IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New > Would that 11th Commandment include Colin Powell, then? <
Any current member of the government should not endorse a personal insult to a high ranking military officer doing his job.
Is *he* guilty of serving as shill for selective data-taking; guilty of {willingly?} allowing his previous credence to be attached to a hysterical piece of propaganda, meant to [successfully] rush towards an illegal Invasion?

Because.. by now - it has become apparent that his credibility, perhaps his entire reputation for honesty -- is irretrievably tanked -- though I haven't seen any polling organization yet willing to put such a question to the Vox Populi - so starkly. I mean.. if you saw it in spreadsheet form - then it would be True-ish, right?

There is thus - precedent for this Admin actively seeking flaks (whose rep is better that their own) - an extremely easy bar to beat , all things considered - over six years' experience.

As to doing his job -
What Petraeus has just done: precisely is what is Not a military officer's job; not (even) in the US, by all previous carefully cultivated attitudes thus: precedence. They Do Not interpose themselves between polarized Politicians, 'promise' 'results' -- whose probability is already seen to be parlously Low: and call it simply, "military intelligence".

cf. Douglas Mac Arthur VS Harry Truman. He Fired the sucker for political meddling. Shrub INVITES it == if it fits his plan. {sniff} and Shrub fancies he's 'like HST' (too). Delusional as usual.

Oh - and -
(There is a recent link in one of these threads to which you replied, disdainfully dismissing a Character Assessment of Petraeus by his *Superior Officer*; dismissed as ~~ "Oh, nobody should pay any attention to military squabbles, etc." ie 'a mere bagatelle,' to which dismissal I here reply: Oh. Really?
- and accuse you of selective data taking. Once again. A superior officer's assessment is of considerable relevance to someone who knows-not the person in question - only.. 'not to You, merely.')

Failing some miraculous occurrence, whereby suddenly -- 98% of all persons in Iraq, overnight suffer near total-amnesia -- Gen Petraeus shall join Gen. : Powell in well-earned obloquy. This, quite independently of anything MoveOn has said or will say. It is only a matter of, whenever it becomes apparent -?- that all that PowerPunt-aided palaver Was pure "string it along til Shrub leaves" BS, just as so many Vox Populi clearly suspect.

So then, now that :'s UN speech has been limned by countless dissections - and its data been seen to be fabricated / a pure propaganda operation - is it OK to diss : publically, yet? Or does a uniform convey permanent unaccountability, in that customized ethics manual?

Related matter for ethical pundits -
What are your thoughts on War Crimes trials, in the aftermath of bogus invasions and the rendering of a once-functioning country into a state of near-total infrastructure ruination and accelerating - - - > towards Failed State Status? Hmm?

Do you *Really* go with: "if we broke it we must fix it?" (: said that IIRC)
And if We ..simply.. CANNOT 'fix' it - what does your ethics manual decree for our Just Punishment? ('Course we'd have to do it Ourselves; we have all those nukes.)


Prosecutors are standing by for your Instructions, deacon.


New Many good points. Thanks.
But Powell was a civilian at the time he was serving as Secretary of State (though one can argue that 4 star generals are never really civilians after they retire). His reputation was built on his military career though.

Also, MacArthur was fired for trying to go over Truman's head. Petraeus is getting flack for being Bush's poodle. While both are political roles, they're on opposite sides.

I think you're right that Petraeus did himself a disservice in his testimony, but I'm sure he remembers what happened to [link|http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm|Shinseki] after his testimony to the Senate. (Frontline has a good interview with [link|http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/invasion/interviews/fallows.html|James Fallows] which covers the battles over troop levels, Wolfowitz and Shinseki, etc.)

Your Powell quote is a variation of the "Pottery Barn rule" (which he denied coining), but he [link|http://creatingspaces.blogspot.com/2007/05/harrison-owen-interview-and-more-colin.html|has written something similar] (from his autobiography, p.35-36):

I learned that being in charge means making decisions, no matter how unpleasant. If it's broke, fix it. When you do, you win the gratitude of the people who have been suffering under the bad situation. I learned in a college drill competition that you cannot let the mission suffer, or make the majority pay to spare the feelings of an individual. . . . Being responsible sometimes means pissing people off.


Thanks.

Cheers,
Scott.
New I don't understand you.
really. learn english. then put it in a spreadsheet for me.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
New I almost brought up the Truman-McDouglas issue
But does it really apply in this case.

