Just Watched the Democratic Presidential Debate

[Konigballer]

"He speaks well", hey aaron_mag did you ever see Chris Rocks first HBO comedy special Bring The Pain But your right, next to Bush he sounds like freakin' Plato.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by aaron_mag
I think Powell has a good chance of winning the Presidency at some point. He is likable to both sides. My wife, who dislikes Bush intensely (and is a Republican) really likes Powell.

I must admit that I'm a fan of him as well. He speaks well and I like his politics (he is more of a diplomat than Bush or Rumsfeldt.

Powell has the same problem in the Republican party that Lieberman has in the Democratic Party, he can't win a primary. I won't vote for him and neither will the conservative arm of the Republican party. You wife may, but from the description you gave above she sounds like a liberal Republican in the first place (not that there's anything wrong with that). Powell has not towed the company line for much of the Bush administration, there is a lot of support amoung conservatives for ousting him, and his willingness to cede US interests to the UN is a real sticking point with the right.

Powell would make an OK Democratic candidate, but not Republican.

[aaron_mag]

Do you guys really want someone who is known for towing the party line not to mention the more extreme wing of the party? Yes I know Powell has lost favor with the conservative wing of the Republican party. He also wasn't stupid enough to use intelligence that he knew was false as compelling reasons to go to war in Iraq. He argued the case for the administration to the U.N. just not exactly as they would have liked it (ie he didn't offer himself up as the fall guy).

There is even rumor that Bush will dump Powell at some point. If you feel this is true do you think it will be before the election or after the election?

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by aaron_mag
Do you guys really want someone who is known for towing the party line not to mention the more extreme wing of the party? Yes I know Powell has lost favor with the conservative wing of the Republican party. He also wasn't stupid enough to use intelligence that he knew was false as compelling reasons to go to war in Iraq. He argued the case for the administration case to the U.N. just not exactly as they would have liked it (ie he didn't offer himself up as the fall guy).

Yeah, I do want somebody that tows the party line. Why wouldn't I? I joined the party because I by and large believe in the party line, just like most people joined the Democratic party for the same reason, and the Libertarian Party, and the Communist Party. What's the point of electing a candidate from my party if they don't believe in the things I believe in as a member of that party?

And the intelligence has not been proven to be faulty (And I don't think it is). The uranium flap was not faulty intelligence, it was intelligence the British government stood behind, and they still do

There is even rumor that Bush will dump Powell at some point. If you feel this is true do you think it will be before the election or after the election?

Bush won't. He should, but he won't. Bush is loyal to a fault, he won't fire people even when it's in his, and the nation's, best interest. Look at George Tenet. He's a Clinton appointee, was the head of the CIA for the 9/11 intelligence failures, and STILL he has his job.

[aaron_mag]

The party is a big conglomeration of people that all have a different interpretation of what the party stands for. My wife is a member of your party and she would be outraged if Powell was out while you would feel he deserved it. Party leadership can be out of line with what is good for the party and the nation.

Now lets discuss the intelligence thing. It is not odd to you that we relied on British Intelligence? Could it be that the U.S. did their own investigation (which they did) and believed it to be bogus (which they did). For someone who is so pro American I would think that you would want to rely on our own intelligence operatives. They didn't, however, come to the conclusion that the administration wanted.

Do I think there should be a congressional investigation over it being included in the speech? No. Someone already admitted responsibility for it being in the speech and furthermore any American with a brain new it was a bunch of BS anyway. I will admit that the democrats need to let such issues go and focus on winning through inspiration for better leadership rather than on mud slinging.

[Collegeboy]

Powell is the best thing to happen to the Bush admin. If they drop him I would hate to see what kind of wars we get into, how bad it gets in the Middle East, and how bad our foreign relations will get.

Powell is the only credibility we have with many Middle Eastern countries and European countries.


Edit


Its on

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=3&u=/ap/20030915/ap_on_el_pr/clark

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by aaron_mag
The party is a big conglomeration of people that all have a different interpretation of what the party stands for. My wife is a member of your party and she would be outraged if Powell was out while you would feel he deserved it. Party leadership can be out of line with what is good for the party and the nation.

Hence my observation that she is a liberal Republican. As for our party leadership, most of the have a problem with Powell too.

Now lets discuss the intelligence thing. It is not odd to you that we relied on British Intelligence? Could it be that the U.S. did their own investigation (which they did) and believed it to be bogus (which they did). For someone who is so pro American I would think that you would want to rely on our own intelligence operatives. They didn't, however, come to the conclusion that the administration wanted.

So we need an international coalition to do anything but we're not allowed to listen to them? No, I don't find it odd at all that we relied on their intelligence. They have different assets then us, so it is entirly possible that they know something we don't. As for our investigation, we sent a pro-Arab investigator down there who determined that a single report about the purchase of uranium was falsified. Now, the investigator's conclusions are considered suspect by many, but for the sake of arguement let's say he's right. That doesn't invalidate any of the British intelligence or prove Bush's statement wrong. He said Saddam had attempted to acquire uranmium from Africa, and there is ample evidence that he had indeed tried to do so.

