U.S. Politics / bounced checks and negative balances

[DireWolfSpirit]

Powell is also guilty of spawning his creepy son onto the country.

The son ended up as the head of the FCC and worked diligently to sell out the public's airwaves to the monopolist, who were never disappointed with their investment in him.

Any decision between the public or the monopolies and the donors could be sure their "paid for Powell" would steer their (the monopolists) way.

Eta: these are the dirtbags that helped pave the way, so we could be stuck with right wing talk radio monopolizing +90% of our radio airwaves and Sinclair broadcasting on every other channel. They rolled for the monopolies and Powell Jr was a pointman for it right at the inception.

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, 1066 Larry said:

So instead of actually trying to stop the anything bad from happening, or cueing the public in that the doubts about WMDs were well founded, he just hung around to witness the atrocities because he's a "good guy" and he'd be a better witness than a John Bolton type.  Thank the gods he was there for that.

 

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm not sure that's an entirely accurate representation. I don't believe he ever apologized for the Iraq war, but he did speak out against its continuation. And it's worth noting he was out of office pretty early on in the affair.

My best guess is he thought along the same line as the generals under Trump, that resigning would accomplish nothing and that they'd be replaced by someone more willing to go along with said ghastly affairs.

Again, he threatened to resign if the military allowed gays to openly serve in the military. 

I find this argument  - that he could 'do more good' - ridiculous based on that alone. 

[Fez]

This really sums up the difference between the two:

Manchin has different views on a lot of issues, but he puts in the effort to engage. Sinema just does not care.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, 1066 Larry said:

So instead of actually trying to stop the anything bad from happening, or cueing the public in that the doubts about WMDs were well founded, he just hung around to witness the atrocities because he's a "good guy" and he'd be a better witness than a John Bolton type.  Thank the gods he was there for that.

Well we don't know exactly what kind of impacts he made behind the scenes, but it does appear he was a voice against further aggression at times and was mainly the only person arguing for that. That's still better than what would likely have replaced him, but that also does not change the fact that the most notable act of his life was a colossal failure. 

1 hour ago, Kalsandra said:

 

Again, he threatened to resign if the military allowed gays to openly serve in the military. 

I find this argument  - that he could 'do more good' - ridiculous based on that alone. 

He said that 30 years ago when it was the consensus view among the military's top brass. Yes it was gross, but it was probably a common and acceptable stance to take at the time. I'm pretty sure most people in their 80's today held views in the past that would be seen as shameful through today's lens. 

[Kalbear]

33 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

He said that 30 years ago when it was the consensus view among the military's top brass. Yes it was gross, but it was probably a common and acceptable stance to take at the time. I'm pretty sure most people in their 80's today held views in the past that would be seen as shameful through today's lens. 

That's fine! Apparently 'gays in the military' was something he could not deal with, but 'invading a country on a lie' was something he would be fine with. 

[Ormond]

Here is a link to the Advocate's article on Powell and his connections with the gays on the military issue:

https://www.advocate.com/news/2021/10/18/colin-powell-dies-supporter-then-critic-dont-ask-dont-tell

A couple of relevant paragraphs:

Quote

 

In 2010, when President Barack Obama floated the idea of reviewing DADT with an eye to repeal, Powell, by then a private citizen, endorsed the plan. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman had said they supported Obama’s proposal.

“In the almost 17 years since the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ legislation was passed, attitudes and circumstances have changed,” Powell said in a statement to The New York Times, adding, “I fully support the new approach presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee this week by Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen.” 

 

So he did change his mind on that, too, and he claimed that his original opposition wasn't because of personal feelings but because of where he thought the national consensus on the issue was and how that would affect the workings of the military. I think he was wrong about that, but he was certainly correct that in the 17 years between the initiation of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and its repeal that the attitudes of the general public had shifted a great deal. 

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Here is a link to the Advocate's article on Powell and his connections with the gays on the military issue:

https://www.advocate.com/news/2021/10/18/colin-powell-dies-supporter-then-critic-dont-ask-dont-tell

A couple of relevant paragraphs:

So he did change his mind on that, too, and he claimed that his original opposition wasn't because of personal feelings but because of where he thought the national consensus on the issue was and how that would affect the workings of the military. I think he was wrong about that, but he was certainly correct that in the 17 years between the initiation of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and its repeal that the attitudes of the general public had shifted a great deal. 

Again, my point was that he was willing to resign over gays in the military and not do that over killing Iraqis for a lie. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

43 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

Again, my point was that he was willing to resign over gays in the military and not do that over killing Iraqis for a lie. 

You’re leaving out a fair bit of context though. First, the two events were separated by over a decade. When you go back and read other quotes of his from the early 90’s it appears that he personally didn’t think lifting the ban would cause the same type of problems others were saying it would. He also wasn’t the only one threatening to resign. It was the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. Threatening to resign over the issue was wrong, but he was acting in line with his peers and society writ large was still pretty homophobic at the time. With regards to not threatening to resign over Iraq and misleading the public, it’s pretty clear he had reservations about it and afterwards deeply regretted his actions. And we have to keep consider the overall mindset at the time in government. Everyone was afraid and that caused a lot of bad decisions to be made. That’s not a justification for what happened, but it’s still important to consider. Powell ultimately didn’t resign because he thought it was his duty to help the President even if he didn’t entirely agree with him.

