Posted on 10/20/2005 3:58:37 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
GHWB believed in multilaterism, the UN, the good-old boy network, personal friendships, yada yada. In this aspect, not much difference between him and John F'in Kerry
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2003_07-09/gingrich_reform/gingrich_reform.html
Long but good read..
Out of Sync
snip
Some critics, including Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and former Republican Rep. Jack Kemp of New York, have taken me to task for my remarks at the American Enterprise Institute on April 22, 2003, where I argued that the State Department was engaging in a “deliberate and systematic effort” to undermine Bush’s foreign policy. Yet that charge has proved true historically, and additional examples have emerged even since the speech.
Only six days following my remarks, Bush made the following statement to a group of Iraqi Americans in Dearborn, Michigan: “I have confidence in the future of a free Iraq. The Iraqi people are fully capable of self-government.” He also told them that “You are living proof the Iraqi people love freedom and living proof the Iraqi people can flourish in democracy. People who live in Iraq deserve the same freedom that you and I enjoy here in America.”
Contrast that vision with a recent classified report by the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research titled “Iraq, the Middle East and Change: No Dominoes,” which was leaked in March 2003 to the Los Angeles Times. As reported by that newspaper, the document stated that “liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve [in Iraq] . . . Electoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements.” And according to an anonymous intelligence source interviewed by the newspaper, the thrust of the report argued that “this idea that you’re going to transform the Middle East and fundamentally alter its trajectory is not credible.”
snip
I take it this man is retired military..... Notice how they refer to him as Colonel to project moral authority over the military matters and omit it for Powell rank even though he was the Chairman JCS.
With an officer core as honorable as the KGB, there is no doubt taking care of the presidents business was the last thing on his agenda. He and weasly clark should be ashamed, I always thought you should be working for the commander or get out.
Anyone catch what's wrong with this? Sounds like a good way to proceed to me! ;-)
Lawrence Wilkerson...this is the bum that was at the foundation of the 'Bolton is too tough on his peers' crowd.
Interesting to note, however, that everyone that he complains about are still in their jobs (except Powell) and he's long gone.
What a complete joke. Colin Powell never had his hands around all the liberals and back stabbers at the State Dept. from day one until he stepped down. First you have to control your people, and then you worry about what others in the Administration might be doing.
The dynamics reported between senior staff members is typical in the executive level of any large organization. The only thing different here is that the office politics are being played out in the MSM.
Yawn.
You mean whine.
Just what we need - traitors in the ranks of the President's men. Oh, but wait, when one works for the Sec of State - Powell - we must remember that it is Powell who counts - his wishes, feelings, etc. The President doesn't matter. He is just some guy in a suit who lives in the White House.
"Vice-President Dick Cheney and a handful of others had hijacked the government's foreign policy apparatus"
And thank God they did since Powell was determined to do nothing to offend The French and Germans who were obviously on the take from Sadam.
Lynne Cheney was on FNC yesterday or the day before and indicated that her husband was rooting for the Astros. Last night we saw that the St. Louis Cardinals took the hint. Some people know better than to cross Dick Cheney.
Sounds like there are unhappy campers at both State and CIA. What these people need to realize is that there is a lot more at stake in American foreign policy than their career futures.
True, but it's still not good.
And, of course, the invasion of Afghanistan was for the purpose of allowing -
The cabal of kabbalists to meet in Kabul.
I thought he was at the time but have since determined that he was not the right man for the call to war re our so-called allies after 9/11. He is a good and decent man and I am sorry to see him giving interviews/statements to the press.....the msm will use him badly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.