<p>Powell is not only a stooge, he is a BIG stooge. He allowed himself to be the front man for a phoney war policy. If he knew how phoney it was, he is dishonest, and if he didn’t know, he is incompetent. I liked him before that happened, but he lost my respect entirely for his part in needlessly sending thousands of people to their deaths. To me, that’s a pretty detailed and well-thought-out reason for opposing him.</p>
<p>During Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003 presentation to the UN Security Council, </p>
<p>"Powell also stated that there was “no doubt in my mind” that Saddam was working to obtain key components to produce nuclear weapons.[10]</p>
<p>A claim that was exhaustively vindicated by the Chief U.N. weapons inspector and highly respected Australian diplomat, Richard Butler. In his book “The Greatest Threat”, detailing Sadam Hussein’s violations of the 1992 gulf war terms of surrender, Butler provides overwhelming evidence supporting the conclusions of Powell’s testimony that Hussein was indeed pursuing WMD development. [11] Under Butler, UNSCOM found that Iraq made at least 3,900 liters of VX, along with anthrax and other weapons of mass destruction. Butler also details how Russia, France and China flouted disarmament efforts to protect their own political interests, and he argues that UNSCOM’s mandate was bargained away in Baghdad by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. [12]</p>
<p>However, the veracity of the specific evidence presented by Powell before the U.N. has been exhaustively scrutinized, especially by domestic critics of the Bush administration, exposing mistakes in intelligence which would lead to resignation of CIA director George Tenet, who accompanied Powell during his U.N. testimony.</p>
<p>A Senate report on intelligence failures would later detail the intense debate that went on behind the scenes on what to include in Powell’s speech. State Department analysts had found dozens of factual problems in drafts of the speech. Some of the claims were taken out, but others were left in. [13]</p>
<p>Because Powell was seen as more moderate than most figures in the administration, he was spared many of the attacks that have been leveled at more controversial advocates of the invasion, such as Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. At times, infighting between the Powell-led State Department, the Rumsfeld-led Defense Department, and Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had the effect of paralyzing the administration on crucial issues, such as what actions to take regarding Iran and North Korea.</p>
<p>.After Saddam Hussein had been deposed, Powell’s new role was to once again establish a working international coalition, this time to assist in the rebuilding of post-war Iraq.</p>
<p>Colin Powell announced his resignation as Secretary of State on Monday, November 15, 2004. " (from Powell’s Wikipedia entry)</p>
<p>Much more complicated, the reality of the situation at the time. I don’t think it supports a finding that Powell was a “stooge”, but you’re free to disagree.</p>
<p>What about my second question?</p>
<p>“Well qualified white Democrat (no one you currently know so no “baggage”) vs. well qualified black Republican (no one you currently know so no “baggage”). Who would you vote for?”</p>
<p>Well qualified means whatever you want it to mean, but applies to both. Gender is a non issue for this question.</p>
<p>The fact that he ultimately resigned makes me give him the benefit of the doubt and think that he was a stooge, and not a liar.
As for your second question, assuming you are talking about people who would adhere to the current platforms of those parties, I would vote for the Democrat, white, black, or plaid. Although I think there would be benefits to having the first black, or female, or Jewish, or Asian president, those still aren’t outweighed by the issues.</p>
<p>For me, well qualified is well qualified. As a moderate independent ( a RINO actually as I’m registered Republican), it really doesn’t matter to me what party the candidate is for any elected office, either local, state or national. I always vote the person, not the party. So for two equally well qualifed candidates as per my question, I would vote for the black Republican. For all of those historic healing reasons. If I felt the candidates were not equally well qualified or had specific differences in policy views that would overide that reasoning, I would decide differently. But I wouldn’t decide based on their political party alone.</p>
<p>Hunt wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well if the rationale of the first paragraph has you losing repect for Powell, and in your second paragraph, issues trump gender or race, how do you reconcile voting for a pro choice Democratic candidate?</p>
<p>“But I wouldn’t decide based on their political party alone.”</p>
<p>Well, I did qualify my answer by saying that I assumed they adhered to their party platforms, which are very different. I suppose I can imagine a situation in which I would vote for the Republican over the Democrat, but they would both have to be atypical.
