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."
This was news last year. More than a year ago he said he would resign after one term. article.
The BBC provides a brief but interesting discussion of the "disengagement of Colin Powell".
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.
On the other hand, appointing someone like Paul Wolfowitz to the job (another name bandied about, along with that of Condoleezza Rice*), 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.
(*Not sure how I feel about Rice. I suspect she's not quite as extremist as she's often painted as being. She is - I think - on record as saying she's not interested in remaining in her NSA position and that she's considering a return to academia. She's also a favourite to replace Powell but appears to prefer to take over Defence rather than State. She's a doer, not a talker, and doesn't like all the pomp and ceremony associated with the foreign affairs position.)
a world in progress...
UPDATE: Being reported that National security adviser Condoleezza Rice is to replace Colin Powell as secretary of state in his second term.
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
When well those darn editors ever get it right? It's Fox "News".
501 Not Implemented
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....
To be replaced by other rats swarming up from the bilges.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
I count 8 resignations: 4 in the cabinet today, and another 2 senior CIA officials. Plus, Ashcroft and another CIA official earlier. Was there another cabinet level that resigned earlier?
I don't know what this means; but I think it means something. I sure don't recall this many resignations for Clinton's second term...?
--
$tar -xvf
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.
I wonder if many republicans are thinking that maybe they shouldn't have voted for Bush, due to what appears to be lack of confidence even within his cabinet...
- dshaw
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.
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.
Commander in Chief, US Central Command is a far more important position than SecDef right now. SecDef is an administrator who has very little to do with actual military planning. As a member of the NSC he has oversight, but he's not really involved in either the theater-level strategy or the execution.
Of course, from recent rumblings in Iran, it looks like CINCCENTCOM might get to take a little time off. The mullahs are making noises like they've extracted their heads from their asses and are making wise decisions. Whether it's all just a part of a new cheat-and-retreat strategy remains to be seen.
I write in my journal
Well you don't think a fucking moron like Bush can actually run a country do you?
As of this last election, he can run about 51% of the country. (That is apparently how many morons we have.)
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
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
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.
It means that it was a lot more fun to take over and run a country with a huge budget surplus and a military that is not slogging through a protracted insurgency in a foreign country. Remember the good old days of 2000?
With the treasury plundering complete, and insufficient resources to invade any more countries for the forseeable future, the next 4 years just aren't going to be nearly as much fun as the first 4. So, it's a good time to ditch any responsibility for trying to fix the mess and cash in with some lucrative private sector job, perhaps in lobbying or something else that allows you to convert your legacy government connections to cash.
Mod me -1, Troll, Insightful.
State Colin Powell's future plans. "The Washington Post" reports today that Powell recently reaffirmed his intention to serve in the Bush Cabinet for no more than one term.
Aug 23, 2003
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
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
The Republican Party today is an uneasy coalition of the personal freedom economic laissez faire folks and the biblical literalists. They need each other to win but both pretend the other is not there.
Perhaps Secretary Powell was tired of pretending that the biblical literalist elephant was not under the table. His memoirs will be a great read.
I can't possibly form any intelligent opinions without spin! But for some reason it is missing. I just need two things explained about all these resignations:
1. The left needs to explain why this is proof that Bush's second term will result in the destruction of life on this and several nearby planets.
2. The right needs to explain why this is proof that Bush's second term is the second coming of Jesus and a new era of enlightenment.
All I'm seeing is reasoning and sensible conjectures! That's no fun! I want assinine extreme examples! Please help!
I'm sorry, what does this have to do w/ Colin Powell?
[o]_O
Not that much. There are people downthread speculating on what the cabinet departures mean, whether it's a show of lack of confidence in the administration, etc. I am going to repost a comment of mine from another board which has to do with it. Sorry for recycle of a post, but since it is the same subject being discussed I felt it would be silly to write a new post saying the same thing.
I was listening to Powell's departing press conf (well he's not really
departing for some weeks/months) and he stated that he had always
intended to do one term only.
I quickly found a link from over a year ago that said as much.
I was trying to get into the shoes of people like Powell and
Ashcroft. If I had done so many different things and accomplished so
much in life, would I want to do the same exhausting thing for 8 years?
I don't think I would, unless the position had been my life's goal.
Since Powell came through the military, I doubt being Secretary of
State was super-important to him. Same for Ashcroft, who was, IIRC a
state politician up to four years ago and had nothing to do with the
Justice dept.
So maybe it's not so shocking that people are looking to change
careers or retire after 4 years of doing this sort of thing, which must
be extremely draining. The beginning of a new term sounds like a
reasonable time to do so while giving your resignation as little
significance as possible, whereas retiring in the middle of a term
would be viewed as more of a protest.
Ecce Europa - Web Design for Business
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.
"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?"
No. Common misconception. Ever since the creation of the NSC (National Security Council, AKA "The organization that is/should already be doing almost everything that the Homeland Security department has been created to do") and the beginning of the Cold War, the State Department has been diminishing in power.
The Department of Defense (renamed from "Department of War" at the same time that the NSC was created) and the CIA are in a better position to offer near-instant results, while the State Department often takes years to accomplish even simple tasks. In the climate of the Cold War, many presidents liked instant results better, and so chose to neglect the State Department. The purges of the Anti-Communism movement pressured State Dep. officials to not "rock the boat", lest they lose their jobs, and the McCarthy and others were allowed to run rampant in the State Dep. looking for "pinkos" -- however, when McCarthy went after the Def. Dep., he was crushed and swept out of the way.
Nixon's administration saw a shift change of the NSA (National Security Advisor, head of the NSC, and the postion that Condi Rice holds) to a policy-making position, and to one more powerful in the realm of foreign relations than even the SoS. Everyone knows about Kissinger, Nixon's NSA, whether or not they know what position he held, but how many people can name his Secretary of State? Far fewer, I'd wager, and in fact I'd bet that many people would mistakenly guess that Kissinger was the Sec. of State, as he assumed many of the traditional roles of that position.
The modern SoS is predominantly concerned with making sure that the Dep. of State runs smoothly, while the NSA sets policy from within the whitehouse and governs a data set much larger than that of the SoS. Knowledge is power.
So, in many ways, the NSC, DoD, and CIA are much more powerful than the SD. That said, a president can always choose to give a department more or less power than his predecessors have. Perhaps that's what we'll see happen to the State Department if Rice moves there. Otherwise, it'd be a huge step down for her.
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
Nader is to cut a $2,000 check to the NH authorities. While Cobb and Badnarik have enough to pay for the Ohio recount.
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.
Also, I'm thinking in terms of the Presidential Succession:
- The Vice President
- Speaker of the House
- President pro tempore of the Senate
- Secretary of State
Secretary of State is the first Cabinet position that could take over the presidency if the shit really hit the fan.I hate Liberals and Conservatives.
If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, then HAVE A NICE DAY!
Courage.
...the fact that perhaps these people are so disgusted with a corrupt president that they resign, or the fact that all these (quite frankly dangerous) positions will now be being filled with hand picked people by the people who run that president?
(Well you don't think a fucking moron like Bush can actually run a country do you?)
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
Where are these eternal and immutable "God's laws" codified by the way? In the Bible? I'm curious to see how you wriggle out of the dilemma posed by these choice quotes from the Bible, apropos slavery and polygamy.
"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever" (Exodus 21:2-6).
How about this, which condones selling your daughter into slavery, and polygamy as well?
"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation, he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife: her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish"
I point these out, because they were used by southern Churches to justify slavery during the Civil war, and more recently, to justify apartheid.
"The slave who knows his master's will and does not get ready...will be be beaten with many blows."Luke 12:47-48