|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope
Posted: 10/19/2006 12:58:42 PM | I'm VERY impressed that we have some "right wing" people (as well as whites) speaking so highly of Obama. 
That's the type of thinking the world needs today, and I hope it's a sign of how we can all (worldwide) get out of our little boxes and think in a new way. There are "right wing" politicians I could support too, like McCain and Guilliani. Those men (especially McCain) may have some "skeletons" in their closets, but I see them as men of good character, and as leaders.
It's a question of leadership, and personality, coupled with political vision. The only "right wingers" I have a problem with are those at the extreme right. I'd say the same about the extreme left. To run a society properly, one has to be able to reach concensus across party lines, for the good of all. The essential strength of democracy is ensuring everyone wins and loses together, and that (at the end of the day) life for most people in that society is made better.
Extremists on either side, as leaders, will almost certainly fail if placed into power. Their power, typically, is derived from "demonizing" the opposition - and not working together with it. | |
|
| Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope
Posted: 10/19/2006 1:51:18 PM | Cavalier,
I know Warner is questionable on illegal immigration but I believe he's be better on the issue than Obama for my previous stated reasons with the law he passed in virginia(don't think Obama would pass a law like that). Sure, Warner could have done alot more and I wish he had but he's done more than other democrats have done. He seems to currently be the best democrat who could win his parties nomination if he did run. There are better democrats out there, but I don't think they could win their parties nomination.
And it seems as if you did not even read my previous post because I said that once illegals cannot find work here and they cannot get welfare, most will self-deport. No need to, as you would say, pack them all up in freight cars and ship them back across the border. I do feel that police should still be able to check legal status of people they arrest, so that illegals who commit crimes will get deported over time(after the job magnet is removed and the welfare magnet is removed). Right now most police are not allowed to check legal status of those they arrest for crimes. And I am not advocating police go specifically searching for illegals.
And no, Obama does not closely mirror my own positions on illegal immigration. He matches my views in other areas, but not this one and this is one area I will not give him(or any other candidate)a pass on. It would be nice to have a minority president for the first time ever, but I can't support him because of this. On his website, his smooth talk may sound good, but if you read the links I provided below about the senate bill dealing with illegal imigration that you said he helped craft, you'll find out there are serious problems with it. You say Im the uninformed one, when really I feel the reverse is true.
You are falling for the tough talk that Bush, rove, McCain and most democrats including Obama would love you to fall for with the senate amnesty bill that was passed earlier this year. The House of representatives passed a better bill(which got support from more democrats in the house than you might expect) which would have focused on enforcement first. It wasn't perfect, but it was far better than the senate bill.
The senate immigration reform bill is really a joke. Illegals would not even have to pay all back taxes and it would actually encourage more illegal immigration because they know they could break the law, sneak in here and stay here until the next amnesty bill is passed, and also legal immigration would be drastically increased with this bill. I support legal immigration, but in sane numbers.
Here is a letter one angry citizen sent to his senator who voted for the senate bill you think is so great
A letter sent to a Senator:
The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes
309 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC, 20510
Dear Senator Sarbanes:
As a native Marylander and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Immigration and Naturalization Service in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.
My reasons for wishing to change my status from U.S. citizen to illegal alien stem from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, what I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years.
I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.
Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year, so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of the last five years taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively?
This would yield an excellent return for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005 and I estimated a gross savings approximating $72,000. After the fine this would yield me a net savings of $70,000.
In addition, I would reap the other benefits of being an illegal alien such as free health care, avoidance of paying Social Security taxes, buying automobile insurance, serving on jury panels, etc. If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative.
Thank you for your assistance.
Your Loyal Constituent
Glenn O.
