Rice and Powell: Bush and Cheney's Puppets

[MartialArtist68]

Is it just me, or does it seem like Condolezza Rice and Colin Powell are the "puppets" here? First of all, they are completely spineless as far as the current events are concerned. They have yet to show any substance as far as Bush's decisions are concerned. I will continue to research this matter. In the meantime, what does everybody think?

 

[Flatlander]

I think that they both work for the President, and in that context, are excellent employees. I also think that Colin Powell should probably be the last person on the planet that I would refer to as "spineless". Are you familiar with his military career?

 

[MartialArtist68]

I was referring to them as "spineless" due to their political career. The cat looking over my shoulder wishes for me to note that Powell was in a position to be president. Had he not went along with the "wrong crowd" so to speak. By this I mean that he went along with Bush, including when Bush proposed we invade Iraq. Again, I will have to do more research later because I have to leave for TKD soon and I still can't get Wireless internet.

Later,
pck

 

[TwistofFat]

MA68,

Why Powell and Rice and not Don Evans and Elaine Chao? Does it strike you as unusual that two prominant black americans are Republican and believe in what they are doing?
How about Anthony Principi, Gale Norton, Ann Veneman, Norman Mineta, etc.political careeers? They went with the right crowd as determined by what??! Is Tommy Thompson spineless? Don't forget Ron Paige and Alphonso Jackson - they seem to be on the wrong side as well.

LMAO.

 

[michaeledward]

Condolezza Rice is very learned and, no doubt, a great comfort for the President. That a National Security Advisor is so public a personality is a bit unusual. I believe she draws on vast experience with the former Soviet Union, which might explain why our government was focused on anti-ballistic-missle weapons in the first months of the current administration. In fact, we are about to deploy, in Alaska, the first battery of 'STAR WARS' missle defense weapons; of course, by all tests, these batteries will not function, but the President promised to deploy them, so they will be deployed.

Colin Powell is a cautious, calculating man. This is why he was successful in the military. Unfortuneately, he is also a good soldier. All too often, the President could have (and should have) called upon Powell's experience and insights in times of challenge. However, the President appears to have listened more to the council of Secretary Rumsfeld. Secretary Powell, as a good soldier, appears to have fallen into line. He has done his duty; placing his personal and professional credibility on the line at the United Nations.

When the history of the second Bush Adminstration is written, I think that Colin Powell will be the tragic figure. When the Adminstration first came to power, Secretary Rumsfeld attempted to re-organize the military into a smaller, lighter-footprint fighting force, and he was nearly run out of town. Had this happened, I believe Secretary Powell would have been able to influence the Bush administration more effectively. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 changed everything, including giving a second wind to Secretary Rumsfeld (and Wolfowitz). It may take many years for the United States to recover.

Mike

 

[Feisty Mouse]

When the history of the second Bush Adminstration is written, I think that Colin Powell will be the tragic figure. When the Adminstration first came to power, Secretary Rumsfeld attempted to re-organize the military into a smaller, lighter-footprint fighting force, and he was nearly run out of town. Had this happened, I believe Secretary Powell would have been able to influence the Bush administration more effectively. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 changed everything, including giving a second wind to Secretary Rumsfeld (and Wolfowitz). It may take many years for the United States to recover.

Mike - good points. I too see Powell as a sort of tragic figure - although I dislike the current Administration, he has shown great loyalty to these people, even when it seemed to me that they hung him out to dry.

 

[MartialArtist68]

MA68,

Why Powell and Rice and not Don Evans and Elaine Chao? Does it strike you as unusual that two prominant black americans are Republican and believe in what they are doing?

I personally think we need to diversify the government.

 

[Flatlander]

I personally think we need to diversify the government.

Could you perhaps be a little more specific?

 

[Cryozombie]

he has shown great loyalty to these people, even when it seemed to me that they hung him out to dry.

You think so? Is it loyalty, or do you think he is just doing his "job"?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Technopunk - that question made me stop and think for a moment. I'm sure some of my feelings about this are based on just that - feelings, rather than any piece of information in particular. I can't really support this feeling with particular evidence (...yet?!?). I just have the impression that Powell has acted out of loyalty, even when I think he was kept out of "the loop" post 9/11 for some announcements and so forth.

