Sun

19

Oct

2008

The Bagman Cometh: Obama Embraces War Criminal's Endorsement
Tweet me!
Written by Chris Floyd   

Come, let's away to prison:
We two alone will sing like birds i' the cage:
When thou dost ask me blessing, I'll kneel down,
And ask of thee forgiveness: so we'll live,
And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh
At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues
Talk of court news; and we'll talk with them too,
Who loses and who wins; who's in, who's out;
And take upon's the mystery of things,
As if we were God's spies: and we'll wear out,
In a wall'd prison, packs and sects of great ones,
That ebb and flow by the moon.

I.
Democratic Party circles are in raptures over Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama. One can see the heavily-blinkered logic behind their elation; now that our national politics has been reduced to a petty squabble over spoils among shifting factions in the imperial court, a nod from a consummate courtier like Powell is indeed a glittering prize for an ambitious prince.

But out in the real world, where the operations of imperial power have left smoking trails of murder and ruin across the globe, the "endorsement" of a man who played an indispensable role in the slaughter of more than a million innocent people in a war of Hitlerian aggression should be regarded as a thing of shame, and vociferously rejected by anyone with a scintilla of honor or morality.

In fact, it is not too much of a stretch to say that Colin Powell is more responsible for the mass murder spree in Iraq than any other person except George W. Bush, who gave the actual order for the hit. For it was Powell who "made the sale" for the Bush Faction's deceitful warmongering campaign, with his infamous February 2003 presentation to the UN, laying out the false evidence about Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction. After that farrago of artfully delivered lies, the American Establishment -- urged on by the fawning, bloodthirsty commentariat -- lined up solidly behind the war. After all, if Colin Powell -- so "reasonable," so "honorable," so "honest" and "bipartisan" -- stood foursquare behind the Bush case for war, then it must be ironclad.

This was, again, the logic of courtiers, with little connection to reality. Powell's reputation as a wise, moderate, impartial statesman -- the very thing that made him the most effective shill for the war crime in Iraq -- was itself almost entirely a fiction. By the time he made his shameless UN appearance, Powell had already spent almost four decades as a bagman -- and frontman -- for some of the most vicious and ugly elements in American politics and government. From the My Lai massacre to Iran-Contra, from Washington's long and murderous collusion with Saddam to its long and murderous campaigns to remove him, Powell has been instrumental in perpetrating or covering up atrocities and abominations on a gigantic scale. [For details, see Robert Parry's investigation, "The Truth About Colin Powell."]

Since his departure from the Administration -- after staying on long enough to see Bush reconfirmed in power -- Powell and his legion of apologists have peddled the myth that he was "stabbed in the back" in his UN presentation: given a false bill of goods with assurances they were true, misled and manipulated by incompetent intelligence analysts and Machiavellian White House insiders, etc., etc. Such stories may help Powell sleep better at night, and they have certainly helped rehabilitate his fictional reputation to the extent that his endorsement is once more considered a worthy prize. But they suffer from one small defect: they are blatantly false.

Powell knew -- knew beyond a shadow of a doubt -- that he was offering rank lies, cooked intelligence and dubious assertion to the world at his UN presentation before the war. Earlier this year, Jonathan Schwarz provided a devastating demolition of Powell's UN testimony, showing how it was belied at almost every point by the actual intelligence reports -- which Powell had read before the presentation. Powell knew the case for war against Iraq was riddled with holes -- holes patched with outright fabrications and the knowing manipulation of data. He presented it anyway; he made the sale. And a million innocent human beings have died for it.

II.
But Powell was selling aggression against Iraq long before his UN fan-dance in February 2003. In fact, he was the mouthpiece that the Administration used in May 2002 -- even before the White House began to "roll out the product" of a concentrated warmongering campaign -- to signal Washington's firm intent to invade Iraq even if UN inspectors went into the country and found no weapons of mass destruction. The cat of war crime was out of the bag -- and out in open -- in the spring of 2002, and it was Powell who untied the strings.

