Wednesday, July 29, 2009

IT IS CIVIL WAR - GENERAL POWELL V. SARAH PALIN: HAS POWELL TAKEN A LEAD FROM CAPTAIN LOUIS RENAULT?

" I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy" But to know the entire story is to know in the end he left with the resistance." CASABLANCA

I believe this Civil War within the Republican Party is long overdue. The one thing I know about politicians is, they love power more than policy. Ideology means nothing to most politicians. In the end most will gravitate towards the power center regardless of their philosophical inklings.
The Republican power center has been looking for a way to dump the radical right within the Party since Bush I lost reelection. The problem is they have feared them because the are viewed as the base. You cannot demolish the base of your Party without in effect demolishing the entire house.

Colin Powell, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Bunning have expressed their concerns with how the radical right is hurting the Republican Party. We have not had this level of internal dissent in the past.

Sarah Palin may turn out to be the best thing to ever happen to the Republican Party. Her attempt to lead the radical right is scaring the rest of the Party into believing the Republican Party will permanently loose its status as a national party and be relegated to the status of a regional party. I believe this is why the moderates are going out and fighting. Although I guess one can argue that the decision of Senator Voinovich, and Senator Bunning to not run for reelection could be construed as abandoning the Party.

I do not believe the latter is a true assessment of the situation. I believe both Senators will reemerge on news programs as the voice of moderation within the Party. They can do a lot more as talking political heads for the moderation of the Republican Party than they can do as elected officials.

In the immortal words of Aunt PittyPat "Oh dear Yankees in Georgia!!How did they ever get in!?" Well I think traditional Yankee Republicans are asking "Oh dear, Intolerant Right-wing ideologs in the Republican Party!" How did they ever get in?" The answer is, Ronald Reagan could not win on the merits of his arguments so he solicited the votes of these intolerant right-wing ideologs. He knew the election would be close.

The people knew the policies of the Democrats were not working. Johnson’s "Great Society" had failed in may ways. It created generational welfare moms. It promoted slum public housing. Educated blacks saw what was happening to their family members and began to reject the "Great Society" although many advanced under programs of the "Great Society." The Democrats were wounded. Reagan understood this and used it to his advantage. He created a coalition of frustrated Democrats, moderate Republicans and the radical right. He won. This is how they got into the Party.

But the nature of politics was best summarized by Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains - Casablanca), a corrupt opportunist who later says of himself, "I have no convictions... I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy" But to know the entire story is to know in the end he left with the resistance." It is about timing, and I think Colin Powell knows the timing is right and he no longer needs to blow with the wind which is the radical-right mythical base of the Republican Party. Democrats beware - by 2012 Colin Powell, Senator Voinovich, and Senator Bunning could become the face of the Republican Party. People are forgiving and they will not care Powell intentionally lied about WMD in Iraq.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ah.... You had me, until... "Powell intentionally lied about WMD in Iraq"

Let me ask you, how do you know this to be the truth?

Do you know, can you state for a fact that anyone said with 100% certainty that there were WMD or did they not state that to the best evidence available at that time? In addition, you make a definitive statement about a person’s intentions when you must acknowledge you really have no idea about.


In fact, we can only conclude to this day that no authoritative government has expressly and publically stated that they found weapon grade ready WMD in Iraq.
Beyond that, what do you define WMD. The 5,000 tons of base uranium that the military shipped to Canada for disposal at the end of last year, does that count? What about the 500, 55-gallon drums of VX pre-cursor (of which there is only one use for that molecule) that was found, does that count?


The truth is that we discuss that 25 French made jets (12 months old at the time of the invasion, violating the UN embargo) that were found buried in an underground military site in Iraq. The amount of VX precursor required to wipe out a major city can be reduced to powder form and shipped in 4 large suitcases.

It will take multiple decades before we could ever know everything buried in that country.

