Colin Powell resigns

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Yes, this is hardly "advocating" war, it is perhaps condoning an air strike. No this isn't innocent behavior, but it is not lying to the UN to begin a full on attack/take over operation (with an underlying motive for oil and money). Do you see the difference?

But - Clinton used essentially the same reasoning at the UN, which Dissention asserts was a lie when W did it - thus my point.

And - yes, that is advocating war. Kerry and the others are saying if you cannot resolve this any other way, you need to use force, which Clinton did and when Clinton did, everyone held their breath and prayed SH would not launch an attack on Isreal whose hand was not staid as in the first Gulf War. If that had happened - if Isreal had struck back, it would have been an all out war. That is why I say it was not just sending a few missles over there. In the end, Kerry has never disagreed with Clinton's use of force and his taking of that calculated risk of war; Kerry has never said otherwise

But, I know I know the R's can never do anything right and when the D's kill in the name of WMD - it is somehow okay. I'll never get it.

Finally, I liked Clinton and wish he was still in the WH to this day and I voted for Kerry even though I think he was no ideal of mine; he was, however, far closer to an ideal than W. But, I do not sugar coat them and I certainly never tow any party line out of blind allegiance (not that you were doing that ). I call it like I see it and the facts state it, an attribute few possess in this world's political arena - sad - but very true.

BTW - ewveryone asserts we went to control Iraqi oil. We do not do so now and have not ever done so. Yes, Halliburton made money, but surely there were easier way to siphon money to them if that has been the intent all the time. So, I just do not buy that argument or at least totally.

[strandinthewind]

Bck to the original point of out of the frying pan and into the fire regarding Powell's resignation:

Powell praised as 'voice of moderation'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Secretary of State Colin Powell was praised Monday as a "great statesman" and a "voice of moderation" after the White House announced his decision not to serve a second term.

Powell told reporters that he would stay on until his successor was confirmed, which he predicted would take weeks or possibly a month or two. (Powell announces resignation)

Earlier today, the State Department said that Powell was trying to arrange a meeting with the new for Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat praised Powell.

"In our deliberations with him, he has gained our highest respect and appreciation," Erakat said. "He's a fair man and highly dignified and will indeed leave his mark on international politics."

Palestinians have regarded Powell as one of the administration's moderate voices.

Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister Marwan Muasher saw Powell's imminent departure as a blow to the peace process.

"Colin Powell was somebody who understood the words, who truly listened and who cared about the problems of the world," Muasher said. "I hate to see him go precisely at the time when the prospects for a breakthrough are improving."

Arab League Secretary General Amre Moussa also expressed regret.

"He knew how to be with friends and allies and he knew the intricacies of major problems in the Middle East. True, nothing really materialized, but he was a voice of moderation and did good things in a way that all of us had respect for him as secretary of state."

In London, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw described Powell as "a man who has been tireless in his work for the United States, tireless in his work for NATO and the trans-Atlantic alliance, tireless in his work for peace in the world ... a very, very fine man, great soldier, great statesman."

Asked whether he sympathized with Powell in his dealings with the Pentagon, with which the secretary often butted heads, Straw demurred. "My discussions with Secretary Powell have the confidentiality of the confessional," he said.

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, also praised Powell.

"Even after four difficult years in a bitterly divided administration, Colin Powell leaves the State Department with his head held high and an unmatched reputation for integrity and wisdom," he said.

"He won some and he lost some, but he is a rare commodity in this town: a decent and classy guy who will be missed."

In a written statement, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi called his resignation "a great loss for the Bush administration and for the country."

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...eax/index.html

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But - Clinton used essentially the same reasoning at the UN, which Dissention asserts was a lie when W did it - thus my point..

He did not use phony images and documents.

...

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But, I know I know the R's can never do anything right and when the D's kill in the name of WMD - it is somehow okay. I'll never get it.
..

I never said that.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Finally, I liked Clinton and wish he was still in the WH to this day and I voted for Kerry even though I think he was no ideal of mine; he was, however, far closer to an ideal than W. But, I do not sugar coat them and I certainly never tow any party line out of blind allegiance (not that you were doing that ). I call it like I see it and the facts state it, an attribute few possess in this world's political arena - sad - but very true.

Not true, the way you see things are colored by your own perceptions and are not necessarily just the facts. This is the case for everyone. To say that you are the only one speaking the truth is a little bit megalomaniacal, no? (Okay, I'm just being silly now, too much caffeine). I agree with you on the Clinton point, I also wish he were still our president.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

BTW - ewveryone asserts we went to control Iraqi oil. We do not do so now and have not ever done so. Yes, Halliburton made money, but surely there were easier way to siphon money to them if that has been the intent all the time. So, I just do not buy that argument or at least totally.