Here's what I wrote on May 17, 2002, in The Moscow Times:

Quietly, without fanfare, in a bland statement issued by its most "moderate" front man, the Bush Regime crossed another moral Rubicon last week, carrying the once-great republic they have usurped deeper into the blood-soaked mire of international criminality.

The move – committing the United States of America to a policy of Hitlerian military aggression – was little noted at the time. A quick soundbite, maybe, on a couple of the more wonky TV news shows; a brief quote buried somewhere in the thick gray sludge of the "serious" papers. The Regime guaranteed its poison pill would go down sugarcoated by picking Secretary of State Colin Powell as its mouthpiece.

It was a masterstroke of propaganda, really. The former general has long been regarded by the "serious" media on both sides of the Atlantic as a "moderate" maverick on Bush's hard-right team. Liberal commentators praise Powell as a "restraining influence" on more bellicose insiders like Cheney and Rumsfeld, and a wise, guiding hand for a president unschooled in the subtleties of world diplomacy.

It's all a sham, of course. Powell is nothing more than a lifelong bagman for powerful interests. His willingness to play ball, to look the other way, has made him a convenient tool for the some of the most violent and undemocratic forces ever to pollute American society.

His first job on the Inside was an attempted whitewash of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam; it didn't quite work, but he won points for his obfuscatory efforts and went on to a plum job in the crime-ridden Nixon White House. Then came Iran-Contra, the criminal conspiracy of drug-running and terrorism operated directly out of the Reagan-Bush White House. Powell illicitly sent missiles to the terrorist regime of Ayatollah Khomeini, then helped with the ensuing cover-up. For this service, he was made head of the entire U.S. military.

He then directed the illegal American aggression against Panama, when President George H.W. Bush killed hundreds, perhaps thousands of innocent civilians in a hissy fit against his old CIA employee Manuel Noreiga. Powell, like Bush, had long known Noreiga was a murderous drug dealer, but they found him useful, and plied him with plaudits and cash – until Bush needed to prove his tough-guy cojones to Reaganite critics in the Republican Party....

So what better man to announce George W. Bush's adoption of Adolf Hitler's moral code? Powell sat down with the media sycophants on ABC's "This Week" and calmly – moderately – laid out the new doctrine. The subject, of course, was Iraq. The UN was working on a deal that would allow international inspectors back into the country to verify that Saddam Hussein no longer possessed weapons of mass destruction.

These inspections were vital because, as George W. never ceases to remind us, Saddam Hussein is so evil that he "gassed his own people." ...But Junior always omits the inconvenient fact that one year after [the attack], Daddy Bush signed an executive order mandating closer U.S. ties to Saddam's regime. Daddy Bush showered Saddam with endless financial credits and mountains of "dual-use technology" – which the dictator duly used to develop his WMDs – right up until the day before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Needless to say, Powell, as head of Daddy's military, was complicit in this lunatic operation and raised no demur, "moderate" or otherwise.

Flash forward to the present day. Junior Bush is now in the White House. For months, he has threatened military action against Iraq if Hussein fails to verify the destruction of his WMD capacity. (At the same time, of course, Junior undercuts international treaties that would require monitoring of his own biochemical warfare facilities. There's a good reason for that: the Regime is now preparing to develop offensive biochemical weapons, in contravention of international and U.S. law, the Village Voice reports.)

The world braces for another conflagration in the Mesopotamian sands. But then Saddam blinks. He starts talking with the UN. He renounces aggression. He tries to make up with Kuwait. Sooner or later, the inspectors will go back in – no cause for war now, right?

Wrong, Powell told the sycophants last week. The "moderate" secretary said that even if UN inspectors go in and verify compliance, the Bush Regime still "reserves its options" to do anything necessary, including military invasion, to effect a "regime change." Bush himself has already acknowledged that nuclear force is among those "options."

So there it is. The United States now openly claims the right to launch an all-out attack on any nation in the world whose regime it doesn't like – even if that nation is not engaged in active military aggression or terrorism – and even if the mere threat of aggression has been defused by UN monitoring.

No provocation necessary. No legality required. Just a thuggish elite raining death on the world, for profit and power, sowing hatred for the once-great nation they have hijacked – and ensuring more death and terror for its people.

