| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Colin Powell Wants Out |
| 2004-05-05 |
| EFL & hat tip to DailyPundit.com Secretary of State Colin Powell is exhausted, frustrated, and bitter, uncomfortable with President George W. Bush’s agenda, and fatigued from his battles with the Pentagon, reports GQ magazine writer-at-large Wil S. Hylton in the June 2004 issue of GQ magazine. Why GQ? Come on, cowboy it up, just a little. Powell’s mentor from the National War College, Harlan Ullman on Powell’s discomfort with the Bush team: "This is, in many ways, the most ideological administration Powell’s ever had to work for. Not only is it very ideological, but they have a vision. And I think Powell is inherently uncomfortable with grand visions like that ... There’s an ideological core to Bush, and I think it’s hard for Powell to penetrate that." What’s wrong with a vision. I have them all the time. Ullman on Powell’s relationship with Vice President Dick Cheney: "I can tell you firsthand that there is a tremendous barrier between Cheney and Powell, and there has been for a long time ... It’s like McCain saying that his relations with the president are ’congenial,’ meaning McCain doesn’t tell the president to go f*ck himself every time." That’s not very collegial. Ullman on National Security Advisor’s Condoleeza Rice’s comments that Powell and Cheney are "on more than speaking terms," and that they’re "very friendly": "Condi’s a jerk." Let’s see where this goes... |
| Posted by:Dragon Fly |
| #22 Cyber Sarge & Big Ed, I'm a Californian and wouldn't want to lose Arnie either. I do think he would make a good Sec State though. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-05-05 4:11:09 PM |
| #21 I get so tired of all this "chicken hawk" Bull-O-Knee. Woodrow Wilson managed to get us into WWI without a single day of military service, and FDR wiggled into WWII without prior military service either. (He didn't get polio until he was 39, so don't even try that silly argument.) Another side of this chicken hawk crap is this: A man that spends his life training for something, invariably wants to use his skills, therefore, I believe that a military man is just as capable of involving us in a war as one that spent his life as a civilian. |
| Posted by: Lou 2004-05-05 1:43:11 PM |
| #20 Amen Big Ed! The govenator aint done bitch-slapping the Liberals into submition in the state house. The FEAR him because he talks straight and has the peoples ear/mind/vote. He tells them to either do it this way or he will make a ballot measure. Politicians FEAR ballots measures because voters ALWAYS vote for their wallets and safety never on ideology. Also if Arnie left, Cruz (Control) Bustamove would take over! He's ours you can't have him....Yet! |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-05-05 1:35:17 PM |
| #19 Let's get Powell out of there and promote Richard Armitage. He tells it like it is...and we share a hair cut. |
| Posted by: mjh 2004-05-05 1:34:52 PM |
| #18 Colin Powell has always struck me as a conservative guy.Not conservative politically,but conservative in temperment-a don't rock the boat,can't we get along,doesn't like changes kind of guy.Great temperment for an Ambassador or Medium-level beaureucrat,well suited to be a Secretary of State-when times are dull.Not a reformer,because reform entails change.Not the person to whip a reluctant State Dept.into supporting the Pres. policies. #11.Powell has quite a habit of talking "off the record".Woodward's new book on Bush Administration has become famous in D.C.for Powell being source for much of it w/out being qouted directly. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-05-05 12:25:18 PM |
| #17 ruprecht - Don't take our Terminator. He just got started whacking the nitwit Socialists in the State legislature around a bit. He needs to finish that job first. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-05-05 12:16:53 PM |
| #16 I hate to say it, but this post was found at Daily Pundit and Bill Quick (Bless his heart! I do like the guy.) has had a real hate on for Powell for a long time. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-05 12:13:22 PM |
| #15 I wouldn't give Rudi the state job (or the UN job for that matter) even though I think he'd do a fine job in either position (or as Attorney General for that matter). I would make Rudi Giuliani the Vice President (because Cheney's health rules him out in 2008). I could see someone like Schwarzenegger being Secretary of State. He wants to help his new country (and can't be President) he's known world wide, he's a big believer in America and he's an immigrant so he can relate to other countries and they can relate to him. And boy does he know how to stay on topic when pushing a program or movie. Unfortunately he just got a new job so the timing is all wrong. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-05-05 12:11:09 PM |
| #14 I wonder if the whole thing is a political set up. Ever since Powell joined up with Bush, there has been suggestions that this 4-star general was somehow a closet liberal, and that it would only take a little push for him to become another Jesse Jackson. Uh-huh. Used to being horribly patronized his whole life, why do I suspect that Powell plays his patronizers for fools? Either this deputy is intentionally putting out disinformation with a specific goal in mind, which is what I believe, or he is a subordinate that Powell would have relieved in a heartbeat, and a long time before this. One does not get to be a general without having political acuity and strategic thinking way beyond ordinary. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2004-05-05 11:46:20 AM |
| #13 "... Not only is it very ideological, but they have a vision. " *gasp* This is perhaps the single-most telling quote in my eye. Only the tranzis are allowed a vision in the speaker's mind. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2004-05-05 11:16:35 AM |
| #12 I know others have recommended him as UN ambassador, but I think that would be a waste Damn right. With all that's been going on with that little oil-for-food/bribery scheme, it's not worth wasting someone of Giuliani's character on the UN. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-05-05 10:54:56 AM |