Madville, I’m not sure I agree that wantonly sending U.S. soldiers uselessly to their deaths is really similar to the abortion issue. Still, I do have trouble with some of the positions of the Democrats, including that one, but on the whole I think their views match mine better. If you single-vote on any single issue, including abortion, unfortunately you will find yourself voting for incompetent and dishonest people who agree with you on that single point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One situation reflects arguably expediency, and one represents convenience for the most part. In either situation, it can be reasonably argued, a tremendous waste of life. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed, but some issues are paramount. If you can lose respect for an individual who endorsed, in part, the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of lives over a protracted period of time, I would find it more difficult to understand how you could support an individual or platform that “endorses” the thousands of lives lost per day. </p>
<p>I respect that it is an individual judgement, but also a value judgement. I’m just addressing what seems to be a contradiction of sorts, using your rationale.</p>
<p>Funny how that works–you’d think pro-life people would also oppose the death penalty, but most of them don’t. Comparing one issue to another is not always easy.</p>
<p>“If you single-vote on any single issue, including abortion, unfortunately you will find yourself voting for incompetent and dishonest people who agree with you on that single point.”</p>
<p>Some of us have a single issue with many, many sides – a.k.a. appointments to the Article III federal courts. Any incompetent and dishonest people involved in that process will come up for re-election every four or six years…but the judges are there for life.</p>
<p>I can see how people can rationally vote on a single issue, but there is a cost to be paid if you do that. Abortion is probably the most important single-issue issue, for voters on both sides of the issue, and it’s been bundled–on both sides–with other issues that do not necessarily have any connection to it.</p>
<p>Obama wouldn’t have even gotten this far in the election. Hillary would have smashed him, just as she smashed John Edwards.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again, I concur, but I wonder what the “cost” is or will be when this country has to pay for the 1.2-1.4 million lives lost per annum, along with our other gross shortcomings. I can’t think of any “single” issue more relevant.</p>
<p>The more I consider the candidates, the more abstention for any of them becomes more of a viable option sad to say.</p>
<p>Hunt, pro-life people do oppose the death penalty.</p>
<p>Back to the original question, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, I would support Obama even if he were O’Bama. I just don’t find Hillary to be likeable. She’s smart, and I believe she could handle the job, but I don’t really want to spend 4 years looking at her. I’m African American and female, BTW.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some do, some don’t.</p>
<p>The rationale for the different perspective?
Abortion = ending innocent life
Death penalty = ending guilty life</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it would be a great thing to have a black president elected for some of your aforementioned reasons. I question if mainstream america has gotten to the point where it can look beyond color. As a resident of Ohio, I know full well the mindset that kept Obama from winning in Ohio, Kentucky, Pensylvania, and W.V. That main demographic body that voted against him, I work, live and deal with all the time. Unfortunately race has and will play a significant factor in these elections along with the issues. I think I know what Michelle Obama meant. Those were the ones in part, that Obama was alluding to when he said that they “run to their guns and religion”. Those are the same guys, believe me. Given that, and even though I’m an African American, I can’t support the notion of an AA president just because they are Black. The difference between me and some others who make the same claim is I know that beyond a shadow of a doubt, his race or that all that is associated with it, has ZERO effect on my decision.</p>
<p>I find it amusing sometimes the rationale that others give in not supporting this particular AA candidate even though they are Democrats. The Wright issue, Farrakhan, Hamas, him being an elitist, etc, really don’t stand up to scrutiny when put up to comparative examples. Some of these are found in a recent op-ed piece done by Tim Wise [Farrakhan</a> is Not the Problem](<a href=“http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/Farrakhan.html]Farrakhan”>http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/Farrakhan.html)</p>
<p>Not that I subscribe to everything that I read, but I do enjoy intelligent debate and discussion and try to remind myself that there are two sides to every issue and my viewpoint isn’t the only one. It’s a constant reminder to myself, lol!</p>
<p>Timely,</p>
<pre><code> Then they are anti-abortion, not pro-life.
</code></pre>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay. But for point of information, many people who call themselves pro-life are in favor of the death penalty. It’s important to understand what people mean when they are referring to themselves and their positions. Hunt realized this when he pointed out that most people who call themselves pro-life are in favor of the death penalty.</p>
<p>I’m not interested in debating abortion or the death penalty nor of hijacking the thread. Hunt noted that he thought it was funny how pro-life people could be against abortion but for the death penalty, and I was just sharing the thinking behind that.</p>
<p>OK…but where does it say ‘most’ people that are
against abortion are for the death penalty? You or
Hunt (or I, for that matter) may know some
individuals like that, but that is not ‘most people’.</p>