This then is the bloodstained hand that Barack Obama has clasped so warmly, so triumphantly, on his march to power. As for Powell, he has proven himself once more the ultimate courtier. In the latest intramural tussle in the imperial court, his keen and practiced eye has picked out the coming man -- and so he has jettisoned the faction he has served for so long, and latched on to the winning side yet again. (As he did previously for awhile with Bill Clinton.) And why not? Powell has always been a faithful servant of America's militarist empire -- no matter who its temporary manager might be.

Comments (20)add comment

Grandma Jefferson said:

1286
...
Yes Powell is being hailed as the back-up messiah now, washed clean of all his sins, which everybody has forgotten about, if they ever knew about them in the first place.
But it's people like you, Chris, that keep that unhappy, inconvenient truth of Powell's supple prostitution alive, stripped clean of the lying revisionist spin that makes an eager genocidist a saint, and a political whoring of interlocking self-interests "a principled, thoughtful choice."
October 20, 2008

Gandhi said:

0
Several generations of swine
The background link on Powell's military experience in Vietnam makes sobering reading. It shows that the same mentality on the ground and in the corridors of power way back in the 1960s is still very much alive with regards to Iraq.

Powell is just one of many demented old Cold War warriors in the Bush White House who believe the only reason they lost Vietnam was because the dirty f***ing hippies back home wouldn't let them keep killing people. You can draw a straight line from My Lai to Falluja.

How do you make people like that understand the moral repugnance of their twisted logic? Maybe you can't. Millions dead in Vietnam, another million dead in Iraq, and still they insist we just have to "stay the course" until the "mission" is accomplished. But what is that "mission"?

There's the rub. If the true aim of the war in Iraq were to bring peace, democracy and stability to the Iraqi people, men like Powell would realise that their murderous tactics were fundamentally counter-productive. But of course the real aim is to foment hostility as an excuse for a prolongued military presence, with all the opportunities for increased military spending, oil-grabbing, and geo-political meddling that entails.

Why are people like Powell, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Kissinger still walking the halls of power? When will the US people ever purge their political system of such a diseased mind-set?
October 20, 2008 | url

Debbie said:

960
...
Gandhi, I would hazard a guess, that it is unlikely to happen until after the collapse of the US empire, and then, only if we are really lucky.
October 20, 2008

Glenn Condell said:

0
Powell coulda been a contender
'In fact, it is not too much of a stretch to say that Colin Powell is more responsible for the mass murder spree in Iraq than any other person except George W. Bush, who gave the actual order for the hit. For it was Powell who "made the sale" for the Bush Faction's deceitful warmongering campaign, with his infamous February 2003 presentation to the UN, laying out the false evidence about Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction.'

I have always thought Powell one of only two people on earth who could have halted the juggernaut heading toward Iraq in 2002. The other? That fellow courtier Tony Blair. The US had Scheuer and Ritter and Brady Kiesling among others trying to tell people what was really happening, to no avail. No oxygen could be spared for the truth in the home of the brave. The UK had Kathleen Gun and a few others also doing their best to stop what they knew was a war based on what George Galloway called 'a pack of lies' - to no avail. We in Australia had intel officer Andrew Wilkie cop the traitor treatment from all those righteous patriots you never see around the blogs any more, for simply telling it like it was. To no avail.

Nelson Mandela had no effect. Gandhi himself could have made a comeback and he too would have been sent to Coventry for standing in the way. The French were ridiculed by ridiculous people for daring to disagree. You get the feeling Mary mother of God would have copped it too, had she put her 2c worth in.

No, the only two people well placed and powerful enough to have had a decisive effect on the elites required to get Bushco across that line were Mssrs Blair and Powell. They were handed, on a silver ewer, the opportunity to stamp their names on history in gold leaf. They could have OWNED the last 7 years or so had they taken that path, the one that did not involve pats on the head from GWB and holidays with Silvio Berlusconi, lucrative sinecures for life and puff pieces in the same outlets that carried their lies and evasions into millions of living rooms to smooth the path to war. An illegal war, which never bothered them of course, but also a disastrous one, which does bother them, a bit. Not because of the disaster it has been to those at the sharp end, but the disaster it has been to their CVs.

