From The Washington Post -- March 1, 2010
Powell sees no basis for Cheney's claims
By John Amick and T. Rees Shapiro
CBS: FACE THE NATION - Powell sees no basis for Cheney's claims
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said former Vice President Dick Cheney's claims that President Obama's policies are putting the nation at risk have no basis, especially since most of the programs and procedures the Bush administration enacted have been continued or heightened under the Obama tenure.
Powell pointed to the ending of waterboarding as an interrogation tool and the success of criminal courts to try terror suspects, both during the Bush administration, as examples of why Cheney's claims of less safety are not "born out by the facts." Powell supported the Obama administration's preference of criminal courts over military commissions for suspects, including 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Christmas day attacker Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who, Powell pointed out, would get a lawyer in a military commission as well as in a civilian court.
Asked about progress in Iraq, Powell, who championed the invasion as secretary of state, said history will be the ultimate judge of events there. He said mistakes were made after the initial fall of Baghdad, but he said he hopes the Iraqi government will seize control of the opportunity they've been given by the United States.
He cautioned fellow conservatives who call President Obama a socialist, saying rough-and-tumble politics is nothing new, but to constantly criticize without attempting to offer new ideas is not productive.
"Have we so lost our faith in this country that we think one person, one man, can suddenly change our entire system?" Powell asked. "That's kind of absurd."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
"Have we so lost our faith in this country that we think one person, one man, can suddenly change our entire system?" Powell asked. "That's kind of absurd."
--
Cons are absurd. Comon teabag lickers, what are you going to cut? Not the military, that's for sure. You going to cut SS and Medicare? Baaahhhaaaaaa, good luck getting elected.
"Have we so lost our faith in this country that we think one person, one man, can suddenly change our entire system?" Powell asked. "That's kind of absurd."
If one man could suddenly change the system, he/she would be a fascist or dictator.
Don't be afraid cons, that won't happen in a country like yours where the corporate wealthy have all the powers and dictate pretty much everything they want via a bought out Congress and Senate. 8 Lobbyists per elected person.
"He cautioned fellow conservatives who call President Obama a socialist, saying rough-and-tumble politics is nothing new, but to constantly criticize without attempting to offer new ideas is not productive. "
Thing is Colin Powell that the CONS don't have any new ideas, too dumb. They'd like to go back to the dark ages when the constitution was written.
One man can certainly change the face and idealism of this great country, we the conservatives do not tout Bush as great, he is a wonderful person it seems, but he tried to hard to please both sides, we want conservatives that say no to liberal thinking, and no to socialist ideas. your right in saying Obama is furthering Bush doctrine but hes added trillions to the bottom line and trying to enact laws that the federal govt has no business being involved in!
Joey, Buttafuckroid, what don't u get??
Do you get guitar. Joey???
RayGun,
try debate, not name calling, we are open to debate, not to rudeness, almost every lib resorts to this tactic, it doesnt help your cause, come on bro, try debating and lets see who can educate the other! for ALL OUR SAKE!!!!!and our FUTURE!!!
"RayGun, try debate, not name calling,"
Sorry Joey. And don't listen to BB if he says I drink sometimes and listen to loud music.
"try debating and lets see who can educate the other!"--Joey
It will never happen. This tactic is usful to them when they can't make a point. When you resort to name calling you effectively shut the discussion down.
You are right. It is a Progressive tactic and is used against everyone that they disagree with.
BTW-you will never educate them. They refuse to hear it.
They stick their fingers in their ears. Give them facts and the source is "lying" How do you debate with that?
fas·cist
3. a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.
Alan, if that does not sound like a teabagging con, I don't know what does.
And why did you teabaggers pick such a colloquial name? Didn't you nuts ever bother to google teabagger?
That just shows how ignorant you can be RG. They didn't pick Teabagger. That was your side that coined that term. Typical progressive. Need to find something derogatory, so start with the name.
I don't know Case, seems like perfect irony to me. Sexually squeamish conservatives calling themselves teabaggers.
"Sexually squeamish conservatives"
What gives you the right to make that determination or judgement, that these people are "sexually squeamish"? Do you think that atheists have a lock on sex? Or is that just more of your name calling tactics? What is your problem?
Just my opinion Case.
Right. Just more name calling with no substance behind it.
This really doesn't bother me, as I know the tactic. Again, it is a dangerous tactic, when used in the extreme and has been used throughout history to condition people to believe that others are not worthy of respect or rights.
The words and name calling close any efforts toward a fair debate or exchange of ideas, and hate becomes justified in the eyes of the name caller.
Now, if you are a Socialist, Marxist, Progressive or whatever, I think that you should grow some balls and call yourself that.
CJP calls himself a progressive, but doesn't think that it is the same party that came out in the early 20th century. Hilary Clinton knows that it is, as she identified with it during the debates. Gotta know who you are identifying with, RG. It is pretty important.
"This really doesn't bother me, as I know the tactic. "
What book did you read Case? Anne Coulter or ? "Tactic"?