Here also are some links to check out that explain why the senate "comprehensive immigration reform bill" is a bad idea meant to fool people.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell052306.asp
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell052406.asp
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell052506.asp
I don't like Worldnetdaily because of their anti-liberal ads on their site, but they sometimes have good articles on the subject of illegal immigration so here is a link to check out
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50050
To find out more about the author of the above article, go here http://www.diversityalliance.org/docs/DASA-BoardBios.html | |
|
| Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope
Posted: 10/19/2006 2:10:36 PM |
The only "right wingers" I have a problem with are those at the extreme right. I'd say the same about the extreme left.
Agreed 100% MG. As a moderate I am kicked to the curb in this tug of war.
But as a moderate, I wont be reading his book, nor anyone elses book for that matter. Nor will I be swayed by rave reviews on this forum from it, because it is only posted here to fit into someones agenda. A great example is this quote from post# 3 of this very thread :
My hat's off to you RWG. I have to admit I seldom read stuff written by those on the other side, so you're more open minded than I am.
I reserve my judgement to see who cuts their fellow party members' throats during the run-up to the primary caucus/nomination. Then I watch and see who slaps who on the back afterwards as though they were lifelong pals. That tells me all I need to know where they stand. | |
|
| Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope
Posted: 10/19/2006 4:21:26 PM | "Kudos to you, RWGG, for stepping outside your box. Well done."
Indeed!! Forgot to add that to my post.
(See? Obama is ALREADY bringing the two sides together!!  ) | |
|
| Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope
Posted: 10/19/2006 4:23:08 PM | | If Obama runs in 08, he will then be older than Bill Clinton was when Clinton was elected, he will have more experience than John Kennedy and he has the best shot of winning and bringing the country back together. I am not sure why people think he is young. He is not nor is he inexperienced. | |
|
| Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope
Posted: 10/19/2006 5:29:32 PM | Just an example of his rhetorical ability, and clarity of thought. If you read it , ask yourself if it's "liberal" or "conservative" in it's expression of beliefs.
I think the honest answer is neither, and that's a good basic test for a good political speech. He cuts across "party lines" , and builds on common ground. That's leadership, in my books.
You know, a while back -- awhile back I met a young man named Shamus in a V.F.W. Hall in East Moline, Illinois. He was a good-looking kid -- six two, six three, clear eyed, with an easy smile. He told me he’d joined the Marines and was heading to Iraq the following week. And as I listened to him explain why he’d enlisted, the absolute faith he had in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and service, I thought this young man was all that any of us might ever hope for in a child.
But then I asked myself, "Are we serving Shamus as well as he is serving us?"
I thought of the 900 men and women -- sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and neighbors, who won’t be returning to their own hometowns. I thought of the families I’ve met who were struggling to get by without a loved one’s full income, or whose loved ones had returned with a limb missing or nerves shattered, but still lacked long-term health benefits because they were Reservists.
When we send our young men and women into harm’s way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they’re going, to care for their families while they’re gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world.
Now -- Now let me be clear. Let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued. And they must be defeated.
"The Audacity of Hope"
Barack Obama: 2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/barackobama2004dnc.htm
Now that speech was given at a Democratic Party convention, but it's message (for the most part) is a very "American" one that speaks of American values that no one party owns. | |
|
dmotz
|
Joined: 7/25/2006
Msg: 33 | |
| |
dmotz
|
Joined: 7/25/2006
Msg: 34 | |
| Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope
Posted: 10/19/2006 5:35:57 PM | Hey folks....
You have all heard me go after certain liberals on other posts, just as some of you have gone after Bush and other NEOCONS.
What gets me is this....How ....anybody can not look at Obama and see a good man with great ideas is silly. We have to stop going along with our party lines and for once...put in a person who can do the job based on his track record. Is obama perfect? No...but in the pool of wanna be`s... he IS the only one who stands out as honest. No ghosts in his closet folks...nothing but a simple man who worked his way to the US SENATE.
He already has more experience than Clinton, Bush, Carter and Kennedy..I say...give the man a chance..we may end up on top again.