They were in the right place at the right time to make their mark on the world, in such a way no one could ever forget them. They were tested, and they were found wanting. They will be remembered all right, for all the wrong reasons. Which is why we see this nod to Obama - it's like Blair's swanning ineffectually around the Middle East, getting in the way - an attempt to buff the record a tad.

They are two of the best turd polishers in recent history, but a polished turd still stinks to high heaven.
October 20, 2008

Kahoneez said:

1082
Powell should be on trial at the Hague .
Running away from the Bush / Powell invasion of Iraq , based on proven LIES, Powell ? Or is it just another tap dance helping out a brother . Robert Parry exposed this con man for the military industrial complex with a simple and detailed collection of his greatest hits . Out of order , look at the Panama Invasion first , The documentary (Award Winning )"the Panama Deception " says over 2 thousand CIVILIANS died from the bombing , burning of city and a little talked about story .. people in cars , according to witnesses were fried alive by some sort of high tech weaponry and speculation is , the U.S. military were trying out a NEW WEAPON , possibly laser type and coincidently witnesses and doctors in Iraq, say people were also burned with some kind of hight tech weapon at the beginning of the invasion, because their insides were fried , yet cars were virtually undamaged . Colin Was chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , at the time of the illegal and immoral attack on panama .
Add to the bloody list My Lai , covering up for Casper Weinbergger and Iran/contra arms for hostages and the mobile weapons labs he scared most with at the UN was exposed by the Guardian , to be unbelievable the NEXT DAY . For the simple fact Canvas sided trucks would be TOTALLY unsafe and dangerous to produce BIO WEAPONS, to those involved , not to mention too small of centrifuges , illustrates POWELL either never had a Computer or GOOGLE or is a flat out CON MAN .
Who told the Saudis that Saddam was mounting an " invasion of Saudi Arabia " Colin powell , just before the First Gulf Massacre , but unfortunately for him , the St Petersburg Times PROVED by satellite photos obtained , there WERE NO IRAQI troops on the border, another Powell LIE . They got their BASES though , the trick worked .
October 20, 2008

gandhi said:

0
Maybe not
Glenn Condell writes:
They were handed, on a silver ewer, the opportunity to stamp their names on history in gold leaf. They could have OWNED the last 7 years or so had they taken that path...

That may be true for Blair, to some extent, but in Powell's case he probably would have had his name dragged through the mud like every other top US official who has stood up to Bush.

Yes, he could have stopped the invasion. And of course, opposing the war with all his might was the only moral thing to do. But I doubt they would ever have let him come away from that as a hero. There will come a reckoning, Col.

Another thing that bugs me about Powell is how he sat on the truth for such a very, very long time, and then only spoke up once the winds of change were blowing a gale. Some hero! Beh.
October 20, 2008 | url

blue ox babe said:

0
...
The dimmest stars are on the verge of implosion.

The dimmest people believe Barockstar Obamiracle (a/k/a Mandingo the Magnificent) is really the agent of hope and change.

Existentially, they're working toward implosion as well.

Make no mistake about something, people: Obama and Powell serve crucial purposes as "articulate Black men".

1) They are light-skinned, so they don't really evoke the Mandingo fears (hence my use of the name to mock Obama).

2) They behave EXACTLY like Privileged White People in Power, which gives them an air of "respectability" that adds to their "articulate" patois.

3) By virtue of (1) and (2), and their superficial "Black"-ness, they avoid all forms of legitimate cold analytic examination from "liberals" and "progressives," who are so hamstrung by White Guilt that they cannot bring themselves to criticize an Obama or a Powell as strongly as they would criticize a Dubya Bush or Dick Cheney.

Don't believe me?

Try asking a "liberal" white friend (if you have one -- if you don't, use an acquaintance) to tell you of the human flaws, foibles and failings of Barack Obama or Colin Powell.

You won't get a substantive answer. Why?

White Guilt = free pass to the pseudo-Black's ambition.

