tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078662512777171745.post3653889569921455086..comments2008-03-24T17:24:27.917-04:00Scott Cavanaghhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18274607025849615002noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078662512777171745.post-76116827616585398712008-03-24T17:24:00.000-04:002008-03-24T17:24:00.000-04:00This question is for Gonfalon Priquer... Can you explain the sentence in your comments, "He followed 41 to glory and 43 to ruin". I wasn't sure what you were referring to... Thanks! Raymond GilAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078662512777171745.post-68907936992212140162008-03-24T16:44:00.000-04:002008-03-24T16:44:00.000-04:00Come now. Powell "stood up" to Bush? Is that what you would call waiting 18 months after the start of the war -- and one week after Bush had secured reelection -- before resigning with nary a peep about his objections to the war? <BR/><BR/>Again, I salute his military achievements. But if he had serious concerns about the war and its effects, and if he felt he was being shut out by others in the Administration, the time to speak out was in 2003 and 2004. His first public criticisms about Bush didn't come until 2005, long after he was in a position to do anything about it.<BR/><BR/>His military record shows courageous actions. His political record does not.Ken Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13545923862917750773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078662512777171745.post-32532154280522610142008-03-24T16:24:00.000-04:002008-03-24T16:24:00.000-04:00Contrary to what “The Hart brothers” would have you believe, Colin Powell was completely against this war from the beginning. He even took Bush aside, cautioning him of what the consequences would be should he interfere. Of course, Bush ignored the advice of Powell and invaded recklessly and chaotically. At the Aspen Idea’s Festival, Powell added that Iraq was already in internal conflict, which would only worsen with U.S. Military involvement. This is not the portrait of “blind loyalty” you so facetiously painted, and if he had been just another one of Bush’s “lackeys” he would not have stood up to him, and ultimately resigned (forced to resign) because of this.Shadowdancerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18174445486113475321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078662512777171745.post-9565964041966933822008-03-24T13:39:00.000-04:002008-03-24T13:39:00.000-04:00Yes, 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.Ken Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13545923862917750773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078662512777171745.post-71950703647250998952008-03-22T13:54:00.000-04:002008-03-22T13:54:00.000-04:00The 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.Gonfalon Priquernoreply@blogger.com