At the end of the day, I will still be a Republican...but that does not mean I can not see a good man when I see one. | |
|
| Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope
Posted: 10/19/2006 7:03:10 PM | That's awesome Rightwingguy
I've been a megafan of Obama since 04 and made a $250 bet last year that he will be pres. by 12. He has amazing integrity. He is a natural born leader who would be a huge benefit to our country in so many ways. I'm glad to hear so much in his favor. | |
|
| Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope
Posted: 10/19/2006 7:28:24 PM | RWGG has this one as right as can be. This is a leader and it makes no difference what party he belongs to, what color he is or his country of origon. I am sure many supporters of previous candiddates felt the same way about who they supported in the past. But even look at this thread and how many people of diverse political beliefs could support this guy. We do not have leadership in this country and we desperately need it. I think this guy, the skinny black kid with the funny name as he once called himself, is the best shot we have. If he runs, he has my vote. You know we can all email his senate office and ask him to run.
I have not read the book but I understand he writes well too. Would that not be a breath of fresh air? | |
|
dmotz
|
Joined: 7/25/2006
Msg: 37 | |
| Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope
Posted: 10/19/2006 7:44:13 PM | | I say we send him an e-mail.....I am. We need this guy in Washinton....He will have my vote if he runs.... | |
|
| Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope
Posted: 10/19/2006 8:22:09 PM | RWGG,
I emailed him already. You and I are in this together. Look at it this way, if we are wrong then we are both wrong. LOL. | |
|
| Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope
Posted: 10/19/2006 8:50:26 PM | Lookin' for a Leader
To bring our country home
Re-unite the red white and blue
Before it turns to stone
Lookin' for somebody
Young enough to take it on
Clean up the corruption
And make the country strong
Walkin' among our people
There's someone who's straight and strong
To lead us from desolation
And a broken world gone wrong
Someone walks among us
And I hope he hears the call
And maybe it's a woman
Or a black man after all
Yeah maybe it's Obama
But he thinks that he's too young
Maybe it's Colin Powell
To right what he's done wrong
America has a leader
But he's not in the house
He's walking here among us
And we've got to seek him out
Yeah we've got our election
But corruption has a chance
We got to have a clean win
To regain confidence
America is beautiful
But she has an ugly side
We're lookin' for a leader
In this country far and wide
We're lookin' for a leader
With the great spirit on his side
Someone walks among us
And I hope he hears the call
And maybe it's a woman
Or a black man after all
"Looking For A Leader"
- Neil Young
Maybe a song we can all sing together ?
Someone like Colin Powell is another guy who, even as a Republican, could easily get my support - simply based on his character.
He really made an impression on me when he walked away from this administration, when he ( and all of us) realizes how much of a contribution he could make to the issues at hand.
The easiest thing would have been to stay, and play the game.
That's a very rare trait for a politician to have.
We no longer have the luxury, worldwide, to simply ignore good people because of any labels we place on them. | |
|
| Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope
Posted: 10/20/2006 1:18:50 AM | Rightwinggoodguy,
I am just curious, if you discovered Obama supported the SPP and the NAU would you still back him so strongly? I recall in another thread you said those 2 things "scare the heck out of you". | |
|
| Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope
Posted: 10/20/2006 6:07:46 AM | redwood,
So even though you agree w/ Obama in many areas.......you would not vote for him just because of his immigration stance. You would deny all the potential good he could do over your pet issue. Look at the big picture. You will find no candidate whom you agree with on every issue. Suppose you find a candidate who is in step with you on immigration but almost nothing else. Still going to vote for him?
I'm glad you feel so strongly about this issue. If more people felt as deeply about how our government should be run as you do, we'd all be better off. That being said........I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you allow yourself to not consider this man's merits as a whole.
I assume, in the above post, that you are reffering to the Security and Prosperity Partnership? There is a whole lot of mis-information regarding this issue floating around the net and especially here on pof.
"-Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.
Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.
Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.
Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.
Myth: The SPP is being undertaken without the knowledge of the U.S. Congress.