There's an elephant for a living room. It's not a white elephant. It's mulatto. Because that's what makes White people comfortable -- not too much Blackness. Just a superficial quota. Just an octoroon.
October 20, 2008

blue ox babe said:

0
...
That may be true for Blair, to some extent, but in Powell's case he probably would have had his name dragged through the mud like every other top US official who has stood up to Bush.


gandhi,

I know you're in Australia, so maybe that's how that Aussie press treats things... but your statement doesn't reflect what I see in America. I haven't seen anyone dragged through the mud for standing up to Bush. Why do I say that?

I haven't seen one single person stand up to Bush. Instead I've seen Midget Kucinich make a pretense and charade of opposition on several occasions, with NO follow-through on each occasion.

This isn't about Bush being King. Bush is nothing but a face-man with a misanthropic view toward the 99% of humanity who don't see the world exactly as his stone-bitch mother Barbara and his consigliere father Poppy do. He's a cheerleader from a politically powerful family. That's all. Anyone can criticize him. But nobody in any situation of power in DC is going to do that. Why?

They agree, gandhi.

They agree. Powell agrees with Bush/Cheney. His oath is to the Constitution, not the President. His loyalty as a military man is to the Constitution, not the President. So if he sides with the President, it's a personal choice.

I'm afraid you misread the situation a bit here, gandhi.

And if you have, I'd love to read about the situation(s).
October 20, 2008

arthurdecco said:

1669
...
The Toronto Star today published a laudatory article on Powell's endorsement of Obama. In their "moderated", (read censored), online comments section, I laid out a few of his criminal activities in the service of Power. Not one of my submissions was allowed to be read by their readership. They published plenty of lying drivel in support of this despicable war criminal, but not a single effective counterargument to their propagandistic bilgewater. And they're considered Canada's liberal newspaper!

Shame.

Thank gawd for writers like you, Mr. Floyd.
October 20, 2008

Loveandlight said:

1811
It's so hard to be patriotic these days
As I said in a previous comment, the Democrats have made me turn Green with disappointment! Looking back at all the elections in which I have voted since 1986, I'm amazed it has taken this long and that the Democrats have had to become as craven and complicit as they have for me to make the change. Most rank-and-file Democrats who post comments on liberal blogs espouse Green Party positions, but they've been brainwashed their whole lives into drinking the Democratic Party Kool-Aid.

John Kerry was the begining of the end for yours truly. In 2000, the Left Blogistan narrative said, Bush was able to steal the election a lot more easily because of the "spoiler" role played by Ralph Nader (who I will admit has a rather unpleasant and fractious personality). That's why we had to line up squarely behind John Kerry without question and make every exertion to get him elected and W. unelected. Of course, Howard Dean, while no liberal, would have been a better candidate, but the establishment press crucified him for exhibiting some sophomoric exuberance to reinvigorate his frustrated supporters after his defeat in Iowa in January 2004.

But in a manner all too predictable for every young progressive who has followed presidential elections since 1984, the Democrats chose the most flaccid candidate they possibly could. Kerry's platform contained no opposition to the burgeoning police-state, no systematic health-care reform, and he wasn't even for getting us out of Iraq. But we stood behind him anyway. He ran the most tepid campaign a candidate in such a supposedly crucial election possibly could, mostly sitting on his proverbial hands while the Swift Boat Veterans for Dirty Lies told blatant falsehoods about his military service. The style of his campaign was but a stale rehash of Clinton's 1992 campaign (which Clinton would have lost had it not been for Ross Perot's "spoiler" role, more substantial in 1992 than Nader's ever was in 2000).

The coup de grace was Kerry's refusal to contest Republican voter suppression and electoral fraud, which was so blatant in 2004 that they didn't much bother to conceal the endeavor. And there was not the excuse this time as there had been in 2000 that the Democrats were psychologically unprepared for how far the Republicans were willing to go to take and keep power. One commentator said that John Kerry ran on not being George W. Bush and lost. But he did worse than lose. He made the election close enough for the Republicans to steal by being such a flaccid candidate, then he just let them steal it.

