Slashdot Mirror
Colin Powell Resigns
Anarcho-Goth writes "It is all over the media now. Secretary of State Colin Powell has resigned 'effective at your pleasure.' He says that he only planned to hold the position for one term anyway, but I'm sure the rumor mill has other ideas. This makes 6 resignations since the election. My local TV news described it as the most important position to resign so far. Isn't Secretary of State the most important cabinet position, period? Articles from CNN, The UK Guardian, The Associated Press, and Fox News."
4 cabinet members, including the Secretary of State, resigned after Clinton was re-elected in 1996. A shakeup in the cabinet is standard operating procedure after an election. The world has changed (a lot) in four years. To think that the same exact people are the best ones for the job doesn't make sense.
Of course, the same thing could have been said about Bush, but we won't go there....
Maybe if he'd had a bigger role in the Administration he would've stayed on, but it seems Condi Rice has had his job in all but name for the past year or so. Maybe Powell just likes to stay out of the limelight more than she does so it only seems that way, though.
"I just can't take the lying anymore! ARRGH!!!!!"
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
While I think he would make a great President, I think his attempt at persuading the U.N. regarding Iraq's "WMD" has reduced his chances significantly even if his wife would let him run. It is unfortunate because I think he was coerced into doing it in the first place.
...will signal a continuation and even escalation of a unilateralist, force-based foreign policy that was pretty much dictated by the Pentagon for the last four years anyway.
Too true. Appointing Condi "Queen of the Chicken Hawks" Rice to the position of Secretary of State will send a clear signal to the rest of the world that we can do whatever the fuck we want and they can just go piss up a rope for all we care.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Condi will replace him.
This is no suprise, though. Powell has been talking about a one term job for a while. This isn't really too big of news, cabinet members very often only stay on for one term.
A close/disputed election
The margin of victory this year was 34 votes. That's really not all that close. Compare to 2000. Also, this election was not remotely disputed.
with the administration massively changed between terms?
Cabinet-level officers serve at the pleasure of the president. They come and go frequently. Second-term Cabinets usually end up being very different from first-term Cabinets.
Is there any precedent for what we're seeing, and what did it mean last time?
There is extensive precedent, and all it means is that serving in the Cabinet is hard work.
I write in my journal
I'd be genuinely grateful to have someone who spoke intelligently and honestly to students about any country -- including the U.S. The purpose of a teacher is not to instill reverence in countries. Teachers are supposed to educate students, teaching them both facts and critical thinking skills. The post to which you replied seemed to hit the mark.
Ah... no. The parent post showed very little understanding of fundamentalist motivations and thought. It says that anyone who disagrees with the direction of popular culture must be motivated by fear and loathing. It's an uninformed perception designed to induce hatred and fear of anyone who happens to believe that moral values that have served civilization for thousands of years are to be trusted over more recent notions regardless of their popularity.
If they had wanted to signal their lacks of confidence, they would have resigned before the election.
I think it's good that they appoint someone with similar views to the president no matter how crappy they are.
I suppose you're comfortable, then, with the upcoming purge of the CIA. All intelligence officers holding views "disloyal" to the president are about to be ratfucked, and from now on the truth will never come out about anything. Straight out of Shirer.
Also, this election was not remotely disputed.
/. ran a story a few days ago about how Badnarik, Cobb, and Nader are gathering funding for a recount in several key states. Not to mention the fact that the discrepancy between exit polls and actual results was larger than usual. Yes, I'm re-hashing old material...sue me.
Begging your pardon, but yes it certainly was.
Slavery was a moral value that "served" civilization for thousands of years. Indeed, southern churches cited the Bible when attempting to justify the institution of slavery, in the face of "more recent notions". I suppose that sort of fundamentalist thinking is now brushed off as the "exception to the rule", now that even the fundamentalists cannot afford to be racists. What hypocrisy.
"The slave who knows his master's will and does not get ready...will be be beaten with many blows."Luke 12:47-48
Powell's replacement will - I think - send a strong signal about the strategy a Bush 43B administration will pursue.