Fact: U.S. agencies involved with SPP regularly update and consult with members of Congress on our efforts and plans.
Myth: The SPP infringes on the sovereignty of the United States.
Fact: The SPP respects and leaves the unique cultural and legal framework of each of the three countries intact. Nothing in the SPP undermines the U.S. Constitution. In no way does the SPP infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.
Myth: The SPP is illegal and violates the Constitution.
Fact: The SPP is legal and in no way violates the Constitution or affects the legal authorities of the participating executive agencies. Indeed, the SPP is an opportunity for the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico to discuss common goals and identify ways to enhance each nation’s security and prosperity. If an action is identified, U.S. federal agencies can only operate within U.S. law to address these issues. The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP. If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.
Myth: The SPP will cost U.S. taxpayers money.
Fact: The SPP is being implemented with existing budget resources. Over the long-term, it will save U.S. taxpayers money by cutting through costly red tape and reducing redundant paperwork. This initiative will benefit the taxpayers through economic gain and increased security, thereby enhancing the competitiveness and quality of life in our countries.
Myth: The working groups and SPP documents are a secret and not available to the public.
Fact: The SPP’s initiatives and milestones with timelines can be found by clicking the Report to Leaders link at www.spp.gov. The Web site contains a section to enable interested persons to provide input directly to the various working groups.
Myth: The SPP seeks to lower U.S. standards through a regulatory cooperation framework.
Fact: The framework will support and enhance cooperation and encourage the compatibility of regulations among the three partners while maintaining high standards of health and safety. Enhanced cooperation in this area will provide consumers with more affordable, safer, and more diversified and innovative products. Any regulatory changes will require agencies to conform to all U.S. administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.
Myth: The SPP is meant to deal with immigration reform and trade disputes.
Fact: Immigration reform is a legislative matter currently being debated in Congress and is not being dealt with in the SPP. Likewise, trade disputes between the United States, Canada, and Mexico are resolved in the NAFTA and WTO mechanisms and not the SPP.
Myth: The SPP will result in the loss of American jobs.
Fact: The SPP seeks to create jobs by reducing transaction costs and unnecessary burdens for U.S. companies, which will bolster the competitiveness of our firms globally. These efforts will help U.S. manufacturers, spur job creation, and benefit consumers.
Myth: The SPP will harm our quality of life.
Fact: The SPP improves the safety and well-being of Americans. It builds on efforts to protect our environment, improves our ability to combat infectious diseases, such as avian influenza, and ensures our food supply is safe through the exchange of information and cooperation ─ improving the quality of life for U.S. citizens. Americans enjoy world class living standards because we are engaged with the world.
Myth: The SPP creates a NAFTA-plus legal status between the three countries.
Fact: The SPP does not seek to rewrite or renegotiate NAFTA. It creates no NAFTA-plus legal status."-spp.gov
You're just looking for a reason not to like him.........sure it's not something else? | |
|
dmotz
|
Joined: 7/25/2006
Msg: 42 | |
| Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope
Posted: 10/20/2006 6:29:41 AM | Redwood....
Lets see...the SPP..NAU....yea..they could be issues. Issues we could have some control over if they come to pass...The people of all 3 nations will not allow something like this.
This is something that does bother me...But not as much as a war that we should not have been in....Big business running the damn nation...not the people....Neocons getting richer off my back and yours. How about we get some new blood from both parties in washington...Get rid of big business...lobbyists throwing money around like it grows on trees....
I will always be a Republican Redwood...I just hope to be one that learns from the other side of the isle...someone who will not tow the party line on issues I do not agree with.
Face the facts my friend....Put all the wannabe`s in the same room....measure their integrity and honesty....all put togather... thay do not even come close to Obama.... | |
|
| |
| Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope
Posted: 10/20/2006 6:59:25 AM | ^^^ Now THERE is a ticket I'd get off my duff and campaign for!!!!
