Colin Powell Fires Back At Cheney & Limbaugh
D. Spencer Hines
-----------
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
-----------------------------------------
Powell fires back
By: Jonathan Martin
May 24, 2009 12:56 PM EST
Politico
In the latest round of the increasingly heated intra-GOP feud, former
Secretary of State Colin Powell Sunday defended his Republican credentials
and fired back at radio host Rush Limbaugh and former Vice President Dick
Cheney, saying the party had to expand beyond its conservative base.
�Rush will not get his wish and Mr. Cheney was misinformed � I am
still a Republican,� Powell said in a much-anticipated interview on CBS�s
�Face the Nation� two weeks after Cheney suggested on the same show that the
retired general had left the party by endorsing Barack Obama last fall.
Powell outlined his party bona fides, noting his votes for and
services under a string of Republican presidents, and said it was not up to
Cheney and Limbaugh � the radio host has kept up a steady drumbeat of
criticism since Powell's cross-party endorsement last year � to determine
who belonged in the GOP.
�Neither [Cheney] nor Rush Limbaugh are members of the membership
committee of the Republican Party,� Powell said.
Powell suggested that there were a number of moderates in the party
who shared his concerns but were hesitant to speak out �because if you are
vocal you�re going to get your voice mail filled up and get lots of e-mails
like I did.�
One such Republican did seem to take Powell's side of the fight today,
as Former Homeland Security Secretary and Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge also
joined in the criticism of Limbaugh Sunday.
�I think Rush articulates his point of view in ways that offend very
many,� Ridge said on CNN�s �State of the Union.�
�It's a matter of language and a matter of how you use words. It does
get the base all fired up and he's got a strong following. But personally,
if he would listen to me and I doubt if he would, the notion is express
yourselves but let's respect others opinions and let's not be divisive.�
Ridge also split with Cheney on the vice president's claim that
Obama's policies were making Americans less safe. "I do not" agree with
that, Ridge plainly told CNN's John King, adding, "Yeah, I disagree with
Dick Cheney."
Powell also found a less likely ally in former House Speaker Newt
Gingrich, who said on "Meet the Press" that "I don't want to pick a fight
with Dick Cheney, but the fact is, the Republican party has to be a broad
party that appeals across the country," adding, "To be a national party, you
have to have a big enough tent that you inevitably have fights inside the
tent."
Pointing to President Ronald Reagan's at appealing to Democrats and
independents as he carried 49 states in 1984, Gingrich � himself a potential
2012 contender for the party's presidential nomination � concluded, "I think
Republicans are going to be very foolish if they run around deciding that
they're going to see how much they can purge us down to the smallest
possible space."
It's a point Powell made, even as he reiterated his commitment to the
GOP, stressing that the party had to broaden itself to stay relevant,
framing his critique as the political version of a military after-action
report following last year�s election.
�I think the Republican Party has to take a hard look at itself and
decide what kind of party are we,� Powell said. �Are we simply moving
further to the right and by so doing opening up the right of center and the
center to be taken over by independents and be taken over by Democrats.�
Powell � who held up the late Jack Kemp as a model for the party, a
conservative who was inclusive � also had some choice words for his two
critics.
Reiterating his support for closing down the terrorist detention
facility at Guantanamo Bay, Powell said Cheney�s opposition was an affront
to Obama�s predecessor as well.
�Mr. Cheney is not only disagreeing with President Obama�s policy, he�s
disagreeing with President Bush�s policy,� Powell said.
And, citing Cheney�s suggestion in a speech last week that President
Obama only wanted to close Guantanamo to make Europeans happy, Powell said,
�No, we�re doing it to reassure Europeans, Muslims, Arabs, all the people
around the world, that we�re a nation of law.�
Lending credence to Democrats' argument that moving the Gitmo
detainees
to American soil would not put the country in danger, Powell said he was
�not terribly worried about one of these guys going to a super lock-up.�
As for Limbaugh � whose name Powell pronounced as �Lim-bow� � the
former secretary of state said he was an �entertainer� but who had such
influence over the party that officials had to live in fear of offending
him.