It was at this point that it began to dawn on me that the Democrats just kept relying on the same old failed attitudes and strategies not because they were stupid, it was because they were like the boxer in a "fixed" boxing-match who "takes a dive". The craven complicity of the Democratic Congress elected in 2006 and Obama's voting for the police-state-extending "spy bill" in the summer of this year did the rest.

So when I read here of Colin Powell freely switching from one side to the other over the course of his career in government, I can only observe that he has realized for a very long time what it took me more than twenty years to realize about Demublicans and Republicrats!
October 20, 2008

blue ox babe said:

0
...
Loveandlight,

The "competence" argument doesn't work. I congratulate you on seeing that the Democrats are not effective, but you're citing the wrong reasons. They're not trying to win anything. That's not their purpose. The whole Donkey vs Elephant thing is a ruse, a distraction. American citizens pay attention to the tribalist, Super-Bowl-style of electoral politics, which distracts from the fact that at the Fed Govt level, both the Democrats and Republicans want imperialism and will work cooperatively to achieve it.

It's not because they're weak on strategy. You're just mistaken on what is their strategy, that's all. It's a very short journey from your current awareness to the truth. Examine the situation as I propose it, and I think you'll agree.
October 20, 2008

Loveandlight said:

1811
...
blue ox babe:

I'm pretty sure that's what I meant when I said:

it was because they were like the boxer in a "fixed" boxing-match who "takes a dive".


I have come to realize that fixating on electoral politics the way I did from 2003-2008 was a lot like being one of those people you'll find at workplaces all over the country who are obsessed with one or another "reality show" on network television: Such people need to realize that those situations are every bit as contrived as dramatic portrayals of fictional stories, and you wonder why the blazes they can't see that!
October 20, 2008

FiddlerJones said:

1663
...
Solid comment, blue ox babe. It's true, white Amurrikkka loves us "Pinkies" and "Hi yellas". If Alan Keyes wasn't eggplant in complexion, he'd have been on a Republican ticket years ago. But Obama and Powell passed the "paper bag" test (light, bright, and damn near white), so they're in, na? Of course, their charm doesn't hurt, although it wears pretty thin on those of us from families with a long history of playing that skin game, or "passing", to rise in these here United States. Because I think we all knew it was just a matter of time before the people who own this country found a black man charismatic and fair-skinned enough to "front" for the empire. And now arrives the Gold Child Obama. It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out. I just hope we can stay out of the "correction facilities" the beautiful new age imperialists are going to create to help the more recalcitrant adjust to their brave new world under the ozoneless sky.
October 21, 2008 | url

Alaya said:

0
...
Great post, as usual. I find myself a little astonished at the speed with which certain liberal commentators can apparently forget anything that happened (including WHAT THEY SAID) more than a month before. As though they don't remember their self-righteous condemnation of Powell back when he was in the Most Evil Administration in US History.

But apart from all that, I very much appreciate the King Lear reference. That's a beautiful bit from a play I'd largely forgotten. It made me pause and breathe in the way of all great art. So thanks!
October 21, 2008

laurie said:

0
...
Thank you for this post. It should be required reading.
October 21, 2008 | url

michael coyote said:

1770
Hey Chris
You state that the US was a once great country. When was that?

"We" stole half of Mexico by armed force -- the nice parts with rich deposits of gold and silver (and, as it turned out, oil -- though "we" didn't actually recognize that at the time.)

"We" made sure that "our" influence over Latin America was such that wealth would be steadily transferred from their countries to ours. "We" sent the Marines to Nicaragua, Haiti, & Guatemala often enough to insure that life in those countries would be a permanent living hell for most of the inhabitants. "We" imposed military dictatorships in almost every Central & South American country, stunting the aspirations of their people, & imposing conditions from which some of those countries will never recover. (So if some of the people want to escape from the living conditions in those countries, "we" had very much to do with creating those conditions.)

Interestingly, "we" started doing all this at the same time that "we" were exterminating the indigenous people here, AND using black slaves from Africa. What a loveable, righteous people "we" are, here in the "Land of the Free"!!