Considering that 3 weeks prior to the invasion, truck were rolling out of Iraq and into Syria like the on-ramp to an expressway, the only thing you can say, with all certainty is "I don't really know".
Please don’t dismiss this as “you hate me” stuff.

Acknowledge it and stay away from definitive statements.

BobbyWC said...

Your question is fair, and I like how you outlined your perceived evidence.

The general opinion is no WMD as being claimed by Bush II were ever found.

Now how do I know.

Colin Powell during his UN speech stated that he believed certain 18 wheelers contained WMD, but that they had lost track of them.

In 1980 I can tell you for certain that our satalite technology could tell us more than you care to know about a man while he was urinating in the fields.

As someone who was in MI in the early 80's I know this to be a fact. I also know that when we ID something like a WMD we stayed on it - it did not just disappear.

Back then such as now our special opts people are on the ground everywhere. I have a grand-nephew who currently works special opts. I worked with special opts people.

Powell knew he lied about the WMD in this 18 wheeler - I make this assessment based on actual knowledge as to how our intellegence community works.

Further, the statement is based on Powell's history in the Army. He was part of the My Lai cover-up in Vietnam when he was a major. This makes it possible to conclude he is willing to lie and be party to cover-ups. His part in the cover-up is well established and not disputed even by Powell himself. He saw it as a necessary evil of war.

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Anonymous said...

If I may, I can finish your post...

"In conclusion Anony, I base my belief on the plausible intelligence collection capabilities of the US and what I further believe is the consistent nature of a man as I believe was demonstrated in 1969 when he was an Army Major."

Outstanding assertions, I grant you, both of which have no depth of evidence beyond your personal beliefs.

In conclusion, my conclusion stands: You really do not have any incident specific factual evidence of either Powell's intentions. Nor do you have any true reason to state that WMD did not exist, were or were not found, or if they are still there, other than the government said they haven't found them...yet.
I could assert the plausibility of the Bekka Valley site and containment theory, but the last concept is stronger.

You believe that Powell lied because the government has inferred as much. Interesting that your argument relies upon believing a government that you dismiss as habitual liars on a routine basis. Doesn't mean your wrong, but you have to appreciate the irony, no?

BobbyWC said...

First I ended my original piece with the people will forget about the WMD issue and his lies - this basically means it will not hurt him in the future - polling data supports my position. Powell remains popular

How our intelligence service works is fact - not speculation - Powell has historically defended his roll in the cover-up in My Lai - he openly chalks it up to war is hell.

No one can ever get into a person's mind to know for sure 100% their intent - but juries every day find criminals guility based on the evidence - most crimes have a mens rea component - this is intent - all a jury has is facts and from those facts they find intent sufficient to send people to their death -

while people can disagree as to whether or not the facts support intent - it is silly to say we can never form an opinion about a person's intent based on the facts - facts are all we have

On these 18 wheelers going to Syria - if I believed or any other left winger believed for one second that Bush II and Cheney remained silent while our military allowed Saddam to ship WMD to Syria I would have called for his impeachment.

We certainly then had the technology to stop teh 18 wheelers without blowing them up - we did not because Bush knew that people like you would use it as evidence of WMD - you were played and willingly took the bait.

Even I as a left winger would have stood 100% with Bush had he acted to close the Syrian Border by using US troops and special forces to stop the shipment of WMD.

Bobby WC

Anonymous said...

"...it is silly to say we can never form an opinion about a person's intent based on the facts - facts are all we have"

You concede the original point; you were stating your opinion as a fact and that it was just your opinion.

"...we did not [blow up departing 18-wheeled trucks]1because Bush knew that people like you would use it as evidence of WMD - you were played and willingly took the bait."

Assuming you have no real evidence of that conspiracy theory BW, the LD judges won't give you any points on that one either.

Good debate.

BobbyWC said...

I did not say blow up - you do not blow-up trucks unless you know what is in them and it can be done without making a bigger disaster.

Further I never said my opinion is fact. My opinion is based on the facts - one is not the other

Bobby WC