He lamented that RNC Chairman Michael Steele had �to lay prostrate on
the floor� apologizing to Limbaugh after criticizing him and that other GOP
members of Congress had to be similarly repentant after taking on the radio
host.
�Well, if he�s out there he should be subject to criticism, just as I�m
subject to criticism,� Powell said.
Steele, who's giving on Tuesday what the RNC is touting as a major
speech out his vision for the party, said in an interview this week with
"Fox News," that "I want a party that speaks to people. The idea that we
only narrowly speak to one segment of the population is boneheaded and it's
not reflective of the history of this party," adding, "How is kicking Colin
Powell out or kicking Dick Cheney out or Rush Limbaugh in going to feed a
child who's hungry tonight?"
In an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Karl Rove dismissed the dust-up
between Cheney and Powell, since "neither one of those two are candidates,"
and deemed the fight "a false debate that Washington loves."
Asked if he agreed with Cheney's contention that Limbaugh was better
for the Republican Party than Powell, Rove said: "Yes, if I had to pick
between the two."
Christ'sCondom
Stepped In His Own Excrement!"
Give us a break with this Powell crap!
Powell, a hypocrite if ever there was one, promulgated his "doctrine"
AFTER he meekly saluted the elder Bush (Wimpy) and acquiesced in
halting coalition attacks on Baghdad, thus allowing Hussein to live
and
kill and torture for another decade!
Military analysts today are in general agreement that this was a
disastrous military action. They maintain that the coalition forces
should have destroyed or captured Iraqi forces, toppled Saddam, placed
(forced if necessary) Shiite resistance leaders in charge, then
departed Iraq.
Should Powell have resigned in protest?
We know that Powell was looking ahead to acquiring vast wealth from
promised book contracts and speaking tours upon his retirement; thus
he
knew he had to toe the line if he wanted to live the gaudy lifestyle
he
enjoys today in exclusive McLean, Va.
But his reprehensible and weak "Yessir!" performance before the U.N.
and the world pre- March 2003 revealed a man who failed to follow his
own "advice." Brow-beaten by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice,
then-SECSTATE Powell delivered the administration's craven
"justification" for invading Iraq, based, the world now knows, on
lies,
misinformation, and nonsensical data.
But in my mind, Powell is a failure MAINLY because he failed to follow
standard military leadership practice. He did not double-check his
information before going before the U.N. He says, today, that he
sensed his data and charts were weak, but he still saluted a Bush
(Chimpy) and did our White House war criminal's dirty work.
Thus ended Powell's carefully crafted persona of a model general
officer -- FOREVER!
That's the REAL Colin Powell story.
Let's read no more hagiography about this faux "leader."
As usual, he's just coverin' his own hypocritical ass!
Jack Linthicum
Really?
David H Singanas
wrote:
~~~~~
> Really?
[Linthicum]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Methinks he (Christ'sCondor) doth protest too much.
He forgets the vacuum that would have been created if Saddam
had been toppled at the end of Gulf War #1.
Iran was waiting to walk in and annex Iraqi territory.
The Kurds were waiting to seize the north.
Colin Powell's mistake was to allow Saddam an air force
(helicopter gunships) which was later used to slaughter the Iraqi
rebels in the south.
The other mistake was to allow Saddam to sell oil for "food and
medicine" after the surrender. Instead, Saddam sold oil on the
black market to re-arm and rebuild his fascist army.