[Albinonewt]

And it appears Clark is definitly running. So CB, are we betting on his performance?

I don't think he gets out of the primaries. ALthough, his entry destroys Kerry.

[aaron_mag]

Albinonewt-

So Europeans fear our military? Are those allies? Has our relationship with European allies deteriorated so far with Bush? Yes I'm being a devil's advocate. I don't believe that it has deteriorated to that point but the attitude that Europeans had better "fall into line" with U.S. foriegn policy disturbs me.

CB-

Interesting piece on Putin (sp?) this morning. I guess the communist party is protesting that he is using state television to support himself and the Russia United Party (which he is not an official member of). Also one of his chief ministers is the chairman of the Russia United Party. But wait......I thought that the Russia system of having the President not officially part of any party made the President non party biased???? Unfortunately the communist party doesn't see it the same way you do! As we were all trying to tell you it was a good idea in theory but totally impractible.....

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by aaron_mag
So Europeans fear our military? Are those allies? Has our relationship with European allies deteriorated so far with Bush? Yes I'm being a devil's advocate. I don't believe that it has deteriorated to that point but the attitude that Europeans had better "fall into line" with U.S. foriegn policy disturbs me.

Actually, yes they do, but not in the way you're insinuating. They do nothing but complain about our military and make fun of it, but that is a mask for their real feelings. Germany pretends it doesn't want our 100,000 troops stationed there anymore, but anytime we mention pulling them out the Germans freak out. You see, they have a 12% unemployment rate, and pulling out 100,000 soldiers that just throw money into their economy is a real big problem for them. Then there's the French. The reason the French have to fight us in the Security council and complain and wine all the time is because they have zero military might compared to us, so they can't interfere in any meaningfull way except to cry diplomatically.

Plus, I don't care if Europeans fall in line, nor did I ever suggest they should. I don't care what they do, and why should I? If they want to support, great more power to them. If they want to obstruct, good luck they're going to need it. Frankly, I'd prefer they offer assistance equal to the level of reward that they're going to ask for. France (and the whole UN for that matter) keep complaining that they're frozen out of the contracts for Iraq and frozen out of the political process there. My answer for them is next time don't make every effort to get in the way and then cry when the favor is returned. Talk about diplomatic failures.


Interesting piece on Putin (sp?) this morning. I guess the communist party is protesting that he is using state television to support himself and the Russia United Party (which he is not an official member of). Also one of his chief ministers is the chairman of the Russia United Party. But wait......I thought that the Russia system of having the President not officially part of any party made the President non party biased???? Unfortunately the communist party doesn't see it the same way you do! As we were all trying to tell you it was a good idea in theory but totally impractible.....

Yeah, I remember that conversation (was that with CB? I thought it was someone else) And the answer is, the Russian system wouldn't work here.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
My answer for them is next time don't make every effort to get in the way and then cry when the favor is returned. Talk about diplomatic failures.

And they could say don't come crying to them that we want help in rebuilding Iraq and bearing the security burden after we decided that we didn't need the U.N. That, however, would be bad for the international community and (more important to me) bad for the U.S. We've had our spat time for everyone to make up. Time to start calling them French braids and French fries again. Further discord serves neither side well.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


And they could say don't come crying to them that we want help in rebuilding Iraq and bearing the security burden after we decided that we didn't need the U.N. That, however, would be bad for the international community and (more important to me) bad for the U.S. We've had our spat time for everyone to make up. Time to start calling them French braids and French fries again. Further discord serves neither side well.

And that comes back to the fact that they want to be involved with the political process and to get contracts and to profit from our military success and the President is basically saying to them that if they want anything out of Iraq they have to share some of the burden. Why should we pay all the expenses of rebuilding and fixing the infrastucture but they benefit from it?

I don't really way the international community involved in Iraq, but if they want to be included at the table then they need to earn it.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by aaron_mag



CB-

Interesting piece on Putin (sp?) this morning. I guess the communist party is protesting that he is using state television to support himself and the Russia United Party (which he is not an official member of). Also one of his chief ministers is the chairman of the Russia United Party. But wait......I thought that the Russia system of having the President not officially part of any party made the President non party biased???? Unfortunately the communist party doesn't see it the same way you do! As we were all trying to tell you it was a good idea in theory but totally impractible.....

If you remember what I said, I said that it doesn't work all the time, but the times it does work it is worth having that clause in there.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


If you remember what I said, I said that it doesn't work all the time, but the times it does work it is worth having that clause in there.

I don't remember you saying that at all. I remember you trying to convince me that the Preisdent of the our country should relinquish his party when elected and you fought and fought with me that it would work here.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


I don't remember you saying that at all. I remember you trying to convince me that the Preisdent of the our country should relinquish his party when elected and you fought and fought with me that it would work here.

Well then you don't read.