Article

2005-04-26 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2005-04-26 12:10:26 PM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 AMEN. No other Beltway mainstay is as overrated as Powell. His Sec'y-State performance under Bush was little short of embarrassing: traveled less than any SoS in recent memory and did still less to rally support for the War; an utterly foolish performance at the UN, where Villepin easily upstaged and sandbagged him; and the disgraceful winks and nudges to the NYT's editors about his non-support for Bush's policies.

The Bolton sabotage is this careerist mediocrity's lowest point yet. Take off the gloves.

Posted by thibaud (aka lex) 2005-04-26 2:52:53 PM|| 2005-04-26 2:52:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 The MSM give Powell a pass because 1) he feeds them information and leaks while Bush stiffarms them and 2) they point to his winks and nudges as evidence that Bush does not have real control of the foreign policy apparat, instead is controlled by a neocon cabal.

This is Kissinger's symbiotic relationship, par excellence

Posted by thibaud (aka lex) 2005-04-26 4:17:06 PM|| 2005-04-26 4:17:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 I have had numerous heated arguments over Colin with my brother and sister-in-law. My brother served in Nam with Powell, and the general can simply do no wrong in their view...perhaps...

However, Powell has shown me nothing in terms of his role as SoS and in his underhanded dealings over Bolton. As SoS he blamed everyone other than himself over poor intelligence. Surely he knows the difference between good and bad intelligence, having served admirably in numerous conflicts.

His 'robin' is Richard Armitage who, in my view, is another insideous hack. I have watched this guy basically do dog tricks on behalf of liberal senators when speaking before commissions. Like Powell, they talk a good game but they are easily bought off.

Posted by Captain America 2005-04-26 4:25:29 PM|| 2005-04-26 4:25:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 To think I once thought this guy was respectable and honorable. Sheesh, wotta PR job - and I fell for it.

Out of the closet, he's a joke, a tool, and worthy of the dustbin of history, now singing in harmony with the likes of Halfbright, Skowcroft, and all of the others who have been proven to be Foreign Policy idiots and Tranzi subversives. I wonder if he has enough intelligence to recognize that, when the history of this period is written, he'll be a footnote and only included for his subversive behavior at State.

How pathetic.

Posted by .com 2005-04-26 4:29:36 PM|| 2005-04-26 4:29:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 The most disgraceful aspect of his SoS performance was his disloyalty to his president.

Can anyone imagine George Marshall behaving this way? When Marshall disagreed with Truman over recognizing Israel, he kept his disagreement silent. He did not leak it to the press. If Powell seriously disagreed with the Iraq War, he should have either resigned or else supported the policy to the best of his abilities.

Then again, perhaps he did support the policy to the best of his abilities. What a contemptible mediocrity.

Posted by thibaud (aka lex) 2005-04-26 5:02:26 PM|| 2005-04-26 5:02:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Following in Halfbright, et al's footsteps prolly makes Colin feelcomfortable with anything less than a Sandy Burglar-type transgression. "Hey! It could be worse..."

Posted by Frank G 2005-04-26 5:07:04 PM|| 2005-04-26 5:07:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 I'm going to defend Colin here.

If you make a lot of big decisions, you mess up some of them. I think the most damning charge here was his decision on defending the Shia after GW1. The rest is about the level of criticism you'd expect from a guy with such a long career.

As for the Shia blunder, don't look too closely at Ikes record towards the end of WWI when he let quite a few Germans to the mercy of the Soviets. I'd like to read more about his reasoning and how he feels in hindsight.

Not traveling as SoS was not necessarily a big deal. Would making yet another Peace Process visit to Yasser have made a difference? To Paris? Turkey, maybe. But had they rejected us after a visit from the SoS the rejection would have had much more impact.

He was the 'good cop' as SoS and commanded way more respect than halfbright, etc. He's a pragmatist who is reluctant to disrupt stability. I tend to disagree with him on this matter but he's no clueless leftist or 'tranzi.' I think he saw the strategic benefits of going into Iraq, but also had a good understanding of the costs. Maybe better than some of those supporting the invasion.

Posted by JAB 2005-04-26 11:22:12 PM|| 2005-04-26 11:22:12 PM|| Front Page Top

23:38 bonanzabucks
23:37 Beau
23:36 anymouse
23:26 Beau
23:24 Sobiesky
23:22 JAB
23:20 Beau
23:18 SwissTex
23:06 Jackal
23:03 Jackal
22:54 Sobiesky
22:47 Jackal
22:47 .com
22:44 Jackal
22:44 anonymous2u
22:36 .com
22:34 Dave D.
22:33 Sobiesky
22:30 Frank G
22:26 .com
22:26 Frank G
22:26 .com
22:19 .com
22:18 Alaska Paul