Cheers, David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jack Linthicum
One of the great mistakes of the Iraq War was the neo-cons' belief
that they were going to build a democracy. A nice coup of colonels,
which was hinted at in the buildup, would have made the rest of the
war end on schedule after 6 weeks or so. But we needed that "reason"
after all the other reasons fell before reality and we lost 4000 dead
and a lot of prestige.
frank
Best theory I've read is Saudis had us go it to keep OPEC (mainly
them) as lead on oil supply and prices. Bush Junior with his they were
gonna shoot my daddy was a good foil. Country fell, oil production was
trashed, pretty much still is. Big oil found out it can run gas up to
$4 a gallon and get away with it. Stay tuned. Nobody has been talking
about doing anything about speculators on the oil and gas market.
Anybody remember a gas station being destroyed in the Vietnam war?
Thought not.
Jack Linthicum
The first troops into Baghdad ignored the people looting the museums
to occupy the Ministry of Petroleum.
Kerryn Offord
To hell with ignoring the museums.. what about the nuclear facility with
all the waste in drums that was dumped so people could keep the drums...
with no US military around to check on the status of the nuclear facility..
It's enough to make you wonder if maybe they knew something about (the
lack of) those WMD they weren't telling
Billzz
"Kerryn Offord" <ka...@ext.cantrbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:gvibua$10d4$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
So I spent some time in combat, then wrote some plans, then went to school
on operations research/systems analysis, then developed an interactive
computer graphics-computer based three sided wargame to assess contingency
plans. And in all this time no one told me that a museum was important.
D. Spencer Hines
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Billzz" <billzz...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:d0226$4a1cb531$9440b19b$19...@STARBAND.NET...
Kerryn Offord
> "Kerryn Offord" <ka...@ext.cantrbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
> news:gvibua$10d4$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>>> Anybody remember a gas station being destroyed in the Vietnam war?
>>>> Thought not.
>>> The first troops into Baghdad ignored the people looting the museums
>>> to occupy the Ministry of Petroleum.
>> To hell with ignoring the museums.. what about the nuclear facility with
>> all the waste in drums that was dumped so people could keep the drums...
>> with no US military around to check on the status of the nuclear
>> facility..
>>
>> It's enough to make you wonder if maybe they knew something about (the
>> lack of) those WMD they weren't telling
>
> So I spent some time in combat, then wrote some plans, then went to school
> on operations research/systems analysis, then developed an interactive
> computer graphics-computer based three sided wargame to assess contingency
> plans. And in all this time no one told me that a museum was important.
>
>
It depends on your purpose..
If you are going in fighting, trying to destroy the other guy.. Museums
are just a bit of cover you or the other side can use..
But when you are supposed to be "Liberating" the people and going for
Hearts and Minds (Remember, the fighting was over).. letting people loot
the history of the nation doesn't help any...
When "Nation building".. museums become important... they are
repositories of the countries history.. consider.. how would you react
if someone looted the American declaration of independence etc...
Jack Linthicum
Were you ever working on plans involving the cradle of civilization?
Jack Linthicum
This group were the repositories of man's history.
Billzz
My signature, amongst others, was on the US Army General Defense Plan,
Europe, part of the larger NATO plan, and I have also seen a number of
contingency plans. Never seen anything, anywhere, about any museum. So I
wonder why people make stuff up about how a museum is supposed to be on some
priority target list. Also why it becomes a US mission to guard something,
that is supposed to have museum guards.
In other words, just because someone "thinks" that we should have "guarded"
the museum doesn't mean that it was in the oplan, or that it even makes any
sense. I, personally, as a unit commander, would have some really serious
objections to stationing US soldiers in a militarily worthless fixed
position, to be targets.
The force structure that should have been used (I guess 500K) should have
included civil affairs units for "nation building" but did not because
Rumsfeld cut all that out of Gen. Shinseki's proposed force structure. His
simple concept was combat and combat support only, then the Iraquis would do
the rebuilding. So there never was any forces for the purpose anyway.
Sure, it's a good idea to save the museum, so that's about all I can say
about that.
Billzz
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:d7e04c27-9ce3-4e13...@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
***************************************************
OPLAN 01-001
General Order Number 1: Let there be light!
