience-dependent.
Dude comes off as manufactured and phoney, to me. I've never been able to work up a tear for retired Four Star Generals and Politically connected hacks, anyway....
Frankly, I don't get that at all. The views he articulates in the interview, regarding both fiscal conservatism and a degree of social liberalism, are the ones that he's always articulated. I don't think being thoughtfully positioned at the centre of the political spectrum constitutes a lack of core beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by 120mm
I do think he's got off rather lightly for the decision to intervene in Iraq, and in the past this is where I would argue that he's worked hard to craft (or recraft) his image—and escape some of the judgement of history.
Then again, unlike Schmedlap, I rather do have a fondness for politicians and journalists. I've worked with many of both, and have found the vast majority to be serious, ethical, dedicated people who put in long hours trying to do what they think is right. It is true that the incentive system often leads them to pander to popular tastes, but that's the way the democratic system is designed to work.
GEN Powell staked out some very common sense positions from which he has not moved. Having watched him closely while he was Chairman, I was consistently impressed with his calm, no nonsense approach to numerous crises that kept raising their ugly heads. Fiscal conservatism and social engagement resonate with my midwestern value system.
I have had great respect for Powell for a long time even though I might often find myself in disagreement with some of what he says.
However reference those who took his endorsement as a strike against republicans I think they have actually missed the point. I too was bothered by the direction in which some of the political hoopla was going in so far as ones ability to enter office based on anything other than ones character and capability.
What I saw in the interview simply served to re-enforce my belief had this not been the case that he may very well have chosen not to endorse either candidate.
I've never been a huge fan of Powell for a number of reasons. He's an astute media chameleon...rather like Al Gore as Schmedlap pointed out.
It didn't stop us voting in a Prime Minister with exactly those attributes ... sigh :(Quote:
Originally Posted by 120mm