| #11 Am I missing something??? Or are there NO QUOTES FROM POWELL in that story?!? |
| Posted by: Anonymous4021 2004-05-05 10:47:00 AM |
| #10 If our government has a problem it's State. Since the 1940s, State has been infiltrated with literal Communists or Communist sympathisers. (Read Whittaker Chambers' book Witness about outing Alger Hiss and other Communist moles.) In recent decades, it's been staffed with people, like Ambassador Joe Wilson, who have been deeply bribed by the Arab world in that "special relationship" we used to have with them because we needed their oil. Ever since 9/11, time and again they've thrown roadblocks in the way of the Executive branch (and often the Legislative branch, too) of the government to do things that are favorable to the Arabian world and unfavorable to the U.S. Going back to the FDR, there is also a "special relationship" between State and the U.N. which thrives to this day. Colin Powell runs interference between the U.N., Foggy Bottom and the White House--Mr. Good Cop to the neocons' Bad Cop, especially Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. I don't mind Powell, because I think he's harmless; 3rd world countries like him and he's pleasant to deal with, plus he was a 1000% improvement over Madame. But I long for the old days when Henry Kissinger was SecState and knew what to do when it came to American Foreign Policy and who was loyal to President Nixon. State strikes me as being almost a priesthood and needs to be reformed by some kind of Pope. If we ever have to deal with Saudi Arabia and its "satellites"--which we will--State, as constituted, won't help and will have to be dragged screaming and kicking, as now, to do their part in the WOT. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-05-05 10:38:37 AM |
| #9 Powell is a fine Sec State and I truely hope hi stays on. If Cheney and he are opposites then good. Nobody needs a group of 'yes men' to run a company or a country. You confide, present, argue and decide. They (Cheney and Powell) have both lost and won political battles over the last few years but they share a common goal: The security of the U.S. I hope both stay! |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2004-05-05 10:31:57 AM |
| #8 Rudi Giuliani. Think he'd take crap from the Arabists below him? Or from our weak allies? I know others have recommended him as UN ambassador, but I think that would be a waste |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-05 10:25:43 AM |
| #7 Powell was reluctant to clean house at state. I hope that gets done during the next administration whomever is in charge. If you can't fire them because of Union rules put them all into the Lichtenstein bureau where they can't cause much harm. My question is, who would be a good replacement if Powell left? |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-05-05 10:20:55 AM |
| #6 Robert Crawford...do you think he has always been an institution man? Or is this a result of his past decade of work? Hell if I know. I just know he's been a disappointment as SecState, someone who's been way too tolerant of the entrenched bureaucracy and way too disinterested in accomplishing US foreign policy goals. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-05-05 10:05:44 AM |
| #5 Utopians, I don't like. You're never going to bring utopia, and you're going to hurt a lot of people in the process of trying to do it." Interesting that State thinks Mid eastern democracy is "Utopia". Seems to be a self fulfilling policy. Read Michael Rubins latest column in National Review Online, on how Bremer and the State Dept folks have resisted democratization in Iraq. Best thing about June 30 - it means Bremer is finally gone. But BUSH is responsible for Bremer, - THE BUCK STOPS HERE - remember. Too bad the Dems havent given us a real choice. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-05-05 9:27:25 AM |
| #4 What kind of Washington insider calls the sitting National Security Advisor a "jerk" on the record, even if it was true? |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2004-05-05 9:27:08 AM |
| #3 I don't quite think that Bush has an ideological 'core' to him. But Bush is a conservatives who lets principles guide him in his decision making, but not his thought processes. This article has the earmarkings of a mild smear piece against Bush, by calling Bush 'ideological' and hinting at some mental abberation on Bush's part. The writer uses every bit of It is altogether possible this story is a Kerry plant. Everytime conservatives have come to the conclusion that Powell was going to quit or that there was some 'war' going on in the National Security team, Powell has disabused the press of the very notion. From the article: Wilkerson on the neocons: "I make no bones about it. I have some reservations about people who have never been in the face of battle, so to speak, who are making cavalier decisions about sending men and women out to die. A person who comes immediately to mind in that regard is Richard Perle, who, thank God, tendered his resignation and no longer will be even a semioffcial person in this administration. Richard Perle's cavalier remarks about doing this or doing that with regard to military force always, always troubled me. Because it just showed me that he didn't have the appreciation, for example, that Colin Powell has for what it means ... I call them utopians ... I don't care whether utopians are Vladimir Lenin in a sealed train going to Moscow or Paul Wolfowitz. Utopians, I don't like. You're never going to bring utopia, and you're going to hurt a lot of people in the process of trying to do it." I won't address Wilkerson's chickenhawk arguments here but I will say I think Powell needs a new chief of staff. BTW, Perle's resignation left the wall against the barbarians just a little weaker. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-05-05 9:20:21 AM |
| #2 Robert Crawford...do you think he has always been an institution man? Or is this a result of his past decade of work? |
| Posted by: Dragon Fly 2004-05-05 9:05:55 AM |
| #1 Oddly, though, I'd trust Condi a lot quicker than I'd trust Powell. Powell's always struck as too mcuh of an institution man and not enough of a doer. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-05-05 9:04:10 AM |