Jack Linthicum
> "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
Quite rich, and a sign of real concern
Billzz
*****************************************************
Well, I think that you just like to argue. Your viewpoint seems to be that
everything they did was an error in commission, and everything that they did
not do was an error of omission.
There is no rationale to include museums in operations orders, but because
you think they should have, then they were wrong, and everyone else is
unthinking. If Sp/4 Gore or Lt. Kerry were in charge probably the same
night at the museum would have happened. And I don't think that you would
comment.
Jack Linthicum
While it was happening people were asking for an explanation, why the
guard on the Petroleum Ministry and no guard on the museums.
http://www.museum-security.org/03/049.html#4
http://www.parkerstudio.com/AAW/iraqiart.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1058986.ece
and contrawise
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A216889
Billzz
http://www.museum-security.org/03/049.html#4
http://www.parkerstudio.com/AAW/iraqiart.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1058986.ece
and contrawise
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A216889
*********************************************************
I didn't bother to read any of the articles. There is always Monday-morning
quarterbacking, especially by the politicized. My point, which you will now
argue, is that it would have not made any difference who was in charge of
what, the same thing would have happened. I can understand guarding the
petroleum ministry (they were probably finding the contracts with the
Germans, Russians, and French) and cannot understand why an operations order
would have a "guard the museum" paragraph. Any operations order, also.
Never seen one.
Jack Linthicum
Shallow is as shallow does
Billzz
*********************************************************
That would be everyone involved with all military operations, on all sides,
at all times. Unless you can come up with an example of an operation order
that does include a "guard the museum" order. But I'm tired of your
gratuitous insults.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
he he he...
Billzz, who fancies himself an expert on most any topic, considers anyone
whose opinion does not conform to his opinion, a monday morning quarterback.
Didn't billzz say somewhere up the thread that the museum should have been
guarded, but due to Rumsfeld slashing Gen. Shinseki's plan, no guards.
Clearly Shinseki should have discussed his plan with nutjob billzz.
;-)
Jack Linthicum
But they aren't gratuitous, you have earned them with your totally
weaseling avoidance of any moral commitment in your "plans". I presume
that half-assed statue gag with the Chalaby fan club was just in the
plans, it looks like it from the outside.
La N
That's over the top, Jack. Billzz is far from "shallow". He is sharing
with you/us his personal experience of how things are handled - rightly or
wrongly - from the upper crust.
- nilita
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
>
> It depends on your purpose..
>
> If you are going in fighting, trying to destroy the other guy.. Museums
> are just a bit of cover you or the other side can use..
>
> But when you are supposed to be "Liberating" the people and going for
> Hearts and Minds (Remember, the fighting was over).. letting people loot
> the history of the nation doesn't help any...
Guarding civilian buildings like banks and museums was the job of
the Iraqi police. The police force still existed when the museums
were robbed.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
>
> While it was happening people were asking for an explanation, why the
> guard on the Petroleum Ministry and no guard on the museums.
The West was taking the oil.
Andrew Swallow
Billzz
"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:S_2dnZ1cNOPvS4DX...@bt.com...
One does not go to an office building to take oil. One goes to the office
building to audit the books. My own personal opinion, based on nothing, not
even hearsay, is that there were many under-the-table deals going on, and
the deals were why there was so much opposition from France, Germany, and
Russia. Only the US and UK were enforcing the no-fly zone, and there seemed
no reason to keep doing that, as it did not adversely affect what was going
on in Iraq.
So there was going to be IraqII, and whatever rationale it took had nothing
to do with the reason for the contingency plan. The idea of warfare is to
change the "future state," for whatever reason, and my duty was to develop,
and assess, contingency plans, and there was never any rationale attached to
them. This is above the military pay grade, so don't blame the military for
political decisions. Impeach the president.
