powell didn't resign... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Karby · 10-02-2006, 06:39 PM

according to him, he was fired.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...700106_pf.html

Quote:

ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2004, eight days after the president he served was elected to a second term, Secretary of State Colin Powell received a telephone call from the White House at his State Department office. The caller was not President Bush but Chief of Staff Andrew Card, and he got right to the point.

"The president would like to make a change," Card said, using a time-honored formulation that avoided the words "resign" or "fire." He noted briskly that there had been some discussion of having Powell remain until after Iraqi elections scheduled for the end of January, but that the president had decided to take care of all Cabinet changes sooner rather than later. Bush wanted Powell's resignation letter dated two days hence, on Friday, November 12, Card said, although the White House expected him to stay at the State Department until his successor was confirmed by the Senate.

wow
i'm not into politics much. but i gotta say, i really did think that he resigned on his own. it's kinda hard to picture that he was told to resign. apperantely Powell was telling the President a view of the Iraq war that wasn't pleasant to Bush's ears, so he got catapulted.

ratbastid · 10-02-2006, 07:03 PM

This doesn't change much for me. It was no secret that he split with the rest of the administration over the prosecution of the Iraq occupation and the War on Terror. I always assumed that his leaving that position was fallout of his being principled rather than being political, and I don't really see that it matters all that much who initiated him leaving the job.

Karby · 10-02-2006, 07:14 PM

yea i get what you're saying. in the long run, it really doesn't matter, it's not like it'll change anything. but still, for me it's just kinda weird. a little surreal, even...
reminds me a little of Alice in Wonderlnd, with the queen of hearts and all.

Johnny Rotten · 10-02-2006, 07:21 PM

Quote:

"I cannot tell you everything that we know," he began after a brief introduction. "But what I can share with you, when combined with what all of us have learned over the years, is deeply troubling." The facts and Iraq's behavior "demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort -- no effort -- to disarm as required by the international community."

"My colleagues," Powell said, "every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."

The next day, opinion polls indicated that national opinion had shifted literally overnight; most Americans surveyed said they believed an invasion was justified to protect the nation. Those closest to Powell were relieved, but worried about both him and the nation. His wife, Alma, had a sense of foreboding; her husband, she thought, was being used by the White House. Powell's daughter Linda, who had listened to the speech on the radio, had found his performance unsettling. His voice was strained, she thought, as if he were trying to inject passion into the dry words through the sheer force of his will.

Wilkerson, who had left the United Nations immediately after the speech and returned to his hotel room to fall into a deep sleep, awoke depressed. Later, when it became clear that much of the speech on which he had worked so hard was based on lies, he would come to think of that week as "the lowest moment of my life." Back in Washington, he ordered special plaques with Powell's signature made up for the State Department aides who had worked so hard to make the presentation happen.

When they were handed out, Powell asked Wilkerson why he hadn't ordered one for himself. Wilkerson replied that he didn't want one.

It's a long article, but it's worth the read.

Bill O'Rights · 10-02-2006, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I always assumed that his leaving that position was fallout of his being principled rather than being political, and I don't really see that it matters all that much who initiated him leaving the job.

That was my assesment, as well.

I can tell you this...if, and when, the time comes...that is a charater trait that I want in office.

Ustwo · 10-02-2006, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

This doesn't change much for me. It was no secret that he split with the rest of the administration over the prosecution of the Iraq occupation and the War on Terror. I always assumed that his leaving that position was fallout of his being principled rather than being political, and I don't really see that it matters all that much who initiated him leaving the job.

I always thought it was because he was well spoken but way over his head and was in place more for his reputation and not his ability. He is an example of why affirmative action is bad, were he white he would have gone no where to start with.

I'm also quite willing to bet if he were a white man the left wouldnt' have fallen so much in love with the guy.

He has charisma, he has character, he has that special 'something' but when it came to what he did, both sides have to view him as a failure, though I think they left views him more harshly.

host · 10-02-2006, 10:29 PM

This isn't "news". I thought that everybody already knew that Powell was fired:

Quote:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000186.php
November 15, 2004
BUSH'S NEW COURT: TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SECRETARY

THE NELSON REPORT, Chris Nelson's intriguing daily report on everything interesting in Washington, is worth reprinting in part today. He sent this before the news that Condi Rice gets Powell's perch, but the line-up that Chris has linked to this State Department decision is fascinating.

