Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

guy44 · 11-16-2004, 02:08 PM

The funny thing about this is, race really isn't an issue here. Powell was a very respected official who lent credibility, a high level of trust internationally, and an ability to reach out to Democrats to the Bush cabinet 4 years ago. Rice was respected by conservatives and her background in Russian affairs made her a great NSA...15 years ago. Actually, the Bush administration was stuck in the Cold War in hiring her. She was not prepared for the current threats and issues facing the U.S., such as WMD proliferation and asymmetrical warfare.

Powell disagreed privately a whole lot with many Bush administration policies, but was a loyal soldier who stuck by his commander-in-chief publicly. However, his more moderate views were utterly ignored by the neo-cons/Cheney group (which didn't really include Rice all that much) who heavily influenced Bush's foreign policy decisions. Powell was stuck: he and the state department were being kept out of the loop on damn near everything, while the Bushies conducted policies he disagreed with. In the end, his loyalty won out, as he never publicly chided Bush and even gave that awful presentation to the U.N., which was almost 100% filled with false information and officially destroyed any respect he had amongst liberals/Democrats. Eventually other officials were being sent to do jobs the Secretary of State should do, and he rode out the last of the first Bush term impotent, occasionally making private statements that got out, like the one in which he said he wouldn't support the Iraq war if he knew the WMD info was fake.

Rice, meanwhile, sorta went along with neocon/Cheney policies, and didn't disagree with them; she wasn't out of the loop, but she wasn't deeply involved with policy formation either. She is widely recognized as one of, if not the worst NSA ever with regard to policy coordination, which is essentially her job. As head of State, she'll be more in line with Bush's policies, which may bring the department back into the fold a little bit. On the other hand, she's a godawful leader with no track record of success with post-Soviet issues who isn't respected worldwide like Powell was and may not be a good Secretary of State. Plus, removing Powell essentially removes the last high-level cabinet opposition to Bush's radical policies.

So really, I don't know if discussing race should be an issue. This isn't about tokenism, or affirmative action (please, Powell was an excellent chair of the JCS, and a great general.) Accusing him of succeeding only through AA is ignorant.

11-16-2004, 02:08 PM	#23 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	The funny thing about this is, race really isn't an issue here. Powell was a very respected official who lent credibility, a high level of trust internationally, and an ability to reach out to Democrats to the Bush cabinet 4 years ago. Rice was respected by conservatives and her background in Russian affairs made her a great NSA...15 years ago. Actually, the Bush administration was stuck in the Cold War in hiring her. She was not prepared for the current threats and issues facing the U.S., such as WMD proliferation and asymmetrical warfare. Powell disagreed privately a whole lot with many Bush administration policies, but was a loyal soldier who stuck by his commander-in-chief publicly. However, his more moderate views were utterly ignored by the neo-cons/Cheney group (which didn't really include Rice all that much) who heavily influenced Bush's foreign policy decisions. Powell was stuck: he and the state department were being kept out of the loop on damn near everything, while the Bushies conducted policies he disagreed with. In the end, his loyalty won out, as he never publicly chided Bush and even gave that awful presentation to the U.N., which was almost 100% filled with false information and officially destroyed any respect he had amongst liberals/Democrats. Eventually other officials were being sent to do jobs the Secretary of State should do, and he rode out the last of the first Bush term impotent, occasionally making private statements that got out, like the one in which he said he wouldn't support the Iraq war if he knew the WMD info was fake. Rice, meanwhile, sorta went along with neocon/Cheney policies, and didn't disagree with them; she wasn't out of the loop, but she wasn't deeply involved with policy formation either. She is widely recognized as one of, if not the worst NSA ever with regard to policy coordination, which is essentially her job. As head of State, she'll be more in line with Bush's policies, which may bring the department back into the fold a little bit. On the other hand, she's a godawful leader with no track record of success with post-Soviet issues who isn't respected worldwide like Powell was and may not be a good Secretary of State. Plus, removing Powell essentially removes the last high-level cabinet opposition to Bush's radical policies. So really, I don't know if discussing race should be an issue. This isn't about tokenism, or affirmative action (please, Powell was an excellent chair of the JCS, and a great general.) Accusing him of succeeding only through AA is ignorant. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"