Anyway, my obvious point, missed by many, is that I have had experience with
contingency plans and it makes very good sense to have an operations order
with a paragraph aimed at surrounding any government ministry, while it
makes no sense to have a plan to surround a museum. In both cases you are
exposing the soldiers to a static position, where they can be attacked. If
you have been a commander, in combat (I have) you think about having to
write the letter home when Private Johnny Jones gets the bullet. I can see,
"...defending the Oil Ministry..." (although not much.) But I can't see,
"...defending a museum." And I have never heard of a contingency plan that
had "defending the museum" in it. Yes, there are No Fire Zones established
around every religious, cultural, and other blah blah sites, but to put a
unit on the ground is another thing.
It's interesting how many people do not get this. And I'm writing from
alt.war.vietnam, where the US did a lot to *not* hurt any of the blah blahs.
As opposed to the Greatest Generation's actions in WWII, leveling Monte
Casino, driving tanks through civilian houses to avoid mined streets, and I
could go on. Somehow, over the years we have managed to grow an entire
generation of war whiners, instead of war winners.
Stanley Moore
Where is it? How much Iraqi oil has made its way to the USA? Take care
--
Stanley L. Moore
"The belief in a supernatural
source of evil is not necessary;
men alone are quite capable
of every wickedness."
Joseph Conrad
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
>
> and my duty was to develop,
> and assess, contingency plans, and there was never any rationale attached to
> them. This is above the military pay grade, so don't blame the military for
> political decisions. Impeach the president.
Son, part of assessing is to determine if it will work, knowing the rationale.
Do you ever read the shit you write?
;-)
Jack Linthicum
>
> That's over the top, Jack. Billzz is far from "shallow".
> ...
>
His "I was just doing my job" and "nobody told me" attitude is
shallow.
the.s...@gmail.com
And you're still a sanctimonious, pompous ass.
So what?
Jack Linthicum
So......what?
La N
Well, in a perfect world, he/you/I would run the universe. And it would be
a perfect world. But, it's not a perfect one-size-fits-all world. In
reality, most of us are not 100 per cent politically correct 100 per cent of
the time.
I think that would be even more so during times of war.
- nilita
Jack Linthicum
Here's a bit from the blog, combining 24 the TV show and, by
implication, torture, left wing Canadian politician, health care,
Obama and Hollywood.
"Fun fact: one of the celebrity attendees was actor Kiefer Sutherland,
who is of course the star of the right-wing favorite TV show 24 -- and
is also the grandson of the late left-wing Canadian politician Tommy
Douglas, considered by many to have been the father of universal
health care in his country."
La N
Here is a six degrees of separation moment for you:
Kiefer is the son of actor Donald Sutherland. Donald's first wife, Shirley,
is Kiefer's mom. Shirley was a good friend of my late mom in their youth,
when my mother worked for Shirley's father, Tommy Douglas, who in a poll
taken of Canadians just a couple or so years ago, was considered to be
Canada's greatest Canadian.
- nilita
Billzz
"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kFwTl.28351$Db2.10027@edtnps83...
You didn't comment on the fact that he "quoted" words that are not mine, and
ascribed, to me, a personal attitude (which is not mine) about the fact that
no operations plan would have a "guard the museum" paragraph in it. He must
believe that whatever he believes must be the way, and any other way is the
"wrong" way. Guarding the museum might have been a good idea, but I fail to
see how any operations planner could foresee the situation, and write that
into any plan. And I've seen a bunch. Anyway, I've learned to not talk to
some people, and he is one of them.
La N
> "La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:kFwTl.28351$Db2.10027@edtnps83...
>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>>> On May 27, 7:17 pm, "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's over the top, Jack. Billzz is far from "shallow".
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> His "I was just doing my job" and "nobody told me" attitude is
>>> shallow.
>>
>> Well, in a perfect world, he/you/I would run the universe. And it
>> would be a perfect world. But, it's not a perfect one-size-fits-all
>> world. In reality, most of us are not 100 per cent politically
>> correct 100 per cent of the time.
>>
>> I think that would be even more so during times of war.
