Secretary of Defense, Who's Next?

[kapkomet]

So what was the point of mentioning them at all? Some poor John Kerry feelings? Trolling Kap? A complete change of subject?

 

 

^^

 

Who cares about the "swifties"? They're not rumored to be the next SecDef?

[Texsox]

I thought this was a discussion on the next Sec of Def? I want Obama to start reaching across the aisle for some consensus building. Here's a pick, Colin Powell if he would accept. A former GOP cabinet member, and an Obama supporter. regardless, I would llike to see someone with military experience, someone who served with honor. McCain comes to mind. Although the swifitie stigma is on him.

 

I was sickened that people would trash military honors. The men and women that earned those did not need to have them dragged through the mud for petty b.s. politics. Any of the swifty supporters disgraced the military and the men and women that served and should also be disqualified from serving as Sec of Def. How is that not consistent with what I have said before? I said the swifites were a pile of s*** then, and believe they are a pile of s*** now.

 

I will say this for Kerry, he disgraced his own medals, not those of other people, so I actually give him slightly more respect.

 

I guess this is trolling Kap by agreeing with him, or if he wants to stick up for a bunch of people who claimed soldiers do not earn those medals, that they are easily faked and handed out like cookies or for political favors. But I really doubt he will.

 

And just to be very clear KERRY IS A TERRIBLE CHOICE! His nomination would open up a round of partisan fighting that would be terrible for this country. Obama needs to pick someone that the GOP loves and Dems will tolerate. Obama needs to start some healing and Sec of Def is the perfect position to do that with. KERRY WOULD BE TERRIBLE! Do I need to say it a couple more times?

[lostfan]

I thought this was a discussion on the next Sec of Def? I want Obama to start reaching across the aisle for some consensus building. Here's a pick, Colin Powell if he would accept. A former GOP cabinet member, and an Obama supporter. regardless, I would llike to see someone with military experience, someone who served with honor. McCain comes to mind. Although the swifitie stigma is on him.

McCain is an angry, bitter old fart who is coasting off his reputation and who actually knows very little about foreign policy that doesn't have to do with guns and/or bombs (specifically, using them). No thanks

[flippedoutpunk]

I would llike to see someone with military experience, someone who served with honor.

 

Edited November 24, 2012 by flippedoutpunk

[Texsox]

Since we have a thread started concerning Kerry, and he isn't everyone's first choice, who else should be considered?

[jasonxctf]

Wesley Clark

Bob Kerrey

[NorthSideSox72]

Powell would be good, if he'd take the job.

 

[Balta1701]

Powell would be good, if he'd take the job.

[NorthSideSox72]

Your point being?

 

[Balta1701]

Your point being?

People are mad at John Kerry for disavowing a disastrous, war crime filled war. Colin Powell sacrificed his own dignity to start one. If John Kerry is unqualified to serve as Secretary of Defense, then Colin Powell is unqualified for everything.

 

He should never, ever be allowed to live that moment down.

[NorthSideSox72]

People are mad at John Kerry for disavowing a disastrous, war crime filled war. Colin Powell sacrificed his own dignity to start one. If John Kerry is unqualified to serve as Secretary of Defense, then Colin Powell is unqualified for everything.

 

He should never, ever be allowed to live that moment down.

Do you have any clue how all that went down? If you did, you'd think otherwise. Have you read any of the Woodward books? Or Curveball? Or anything else that actually detailed what happened?

 

 

[Balta1701]

Do you have any clue how all that went down? If you did, you'd think otherwise. Have you read any of the Woodward books? Or Curveball? Or anything else that actually detailed what happened?

Yes. He knew better. He had better information sitting there staring him in the face, fought with the administration because he didn't trust what he was saying, and went out and said it anyway.

 

I don't think he's an idiot...but he would have to have been an idiot to not know why he was the one giving that presentation. He had credibility that no one else in the administration had, so they had him give that presentation because he was one that the press would trust and not question the next day.

