CE8

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

JACkory said:

Colin Powell, from the very beginning of his tenure as Secretary of State, made it known that he was a "one-termer"...In other words, it should come as no surprise that a man of his word, as Powell most definately is, would do exactly what he said he would do...and what he said he would do was serve ONE TERM as SoS.
A vote of "non-confidence"?
Hardly.

Every rat that leaves a sinking ship protests he was only ever intending to do one voyage. The clever ones get their excuses in before they ever set sail.

Still, the naivety of your viewpoint is almost touching.

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

Just wanted to add a quick thought on the death penalty. We don't have it in Britain (in fact, it's a prerequisite of joining the European Union that you don't have the death penalty). And I have to tell you that we're no nearer solving the problem of crime than anyone else. I used to be very anti on this, but now I'm ambivalent. There's a lot to be said for cutting off hands and public whippings. You don't see a lot of street thuggery and stolen car radios in Saudi Arabia.

[JACkory]

JesusLooksLikeMe said:

Still, the naivety of your viewpoint is almost touching.

Yeah. Fuck you, JLLM.

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

JACkory said:

Yeah. Fuck you, JLLM.

Hehe. I knew you'd get a tickle out of that mate. How's the band going? You settle that issue with the singer wanting the old bassist's style?

[stratman19]

JACkory said:

Colin Powell, from the very beginning of his tenure as Secretary of State, made it known that he was a "one-termer"...In other words, it should come as no surprise that a man of his word, as Powell most definately is, would do exactly what he said he would do...and what he said he would do was serve ONE TERM as SoS.
A vote of "non-confidence"?Hardly.

I agree. It's been known for a very long time that Powell would likely only be there for one term. This is hardly unusual for a Secretary of State, or for any Cabinet member for that matter. Even just a cursory look at history will show anyone this. More times than not, there are many changes in a two term President's Cabinet.

Having said that, depending on who ultimately ends up as Secretary of Defense, hopefully this will bring more cohesiveness to American foreign policy. And that's a good thing.

[chrisfan]

Just for the record, Warren Christopher left after Clinton was re-elected. Let's just hope that Condi does a better job than Maddie!

I'm not sure that I agree that whoever ends up at Defense will hopefully be more cohesive with Rice than Rumsfeld and Powell were. In many ways, I think it beneifts the country to have two people with differing ideas, presenting the president with both sides of the coin there. My only concern there is that the NSA should play the mediator between them, and with Stephan Hadley moving up, he'd probably have a tendency to tip towards Rice.

[stratman19]

Chrisfan said:

Just for the record, Warren Christopher left after Clinton was re-elected. Let's just hope that Condi does a better job than Maddie!

I'm not sure that I agree that whoever ends up at Defense will hopefully be more cohesive with Rice than Rumsfeld and Powell were. In many ways, I think it beneifts the country to have two people with differing ideas, presenting the president with both sides of the coin there. My only concern there is that the NSA should play the mediator between them, and with Stephan Hadley moving up, he'd probably have a tendency to tip towards Rice.

On the question of Maddie, how could she not? Man, that's one SoS we coulda lived without!

Let me clarify (or try) my comments on cohesiveness. It absolutely benefits the President, and the country to have people with differing views. It's essential.

I have the utmost respect for Colin Powell. He was a good soldier, and he's served this country in several roles with distinction. He's to be commended for that.

Chris, you mentioned that your concern was that the head of the NSA should play a mediator role, I agree. Hadley will probably lean toward Rice, much as Rice leaned toward Rumsfeld, leaving Powell out in the cold many times (big mistake IMO). I think though, that with all the rumors of discord, all the leaks, with all the legitimate disagreements between Powell and Rumsfeld, Bush didn't want that distraction, nor did he want to present that "face" of America to the world.

There's no doubt this new Administration is going to be more hawkish, and that's fine by me as long as everyone is on the same page. This Administration will do itself a huge disservice though if it doesn't include some moderate voices that have the ear of the President. Just my opinion.

[someone]

Powell was the only one I trusted in there. And the longer he was with that administration, the longer I felt he compromised his integrity. I always secretly hoped that Powell would resign. But not if it meant Condi Fucking Rice would replace him. Fuck, she's the worst. We're doomed.

stratman, I chose not to comment on your death penalty post, because you chose to bring abortion into the discussion, instead of addressing the death penalty head on, which I thought was a copout, as well as extremely manipulative. You had an agenda in posting the partial birth pics, whether you own up to it or not.

[chrisfan]

someone said:

stratman, I chose not to comment on your death penalty post, because you chose to bring abortion into the discussion, instead of addressing the death penalty head on, which I thought was a copout, as well as extremely manipulative. You had an agenda in posting the partial birth pics, whether you own up to it or not.