A moderate (like one of the current favourites for the job, John Danforth, the current US ambassador to the UN... though I don't know enough about him to know if the description is accurate) will imply that there will continue to be a level of debate between the neoconservative and less revolutionary wings of the administration.
Yeah, and moderate Colin Powell really influenced this administration's foriegn policy didn't he? Powell was nothing more than window dressing. He was marginalized from the very beginning. So much so that the week before 9/11 Time magazine's cover story was "Where have gone Colin Powell?". Any moderate (read non-neo-con ideologue), will be marginalized as well.
Powell has tarnished his own reputation, by not resigning years ago.
I'm sorry, what does this have to do w/ Colin Powell?
[o]_O
It is unfortunate because I think he was coerced into doing it in the first place.
While Colin Powell is one of the few people in the entire Bush administration that I actually respected (just think -- if anything happened to Bush, Cheney, Hastert and Sen. Stevens....) I really don't think you can say he was coerced into doing anything.
The man has been in Government service for longer then most /.'ers have been alive. Once the final decision was made the debate was effectively over. He had two choices: resign his post or say "Yes sir, Mr. President". Obviously he picked the latter option. What would I have done in his shoes? Hard to say. It's a pity that he had to be the Secretary of State under Bush -- think of what he could have accomplished under Clinton instead of Ms. Albright.
And before I get the visit from the USSS I wasn't advocating killing anybody. I was pointing out the fact that the Secretary of State is fourth in line to become president. In fact the Secretary of State is the first Executive Officer (not counting the VP) in line. This would seem to justify the "the most important cabinet position" remark.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Badnarik, Cobb, and Nader are gathering funding for a recount
Who?
(Yes, I'm being facetious. I think you understand my point, though, yes?)
the discrepancy between exit polls and actual results was larger than usual
The discrepancy between end-of-day exits and actual results was actually very small. The discrepancy between mid-day exits and actual results was exactly what you'd expect it to be: weighted toward the Democrats. Democrats vote early, you see. But even then, the differences were well within the margin of error.
So no, the 2004 presidential election was not remotely disputed.
I write in my journal
The post election commentary in the US is divided between questioning the accuracy of the count of votes, or wondering whether the Democratic Party had to pay more attention to discussing "moral" values as part of its election activity. Outside the US, there is discussion about whether there is some social flaw in the American character that has led them to 4 more years of a George Bush Presidency.
While these considerations may provide a way to review what happened in the recent US election, they fail to raise questions that take a broader view. For example, such questions could include:
Traditionally, it is not that one can affect change in a situation unless one also tries to understand the nature of the problem. In the 2004 election, many people committed themselves to trying to replace George Bush. The call was to vote for "anyone but Bush".
Early on the Democratic Party narrowed its sights to John Kerry as the candidate. From there on, the "anyone but Bush" meant a vote for Kerry, arguing that he could realistically defeat Bush. The Democratic Party challenged the effort of Ralph Nader to provide an alternative, removing him from the ballot in whatever states possible. The Green Party decided not to campaign vigorously anywhere that the campaign might pose a threat to the election of Kerry. Several activists who had backed Nader in the 2000 election urged voters to vote for Kerry rather than Nader this time. Despite these efforts, Bush now has a second term in the White House.
One party, with two wings...
One of the problems with the 2004 election strategy of those hoping to defeat Bush, is that there was a mistaken understanding of what it means to be "realistic" in the kind of "two-party" system in the US. In a country like Germany, for example, a vote for a smaller party, like the Greens, made it possible for the Social Democratic Party to win re-election in 2002. In the US, however, such a vote, as with the Nader vote in 2000, could not be combined with the Gore vote, to give the Democratic Party the White House.
What this means, one is told, is that in the US, the votes for a candidate who is not from one of the two major political parties, are wasted votes. Thus, in the 2004 election, there was a determination to encourage a vote for the Democratic Party candidate, regardless of his position on important issues, such as the war in Iraq.