All but a dream, though. But man, what a great change that would make to this country. | |
|
dmotz
|
Joined: 7/25/2006
Msg: 45 | |
| Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope
Posted: 10/20/2006 7:04:02 AM | Ok MG...DAMNIT....
You have opened a whole new can of worms.....Both Obama and Powell are awesome...both have integrity and principals....Having met Powell and talking to him for about an hour when he was Chairman of the joint Chiefs...(I was in the Army, and it was a true honor to meet him)...which one for Pres? LOL  | |
|
| Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope
Posted: 10/20/2006 7:24:59 AM | I would not vote for Powell.
The way he let himself be used by the Bush administration to go against his own doctrine of foreign military engagements after Viet Nam and the way he helped mislead the American people with falsified photos before the first gulf war and lying to the world about the photos before the invasion.
We've paid enough for Powell's character problems already.
Black's not the issue here. It's integrity. People know how to talk, how to get a response from others when they talk. They know how most of us feel and God knows they get enough practice talking about it, feeling us out... so they know how to look "good"; but when you look at what they DO and they've done what Powell has: enough is enough.
Big character problem.  | |
|
| Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope
Posted: 10/20/2006 8:11:23 AM | | I have to agree with Anti on this, Obama is an amazing man from what I have read and learned of him. Powell, Powell is a disappointment. He is an intelligent man that has saddly sold himself and his honor too many times to the most expedient way to power. He failed to take stands where and when he should have on more then one occasion. I respect Powell's intelligence and ability, but I cannot trust him anymore he sold his soul to the devil as it were. Perhaps he thought he could mello Bush, but in the end Bush brought him down below any level of credibility needed to restore this nation. | |
|
| Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope
Posted: 10/20/2006 8:16:33 AM | Another scandal about Powell before he even came to Washington: he helped try to cover up the My Lai massacre. This was probably got his "Pentagon Mafia ticket to Washington" stamped...
Most people don't know how that "Invisible Empire" (does this sound like the Klan? It certainly is very much like that in some ways... covering up the My Lai massacre and protecting the "thin green line" certainly is. they don't like whistle blowers, that's for dam sure! Remember the "Swiftvets"?)
...and people wonder why Clinton wouldn't let military men wear their uniforms in the White House...
(EDIT)
V I'll go anywhere I need to go. There's no reason to cover things up. Let's bring them out where we can judge.
Clinton didn't do anything but get a student deferment as far as I know.
Do you have information I don't?
That wouldn't be any reason to have the regulation that he did, in my estimation.
I don't doubt your veracity, RWG... but I don't accept that way of looking at things.
There IS a thin green line and Powell DID try to cover up My Lai:
http://www.usvetdsp.com/story13.htm
"...As an Army officer, Powell's superiors considered him a consummate "team player." They could count on Powell to haul their water despite any contradictory feelings he may have had. Powell's blind loyalty was demonstrated during a second tour in Vietnam (1968-1969), where as deputy assistant chief of staff for operations G-3 at Americal Division headquarters in Chu Lai, he was asked to handle a potentially embarrassing letter a young soldier had written to Gen. Creighton Abrams, commander of all U.S. forces in Vietnam.
The soldier had written about rumors of a massacre that Americal Division soldiers had committed in the hamlet of My Lai 4 in South Vietnam. Although he did not mention My Lai in the letter, the soldier complained that Americal soldiers were indiscriminately killing Vietnamese civilians. Such acts, the young soldier warned, "are carried on at entire unit levels and thereby acquire the aspect of sanctioned policy."
Several days after he received a copy of the letter, Powell sent a memo to his superior, the adjutant general, making the outrageous claim that the young soldier had not given enough specifics upon which to base an inquiry. The purposely blind Powell said the soldier's charges were false except for "isolated instances." He wrote that "relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese are excellent." Powell's damage control efforts soon proved fruitless and the My Lai massacre burst onto the world stage like an atomic explosion, severely damaging the U.S. war effort in Vietnam. On the orders of Lt. William Calley, soldiers from the U.S. Army Americal Division had indeed indiscriminantly gunned down an entire village of men, women and children.
