Posted on 08/04/2003 1:05:11 PM PDT by FairOpinion
No Basis for Washington Post Story
PRESS RELEASE FROM STATE: Regarding the story in today's Washington Post about Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Deputy Secretary Richard L. Armitage, there was no conversation between the Deputy Secretary and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice concerning any plans for "stepping down." There is no basis for the story. As Secretary Powell has always said, he and Deputy Secretary Armitage serve at the pleasure of the President, and will continue to do so.
###
"This is gossip and rumor," said State Department spokesman Philip Reeker when asked about The Washington Post story. "The story purports to describe a conversation that took place. That conversation never took place."
###
WHITE HOUSE: Scott McClellan just announced that Secy Powell and Deputy Secy Armitage will be arriving at the Crawford Ranch tomorrow evening for dinner with the President. The two will overnight in Crawford and then will meet again with the President on Wednesday and have lunch before heading back to DC...
Follow up questions to Powell on what exactly he ment by what he said .. which you can't do.
I am not saying you are wrong in your opinion .. I'm just saying that I have seen the reporters take his comments out of context in the past.
If this context of his quote is true and that is what he truly thinks .. then I disagree with him and think he is wrong in his opinion
Nobody *wants* to go to war, but he was fiercely against it -- and has a history of that. If every military higher-up felt the same way, we'd never, ever again go to war.
I also recall during that time, the fear was that 50 thousand + troops could be killed. Name me one General who likes that thought.
Nobody does, of course. That's a silly question. But he was THE most adamant against it.
As for why Bush picked him ... I don't think Bush was dazzled by his resume .. I think President Bush valued his opinion and that is why he picked Powell.
It is a know fact that President hasn't surrounded himself with yes men .. which is fine by me. I want our President to hear both sides of the argument so that he can make a sound judgement on what should be done.
Yes, I also appreciate that President Bush has enough self-confidence that he could appoint those he believes to be the best and brightest -- unlike his unworthy predecessor whose ego is so fragile that he could only appoint third-tier retreads and losers, so that they would never outshine him in public.
I'm generally pleased with Bush's Cabinet appointments (although I believe Norm Minetta has to go) and I was *thrilled* when he announced that Powell and Rice would be at the top of his foreign policy team. But then I read and listened to what Powell was saying and my antennae went up as I became more and more disheartened.
If he had been taken out of context or in any misrepresented, there would have been follow-up pieces. Feel free to scroll up and click on the Google link I provided, which shows all news matches (in the last month) for "Powell"+"hamas"+"social wing" and go from there.
news.google.com is a very useful research tool for news from the last month or so -- they don't go back any further than that. If you can find any follow-up pieces which show or even claim that he was taken out of context, I'd love to see them. I'd really rather not have this sick feeling in my stomach about our Secretary of State, especially one appointed by a Republican President.
As far as articles and you knowing how to read them, until you can produce an article that says what you are saying about keeping political appointees, and that they are STILL THERE, I am just not able to give that credence. Powell caught a lot of heat on here because he said he would "consider" working for Gore. Well, he was trying not to insult the sitting Vice President who, after all, could have been elected and then gone after him. Lots of things he says are always taken in the worst possible light, and the media's sole goal with Powell from Day One of the administration has been to incite the right against him, or to make it look like the hawks were forcing him out, thereby inciting the moderates.
I bet if you go back and look at those articles you will see that they were innocuous comments meant to be polite, just like Ashcroft having Janet Reno in for a courtesy visit.
I thoroughly object to *any* complimentary words about hamas just as much as I object to any about al qaeda. How would you feel about al qaeda if they were to get "new management" and allegedly cut ties to terrorism -- despite the fact that they were created to commit terrorism?
I have tried looking for articles about Powell keeping political appointees, but the sheer volume of articles is overwhelming, so if you won't believe me, I'll just have to live with that.
I fully understand why he said what he said about Gore's desperate offer to him. But Powell doesn't need the media's assistance to make himself look like a liberal.
Ashcroft inviting Reno for tea or lunch doesn't even *compare* to Powell saying such stupid and grotesque things about hamas.
But of course we all know the Rats and their media lackeys would never manufacture a way to engage in race baiting, don't we? Don't we?
Jonathan Alter said today that it was probably "leaked" by the right-wing, in order to discredit Powell.
These rats really have no shame.
I believe that it was Jim Angle, on Fox News tonight, that said "Why would Powell want to make a lame duck out of himself for the next 18 months. It would be akin to putting a sign on your back saying "Kick me!""
I understand about your concern about Hamas, and my firm belief is that th statement was made knowing full well that it will never happen.
However, on the political appointees I do think you are mistaken. However, there are plenty of career State people who are Arab-sumpathizers, so it wouldn't surprise me that even if the political people are gone there are still people who want to make mischief.
And unfortunately the State department is full of free-lancers, who think they know better because they have been there longer.
You should feel vindicated. This "story" was deliberately planted to weaken Bush IMO. The Post trashes Bush continuously and their "reporters" are clearly anxious to diminish his credibility. The Post is a rag.
Two recent statements from Powell;
[Powell]:"It is no longer possible to separate one part of Hamas from another part of Hamas".
[Powell]: "If an organization that has a terrorist component to it, a terrorist wing to it, totally abandons that, gives it up, and there is no question in anyone's mind that is part of its past, then that is a different organization."
What problem do you have with these two statement?
There is a difference between a mainstream media article and a Klayman press release?
IMO, both have a biased agenda and both take quotes out of context -- often!
To the contrary, I expect them (along with the NYT and the alphabets) to try and turn this into a racial issue they can hang on Bush ("Why are all the African Americans in the administration making noises about leaving"?).
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.