Powell to Go for Broke at the UN

time ^ | 1/30/03

[knak]

U.S. indictment of Iraq will be televised live from the Security Council next week, and could bring the crisis to a head.

After weeks of dampening expectations for "smoking gun" evidence against Iraq, the Bush administration is now teeing up an "Adlai Stevenson moment." That's diplomat-speak for the instant in which a U.S. official trumps all naysayers at the United Nations by hauling out graphic, incontrovertible evidence that its enemy is lying. Stevenson, as President John F. Kennedy's UN ambassador in 1962, slam-dunked the Soviets during a heated Security Council debate by producing satellite photographs that disproved Moscow's denials that missiles had been stationed in Cuba. Secretary of State Colin Powell hopes to produce a similar effect when he presents U.S. evidence against Iraq at a special session of the Security Council convened at U.S. request next Wednesday.

[Contra]

As long as Powell was talking against Bush and war, the liberals complimented him as "the only voice of reason in this administration" and the only "sane" one. Now that he's gone over to the "dark side" and is with the "forces of evil" I wonder what the liberals will say about him now? I've always wondered if Powell was just putting on a show anyway, that the State Department is supposed to be liberal (dovish) while the Defense Department is conservative (hawkish)? I wonder if Powell has really been against military action all this time or if he was just playing the role expected of him? It would be interesting to know what Powell really thinks, if he suddenly "saw the light" and is now on board with Rumsfeld and Co., or if he has been on board all along, or if he is just obeying his boss now that it's showtime? To hear some of the reports, if they're true, a lot of military leaders at the Pentagon don't seem to want to go to war for any reason (they would fit in well in Germany and France). I wonder if Powell is sympathetic to this line of thinking. I guess in any dangerous occupation, military, police, fire, you have your "gung-ho" guys and your non-fighters. But it's hard to see why the military would have non-fighters in an all-volunteer force, everybody there should be "gung-ho." I guess it's like the Star Wars character, Jar Jar Binks, when he says "somebody might die?"

[GermanBabies]

Are you dense?

[TXnMA]

When's the last time we've seen a Presidency with such strong people in the top leadership positions?

I concur! Talk about a one-two punch! First Bush, then a proud, black American hero -- standing before the world, telling it like it is -- and telling the UN they better $h!t or get off the pot...

What a team!

[technomage]

Sad isn't it German Babies? So many who do not see the obvious. Is this not the problem we have in the country as a whole? The end result of public education: Sarcasm is not even taught. It is not even understood any more. Sarcasm is now considered racist, homophobic or worse yet...........the reader assumes you MEAN IT!!

Yes, you will need to place a big

../SARCASM>

so all will understand.

[TXnMA]

Until they've established their reputations here as serious posters, newbies who want to be sarcastic are well-advised to make prominent use of the < SARCASM > and < /SARCASM > tags...

[McGavin999]

Oh dear, I feel a terrible cold coming on. I expect it to get sooooo bad I'll probably have to take next Tuesday off (cough cough)

[technomage]

I had no idea there was a time limit before you can post sarcasm, or post anything. My mistake.

How long does one have to wait after joining before they can post?? Maybe 2 months? How about 6? How long before someone can post something?

Wow, assuming someone is something just because they have been a member a short period of time and post something someone else does not believe in. Does that not sound familiar???

I guess I was, at one time, a DU Shrill as I posted right after I joined.

I should have known better.

Logging off now :))))

[knak]

Thank you, I read the comment and then clicked the name and saw the poster signed up yesterday. Just thought wrong. Geez everybody, I'm not the only one who's done this. Gimmie a break.

[ConservativeLawyer]

Talk about a one-two punch!

I agree. Bush is very schrewd to give this to Powell to make the presentation. Particularly since Powell appeared to be initially against the use of force.

This says a lot about the character of Bush. In many administrations, anyone who is not a "yes man." is dumped.

Bush is confident enough to have advisors who might have a different point of view than he has. And he builds them up, not shuts them out.

Powell will have the center stage. Could you ever imagine Bubba letting something like that happen?

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

Could you ever imagine Bubba letting something like that happen?

See my reply #38. I had the same thought. Bill Clinton is probably very jealous of Mr. Powell right now.

[RLK]

So we must drag ourselves in front of the UN and PROVE that we are NOT LIARS, this pre-supposes then that the UN now believes that Saddam is telling the TRUTH until we prove otherwise. Now how did we get into this pickle?

----------------------------------

By not giving Hussein two more days of Schwartzkopf 12 years ago. He should have been hung out to dry then. Now, any evidence against him is speculative, burried deep in the desert, and subject to denial.

[ConservativeLawyer]

I had the same thought.

Well, you know what they say about great minds!

[Fledermaus]

If Bush is worse than Saddam, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go become a human shield in Baghdad?

Chicken?

[Fledermaus]

oops, sorry. My sarcasm radar wasn't on!

[TXnMA]

I had no idea there was a time limit before you can post sarcasm, or post anything. My mistake.

Nonsense! I simply showed a newcomer to our group a tool they could use to avoid being misunderstood.

I doubt you would walk into a conversation between a group of strangers and start saying the opposite of what you really mean [sarcasm] (and the opposite of what they were espousing) -- with a deadpan expression on your face. (Remember -- no facial cues or handwaving is available in this medium -- that's why emoticons and 'intent tags' were invented.)

OTOH, if the group were old friends who already knew your humor style, you probably would be welcomed...

Don't go away mad... '-}

[Hootch]

I know your kidding, but let's attack you for your sarcasm anyhow. C'mon you guys so many people have there dander up, I say we lench him, Nah, I say we hang him...Hey, I say we lench him, then hang him...

[Hootch]

I think it would be great if Powell showed realtime drone video of WMD material and equipment and then said,"And that flash of light you just saw was a cruise missile hitting the building".

[TXnMA]

I started to send this as a FReepmail, but no, since I misconstrued your motives in public, I want to apologize in public. I read your #2 (the first comment to the post -- with no preamble) pulled up your profile, jumped to the wrong conclusion, and reacted. Too bad I didn't read down to your #8...

Please accept my apologies. And, welcome! I hope to get to know you better.

However,, as others have noted, in this faceless medium, it often helps to provide overt clues to your intent -- just in case others miss your subtle ones -- as several seem to have done tonight....

Peace! :-)

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

However,, as others have noted, in this faceless medium, it often helps to provide overt clues to your intent -- just in case others miss your subtle ones -- as several seem to have done tonight....

I can have such a deadpan delivery in person, not to mention a knack for arcane references (like Dennis Miller/Mystery Science 3000), that my jokes sometimes get taken seriously. So that can only be amplified in a textual medium. If I have the slightest doubt that my post will be taken as humorous, I'll stick a sarcasm tag at the end. Sometimes, so as not to insult the intelligence of someone who would have known it was sarcasm, I'll put < /sarcasm, in case that wasn't obvious>.

But generally the plain tag (or a ;) emoticon) will do the trick. I think Freepers are a little on edge lately, with war imminent. You can't please everybody, though. The other night, after the State of the Union address, somebody posted a reply in which he used several terms that I wasn't entirely familiar with. No matter how many times I explained myself, the poster seemed to think I was just trying to stir up trouble. So, even being polite and well-mannered won't always keep the wolves at bay. Stick around, at any rate. There's no place on the web like FR.

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

Woops, sorry TXnMA, I meant that to be directed at GermanBabies.