Chris Nelson writes:

When is everyone's expectation still a surprise? When Colin Powell resigns months before HE thought was going. Who will succeed Powell? Senate sources say National Security Advisor Condi Rice.

House sources say UN Ambassador John Danforth. As Powell learned last week, it's President Bush who makes the decision. Best bet? Rice. ...

.....If Rice is offered State, expect her to remove the entire top layer of Powell/Armitage career professionals. But didn't Rice tell friends she didn't want State? So what...see this as part of the complete national security overhaul which Powell told Bush was needed.

Powell just didn't think it would start with him. Implications for Iran? North Korea? Watch to see if John Bolton (not Josh) moves up to Deputy Secretary, or perhaps to Deputy NSC. As long as VP Cheney stays (note his heart flutter this weekend) so does Scooter Libby, otherwise a possible NSC chief.

Bet bet? Hard line continues. No ray of hope today? Depends...some folks think Powell's strong right arm, Deputy Secretary Rich Armitage, might be asked to take on the new National Intelligence Coordinator's role.

Other folks think this is delusional...stay tuned.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000255.php
A U.S. FOREIGN POLICY ROAD MAP FOR 2005: VIEWS FROM BRENT SCOWCROFT AND ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI

..........And Chris Nelson follows up with his own version of the 'totality' of the purge in his newsletter, The Nelson Report. Here is the preamble to his piece:

BUSH CONTINUES DISSENT PURGES...
SCOWCROFT LOST TO INTEL BOARD

SUMMARY: technically, it is true that neither Secretary of State Powell nor former National Security Advisor Scowcroft have been "fired" from their positions. Technically.

But it's also true that both had expectations of being asked to stay on, a few months in Powell's case, and for another term on the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, in Scowcroft's.

The real difference is that Powell's replacement by Condi Rice put everyone "on notice" what Bush 2 would look...and sound...like. But if Scowcroft was not surprised to be dumped, the policy community is shocked and worried as the trend continues...Bush, Rice and Cheney are purging anyone who's stood up to them in any way.

Being right is the kiss of death, it turns out. From now on, there will be, by design, no adult supervision......

Quote:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...?from=storylhs
The rise and rise of Rice
November 20, 2004

By choosing Condoleezza Rice as his new secretary of state, George Bush has rewarded unwavering loyalty. Peter Hartcher reports.

.......The Australian Prime Minister was reflecting on the many views that he has in common with the US President, but then singled out an issue where they differed - guns.

Gun control, accepted generally as sensible policy in Australia, is anathema to most Americans, and especially to American conservatives. Dr Rice succinctly captured the cultural difference.

Look at me as an example, she told Howard. My father taught me to use a gun when I was eight years old. It was something you had to know as a young girl growing up in Birmingham, Alabama, she said. Her story silenced the Prime Minister.

This anecdote says four things about Condoleezza Rice, who, subject to confirmation by the US Senate, will become America's 66th Secretary of State, replacing Colin Powell.

First, it says that she has a close and easy relationship with Howard. Second, the simple fact that she was there, at the ranch, is a clue to an important fact of her place in the Bush Administration - she and Bush have been virtually inseparable. Alone among the President's inner circle, she is the only official to holiday with the first family.

Third, it says something important about her childhood and her experience of life. She grew up amid some of the most violent spasms of resistance to America's racial modernisation. When a Baptist church in Birmingham was bombed in 1963 in an act of racial hatred, one of her schoolmates was among the four children killed.

And finally, it hints at her attitudes to the use of force. Her performance as National Security Adviser demonstrates that she believes it can be prudent and even necessary to use armed force. Bush has said that in all the agonising and debating that led to the invasion of Iraq, he directly asked the opinion of only one of his advisers. He asked Rice. And she said yes.......

......It was a striking feature of the uppermost ranks of the Bush Administration that the leading voices of moderation, Powell and Armitage, were the only officials with combat experience......

.......One of the celebrated quotes of the presidency of Bush's father was his disdainful reference to "the vision thing". He was a realist. Bush jnr has said of his own presidency: "The job is - the vision thing matters. That's another lesson I learned." He is a visionary.