Because they miscalculated. I don't think it was THE reason for war but it was certainly a factor IMO.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Also, notice how he cleverly refuses to hold Clinton or Kerry to the same standard he holds W to even though Iraqi's died in both situations and both by the same reasoning for the deaths. To do so would be to appear as giving credibilty to W and that can never happen

I never once claimed that Clinton and Kerry were right when it came to Iraq. I think it's slick how you try to win your argument when it comes to Kerry, but I simply do not hold a senator to the same standard as the President of the United States. To do so would not only be a stretch, but also rather ridiculous. Maybe Kerry knew the intel was bogus, who knows, people believe what they want to believe. But he didn't manufacture the evidence like Dubya. Dubya drafted plans to invade Iraq before he even became "president." So, while they are both quite misguided and pathetic when it comes to this whole situation, I hold the President of the United States to a higher standard than a senator. Tough tacos. How Dubya's credibility factors into this argument is a mystery to me, especially when it's obvious the man has none. He had a duty to make sure that all of his intel was factually correct before he killed innocent people, he didn't do that. Clinton had a duty to make sure that Saddam was actually making/possessing WMDs before he sent missiles to kill innocent people, he didn't do that. They were both wrong. But when it comes to your credible Dubya, Jason, he's even worse when it comes to his motives for going to war, the sheer incompetence of everything he's done and everyone he's appointed, and the ramifications of it all. And quite honestly, I'm sick of you trying to justify Dubya's bad actions by pointing at Clinton's bad actions, as if they're the same. That's something a sleazy hack on Faux News would do. And it's the apologist in you.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But - Clinton used essentially the same reasoning at the UN, which Dissention asserts was a lie when W did it - thus my point.

Clinton didn't manufacture satellite photos. He didn't manufacture lies about centrifuge and then bring them to the UN, asking for global support in going to war against Iraq.

The fact is that they both used false information. Clinton used it to take attention away from his Oval Office oral sex and Bush used it for rather imperialistic and malicious purposes. It's up to you to make the distinction between who was worse. For me, it was Dubya and I find it hard to believe that any one administration could be hoodwinked so badly by so much false information. They knew it was all a pack of lies, but they didn't care.

[DeeGeMe]

Condi ****ing Rice as Secretary of State? Yes, it's going to be a very long four years.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by DeeGeMe

Condi ****ing Rice as Secretary of State? Yes, it's going to be a very long four years.

From what I hear, Tenet is not kind to her in his new book. The word "incompetent" has been floating around.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I never once claimed that Clinton and Kerry were right when it came to Iraq. I think it's slick how you try to win your argument when it comes to Kerry, but I simply do not hold a senator to the same standard as the President of the United States. To do so would not only be a stretch, but also rather ridiculous. Maybe Kerry knew the intel was bogus, who knows, people believe what they want to believe. But he didn't manufacture the evidence like Dubya. Dubya drafted plans to invade Iraq before he even became "president." So, while they are both quite misguided and pathetic when it comes to this whole situation, I hold the President of the United States to a higher standard than a senator. Tough tacos. How Dubya's credibility factors into this argument is a mystery to me, especially when it's obvious the man has none. He had a duty to make sure that all of his intel was factually correct before he killed innocent people, he didn't do that. Clinton had a duty to make sure that Saddam was actually making/possessing WMDs before he sent missiles to kill innocent people, he didn't do that. They were both wrong. But when it comes to your credible Dubya, Jason, he's even worse when it comes to his motives for going to war, the sheer incompetence of everything he's done and everyone he's appointed, and the ramifications of it all. And quite honestly, I'm sick of you trying to justify Dubya's bad actions by pointing at Clinton's bad actions, as if they're the same. That's something a sleazy hack on Faux News would do. And it's the apologist in you.

Now Now - please show me where I said W was credible - ya live by the sword . . . Similarly - please show me once whare I apologized for W's lies, which and again, I have openly, faithfully, and routinely admonished and, in fact, called for impeachment on. Finally, I agree and have always agreed that W and Clinton should be judged on their own. But, comparisons are inevitable, esp. when they both attacked the same country using the same reasons, albeit W's invaded it as opposed to Clinton's killing thousands in missle strikes and rolling the dice that Isreal would not be attacked in retaliation (a point you have yet to adnit BTW ). AND - I am not justifying either's actions nor am I apologizing for anyone. If I did - show me where I did that. So, nice try again Mr. Spinmeister (levity)

All I am saying, which brings us back to Powell, is I readily admit I would rather have Powell than Rice or probably anyone else W will appoint.