"Again, it is a dangerous tactic, when used in the extreme and has been used throughout history to condition people to believe that others are not worthy of respect or rights."
JHC Case, you sound like what I hear, Beck sounds like. You cons are paranoid, afraid, scared out of your skins, about everything. I thought I was paranoid..
This isn't a Glenn Beck opinion. It is basic fact. It has been used in Nazi Germany, pre revolutionary russia, and in every totalitarian regime. It was used in Rwanda! You demonize a certain segment of the population, they eventually they become less than human, and then it is okay to do whatever you want to them.
Communist regimes always picked on the bankers, big business, the wealthy. Pit one against each other. Am I wrong here?? I don't think so.
"Communist regimes always picked on the bankers, big business, the wealthy."
What about the French Revolution?
Maybe it's not such a good idea to let .2 percent of the people control 98 percent of the wealth. If that leads to communism, then you cons are aiding and abetting communism.
If they EARN it, RG, then they deserve it. Last time I checked, no one was just GIVING money to them.
"If they EARN it, RG, then they deserve it. Last time I checked, no one was just GIVING money to them."
Case is a communist.
So CC will no longer mean Crazy Casey, it will now mean Communist Casey.
Are you high? How does that make ME a communist? You don't have a clue, do you? Me. The Libertarian, less government person.
"Communist regimes always picked on the bankers, big business, the wealthy."
What causes people, throughout history, to start hating the bankers and the big business is the huge disparity of wealth that occurs. So the people revolt and form a communist society. This is what happens. We all know this. So CC, by being a con (who all promote huge disparity's in wealth) are actually shepherding in a new communist society, by promoting the very things that cause the shift in the first place. So Case being a history buff, and knowing these facts, therefore must be a communist. Communist Case. CC.
See the irony Case? Never mind, cons don't get irony.
Oh I get irony, I just don't get stupidity.
Do you think that there will ever be a time where we will all be equal? You tell me. Under what form of government are we all going to be the same?
And you can hardly compare how we live in this country to the poverty of a 3rd world country! Or to the poverty of Pre Revolutionary France.
Are you drinking that Kool Aide again, RG?
You cannot compare. The big bad businesses in this country have enabled us to have some pretty good lives. Where would you be without the big bad businesses? Do they pay you a adequate compensation for the service you provide?
"Or to the poverty of Pre Revolutionary France. "
Huge disparities in wealth. That is what triggers the revolution, the change. And the disparity now has increased and you cons want it to keep increasing? You must want a revolution or communism. Are you cons that dumb?
"Do they pay you a adequate compensation for the service you provide?"
I contract to maybe a 5 million dollar a year company. That's a really small business.
Raygun said...
"What causes people, throughout history, to start hating the bankers and the big business is the huge disparity of wealth that occurs. So the people revolt and form a communist society. This is what happens. We all know this. So CC, by being a con (who all promote huge disparity's in wealth) are actually shepherding in a new communist society, by promoting the very things that cause the shift in the first place. So Case being a history buff, and knowing these facts, therefore must be a communist. Communist Case. CC."
BRILLIANT RG!!
"BRILLIANT RG!!"
We may have to give credit to CJP, with his conservativesAreCommunists.com. He has been right all along. That's why I have stuck with this blog.
So, are you compensated fairly? I would guess, yes. And your education? Didn't that come from the military where you swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States?
You cannot draw a parallel between the disparity of wealth in this country to that of pre revolutionary France. And the attitudes that went along with the disparity! However, that alone did not cause the revolution. Starvation, and a government that was oppressive and in DEBT!(not to mention that it was a french monarcy that the commons revolted against that did not have the standard of living or the freedoms that we enjoy)
I realize that you don't read history, but please, don't re-write it.
And Anon2---you are hopeless. You know even LESS about this than RG. You just think that he uses pretty words.
"I realize that you don't read history, but please, don't re-write it."
I read literature, "The Tale of Two Cities" in this case.
Comon CC, why are you promoting the very same principles that always end in communism (or worse)?
Do you have a better plan? Tell me what form of government would provide more equity?
Can't be Marxism---in the Soviet Union they were equal (well, the masses were, but you still had your higher paid, higher class)they were equal alright. Equally poor! There was still corruption. There was still starvation. Oh and there was murder of masses of people, and of course imprisonment. Can't forget the imprisonment.
So if you take that, and then take Karl Marx's belief that Socialism was just a short stop over on the way to communism....
"So if you take that, and then take Karl Marx's belief that Socialism was just a short stop over on the way to communism.... "
I dunno CC, your the communist, you tell me :-)
"IT WAS the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way- in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only. "
I call it irony...
Still waiting...who has a better form of government?
Did you think that the Consitution was outdated when you were sworn to uphold it and taking the money for your education, RG?
Are you hating those businesses when you cash your paychecks?
The companies that you contract with may not be big now, but isn't the owner wealthy? Doesn't that make him BAD in your book?
Shouldn't you be giving alot more of your earnings to the poor and to support government programs? Don't you want to raise up your less fortunate neighbors? Share the wealth?
Post a Comment