Is there irony in the fact that the man who cautioned Bush against the invasion of Iraq, Powell, should be removed from power, while the man who bungled the post-invasion planning, Donald Rumsfeld, is still in place?

"This Administration is not one that admits mistakes," remarks Jim Steinberg, Bill Clinton's deputy national security adviser, now a scholar at the Brookings Institution. Instead it rejects dissidents.

And Powell was rejected. "People are shocked when you tell them this, but Powell was basically fired," Nelson says. "As late as Friday last week, Rich Armitage was telling people that he and Powell would be around till the end of June. But the President was tired of reading in Bob Woodward or the Washington Post that Powell didn't really agree with this policy or that policy.".........

The_Jazz · 10-03-2006, 05:22 AM

Unfortunately, the legacy he's left is the Powell Report to the UN on the WMD in Iraq. That's what people are going to remember him for, which is really a shame considering he was one of the moderating voices in the early years of the administration.

ratbastid · 10-03-2006, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I always thought it was because he was well spoken but way over his head and was in place more for his reputation and not his ability. He is an example of why affirmative action is bad, were he white he would have gone no where to start with.

I'm also quite willing to bet if he were a white man the left wouldnt' have fallen so much in love with the guy.

He has charisma, he has character, he has that special 'something' but when it came to what he did, both sides have to view him as a failure, though I think they left views him more harshly.

Wow, Ustwo, that's the first time I've ever heard anyone say ANYTHING like that. Everything I've heard from both sides of the aisle talk about their respect for the man, his capabilities, and his professionalism.

You got any sources for this? Or is it just an opinion?

dc_dux · 10-03-2006, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Wow, Ustwo, that's the first time I've ever heard anyone say ANYTHING like that. Everything I've heard from both sides of the aisle talk about their respect for the man, his capabilities, and his professionalism.

You got any sources for this? Or is it just an opinion?

Ustwo...if Powell, as a four star general, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs to daddy Bush, was in "over his head", how would you describe Condi, with no military experience, no government experience, and no foreign policy experience, other than having an academic background in soviet affairs.

I do like Larry Wilkerson's (Powell's former chief of staff) assessment of the Bush foreign policy team at the time:

Quote:

He said the vice president and the secretary of defense created a "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal" that hijacked U.S. foreign policy. He said of former defense undersecretary Douglas Feith: "Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man." Addressing scholars, journalists and others at the New America Foundation, Wilkerson accused Bush of "cowboyism" and said he had viewed Condoleezza Rice as "extremely weak." Of American diplomacy, he fretted, "I'm not sure the State Department even exists anymore."
....
Wilkerson's beef with the administration was, for the most part, not ideological. He argues that U.S. forces must remain in Iraq, and he describes George H.W. Bush as "one of the finest presidents we've ever had."

Rather, the colonel objected to the administration's secrecy, which allowed Cheney, Rumsfeld and others to subvert the foreign policy apparatus that has been in place since 1947.

"What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld," he said. By cutting out the bureaucracy that had to carry out those decisions, "we have courted disaster in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran, and generally with regard to domestic crises like Katrina." If there is a nuclear terrorist attack or a major pandemic, Wilkerson continued, "you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that'll take you back to the Declaration of Independence."
...
Wilkerson blamed Bush, "not versed in international relations and not too much interested," for letting the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal to take over. He blamed Rice for dropping her role as honest broker to "build her intimacy with the president." And he blamed whoever gave Feith "carte blanche to tell the State Department to go screw itself."

The cabal's end run around the bureaucracy, he argued, stalled nuclear diplomacy with North Korea and Iran. He said top officials "condoned" prisoner abuse and left the Army "truly in bad shape."

"You and I and every other citizen like us is paying the consequences," he said, "whether it was a response to Katrina that was less than adequate certainly, or the situation in Iraq which still goes unexplained."

The colonel said his old boss is not pleased with his decision to go public with his criticism. Powell, he said, "is the world's most loyal soldier." Wilkerson said he admired that, but he took a different view of loyalty: not to the administration, but to the country.

full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101902246.html

Ustwo · 10-03-2006, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Wow, Ustwo, that's the first time I've ever heard anyone say ANYTHING like that. Everything I've heard from both sides of the aisle talk about their respect for the man, his capabilities, and his professionalism.