Although Powell's attempt to cover up the massacre was unsuccessful, he had at least proven his willingness to do what was necessary to please his bosses. For his two tours of duty in Vietnam, Powell, who was never exposed to serious combat, was awarded the Purple Heart for a minor foot wound he received after stepping on a "punji stick." He was later awarded a Bronze Star for heroism and the Soldiers Medal for pulling two men free from a non-combat related helicopter crash.
After returning from Vietnam, the ambitious young officer attended George Washington University, courtesy of the Army, and received an MBA degree. A year later, in 1972, Powell was one of 17 persons hand picked by Washington insiders from more than 1,500 military and civilian applicants for White House fellowships. He was assigned to work for Frank Carlucci, who was at that time deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Casper Weinberger, budget director. The two became Powell's champions in Washington's power circles.
Powell was just beginning to earn his degree in political treachery studying under Carlucci and Weinberger when President Richard Nixon made a politically convenient decision to ignore high level intelligence which told of large numbers of American prisoners of war being held back as hostages by the communist Vietnamese and their Laotian puppets after the war ended. Nixon's decision to declare all "missing" Americans dead caused a controversy which has plagued Washington decision makers to this day.
From his first days in Washington, Powell spent the majority of his military service working as an aide to his mentors. He rose rapidly through the military ranks, carefully getting his "ticket punched" with the right assignments and making the right contacts. He became a thoroughbred Washington insider in a military uniform.
In 1977, during the Carter administration, Powell, now on the fast track, was made full colonel and senior military aide to Defense Secretary Harold Brown's special assistant, attorney John Kester. Powell was transferred, in 1979, to the Department of Energy, where he served as the assistant to the secretary. Later that year, he was transferred back to the Pentagon to serve as the senior military assistant to the secretary of defense until 1981.
Soon after, Powell's handlers moved him again, assigning him for another brief tour in a real military unit as the assistant division commander of the 4th Infantry Division. Early in the Reagan administration, Powell was recalled to the Pentagon as top military aide to his mentors, the new deputy defense secretary, Carlucci, and later to the secretary, Weinberger. Carlucci, Weinberger and Richard Armitage (then assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs), are said to have given Powell his advanced degree in political manipulation, deceit and treachery.
Armitage, who Powell now claims is his best friend, has been linked by various news reports to CIA sanctioned arms and drug trafficking during the mid-'70s while working for a U.S. government agency based in Bangkok, Thailand. And, that's not all. Syndicated columnist, Jack Anderson, reported in the Mar. 13, 1986 issue of the Washington Post that the President's Commission on Organized Crime had questioned Armitage about his relationship with a Vietnamese refugee who was convicted in 1985 of running a major gambling operation in Arlington, Va.
Armitage had written a letter on official Defense Department stationary urging the Arlington County Court to "show mercy" on the refugee whom he acknowledged was a friend. Powell, the team player, sided with Armitage when these issues blew up in the press and today continues to stick by his best friend. But, Powell's damage control activities have not been limited to Armitage. He played an active role in White House damage control following the tragic loss of hundreds of marines when the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up. (Marine guards had been forced to stand guard duty with empty rifles).
Powell also helped with damage control after the U.S. government's failed attempt to kill Libya's Moammar Khadafy - a bombing raid which instead killed one of the Libyan leader's children. In January 1986, the political general again blindly obeyed his superiors and secretly transferred U.S. TOW missiles to Iran without the approval or knowledge of Congress.
Fortunately for Powell, his powerful mentors successfully camouflaged and explained away his not so insignificant role in what later became known as the Iran-Contra affair. Powell had his "ticket punched" again in June 1986 when he was temporarily given a much coveted military assignment as the commanding general of the 75,000-member 5th Corps in Frankfurt, West Germany.