 

He staked his reputation on those words, on that little glass vial. He sold their war. Whatever his reasons were, the blood of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis was spilled because he was willing to go out and sell a story that he seemingly never trusted. They used him to start their war, and he said ok.

 

If a man who threw his medals over a fence to protest an unwinnable war is unqualified for Secretary of Defense, then the man who sold out his entire career to start one is unqualified for everything.

[StrangeSox]

Don't forget his complicity with Iran-Contra! Oh and covering up Mai-Lai, too!

 

Powell has never hesitated to lie to further the interests of those in power.

Edited November 27, 2012 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Yes. He knew better. He had better information sitting there staring him in the face, fought with the administration because he didn't trust what he was saying, and went out and said it anyway.

 

I don't think he's an idiot...but he would have to have been an idiot to not know why he was the one giving that presentation. He had credibility that no one else in the administration had, so they had him give that presentation because he was one that the press would trust and not question the next day.

 

He staked his reputation on those words, on that little glass vial. He sold their war. Whatever his reasons were, the blood of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis was spilled because he was willing to go out and sell a story that he seemingly never trusted. They used him to start their war, and he said ok.

 

If a man who threw his medals over a fence to protest an unwinnable war is unqualified for Secretary of Defense, then the man who sold out his entire career to start one is unqualified for everything.

Sold out his entire career? Where do you get this stuff?

 

Powell was the one guy in the close circle with Bush who tried, repeatedly, to talk him and the others out of going into Iraq. He questioned it from multiple viewpoints, and tried to sell his reasoning to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others... to no avail. The policy direction was set, and he could not control that. So, he was given partial charge of getting the intelligence associated with Iraq's bad intentions. He shot down multiple of these as well, and was even accused of hiding some of it from the administration. Finally, when that frat boy who was running CIA had what he called the evidence that was needed, Powell pressed him hard. Frat boy gave the now-infamous "slam dunk" response - the head of the CIA said the evidence was a slam dunk. Powell, at this point, was STILL skeptical, but knew he had a job to do. So he said, fine, I'll show this stuff to the UN and the world... but you, CIA guy, are going to stand right be-f***ing-side me while I do it. If I go down for this, you are coming with me.

 

Now... tell me how, that person, instead of the dozens of others who feverishly pushed the war machine into Iraq, is somehow responsible for starting the war in Iraq. And tell me how he sold out, when he clearly tried every avenue available, and still had a job to do.

 

Powell is the guy LEAST responsible for any of that s***. And his performance during it, is exactly why I think he'd made an excellent SecDef for Obama.

 

[StrangeSox]

He could have simply refused to give a bulls*** presentation. He has a job that's ultimately responsible to the American people, not the President he is currently serving. He's forgotten that multiple times. Powell and Tenet should both go down for that presentation, but you're making excuses for him.

 

Powell didn't cause the Iraq war, but he was a critical part in building public support for it. He had an (undeserved) reputation that was exploited, and he allowed it to happen at best.

[StrangeSox]

He didn't express any doubts whatsoever in his speech:

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

POWELL: [T]here is no doubt in my mind...

 

Regarding aluminum tubes:

POWELL: it strikes me as quite odd that these [aluminum] tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that far exceeds U.S. requirements for comparable rockets. Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard than we do, but I don't think so.

INR memo to Powell:

Our key remaining concern is the claim that the tubes are manufactured to a tolerance that "far exceeds US requirements for comparable rockets." In fact, the most comparable US system is a tactical rocket--the US Mark 66 air-launched 70mm rocket--that uses the same, high-grade (7075-T6) aluminum, and that has specifications with similar tolerances. Note that the Mk 66 specifications are unclassified, and the Department is planning to share them with the IAEA.

 

Here he uses Saddam's dead son-in-law to bolster his claims:

POWELL: Iraq's record on chemical weapons is replete with lies. It took years for Iraq to finally admit that it had produced four tons of the deadly nerve agent, VX. A single drop of VX on the skin will kill in minutes. Four tons.

The admission only came out after inspectors collected documentation as a result of the defection of Hussein Kamal, Saddam Hussein's late son-in-law.