[Larry of the Lawn]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You’re leaving out a fair bit of context though. First, the two events were separated by over a decade. When you go back and read other quotes of his from the early 90’s it appears that he personally didn’t think lifting the ban would cause the same type of problems others were saying it would. He also wasn’t the only one threatening to resign. It was the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. Threatening to resign over the issue was wrong, but he was acting in line with his peers and society writ large was still pretty homophobic at the time. With regards to not threatening to resign over Iraq and misleading the public, it’s pretty clear he had reservations about it and afterwards deeply regretted his actions. And we have to keep consider the overall mindset at the time in government. Everyone was afraid and that caused a lot of bad decisions to be made. That’s not a justification for what happened, but it’s still important to consider. Powell ultimately didn’t resign because he thought it was his duty to help the President even if he didn’t entirely agree with him.

This is a bullshit excuse / rationalization.  We're supposed to cut him some slack because he was scared?  Of a thread that he knew didn't exist?  Come on man, why are you even bothering?  Doing the wrong thing when you know it's wrong is still terrible.  Dude lied and carried water for the war mongers.  

I don't see how that's functionally any better than Rumsfeld or Cheney.  

I don't understand why the time gap matters re: things that would make him resign.  The context doesn't matter because the point doesn't rely on the intricacies of his calculus behind potentially resigning over gays in the military.  

[Kalbear]

29 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You’re leaving out a fair bit of context though. First, the two events were separated by over a decade.

All I'm saying is what he's willing to resign over. The context doesn't matter in the least. 

29 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

With regards to not threatening to resign over Iraq and misleading the public, it’s pretty clear he had reservations about it and afterwards deeply regretted his actions.

Not enough to threaten to do anything about it though

29 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And we have to keep consider the overall mindset at the time in government. Everyone was afraid and that caused a lot of bad decisions to be made. That’s not a justification for what happened, but it’s still important to consider. Powell ultimately didn’t resign because he thought it was his duty to help the President even if he didn’t entirely agree with him.

Sure, sure - I'm sure it makes a lot of sense that he  doesn't want to help the POTUS with dealing with the army having gay troops

[Week]

Man, the Dick Cheney grave pissing better be a deluge of several threads after this. A lot of smoke for someone who had some good, a lot of bad, and a lot of other folks that are equally or more responsible for the bad.

I don't disagree but Jesus it is a bit much for one man folks.

[Larry of the Lawn]

14 minutes ago, Week said:

Man, the Dick Cheney grave pissing better be a deluge of several threads after this. A lot of smoke for someone who had some good, a lot of bad, and a lot of other folks that are equally or more responsible for the bad.

I don't disagree but Jesus it is a bit much for one man folks.

He's been discussed, among other things, over the course of four pages so far.  What's the right amount?

Also, kind of a slow news cycle, plus Ty is involved in the conversation, so that's going increase it's duration by at least 50%.  

[DMC]

1 hour ago, 1066 Larry said:

I don't see how that's functionally any better than Rumsfeld or Cheney.

I don't understand this logic.  The guy privately questioning the wisdom of invasion, the credibility of the intelligence, and insisting on international cooperation is the same as the guys engineering the war that he's arguing against?  Again, there is no excuse for him going along with the bullshit intelligence and making that speech, but how far does this equality of responsibility due to complicity go?  The rest of the cabinet?  What about the 110 Democratic MCs that voted for the AUMF?  Hell, how about the 195 Democratic MCs that voted for the Patriot Act?

As Week said, this castigation is really getting overboard - as is comparing Colin Powell to the likes of Goering and Bormann because he made a bullshit speech.

[Larry of the Lawn]

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't understand this logic.  The guy privately questioning the wisdom of invasion, the credibility of the intelligence, and insisting on international cooperation is the same as the guys engineering the war that he's arguing against?  Again, there is no excuse for him going along with the bullshit intelligence and making that speech, but how far does this equality of responsibility due to complicity go?  The rest of the cabinet?  What about the 110 Democratic MCs that voted for the AUMF?  Hell, how about the 195 Democratic MCs that voted for the Patriot Act?

As Week said, this castigation is really getting overboard - as is comparing Colin Powell to the likes of Goering and Bormann because he made a bullshit speech.

Guy who was in a position to do something [to prevent what] he allegedly disagreed with, instead backs the lies and position he allegedly disagreed with, and advocates for war to the international community.  

He's did nothing to stop it.  That's what I meant by "functionally no better than".  I must have missed the Goering and Bormann comments.  

You're not going to get any argument out of me that all those Dem MOC's suck ass for either the Patriot Act or the AUMF.

Re: bolded.  But...

if there's no excuse then why is there all this equivocation around it?  

