OMG! I Think I Agree with Karl Rove!!! Ick, ick, ick!
In the continuing civil war brewing in the Republican melt-down, Karl Rove and chosen to side with blow-hard Rush Limbaugh over Former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Rove told Fox News that Limbaugh would edge out the former secretary of state if he "had to pick between the two."
It never ceases to amaze me. First Cheney, now Rove have sent the signal that the GOP feels that it does NOT need moderates.
But what amazes me even more? I found that I agree with something that Karl Rove said.
Rove called the debate between Limbaugh and Powell a "false" one because neither is a candidate for public office.
"The real debate", quipped Rove, "takes place out there in the real world by people getting out there and encouraging the kind of candidates who represent their vision for the party,"
So, it would seem, that Rove has invited Limbaugh, Hannity, and the other blowhards to disengage from public debate unless they are running for public office.
Whew, thank goodness. It's a about time. Get Real can use some peace and quiet.
Of course, what Karl does not know is whether Colin Powell will run for office in the future.
We all should wonder... in which party he would choose to run?
At the same time, I find myself disagreeing with the Democrats. The GOP is not the Party of No.
It's the Party of No-One.
Comments
"Of course, what Karl does not know is whether Colin Powell will run for office in the future"
Oh but we do, he will never run for anything. Does the word "political coward" mean anything to you. He steadfastly refuses to state a position on anything just like his mentor Obama.
You want to know what party he would declare to run under, lets see, he votes for democrats, declares himself a republican for advancement as democrats do not favor the military. Oh that word again "political coward".
For example, on Pakistan:
Powell aides go public on rift with Bush
And on Israel:
Bush-Powell Rift on Israel Goes Public
And, oh yeah, there was the premptive war in Iraq:
Rifts widen in Bush's foreign policy team
Powell admits US rift on Iraq
Turns out, sadly, that Powell was right on each one. Bush was wrong on every foreign policy disaster he created.
See, the Neocons have insured by refusing to admit that they were wrong that the entire rest of the world sees them as sick, warped and twisted. The GOP is now comprised of the former right-wing of the GOP.
That's a very, very small tent.
If they had any political smarts left, which they don't, they would tell Limbaugh, Cheney, Rove, and the other Neocons to shut up, and let Powell bring the party back together. In getting it right when Bush had it wrong, Powell has earned the credibility that Rove and Cheney seek but will never find. Powell is the GOP's best hope.
But, he and every other moderate have been shown the door. They should start their own party. The GNP. That has a nice ring to it. The Grand New Party. The Reform Republican Party (RRP)?
As long as Cheney and Rove try to hold on the past as valid (which is their attempt to save their own, individual, selfish and wrong legal souls, we'll get to that in a bit), they will not be leading any party. They have lost it, completely. Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld will be indicted for torturing for false evidence for war. They made Powell lay out all that false evidence, as if they US and the world was stupid enough to think that simply because Powell made the presentation that he personally vetted each item of flawed intelligence.
We will never forget that Bush and Cheney and Rove and Rice went on tour with lie after lie after lie about what we "knew" about Iraq.
Oh, and remember that Nancy Pelosi was not the only one misled by the CIA. Read this article that lays out precisely how Colin Powell took all mention of any link of al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime from the UN presentation, only to be given a "bombshell" report of a confession by an al Qaeda operative that Iraq was training al Qaeda.
How did the CIA get that steadfast, undisputable confession from that al Qaeda operative?
Which technique did they use?
Torture.
Now, get this, and read it s-l-o-w-l-y:
That is what the history books will say.
Everyone now admits that the confession was false.
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush approved the use of torture of this specific al Qaeda operative (al Libi) to pressure him to say that there was a link between al Qaeda and Iraq. They tortured a prisoner to get a justification for war.
That's cowardly. And it is a significant constitutional breach.
And it's still prosecutable.
Even if al Libi, the al Qaeda detainee who was tortured for 'evidence' for premptive war, committed "suicide" in a Libyan prison, the knowledge is out there.
It's just not good to be Dick Cheney these days.
Man you make this to easy.
Link #1: Mr. Powell parroting foreign governments.
Man you make this too easy.
Link#1: Mr. owell parroting Foreign Governments.
Mr
Man you make this too easy.
Link # 1: Mr Powell "parroting" foreign governments.
Mr. Powell "floated" ideas by foreign governments.
Mr. Powell "echoed"
Discussing the ideas and opinions of foreign governments, guess he forgot he was Sec. State of the United States and is a "political coward" by failing to so represent and make his own opinion known.
Link # 2: Same as No 1
Link #3: "All aboout me" looking out for his own legacy in the aftermath. Not man enough to accept outcomes less than expected. Blame it all on OTHERS.
Link #4: Again waffle, waffle, no position just rehashing opinions of others "he concedes there was an imperative to do "something" with the Bagdad regine" Fails to take a position himself and be responsible for the consequences; "political coward"
The rest "Torture" I do not accept the premise of the discussion which is mostly opinion with to many falcities to bother with.
What do you care how big the GOP tent is?
Do you listen to Rush?
Do you listen to Hannity?
Do you listen to Andrew Wilkow?
Do you listen to Mark Levin?
etc, etc.
For what it's worth, Powell is "suffering the consequences" of his courage, for example, attempted excoriation by his own party. But he is hardly "suffering". He is suffering the fools.
Taking a stand and suffering the consequences alone cannot be the only definition of courage.
I mean, suicide bombers take and stand and suffer the consequences. Are they courageous? I would say no. They are cowards.
It takes real courage to work out differences between cultures and ideology through civil discourse. Opening up stinking cans of worms when everyone else is afraid to do it. Standing up to authority.
Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, George Bush, these guys know nothing about meaningful, open-ended civil discourse. They are close-minded, they think they are right, they claim they are right even when the facts prove otherwise; they lie outright in public.
They have nothing meaningful to add to the maturation of politics in the United States.
I think you are just ticked off at Powell because he wasn't a good little soldier boy. That's fine if you hold that rather outmoded, Neanderthal opinion. But please just say that. Don't hide it by claiming Powell was not courageous.
Where and when did Powell stand up to President Bush. I never saw that resignation press conference of his, Oh yea that's because the back stabbing political coward didn't do it. He is just pissed that Bush booted his back stabbing ass out of the administration. President Bush gave him the world stage and how did he perform, yea gave that speech to the United Nations and convinced President Bush that action was necessary. Now he disowns his own conduct and blames others. I see where Obama learned it.
What branch of the military did you serve in, so I can get a sense of your definition of "courage"? How would you define yourself politically?
I'm not ticked off at Powell, he means nothing to me
Way to go, guys, you both are eating your seed corn.