Maybe it's part of my cynicism - the Republicans that I like, seem to get blocked or scr**ed with by their party members - like McCain.

 

[PeachMonkey]

You think so? Is it loyalty, or do you think he is just doing his "job"?

I guess it would depend on your definition of "doing his job".

Most cabinet members, regardless of party, usually seem to think "their job" involves a mixture of the actual mission of their department, combined with supporting the President and party that put them in their position.

In reality, "their job" is to uphold the US Constitution, and to perform the mission of their department.

In at least the first part, I can't think of too many elected and appointed officials from either party that haven't violated their oaths time and time again.

 

[michaeledward]

You think so? Is it loyalty, or do you think he is just doing his "job"?

I think it is the 'Soldier' in him. He signed on for a Four Year Hitch with this President, and that is what he is going to give.

He has served the President noblely. The release of the airman from China early in the Administration was completed due to Powell's patience and diplomacy. I think it was the last time in this administration we saw such diplomacy.

Powell went and fell on his sword in front of the United Nations. Reportedly, he was aware that what he had to report was "Bull$hi+", but he did it anyhow ... and for most, his performance was quite convincing.

When word broke last year, that he was thinking about not continuing as Secretary of State if Bush was re-elected, he quickly renounced any such idea, as it would be seen as a weakness of this President.

He is a damn fine soldier. I don't think, however, he is going to 're-up' ... which is a problem our entire military is going to face in coming years. I saw a clever bumper sticker the other day :

18 - 25 Year Olds ​

Bush in '04 - Draft in '05​

 

[MartialArtist68]

You think so? Is it loyalty, or do you think he is just doing his "job"?

Somebody refresh my memory, what is his "job"? I still stand my ground. Yes, he has been loyal to his people, Yes, he's earned his pay. But he still supported the Iraqi war just because it was the direction Bush wanted to go in.

 

[Flatlander]

Somebody refresh my memory, what is his "job"? I still stand my ground. Yes, he has been loyal to his people, Yes, he's earned his pay. But he still supported the Iraqi war just because it was the direction Bush wanted to go in.

As the Secretary of State, his job is to diplomatically represent the President internationally. I'd say he's done quite well. He is arguably the most globally respected US official.

What makes you think he supported the war in Iraq solely on Bush's whim? Has he stated that somewhere?

 

[MartialArtist68]

As the Secretary of State, his job is to diplomatically represent the President internationally. I'd say he's done quite well. He is arguably the most globally respected US official.

What makes you think he supported the war in Iraq solely on Bush's whim? Has he stated that somewhere?

What I haven't been able to say is that he never publicly opposed the war, which he very well could've done. The war was a very radical move on the part of our country. And, if you watch documentaries like F9/11 and the news, he always follows the president EXACTLY, much like our friend Ms. Rice. THAT is why I believe they are puppets of the current admin. Both are very smart and intelligent people that are capable of making their own political decisions once in a while.

 

[Flatlander]

What I haven't been able to say is that he never publicly opposed the war, which he very well could've done. The war was a very radical move on the part of our country. And, if you watch documentaries like F9/11 and the news, he always follows the president EXACTLY, much like our friend Ms. Rice. THAT is why I believe they are puppets of the current admin. Both are very smart and intelligent people that are capable of making their own political decisions once in a while.

MA68, I think you need to research a little before you reveal your lack of education regarding YOUR government's operational protocols. Apparently, you are unaware of the responsibilities of the US Secretary of State. I found them for you, that you may have a better framework from which to judge. Please pay particular attention to the boldface, which I've highlighted for your convenience.

From this website:

Bureau of Public Affairs
Washington, DC
January 22, 2001
Under the Constitution, the President of the United States determines U.S. foreign policy. The Secretary of State, appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the President’s chief foreign affairs adviser. The Secretary carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department and the Foreign Service of the United States.