>>
>> - nilita
>
> You didn't comment on the fact that he "quoted" words that are not
> mine, and ascribed, to me, a personal attitude (which is not mine)
> about the fact that no operations plan would have a "guard the
> museum" paragraph in it.
That was certainly implied, Colonel. You most certainly are *not* shallow.
And in the big scope of war planning, factoring in millions of citizens,
potential high value targets, protection of strategic assets, etc., one will
not be able to please everybody.
>He must believe that whatever he believes
> must be the way, and any other way is the "wrong" way. Guarding the
> museum might have been a good idea, but I fail to see how any
> operations planner could foresee the situation, and write that into
> any plan. And I've seen a bunch. Anyway, I've learned to not talk
> to some people, and he is one of them.
Well, you are an apolitical poster, one of the rare ones for sure, Colonel.
Most people have their political biases and will colour their interactions
thus with emotionally laden rhetoric. That is pretty much most of Usenet,
so I imagine you have trouble finding people you can "talk to" in this
milieu ... :)
- nilita, glad you talk to me anyway ...;p
Andrew Swallow
> "Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:S_2dnZ1cNOPvS4DX...@bt.com...
>> Jack Linthicum wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> While it was happening people were asking for an explanation, why the
>>> guard on the Petroleum Ministry and no guard on the museums.
>> The West was taking the oil.
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>
> Where is it? How much Iraqi oil has made its way to the USA? Take care
Some oil is being exported.
Although Billzz gave the best reason - the oil is in the oil fields
not the office block. Just another plan that did not survive the
enemy.
Andrew Swallow
Jack Pine Savage
You mean it's not Maurice Richard? Oh wait, he's Quebecois. Sorry.
>
> - nilita
>
D. Spencer Hines
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Jack Pine Savage" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:788hnbF...@mid.individual.net...
John Gilmer
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.net> wrote in message
news:Y6jSl.482$J6....@eagle.america.net...
> Deeeeeeelightful!
> -----------
> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
> Vires et Honor
>
> Powell fires back
> By: Jonathan Martin
> May 24, 2009 12:56 PM EST
> Politico
>
> In the latest round of the increasingly heated intra-GOP feud, former
> Secretary of State Colin Powell Sunday defended his Republican credentials
> and fired back at radio host Rush Limbaugh and former Vice President Dick
> Cheney, saying the party had to expand beyond its conservative base.
>
> "Rush will not get his wish and Mr. Cheney was misinformed - I am
> still a Republican," Powell said in a much-anticipated interview on CBS's
> "Face the Nation" two weeks after Cheney suggested on the same show that
> the
> retired general had left the party by endorsing Barack Obama last fall.
The fun thing here is that since Powell campaigned against his friend of
long standing (McCain) in favor a "O" who we barely knew, the evidence is
that Powell is a RACIST, just like Limbaugh says he is.
D. Spencer Hines
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"John Gilmer" <jlgi...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:nI2dnUzYJ8dc-bzX...@posted.localnet...
James Beck
Communist, okay. Fascist would be hard to support. Also, to the extent
that SIPRIs estimates are accurate, Iraq was not a substantial
importer of weapons during oil for food. The CIAs estimates used the
same economic assumptions for Iraq for the period before the war with
Iran and after GW I, when the infrastructure was severely damaged.
Regardless, if you do the arithmetic, at the then prevailing price of
oil, permitting Iraq to pump and sell as much oil as it could under
Oil for Food, there wasn't enough to do much more than feed, clothe
and shelter the population near the UN minimums, i.e., about $1 per
day per person [About twice that if you use the CIAs assumptions].
The debt burden alone was crushing, but if Iraq was rebuilding its
military, it would have been on credit and probably from its patrons
in the former Warsaw Pact countries and China.
Neither the assumption that Iraq's GDP could support major re-arming,
nor the assumption that Iraq had slack debt capacity is very robust.
marco polo
according to some here, to be a Republican:
you can't change your mind
you can't disagree with me...or...
you can't forgive
etc
marc