You got any sources for this? Or is it just an opinion?

Of course its opinion and its an opinion based on what I've seen the man do over the years, and a concolusion I came to before he was secretary of state. I used to be a Powell for President type guy until I looked at his backround. He always was the 'reluctant' one, with stronger men taking the lead. What did the guy do that was all that impressive besides sound good?

As for the left viewing him a failure thats just pretty obvious if you type his name in with 'failure' into google and see what sites come up. He failed to rein in the mad Bush of course.

My assesment of Powell is that he was a project of GHB due to his natural charisma and the color of his skin. Promoted more for politics than any great ability as a leader.

As for his intellect, I'd take Condi over him in a chess match any day. Condi 2008

dc_dux · 10-03-2006, 06:02 AM

My opinion is more in line with Wilkerson's (granted that he is biased):

Quote:

The administration's performance during its first four years would have been even worse without Powell's damage control. At least once a week, it seemed, Powell trooped over to the Oval Office and cleaned all the dog poop off the carpet. He held a youthful, inexperienced president's hand. He told him everything would be all right because he, the secretary of State, would fix it. And he did â€” everything from a serious crisis with China when a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft was struck by a Chinese F-8 fighter jet in April 2001, to the secretary's constant reassurances to European leaders following the bitter breach in relations over the Iraq war. It wasn't enough, of course, but it helped.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001028.php

The "dog poop" comment is most appropriate.

Locobot · 10-08-2006, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

As for his intellect, I'd take Condi over him in a chess match any day. Condi 2008

Too bad international conflicts aren't solved with chess games. Condi might very well be better at chess, but if I were say, planning a military endevour with clear goals and an exit strategy in place, I'd choose Powell.

I've been around here long enough to remember how geeked you were to have Powell in GWB's cabinet ustwo. Can't wait for Rice to disagree with party dogma so you can play the race card on her too.

Powell is an interesting case of someone who knew better all along that the Iraq war was not justified and would end up as the morass we now find ourselved engulfed in. He was conflicted due to his military background and training to be a team player. So instead of disagreeing we all saw the flaws inherant in that type of thinking. Had Powell and Tenet shown more backbone in 2002-3 they'd certainly have been fired earlier, and we can speculate all day about he effects that might have had on the deeply misguided war effort.

smooth · 10-18-2006, 03:22 AM

I typed "powell failure" into google and I'm at a loss as to what the hell ustwo was talking about...I can only imagine he figured no one would actually try it. I hope more people take a second and do it, because well it just exposes his comment as nonsense.

I'm surprised on his comment regarding powell's lack of initiative (I think he called it leadership and strength, but I would think more accurately labeled initiative is what he's referring to), which I wouldn't expect any president to want too much of around--too many cooks in the kitchen and all that--but also that in so far as I know people who actually act moderate and not just claim to be take "wait and see" courses. And I always think they're dry and ineffective and all that, but that's me because I'm passionate about certain things and I have since just come to grips with the fact that brash action may feel good and appear to be achieving much, but in reality I may create more harm than good in the end. and the same goes for anyone who charges into action, and those would be the first responders, which I wouldnt find someone who's been in the military for any lenght of time to really aspire to, especially when dealing with war and death of lotsa people our citizens and otherwise.

I guess I'm suggesting that sitting down and thinking about a situation takes strength that I don't always appreciate at the time. and it seems something I'd appreciate in someone who is in charge of life and death decisions--even if I resented inaction while in the NOW.

ratbastid · 10-18-2006, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

I typed "powell failure" into google and I'm at a loss as to what the hell ustwo was talking about...I can only imagine he figured no one would actually try it. I hope more people take a second and do it, because well it just exposes his comment as nonsense.

Yeah, well, after his response was "Well, of course it's an opinion! And it's the right opinion too, because blah blah blah...", well, I was pretty much done listening to him in this thread. He just about messed his pants when Powell was first brought into the administration, but since things didn't work out so well, he now has to backtrack and talk the guy down in an attempt to appear consistent. Whatever. :shrug:

dc_dux · 10-18-2006, 08:30 AM

Earlier in his career, after having served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and National Security advisor to Bush I, Powell had identified the questions that needed to be addressed before commiting US troops:

Quote:

Is the political objective we seek to achieve important, clearly defined and understood? Have all other nonviolent policy means failed? Will military force achieve the objective? At what cost? Have the gains and risks been analyzed? How might the situation that we seek to alter, once it is altered by force, develop further and what might be the consequences?