Finally, if you think Kerry never advocated war in Iraq, so be it - you will never admit the truth no matter what and arguing is in vain.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Clinton didn't manufacture satellite photos. He didn't manufacture lies about centrifuge and then bring them to the UN, asking for global support in going to war against Iraq.

The fact is that they both used false information. Clinton used it to take attention away from his Oval Office oral sex and Bush used it for rather imperialistic and malicious purposes. It's up to you to make the distinction between who was worse. For me, it was Dubya and I find it hard to believe that any one administration could be hoodwinked so badly by so much false information. They knew it was all a pack of lies, but they didn't care.

To me, they are both equally as bad (although I do not agree about ML being the reason Clinton did it - at least not the only reason ) - I mean people died as a result. That more died under W (and yes I agree because of W's lies, which I have always admonished ) is more horrible. But, what I am saying is I think they were both horrible and they both stemmed from the same WMD argument - so they are the same in that respect

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Similarly - please show me once whare I apologized for W's lies, which and again, I have openly, faithfully, and routinely admonished and, in fact, called for impeachment on. So, nice try again Mr. Spinmeister

Oh my, you're the biggest apologist around here. You qualify bad behavior by pointing at other bad behavior. It's never anyone's fault with you, it's as if you have never heard the phrase "The buck stops here." If one politician does a ****ty thing, you accept it and just shake your head, then attempt to explain it all away no matter what their political affiliation.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Oh my, you're the biggest apologist around here. You qualify bad behavior by pointing at other bad behavior. It's never anyone's fault with you, it's as if you have never heard the phrase "The buck stops here." If one politician does a ****ty thing, you accept it and just shake your head, then attempt to explain it all away no matter what their political affiliation.

Quote me. I dare you. I have always maintained that W's actions in Iraq were horrible - period. All I have ever said was SH brought some of it on himself by refusing, according to the UN and every world leader, for 11 years to live up to his end of the contract that ended the first Gulf War. If he had complied, there would have been no current war. But, he did not. How is that apologizing for W I have said repeatedly the buck stops with W. He is responsible. As more and more facts bscame known - I again, said W lied and he should be impeached. I just think when I same the same thing about a D, all of a sudden its "well the facts were difrerent"

But, whenever you get caught in a corner, you attack me as a apologist and Clinton Basher, which is beneath you IMO. But, so be it,

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

To me, they are both equally as bad (although I do not agree about ML being the reason Clinton did it - at least not the only reason ) - I mean people died as a result. That more died under W (and yes I agree because of W's lies, which I have always admonished ) is more horrible. But, what I am saying is I think they were both horrible and they both stemmed from the same WMD argument - so they are the same in that respect

The fact that more innocents died this time around has nothing to do with my saying it's just as bad, it has to do with all the **** Dimson stirred up by going about with this garbage. He has not only screwed over the Iraqi people by killing them, he's screwed over the Middle East by making it even more of a hellhole for those who live there and he's poisoned the wolrd against our country. The fact that so many had to die because of it is just incomprehensible. For what? What did they die for? He can't even give a reason.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

But, whenever you get caught in a corner, you attack me as a apologist and Clinton Basher, which is beneath you IMO. But, so be it,

Apologist? Yes. Clinton Basher? I could care less. From '96 through '00, Clinton was a f*ck up, so there goes your argument.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

The fact that more innocents died this time around has nothing to do with my saying it's just as bad, it has to do with all the **** Dimson stirred up by going about with this garbage. He has not only screwed over the Iraqi people by killing them, he's screwed over the Middle East by making it even more of a hellhole for those who live there and he's poisoned the wolrd against our country. The fact that so many had to die because of it is just incomprehensible. For what? What did they die for? He can't even give a reason.

And I agree with that and am unsure why you are saying I do not - I have not said anything to the contrary. I am just merely pointing out within the context of the lesser of two evils Powell argument we were having earlier that the US history has other examples of us blowing up Iraqi's in the name of WMD and Kerry supported it both times

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

Apologist? Yes. Clinton Basher? I could care less. From '96 through '00, Clinton was a f*ck up, so there goes your argument.

and I'd take him back in a minute over W, whom I abhor

Again, show me one time where I have apologized for W, Clinton, or anyone else. I'm waiting

But and again, nice try and it sounds good no matter how untrue and hollow you know it is