Another republican?

Because I agree with a lot of the positions he has taken.

I think Powell is a weak reed, not to say a fink. Icky poo. Not a person of honor, not that I can see.

Mamaj -- Your nomination of DeLay is most excellent. I'd love to see that one.

Tartarin,

When Powell went along with the War against what I think his personal feelings to have been I wrestled with the notion that he was compromising his ethics.

But what I concluded was that he had, in a dignified manner, fought to have his way and lost.

I fault his position as a subordinate more than his integrity.

One poster nominates "newtie" I think the Republican Party should go for broke and nominate the man who would never have to explain a thing- William Jefferson Clinton.

Why, it would go down hard with some, but just think, after Clinton nuked the Gaza strip, he could say:

I never nuked the Gaza Strip. Not one time.

And you know what? The biggest liar of all time could get away with it.

What people do not understand is that George W. Bush will never be able to match "slick Willie".

Some say that Bush is immoral since he invaded Iraq.

People must understand that Clinton would never have to worry about that charge being laid on him.

Clinton is not immoral- He is amoral.

That is why the Republicans should choose him as the standard bearer.

Would he accept?

Certainly- He is not only amoral but has proved that he has been the most narcissistic president we have ever elected.
He couldn't resist.

scroll

Bill Clinton owns you conservatives from the bottom of your toes to the tip of your head.

He owns you.

In any case, I do not think he was "the biggest liar of all times." In fact, I doubt he was the biggest liar of all presidents. Nixon and Reagan both were bigger liars -- and the moron-in-chief right now is one hell of a lot bigger liar than Bill Clinton ever hoped to be.

You are right that Dubya will never match Bill Clinton, though, and probably couldn't match most current high schoolers -- if you meant matched in intelligence.

Funny thing I've noticed about Bush: Most of his supporters are not all that bright either.

To top it off, Bush is not just immoral, he's gross.

Take care what you wish for, gato. The Germans helped Lenin get back to Russia using the same sort of reasoning.

Hey, Frank, that's pretty good. Clinton does own them - every waking moment. And they have yet to realize it. The question was simple - but some people have to bring Clinton in regardless.
Joe from Chicago - gato thought he was being cute. And I see he discovered the newest buzz word- narcissistic. Although it's applied nowadays to Bush and crowd.

Don't agree, Craven. To me Powell lost honor and integrity when he didn't stand up for what he believed - if he did. Political ambition and expediency seemed to have overtaken anything else.

Maybe the republicans have exactly the right candidate - and they're afraid of the fact.

mama, what would you have had Powell do? He occupies a position as a subordinate. Other than a symbolic protest (that IMO would simply ahve made of him a political paraiah and not have accomplished anything) I see little he could do other than attempt to influence the administration from inside.

I credit Powell with having tempered many of this administration's positions.

If it weren't for Powell I have no idea what would balance the extreme positions of Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld.

I think his graetest sin in this administration is simply that he did not have as extreme an opinion as was needed to bring the administrations hardliners back to center.

In short I think it's situational more than an issue of integrity. It's easy to deem Powell a sellout but IMO that has more to do with diappointment that a figure that has as much respect as Powell does was not a sufficient counterweight to the current extremism. IMO the disappointment is missplaced.

To build on Craven's comment, The only effective weapon for Powell would be resignation. But, were he to resign, he would immediately lose any ability to be a moderating influence. If he is the man we hope him to be, he is stuck in a lose-lose not as completely sort of situation.

Had, craven, had. (And those eyes are driving me crazy.)

Whatever respect Powell commanded as a world figure has gone. And thst's one of the basic problems with this administration from the start - me chief, you follower. That much vaunted teamwork never did really exist, did it?

Powell's heavy influence is easily seen in the decisions and efforts post 911. Ultimately, he was compelled to give up the good fight, in the face of the stone-walling UN. I am almost sure that he believed the UN would support their previous Resolutions.

Mama that's a bit conflicting. In a roundabout way you fault Powell for being a team player.

Sofia, I've seen you say that many times. Where did you get that impression?

During the time of the run-up to war, and our trips to the UN, I read everything I could get my hands on--especially interviews with Powell.

Taking all that material into account, plus several documentaries on Powell's behavior during the Gulf War--I reached my hypothesis.

The Powell Doctrine, and his repeated, general anti-war statements resonate in his interviews. I think he worked mightly to hold off Bush, and to pursue the inspections, and later, the UN blessing. But, ultimately, he serves at his President's favor.

If you aren't convinced, I guess I could trawl around for specific links, but not tonight.

Is there a specific point you doubt? (So I can narrow my work.)

I doubt that he places as much blame on the UN as you indicate that he does. I *guessed* that he was irked by Rumsfeld and teh Pentagon undermining state at every possible opportunity (e.g. "old Europe" was the antithesis to the diplomatic attempts) and frankly I think he recognizes that US impatiance is what ultimately nixed the resolution.

The UN would have gone along with this war if it had not been sold as a "be made irrelevant though disreard or by being our rubber stamp" sale. I think Powell recognizes the serious fumbles made by the administration in making the case for war.

He might be frustrated with certain UN countries but I doubt he felt betrayed by them.

Reading the UN is remarkably easy, there has hardly ever been a surprise vote in its history of any significance.

In short I think he expected exactly what he got from the UN. I think he held out for a better attempt on our end.

Perhaps Frank Apisa is right. I don' t think so.

There are others who don't think so.

Judge Richard A, Posner doesn't think so.

Judge Posner wrote( in his book "An Affair of State"
P. 266

"For those who think that authority depends on mystery, the shattering of the presidential mystique has been a disaster for which Clinton ought of rights to have paid with his job."

Not all will agree, of course, but I think Posner's comment is true and beautiful.

I am interested in Frank Apisa's comment on President Bush's intelligence level( doesn't match most high schoolers).

Does Mr. Apisa have any empirical evidence as to President Bush's IQ or is he just guessing?

Dear Joe from Chicago.

You are quite right about Lenin but I will take my chances concerning Dean. Everything I read that eminates from the Republican Re-election committees and think tanks indicates that the Republicans would just love it if Dean were to be the opponent.

Au 1929 said it best the other day- Dean appeals to the dyed in the wool Democrats.
So did McGovern.

We shall see.

Mr. De Kere:

I think you have read Powell quite correctly.


I read his biography and it is quite consistent with what you are saying.