However, Kamal was killed in 1996. He had been referring to weapons programs from 1991 and said that they had all been destroyed. You wouldn't know that listening to Powell's speech.

 

 

There's a bunch more examples of Powell repeatedly overstating the case and explicitly ignoring INR memos on his prepared speech if you would like them. The man is a coward who lies to protect power over and over again. He did it with Mai-Lai. He did it with Iran-Contra. He did it with Iraq.

 

 

Edited November 27, 2012 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

He could have simply refused to give a bulls*** presentation. He has a job that's ultimately responsible to the American people, not the President he is currently serving. He's forgotten that multiple times. Powell and Tenet should both go down for that presentation, but you're making excuses for him.

 

Powell didn't cause the Iraq war, but he was a critical part in building public support for it. He had an (undeserved) reputation that was exploited, and he allowed it to happen at best.

 

 

He didn't express any doubts whatsoever in his speech:

 

 

 

Regarding aluminum tubes:

 

INR memo to Powell:

 

 

Here he uses Saddam's dead son-in-law to bolster his claims:

 

However, Kamal was killed in 1996. He had been referring to weapons programs from 1991 and said that they had all been destroyed. You wouldn't know that listening to Powell's speech.

 

 

There's a bunch more examples of Powell repeatedly overstating the case and explicitly ignoring INR memos on his prepared speech if you would like them. The man is a coward who lies to protect power over and over again. He did it with Mai-Lai. He did it with Iran-Contra. He did it with Iraq.

 

What was he going to do... quit? To what end? Someone else, someone less circumspect, would have replaced him. He knew that having himself there was the best chance for things to be better.

 

He stated the case presented to him. He didn't know it was bulls***, he was doing what CIA should have been doing - quesitoning everything. But in the end, he had to go with what they told him. He just made sure they fully staked it, which is all he could really do. The person who could have done much more was Tenet.

 

Coward? Really?

 

[StrangeSox]

To what end? To protest his sham speech instead of lying to the American people and the UN in order to gain support for an unnecessary war. If Powell had resigned in protest of the weakness of the rationale for the Iraq war, perhaps the damn war never happens. At the very least, he doesn't sell out yet again to please those in power. Powell is excellent at "just following orders" and has a long history of doing just that.

 

He stated the case presented to him despite his own intelligence team calling much of it into question. He stated that there were "no doubts" and used strong, definitive statements like "we know" and "it is a fact." He intentionally and knowingly overstated the case and ignored multiple warnings on many of the claims. He may have been questioning everything behind closed doors, but when it came time to present the case to the public, he questioned nothing.

 

Yes, Powell is a complete and total coward. He tried to cover up the American atrocities at Mai Lai. He lied about his knowledge of Iran-Contra, once again covering up for an administration. He lied in his speech to the UN, giving what was the final push for the Iraq war and his aura made it so that the press wouldn't really question his claims. Him being there did nothing to make things better and only solidified popular support, both among the people and in the press. I really don't understand how anyone can keep excusing this man who has so many examples of dishonesty in his record.

[StrangeSox]

You can view both INR reviews of Powell's speech here:

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/libra..._appendix-a.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/libra..._appendix-b.htm

 

Many of his claims were rated as "WEAK" and unsupported, yet he went with them anyway and stated them as unequivocally true facts.

[Jake]

She stated the case presented to him. She didn't know it was bulls***, she was doing what CIA should have been doing - quesitoning everything. But in the end, she had to go with what they told her. She just made sure they fully staked it, which is all she could really do.

 

Look, now you're talking about Susan Rice!

 

Except people want her head on a platter.

 

Colin Powell followed his marching orders and all we got was countless deaths, a lot of wasted money, an increasingly antagonistic Middle East, etc....but everybody loves Colin Powell!

 

The real question to be asked is whether the CIA is doing nearly a competent enough job given the amount of scandal it has produced versus useful information.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think NSS would have a problem with Rice as SoS, but the two situations aren't really comparable anyway. Mostly because when they specifically called it a 'terrorist' attack doesn't matter one bit.