McDouglas was fired - not a personal attack. Everyone would agree that the President is the CIC and has the right to fire Generals. So, <shrug>, it doesn't apply.
     Just for Beep: Achenblog on the attacks on Hillary. - (Another Scott) - (83)
         She can't distance herself from her money - (bepatient) - (82)
             I don't think she should - (jake123) - (23)
                 I don't really care if they were right or not - (bepatient) - (22)
                     *COUGH* -NT - (Simon_Jester) - (7)
                         Maybe I should be more clear - (bepatient) - (6)
                             But its quite OK to endorse a personal insult - (jb4) - (1)
                                 I don't believe I've ever said that. - (bepatient)
                             > Would that 11th Commandment include Colin Powell, then? < - (Ashton) - (3)
                                 Many good points. Thanks. - (Another Scott)
                                 I don't understand you. - (bepatient)
                                 I almost brought up the Truman-McDouglas issue - (Simon_Jester)
                     So the dems should bend over and take it - (crazy) - (10)
                         What? - (bepatient) - (9)
                             Damn close - (crazy) - (8)
                                 Indeed. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                     "Betray us", just quoting the troops. -NT - (Silverlock)
                                     2 completely different things. -NT - (bepatient)
                                 FWIW - Cindy Sheehan's response re MoveOn ad - (Ashton) - (4)
                                     This reminds me of what Keith Olbermann had to say - (Seamus) - (3)
                                         I find it surprising that Olbermann is still on.. - (Ashton) - (2)
                                             He is signed until 2011 according to Wikipedia - (Seamus) - (1)
                                                 Hmm, there's a thought - - (Ashton)
                     Petraeus is a big boy - I'm sure he's been called worse. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                         I'm sure he is and I'm sure he doesn't care. - (bepatient)
                     1.5 minutes of Hannity, Rush et al == 50 of this - (Ashton)
             Why should she say anything? - (hnick) - (57)
                 Someone here put forth - (bepatient) - (56)
                     She voted no to this strawman. -NT - (Silverlock)
                     Re: Someone here put forth - (Seamus)
                     I was thinking more in terms olf Another Scott's post - (hnick)
                     Let's hear from the professionals, beep, shall we? - (rcareaga) - (52)
                         No problem with that at all - (bepatient) - (51)
                             Re: No problem with that at all - (Seamus) - (50)
                                 Re: No problem with that at all - (bepatient) - (49)
                                     I'm beginning to think you read a different ad. - (Another Scott) - (32)
                                         Huh? - (bepatient) - (31)
                                             Read the links... -NT - (Another Scott) - (30)
                                                 Re: Read the links... - (bepatient) - (29)
                                                     We'll have to agree to disagree. - (Another Scott) - (25)
                                                         You linked to the definition - (bepatient) - (24)
                                                             Please read me in my posts. - (Another Scott) - (14)
                                                                 What has he NOT "fallen for the Republican spin machine" on? -NT - (CRConrad) - (3)
                                                                     Quite a bit. But what do you know. -NT - (bepatient) - (2)
                                                                         Quite a bit - I've known you for over ten years now. - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                                             Thats funny - (bepatient)
                                                                 You told me to read the link. - (bepatient) - (9)
                                                                     Oh, bullpucky! - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                                                         BS - straight up. (new thread) - (bepatient)
                                                                     The definition you quoted from was used to explain - (Seamus) - (6)
                                                                         Go to the dictionary. -NT - (bepatient) - (5)
                                                                             You are just playing with the context - (Seamus) - (4)
                                                                                 Give me a break - (bepatient) - (3)
                                                                                     It is absurd for you not to admit that there are different - (Seamus) - (2)
                                                                                         Not worth it - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                                                             It just may do that - (Seamus)
                                                             "Betray" was necessary to make it rhyme. - (a6l6e6x) - (8)
                                                                 *Ding* *Ding* *Ding* -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                                 schoolyard name-calling - (rcareaga) - (6)
                                                                     There you go again - (bepatient) - (5)
                                                                         Ok, so I lied. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                             Short answer (and no biggie, welcome back) - (bepatient) - (3)
                                                                                 To me it is just as important a candidate support - (Seamus) - (1)
                                                                                     That hasn't panned out historically - (bepatient)
                                                                                 2008 is not 1988. - (Another Scott)
                                                     Well, by that definition, MoveOn.org is right - (jb4) - (2)
                                                         Thanks for the affirmation - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                             NO...but it does happen - (jb4)
                                     Re: No problem with that at all - (Seamus) - (4)
                                         Re: No problem with that at all - (bepatient) - (3)
                                             Stupid, but they still, IMO, were not calling Gen. Peatrus - (Seamus) - (2)
                                                 Well then petition Webster to change the definition - (bepatient) - (1)
                                                     I don't have to petition Websters - (Seamus)
                                     You seem to be ignoring a major point. - (hnick) - (10)
                                         No I'm not - (bepatient) - (6)
                                             But you also said that - (Seamus) - (5)
                                                 What I'd seen - (bepatient) - (4)
                                                     Just curious, where did you see that? -NT - (Seamus) - (1)
                                                         Gonna have to get my laptop back - (bepatient)
                                                     Are you KIDDING me? - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
                                                         She hasn't yet. - (bepatient)
                                         Actually he's not - (Simon_Jester) - (2)
                                             All right. Difference of opinion is all. - (hnick) - (1)
                                                 Nor can I - (Simon_Jester)

At the tone, the time will be...
150 ms