[DMC]

1 minute ago, 1066 Larry said:

He's did nothing to stop it.  That's what I meant by "functionally no better than".  I must have missed the Goering and Bormann comments.  

You're not going to get any argument out of me that all those Dem MOC's suck ass for either the Patriot Act or the AUMF.

Re: bolded.  But...

if there's no excuse then why is there all this equivocation around it?  

He did try to stop it, privately.   Does he still deserve blame and responsibility for not resigning and agreeing to make that speech?  Yes, obviously.  But it's also obvious that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz deserve more responsibility and blame for the push to war - not to mention the conduct therein.  Just as Powell deserves more responsibility/blame than the Dem MCs that voted for the AUMF.  As for "equivocation," I can't speak for anyone else, but allowing for context and nuance is not the same as equivocation.

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

He did try to stop it, privately.   Does he still deserve blame and responsibility for not resigning and agreeing to make that speech?  Yes, obviously.  But it's also obvious that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz deserve more responsibility and blame for the push to war - not to mention the conduct therein.  Just as Powell deserves more responsibility/blame than the Dem MCs that voted for the AUMF.  As for "equivocation," I can't speak for anyone else, but allowing for context and nuance is not the same as equivocation.

Fair enough- I just don't think there's much "nuance" once you're on the spectrum of supporting a war that you know is bullshit.

I'm going to disagree on the "tried to stop it privately" part.  Either you try to stop something or you don't.  

That'd be like if your friend is like, "hey, I'm gonna murder this guy" and you reply "hey man, I don't think you should do that", and then you help him plan it and cover it up anyway.  

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, 1066 Larry said:

Fair enough- I just don't think there's much "nuance" once you're on the spectrum of supporting a war that you know is bullshit.

I'm going to disagree on the "tried to stop it privately" part.  Either you try to stop something or you don't.  

Again, my issue is the equality of responsibility claim.  Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz (and Dubya of course) are clearly the people primarily responsible for pushing for war - as well as cooking up and disseminating the bullshit intelligence to sell it.  Powell's role is comparatively inconsequential - precisely because he tried to fight against that faction, lost, and shamefully went along with it anyway.

[Larry of the Lawn]

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

Again, my issue is the equality of responsibility claim.  Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz (and Dubya of course) are clearly the people primarily responsible for pushing for war - as well as cooking up and disseminating the bullshit intelligence to sell it.  Powell's role is comparatively inconsequential - precisely because he tried to fight against that faction, lost, and shamefully went along with it anyway.

Ok, I will completely concede that Powell is not quite as responsible as Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld for the Iraq war.  

I'd also posit that whatever qualifies as "tried to fight against that faction" is 100% meaningless when he not only went along with it, but sold it to the rest of the world.  

If you tried to fight against something but ended up supporting it, you probably didn't really fight against it in any meaningful way.  

[DMC]

1 minute ago, 1066 Larry said:

Ok, I will completely concede that Powell is not quite as responsible as Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld for the Iraq war. 

I'd say the gap is considerably more than "not quite," but ok, basically we agree.  To employ your murder analogy from the last response, yes - maybe it's just me - but I blame the person that actually committed the murder significantly more responsible than the person who was an accessory to the murder.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, 1066 Larry said:

This is a bullshit excuse / rationalization.  We're supposed to cut him some slack because he was scared?  Of a thread that he knew didn't exist?  Come on man, why are you even bothering?  Doing the wrong thing when you know it's wrong is still terrible.  Dude lied and carried water for the war mongers.  

No, it's not. It's important to understand what was driving a lot of actions that took place while also saying it doesn't justify the actions. People in the government were on high alert and were damned to not let another attack happen on their watch. This led to a lot of shitty behavior. It in no way justifies a lot of what went on, but it does help to better understand it.

Powell, to my knowledge, didn't know a threat didn't exist. He was just skeptical while everyone around him was acting like it was a sure thing. And yes he did lie, or at least exaggerate the threat, and it's tarnished his legacy forever as it should. That does not however make him out to be the same kind of monster as those around him.

Quote

I don't see how that's functionally any better than Rumsfeld or Cheney.  

DMC answered this.

Quote

I don't understand why the time gap matters re: things that would make him resign.  The context doesn't matter because the point doesn't rely on the intricacies of his calculus behind potentially resigning over gays in the military.  

Because people are allowed time to grow. In both instances Powell did what you would hope any person would do, learn from their mistakes, admit to them, and try to help others not make the same ones they did.

My real annoyance is the heavy-handed responses people are writing and saying, here and elsewhere. I don't like that a lot of people are talking about what a great guy he was while treating his speech like a speedbump, but please, at the same time stop pretending like his life story is just that speech and his time in the Administration while equating him to the worst actors in Bush's government when he clearly was trying to be the voice of reason in the room. 

2 hours ago, Kalsandra said:

Not enough to threaten to do anything about it though

Again, what could he actually have done to stop anything? His speech didn't start the war, he had no ability to stop it and if he resigned he would have just been replaced by a sycophant.