[NorthSideSox72]

To what end? To protest his sham speech instead of lying to the American people and the UN in order to gain support for an unnecessary war. If Powell had resigned in protest of the weakness of the rationale for the Iraq war, perhaps the damn war never happens. At the very least, he doesn't sell out yet again to please those in power. Powell is excellent at "just following orders" and has a long history of doing just that.

 

He stated the case presented to him despite his own intelligence team calling much of it into question. He stated that there were "no doubts" and used strong, definitive statements like "we know" and "it is a fact." He intentionally and knowingly overstated the case and ignored multiple warnings on many of the claims. He may have been questioning everything behind closed doors, but when it came time to present the case to the public, he questioned nothing.

 

Yes, Powell is a complete and total coward. He tried to cover up the American atrocities at Mai Lai. He lied about his knowledge of Iran-Contra, once again covering up for an administration. He lied in his speech to the UN, giving what was the final push for the Iraq war and his aura made it so that the press wouldn't really question his claims. Him being there did nothing to make things better and only solidified popular support, both among the people and in the press. I really don't understand how anyone can keep excusing this man who has so many examples of dishonesty in his record.

 

OK, I find your views on this bizarre and lacking consideration of the realities of the job. I also think you are placing blame in entirely the wrong place. But clearly I won't be changing your mind.

 

Look, now you're talking about Susan Rice!

 

Except people want her head on a platter.

 

Colin Powell followed his marching orders and all we got was countless deaths, a lot of wasted money, an increasingly antagonistic Middle East, etc....but everybody loves Colin Powell!

 

The real question to be asked is whether the CIA is doing nearly a competent enough job given the amount of scandal it has produced versus useful information.

 

I think the whole Susan Rice thing is much ado about nothing. When the administration said what is probably something worth reviewing, and internally they should strive to communicate better... but this drum beat from the right that is hinting (clumsily) at some sort of conspiracy is ridiculous. It just isn't a big deal.

 

Your last sentence though, is key to BOTH situations. CIA not using the information it has in the way it should, and jumping the gun too easily.

[Balta1701]

OK, I find your views on this bizarre and lacking consideration of the realities of the job. I also think you are placing blame in entirely the wrong place. But clearly I won't be changing your mind.

If the realities of the job at the state department involve lying to the American Public to start a war...then it's not a job worth keeping, because any concept that he was somehow making things better by providing a different voice was untrue.

 

Colin Powell destroyed his reputation that day and should have known better. But we never condemn people for advocating for war in this country, we never condemn people who fail to stop war, who enable it, whatever.

 

Oh...and in terms of Powell actually making things better by staying in his position...a large portion of the post-war reconstruction failures ought to be laid at his feet as well. The State Department had a full year to plan for what to do when the rest of them got their war...and it took an extra 3 years, until Rice took over and Powell was gone, for the State Department to figure out a strategy in Iraq and actually have anyone listen to them.

[Balta1701]

I think the whole Susan Rice thing is much ado about nothing. When the administration said what is probably something worth reviewing, and internally they should strive to communicate better... but this drum beat from the right that is hinting (clumsily) at some sort of conspiracy is ridiculous. It just isn't a big deal.

Whether there needs to be a reevaluation of Embassy positions and embassy security worldwide is something that Congress actually ought to be holding hearings on, and Hell, whether it's appropriate for administration officials to share intelligence estimates that are incomplete at all is worth discussing as well.

 

But neither of those are actually being discussed at all because of the conspiracy crap.

[StrangeSox]

Whether there needs to be a reevaluation of Embassy positions and embassy security worldwide is something that Congress actually ought to be holding hearings on, and Hell, whether it's appropriate for administration officials to share intelligence estimates that are incomplete at all is worth discussing as well.

 

But neither of those are actually being discussed at all because of the conspiracy crap.

 

That's the oddest part. There's legitimate questions here, but they're focusing on the absolute dumbest and most irrelevant thing: when, specifically, the administration labeled it 'terrorism.' I really thought the dog-and-pony aspect of this would die down after the election.