When he raised these questions before the decision to invade Iraq was made, he sealed his own fate with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and we are now suffering the consequences.

kutulu · 10-18-2006, 10:18 AM

Powell is one of the few Republicans that I'd vote for.

Seaver · 10-18-2006, 01:35 PM

Quote:

I always thought it was because he was well spoken but way over his head and was in place more for his reputation and not his ability. He is an example of why affirmative action is bad, were he white he would have gone no where to start with.

I'm also quite willing to bet if he were a white man the left wouldnt' have fallen so much in love with the guy.

He has charisma, he has character, he has that special 'something' but when it came to what he did, both sides have to view him as a failure, though I think they left views him more harshly.

Sorry Ustwo, I completely disagree. You do not get to be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs because of affirmitive action, you do not get past Colonel because of affirmitive action.

This man has my respect, I don't blame anyone for what happened. None of us know what conversations go on behind closed doors. America still respects him, and he'll still be around politically for years to come because of that.

Ustwo · 10-18-2006, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Sorry Ustwo, I completely disagree. You do not get to be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs because of affirmitive action, you do not get past Colonel because of affirmitive action.

This man has my respect, I don't blame anyone for what happened. None of us know what conversations go on behind closed doors. America still respects him, and he'll still be around politically for years to come because of that.

You did in the Clinton administration, so I don't see the Bush's being totally immune to it either. America respects him for what he respresents but not what he is, and I have a feeling he will either fade away or be used as a second fiddle for some political eye candy of sorts. I'm sure both parties would love him to be their VP, neither would have him as president.

kutulu · 10-18-2006, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I'm sure both parties would love him to be their VP, neither would have him as president.

I agree but for different reasons. I have little faith that our voters would elect a black president. Kind of like how so many people swear up and down that they aren't racist but wouldn't want their kid to marry a black person.

10-02-2006, 07:14 PM	#3 (permalink)
Karby Psycho Location: somewhere	yea i get what you're saying. in the long run, it really doesn't matter, it's not like it'll change anything. but still, for me it's just kinda weird. a little surreal, even... reminds me a little of Alice in Wonderlnd, with the queen of hearts and all. __________________ ~my karma ran over my dogma.~

10-03-2006, 05:22 AM	#8 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Unfortunately, the legacy he's left is the Powell Report to the UN on the WMD in Iraq. That's what people are going to remember him for, which is really a shame considering he was one of the moderating voices in the early years of the administration. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

10-18-2006, 03:22 AM	#14 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I typed "powell failure" into google and I'm at a loss as to what the hell ustwo was talking about...I can only imagine he figured no one would actually try it. I hope more people take a second and do it, because well it just exposes his comment as nonsense. I'm surprised on his comment regarding powell's lack of initiative (I think he called it leadership and strength, but I would think more accurately labeled initiative is what he's referring to), which I wouldn't expect any president to want too much of around--too many cooks in the kitchen and all that--but also that in so far as I know people who actually act moderate and not just claim to be take "wait and see" courses. And I always think they're dry and ineffective and all that, but that's me because I'm passionate about certain things and I have since just come to grips with the fact that brash action may feel good and appear to be achieving much, but in reality I may create more harm than good in the end. and the same goes for anyone who charges into action, and those would be the first responders, which I wouldnt find someone who's been in the military for any lenght of time to really aspire to, especially when dealing with war and death of lotsa people our citizens and otherwise. I guess I'm suggesting that sitting down and thinking about a situation takes strength that I don't always appreciate at the time. and it seems something I'd appreciate in someone who is in charge of life and death decisions--even if I resented inaction while in the NOW. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

10-02-2006, 07:03 PM	#2 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	This doesn't change much for me. It was no secret that he split with the rest of the administration over the prosecution of the Iraq occupation and the War on Terror. I always assumed that his leaving that position was fallout of his being principled rather than being political, and I don't really see that it matters all that much who initiated him leaving the job.

10-18-2006, 10:18 AM	#17 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Powell is one of the few Republicans that I'd vote for.