"We" came here somewhere in the early 1600s. "We" found this Promised Land, rich beyond imagination with fresh water and fertile earth and abundant game and timber for the felling. And to "our" further delight, it was largely uninhabited--if "we" didn't count the Red Ones.

"We" didn't see too many of them at first; they avoided our noise and the smoke from our fires, which were always too big. But soon enough, "we" were here in such numbers that they couldn't go around us anymore.

"We" were shocked--SHOCKED, I tell ya--that there were Savages in "our" Promised Land! So "we" set about exterminating them. "We" killed them whenever "we" saw them, "we" drove them from their land and their homes, "we" slaughtered their food supply and left the buffalo bodies to rot in the sun by the hundreds of acres. "We" gave them blankets full of smallpox, murdered their children and raped their women before "we" murdered them as well. "We" rounded them up into concentration camps and ate their food while they starved. "We" made them cut their hair, wear britches and beat them to death if they wouldn't speak "our" language.

"We" stole a whole fucking continent from them and paid them in Genocide.

So tell me Chris, what defines a great nation?
October 21, 2008

manitor said:

1796
We do a lot of things that can be considered great.
We prosecute many murders and rapists; we provide rudimentary language education to many children; we...well, compared to the Middle Ages we have many positives. Ah! We also provide medical care and support for some of our elderly and disabled. We provide technology and a marketplace where a small sliver of artists can disseminate their work, albeit through the vehicle of a problematic, exploitative economy. We publicly condemn excessive child-beating and sexual assault; we also publicly condemn racism against certain recognized groups.

Does anyone else have any positives? That's all I can come up with for now.
October 21, 2008 | url

gandhi said:

0
A small handful of dissenters
blue ox babe, I was thinking of people like former Treasury Secretary O'Neill, Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson, Sibel Edmonds and Dan Rather, etc. Of course none of them had Powell's high profile, but the bigger they come...

I agree with your general point, however, and I fully endorse your right (and need) to vent!
October 21, 2008 | url

blue ox babe said:

0
...
gandhi,

I don't think the impacts upon the folks you mention is anything more than political theatre. Which of those you listed stood up to Bush/Cheney, accused them of their actual wrongdoings?

None.

Nobody has stood up to Bush/Cheney. NOBODY.

Dennis Kucinich is the most obnoxious pretender to opposition. As a US Congress member he has a lot of ability to get out the message on Bush/Cheney. He can hold press conferences, he can issue press releases, he can get on the floor of the Congress and read stuff into the CR, he can travel around Ohio -- and maybe around the nation -- talking to people about what he has seen and disclosing the wrongdoings of Bush/Cheney.

He doesn't do that stuff, does he? I mean, does he in any amount, to any extent, that has affected anyone who isn't already a Dennis Kucinich fan?

I haven't seen it myself. Maybe I should spend more time reading Glenn Greenwald, Daily Kos and firedoglake, though.
October 22, 2008

Lenore said:

0
Re: Colin Powell endorsement

You are worried about nothing and the reason I think so is because I have observed and supported Barack since the beginning of the primaries. If you watch the speeches over the past almost 2 years, and read some of his book "The audacity of hope", you will see that his is such an extraordinary intelligence that what he wants and needs is to be surrounded by highly intelligent people, and he doesn't want them to all agree with him. He wants people who disagree to tell him frankly alternate ways of viewing things. He is fully capable of avoiding any "kool aid" sold by any interest group. His priorities (policy wise) are based on his basic values.

He is also expert at listening to people of differing opinions and making them really feel "heard", and also negotiation (NYT article on Barack at Harvard Law Review). But that is another topic.

Please don't worry. Barack knows what he's doing, and Colin Powell is an additional "legitimizer" for Barack. It will help him get elected (a good thing). He can utilize consultations with Powell as little or as much as he wants to when he is president. It might not be so much.

What we need to concentrate on now, this moment, is what we can do to help Barack get elected whather it be a donation, volunteer on his website, or get out the vote organizing.

Wish us all luck!

October 24, 2008 | url

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security image
Write the displayed characters


busy
Last Updated on Monday, 20 October 2008 08:48