After only six months of service as a real commanding general, Powell's handlers recalled him to the White House when the Iran Contra affair exploded. Reagan administration damage control experts scurried to replace the disgraced Bud McFarlane giving the job to the trusted Carlucci.
As he had done in the past, Carlucci summoned Powell to his side, naming him deputy national security advisor. During this assignment, the political general was involved in a secret telephone conversation with a senior aide to Vice President George Bush that reeked of treason. The call, concerning an effort Ross Perot was making to attain the release of live American prisoners of war believed to be held by the communists in Indochina, was documented and will darken the name of Colin Powell throughout the ages.
According to a declassified memorandum detailing the call, at 3:40 pm on March 21, 1987, Powell became engaged in the conversation during which the Bush aide asked Powell to check out certain details pertaining to the Perot effort. Powell said he would call back. The memorandum, which was written by the Bush aide, shows that Powell called back at 3:55 pm and reported that the Vietnamese communists had not been cooperating with the U.S. government on the POW/MIA issue for "the last few months."
According to Powell, the Vietnamese apparently believed that there was "a 'bigger deal' coming soon who will be bearing gifts and so our people [the U.S. Government] have been stiffed." Undoubtedly, that statement refers to Perot and the positive reaction of the Vietnamese to his attempt to secure the release of live American prisoners of war.
The memorandum continued to quote Powell saying, "We still believe it is not wise for Ross to go . . . after 14 years they [the Vietnamese] have denied live Americans . . . if they were to produce live people, can you imagine what will be asked for?" Apparently the potential political and economic cost of recovering living American prisoners was considered too high. The abandoned Americans were to be allowed to quietly die in the communist prisons of Southeast Asia.
Who was the "we" Powell was referring to when he said "we do not believe it is wise for Ross to go?" Was it the Carlucci, Weinberger and Armitage insider political clique? Near the end of the memo, Powell is quoted as saying, "our policy interests are not served by Mr. Perot's interests at the moment."
What policy interest was "not" being served by Perot's effort to bring live POWs home and whose policy was it? It certainly was not that of President Ronald Reagan, Powell's commander-in-chief. Throughout his administration, Reagan had stated emphatically that the POW/MIA issue was the nation's "highest national priority."
In late 1987, Colin Powell, still the consummate team player, was appointed the National Security Advisor to President Reagan and served in that prestigious post until 1989. Then, as had happened before, Powell was sent off for a four month tour in a military command. This time, for a brief period in 1989, he became Commander in Chief at Forces Command, Ft. McPherson, Ga.
Shortly after Powell assumed that command, President Bush over the objections of the military's top brass reached well beyond their ranks and pulled his thoroughbred political general to the top, appointing Powell as the U.S. military's top officer - chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "I believe the entire professional military establishment was disturbed by his appointment," said Admiral Eugene Carroll. "Looking at General Powell's career record, it is clear that he was picked out early for a more important role in life than getting his boots dirty." During 1992, Powell's Pentagon had the singular honor of proving that it was a team player for the Bush administration..."
| |
|
dmotz
|
Joined: 7/25/2006
Msg: 49 | |
| Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope
Posted: 10/20/2006 8:20:23 AM | Come on Anticon...do you really want to go there? The reason Clinton did not allow military uniforms is because he was ashamed he ran like a coward fom Vietnam.... Lets not turn this into a bad thread...
...and people wonder why Clinton wouldn't let military men wear their uniforms in the White House... | |
|
| Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope
Posted: 10/20/2006 9:02:48 AM | RWGG
That statement is out of line. I am roughly Clinton's age and I promise you he did nothing that the majority of young men his age did not do at the time. I have friends that served and friends that avoided serving. Not one from either side wanted to fight that damn war. Those that served had run out of ways out of it so they had no choice. By the time that Clinton would have been required to serve, he received a high draft number so he was never called and by that time, the majority, a huge majority wanted the war ended. I do not know a single person in my age group who did not serve who is ashamed that he did not. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
