Monday, March 24, 2008

Barking Back: Top Reader Comments

Gonfalon Priquer on The General Defended:
"The Colin Powell debate seems to be sliding towards a playground scuffle. No one questions Powell's service to the nation as a military leader. However, like many, many Army officers I've known and worked with, Powell had an unwavering but blind loyalty to his patrons, the Bushes. He followed 41 to glory and 43 to ruin. Powell seems to have made his peace with his experience and shameful acts as secretary of state. The man had ambition and made his choices based on loyalty, not his own philosophies as a general. He's radioactive for national politics."
Ken Hart on The General Defended:
"I don't quite see how Powell's military service makes him impervious to criticism for his role in the lead-up to the Iraq war. It's apples and oranges, folks. If anything, it makes his poor judgment all the more regrettable. He served his country well, then made personal loyalty to Bush his priority, and so his future ability to do any more good work on a national or globe scale is pretty much out the window."
Shadowdancer on Colin Conversation Continues:
"Instead of mocking Colin Powell you should treat him with the honor and respect he deserves, (as well as any of our brave soldiers) for without them America would not be the free land it is today (I see you are already familiar with the “Freedom of Speech”). I’m not going to pretend that I know you personally; however the visage that you present is that of a pompous self-righteous ass."
Mike Hart on More on Colin Powell...:
"Hillary Clinton's husband and President did not invade Iraq as Dubya did; he preferred to let the world's sanctions take their effect on Saddam and they were effective. Colin Powell was either totally duped by Cheney/Bush, etc. with his U.N presentation or he was somewhat complicit with it. So, he is either a fool or a war criminal accomplice. Pick one."
Frank on Powell a Great VP Choice? Not Anymore:
"Let’s see now, if I followed your logic about Colin Powell being easily misled by Cheney and his nefarious gang of cohorts and therefore would be poor choice for vice president, I can only conclude (logically) that Hillary Clinton would be a poor choice for president because she was easily misled by the Bush administration."
Ken Hart on As Dems Battle, McCain Eyes Powell/WH:
"Sure, Powell can take the high road and say that he meant well, but what does it say about the brains of McCain's veep choice if he could be misled so easily by Cheney, Tenet, and greedy opportunists like Chalabi and subsequently ruin his reputation before a global audience?"
Leave a Comment

1 comment:

Mike Hart said...

This response is directed towards Shadowdancer. General Powell deserved credit and respect for many of his past achievements but his stature has regressed significantly because of his work with the Dubya administration. I would not have lost as much respect as I have for General Powell if he had resigned from the Dubya administration because of his acknowledged skepticism about the invasion of Iraq instead of being played ("time to put on the uniform" Bush supposedly told him) by Dubya and Cheney. Powell showed a lack of character involving the Iraq situation and compounded it by writing a book, cashing in, about his reservations instead of doing what would have been the brave thing and either resigning and/or speaking up - at the time, not years later - about the mismanaged Iraq war. If General Powell had done that he, conceivably, could have perhaps changed the public's initial view of the situation and changed the administration's policies. Then, Shadowdancer, he would have earned respect.
As for what I have done to make a meaningful impact on the world, I am not in a position of power like General Powell was. However, I try to influence matters as much as I can as a concerned citizen by voting for intelligent candidates and by working for significant causes. Your General Powell, by supporting the Iraq invasion, has certainly had a meaningful impact on the world - in all the wrong ways.
As for free speech, the Dubya administration that General Powell was a part of, has consistently fought to limit that right in many ways (how about those protest zones that keep people away from Dubya, Cheney and company). Why do you label me a self-righteous pompous ass when in my past comment all I did was point out facts about Gen. Powell at the U.N, Senator McCain's speech and the Pentagon's report on Saddam and the non-existent Al-Qaeda connection. The truth about the GOP hurts, doesn't it? As usual, GOP supporters cannot handle the truth and have to veer the conversation off the topic(s) and into name-calling.