Created in 1789 by the Congress as the successor to the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of State is the senior executive Department of the U.S. Government. The Secretary of State’s duties relating to foreign affairs have not changed significantly since then, but they have become far more complex as international commitments multiplied. These duties—the activities and responsibilities of the State Department—include the following:

• Serves as the President’s principal adviser on U.S. foreign policy;
• Conducts negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs;
• Grants and issues passports to American citizens and exequaturs to foreign consuls in the United States;
• Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic representatives;
• Advises the President regarding the acceptance, recall, and dismissal of the representatives of foreign governments;
• Personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies;
• Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements;
• Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;
• Supervises the administration of U.S. immigration laws abroad;
• Provides information to American citizens regarding the political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in foreign countries;
• Informs the Congress and American citizens on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations;
• Promotes beneficial economic intercourse between the United States and other countries;
• Administers the Department of State;
• Supervises the Foreign Service of the United States.

In addition, the Secretary of State retains domestic responsibilities that Congress entrusted to the State Department in 1789. These include the custody of the Great Seal of the United States, the preparation of certain presidential proclamations, the publication of treaties and international acts as well as the official record of the foreign relations of the United States, and the custody of certain original treaties and international agreements. The Secretary also serves as the channel of communication between the Federal Government and the States on the extradition of fugitives to or from foreign countries.

 

[Phoenix44]

I think Rice is a true believer, with deep ties to the oil industry, former board member of Chevron and to other major corporations. That's where I think her loyalties are, as is the Bush Administration in general.

Powell is a different story. From what I've read, I think Powell was not supportive of invading Iraq at that time and under those circumstances. I believe he had a good idea of what the real cost--human, political, and financial--of the war. I believe he was set up by the Bush administration and made to look like a fool by going to the United Nations with "intelligence" that was unreliable at best, and just plain untrue at worst. He was also furiously negotiating for a diplomatic solution when behind his back, the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld war plans WERE ALREADY IN PROGRESS. And then, it was Powell who had to go before the world and say, "Oops, it was all a mistake." IMO, his political career is over.

 

[TwistofFat]

I personally think we need to diversify the government.

MA - That was my point of my original post - I think. Perhaps I should be more direct - why do you single out two african american members of Bush's cabinet? It stikes me that you are saying that because they are balck they should not have supported Bush . That they could not have their own opinions? How could Powell have been dooped? It's your commment around the "wrong crowd" that has my ss tingling. What is the right crowd fro Mr. Powell and Ms. Rice?

I know I am reading more into this than I should but I welcome you setting me straight.

Regards- Glenn.

 

[MartialArtist68]

Umm, excuse me. I actually do not single people out just because of their skin color. I don't look at people as black, white, etc. I find it childish and unprofessional that you bring that up. Just because somebody's black or whatever DOES NOT MEAN that they can't support whomever they choose. I just saw a pattern in how they defended GWB, even under such radical decisions like war.

Do not ever portray me as a racist again or I will go to the mods. Understood?

 

[TwistofFat]

Is it just me, or does it seem like Condolezza Rice and Colin Powell are the "puppets" here? First of all, they are completely spineless as far as the current events are concerned. They have yet to show any substance as far as Bush's decisions are concerned. I will continue to research this matter. In the meantime, what does everybody think?...

Umm, excuse me. I actually do not single people out just because of their skin color. I don't look at people as black, white, etc. I find it childish and unprofessional that you bring that up. Just because somebody's black or whatever DOES NOT MEAN that they can't support whomever they choose. I just saw a pattern in how they defended GWB, even under such radical decisions like war.

Do not ever portray me as a racist again or I will go to the mods. Understood?

Well. In your first post you call two of the leading black members of Bush's cabinet puppets. You single them out and the common element they have in common - skin color. They are both reublicans and have a long history of measured use of defense (hawkish) that is obvoius in a cursory examination of their backgrounds. You point out that neither has shown any substance on Bush's policies. So I then asked the question in a follow-up post- Why these two and not any other members of Bush's appointed cabinet of longtime supporters and republicans. Do they not show any depth or substance? More?

I welcome an intelligent response. If you feel I am to be repremanded or should be punished, you have your opinion. I still ask the same question? If you felt I am portraying you as anything - I give you 100% benefit of the doubt based on your posts above. I am not calling you anything nor would I. If you response were something, like "hey I think you read me wrong. I am saying Powell and Rice are puppets because..." I would then post and say - I get it now. I agree/disagree and here is why. Understand?