So it's okay for you to bring issues such as the second amendment into the disucssion as a means of illustrating what you see as hypocrisy in defending the Constitution, but not okay for stratman to bring in something that he sees as hypocrisy in objecting to the death penalty? Okay.

[chrisfan]

The UN's coalition of the bribed

Published November 17, 2004

One after another, with the cadence of choreographed mortar fire, disclosures about the phenomenally corrupt United Nations program known as Oil-for-Food--it ranks as one of the greatest financial crimes of all time--are exploding into the news.

With each troubling disclosure, last year's refusal of the UN Security Council to enforce its 17 resolutions against Iraq after the Persian Gulf war becomes more transparent. To prop up the regime that murdered his people by the hundreds of thousands, and to thwart UN sanctions, Saddam Hussein bribed officials and companies in influential nations worldwide. Given the vast payoffs he funneled to France, Russia and China--three countries with veto power at the Security Council--Hussein had nothing to fear from the UN's coalition of the bribed.

By the time a U.S. president finally confronted the UN with its failure to enforce its own repeated demands of Iraq, the fix evidently was in. As last month's report from Charles Duelfer, chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, made alarmingly clear, the sanctions in which opponents of the Iraq war had invested so much faith and hope were in truth collapsing. Hussein used money looted from Oil-for-Food to buy friends around the globe who could speed that collapse. Duelfer wrote that once Hussein undermined the sanctions, he intended to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction--and craft nuclear bombs. Fortunately, he was dethroned and defanged first.

In this week's burst of Oil-for-Food news:

- U.S. Senate investigators reported Monday that Hussein illegally pocketed some $21 billion during 13 years of sanctions--double prior estimates. Much of that came via Oil-for-Food, in which Iraq was allowed to sell some oil, supposedly under UN monitoring, and use the proceeds to buy food and medicine for its people.

Instead, as Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) accurately framed it, "That humanitarian program was corrupted and exploited ... for the most horrible and aggressive purpose" of funding Hussein's military. Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), who chairs a Senate panel aggressively investigating Oil-for-Food, said the huge fraud left a "dark stain" over the UN. While the UN averted its eyes, or worse, Hussein illegally smuggled oil, collected fat surcharges on permitted oil sales, bought rotting or substandard goods for his people, and even demanded kickbacks from foreign suppliers of those goods.

- As Iraqis died of malnutrition and disease, Hussein paid bribes to undermine sanctions and clear a path for spending on WMD. Mark Greenblatt, a counsel for the Senate panel, said Hussein tried "to gain influence throughout the world" for his campaign to end the sanctions. Greenblatt said Hussein "gave oil allocations to officials, journalists and even terrorists, who then sold their allocations to the traditional oil companies in return for a sizable commission." If some Hussein allies who criticized the sanctions as cruelties imposed on the dictator were gullible, others were purchased and paid for.

- Probers previously alleged that Benon Sevan, the sidekick of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan who ran Oil-for-Food, secretly got lucrative rights to illicit oil from Hussein himself. On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that Sevan also blocked the UN's anti-corruption unit from investigating his program. The Post said Sevan, who denies wrongdoing, was "loath to antagonize key Security Council members, particularly Russia, which routinely opposed efforts to reform a multibillion-dollar program that served its political and economic interests." Translation: People like their bribes intact.

Hussein's hijacking of Oil-for-Food bought him a world of support--almost. Now, honorable governments need to demand accountability from the nations, companies and individuals that were complicit in his blood-caked crimes. The UN also must produce the records that will let probers unravel the corruption for which so many Iraqi innocents paid with their lives.

Even in history's rough draft, this scandal is contemptible. And for those who appeased Saddam Hussein, it will grow more embarrassing.

[pissin2]

well aren't we all just a bunch o hypocrits

[rockkid]

If I may turn the talk away from god & or the body politico for a minute since my definition of current events is the literal.
Any event that’s current.
Anyone catch the Vibes last night?
Fancy a rap award show with violence who’d thought.
Point……….. can you take the bang out of the ganger?
Now these guys have more cash flow than a bodies got a right to with the clothing lines, the rap its self & other assorted merchandising so why the beefs?
Bringing the peacock posing imagined turf wars to the gate.
Analyze/ theorize/discuss…………………


Side note………. I have to admit to always hoping some day Powell would be president.

[Ampage]

Just proves that money does not MAKE the man. Nothing worse than an idiot with bling.

[pissin2]

what happened last night? Was there a rumble?

[rockkid]

And then some. Looked like WWF. Chair bashing, stabbing (non fatal at least I think) & Dr Dre ass & elbows deep in it.


But, back to the point………. If you’ve achieved fame/financial success, why keep bringing it?
Is it just old habits dying hard or more?