The Democratic Party in the US has a long history of deciding that it will pursue the vote of those who might otherwise vote Republican. With no external left opposition, the Democratic Party accepts the issues as the Republican Party presents them, but proposes it can implement the Republican agenda better than the Republicans will. Though this is not necessarily true on every issue, on the fundamental issues of foreign policy, and of domestic policy issues to support that foreign policy, the two parties form one party, with two wings. Essentially, in the US, on these important issues, both the Democratic or Republican Parties, will implement the same foreign policy. (For example, Clinton carried out the sanctions against Iraq and enforced the No Fly Zones. Bush then argued that his policy of invading Iraq was just a continuation o
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
"From now on"? Gee, I haven't seen too much truth coming out for awhile now.
Yes you have.
You might never again in your lifetime see the CIA issue a report this critical of a sitting American president.
Rumsfeld has a different view and does things like hand out promotions based on proper ideology as opposed to ability.
Kay, that's demonstrably false.
He pulled a bullshit plan to bring peace and democracy to Iraq from a nobody Colonel who suggested it could be done with as few as 50,000 troops.
Um. What? The plan (OPLAN 1003V) was based on the post-Desert Storm plan (OPLAN 1003) that had been sitting in a drawer for twelve years. When it became clear that Iraq wasn't going to comply with international disarmament demands and demands to stop supporting terrorism, the Secretary ordered CINCCENTCOM to dust off the plan and revise it based on lessons learned in Afghanistan. That's what he did, with the support of a staff of hundreds at CENTCOM headquarters in Florida. The revised plan called for troop levels of around 235,000 men.
So everything you said there was wrong. The only part you got write were the words "plan" and "Iraq."
With Iran, I think that they know that they need to at least secure a facility to enrich uranium against US munitions
That is a practical impossibility.
it's a far more sensible option for a totalitarian state drowning in revenue from $50 dollar a barrel oil.
Um. Iran has about $22 billion in foreign reserves. That's hardly "drowning."
Be honest. You really don't have the first clue about any of this stuff, do you?
I write in my journal
We could pretty much expect that Powell would resign. The POTUS undermined him at every turn, and forced him to defends a war with information that was complete and utter nonsense. Now our Incompetent Leader has promoted among the most inept of his followers to the most important position in the area of US foreign affairs. And one who is entirely lacking the expertise needed for current US foreign policy needs. The Soviet Union hasn't been important to US foreign affiars for 10 years. Rice was a disaster at NSA, failing utterly in the job. She will continue that track at State, while probably trying to purge State of everyone who disagrees with the Incompetent Leader. It's bad enough that Bush required loyalty oaths before people were allowed to attend campaign events. Now he wants loyalty oaths from people who are supposed to put the nation ahead of it's individual leaders. Remember the last President who did this? Think Watergate.
"When it became clear that Iraq wasn't going to comply with international disarmament demands and demands to stop supporting terrorism"
In what way was Iraq not complying with disarmament demands at the time of the invasion, again. There were inspectors on the ground in Iraq, inspecting. There were nits to pick like the precise range of short range missiles, so the inspectors were in the process of destroying them to be sure, but Iraq was obviously not in a major breach justifying a major war and occupation. I know we've whipped this horse to death Twirp but you keep pretending like there was an actual case for invading Iraq, as articulated by te Bush administration, despite the fact pretty much everyone admits there wasn't now.
As for "supporting terrorism", yes Iraq supported Palestinian groups, groups the U.S. has unilaterally labeled as "terrorist", but I don't recall that being the subject of the original surrender terms or any U.N. sanctions. If there is maybe someone can point me to the wording. Most Arab countries support Palestinian groups especially Saudi Arabia and Iran so if that is your standard for taking down governments you better draft some more troops because they are going to be busy.
If you are referring to ties between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists once again there is no evidence of any such link. Saudi Arabia and Iran had far more connections to them than Iraq ever did.
@de_machina