Comments on: Colin Powell has Already Endorsed Saddam Hussein, The Mullahs in Iran, Ted Stevens, and Richard Armitage. Who Cares Who Else He Endorses? http://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/10/18/colin-powell-has-alraedy-endorsed-saddam-hussein-the-mullahs-in-iran-ted-stevens-and-richard-armitage-who-cares-who-else-he-endorses/ Delivering the Best of the New Media Since 2004. Thu, 24 May 2012 18:45:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Buckeroohttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/10/18/colin-powell-has-alraedy-endorsed-saddam-hussein-the-mullahs-in-iran-ted-stevens-and-richard-armitage-who-cares-who-else-he-endorses/comment-page-1/#comment-671075 Buckeroo Tue, 21 Oct 2008 02:53:46 +0000 http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=6232#comment-671075 Powell's endorsement of Nobama is like an old plow horse farting in a pasture. He is the ultimate has been traitor totally void of loyalty and gratitude. I wonder how he would feel if he was in command of the troops and had to take orders from Nobama as the commander in chief. HA HA Colon. Powell's endorsement of Nobama is like an old plow horse farting in a pasture. He is the ultimate has been traitor totally void of loyalty and gratitude. I wonder how he would feel if he was in command of the troops and had to take orders from Nobama as the commander in chief. HA HA Colon.

]]> By: fosterthttp://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/10/18/colin-powell-has-alraedy-endorsed-saddam-hussein-the-mullahs-in-iran-ted-stevens-and-richard-armitage-who-cares-who-else-he-endorses/comment-page-1/#comment-671005 fostert Mon, 20 Oct 2008 02:23:50 +0000 http://www.sundriesshack.com/?p=6232#comment-671005 "He wanted to leave the tyrant in place as a counterweight to Iran, continuing a heartless realpolitik strategy that directly led to 9/11." Huh? The realpolitik strategy that led to 911 was the funding of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. And yes, bin Laden got funds from the CIA, but he was really a minor player at the time. Neither Gust nor Charlie even knew who he was. And contrary to popular belief, Reagan had nothing to do with this funding either (he was busy supporting Saddam). Reagan didn't even know about it until the day it was disclosed (nor did the head of the CIA). You can blame Charlie Wilson for that one. And yes, he was a Democrat, and one of the most colorful people to ever sit in Congress. He was the original Lieberman Democrat. And he's still an unrepentant terrorist supporter. McCain is lucky he was too ignorant about Afghanistan to know what was going on. Otherwise, he'd have ties to Wilson. And a pretty direct tie to 911. Sometimes being stupid can save you. But when we look back, Saddam may have been a tyrant, but he was our tyrant. Without him, we have no counterweight to Iran. Instead, we installed an Iranian government in Iraq. But I'm not too concerned about that. After all, we were going to install either a Saudi government or an Iranian one in Iraq. Given the choice, the Iranians are the more responsible and democratic government (but not by much). But having a government that opposed both wasn't so bad for us (it obviously sucked for the Iraqis). Now, we have a government that will control southeastern Iraq by taking orders from Iran, a northern Iraq that will secede and be conquered by Turkey (not so bad), and a western Iraq which will be an eternal nightmare. How's that better? The only good I see there is Turkey controlling Kurdistan and finally putting an end to the world's second most dangerous terrorist organization (the PKK). The most dangerous terrorist organization is, of course, the LTTE in Sri Lanka. Al Qaeda is still battling for third place with the Pakistani ISI. Although 'battling' might not be the right word. They're allies, after all. As for Ted Stevens, I really don't know what Colin's thinking there. He must have drunk Sarah Palin's Kool Aid on that one. She was a big Stevens supporter until it became politically untenable. But that doesn't seem to be a problem with you, does it? And Armitage? I'm not a fan, but he was one of the few sane people in the Bush administration. Compared to Cheney's cronies, he looks pretty good. But then again, anyone but Kissinger looks good compared to those guys. And Kissinger can't set foot in most countries without getting a free trip to The Hague. And permanent accommodations, of course. Powell has a mixed record. But for a Republican, that's pretty good these days. It's better than an entirely negative record. "He wanted to leave the tyrant in place as a counterweight to Iran, continuing a heartless realpolitik strategy that directly led to 9/11."

Huh? The realpolitik strategy that led to 911 was the funding of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. And yes, bin Laden got funds from the CIA, but he was really a minor player at the time. Neither Gust nor Charlie even knew who he was. And contrary to popular belief, Reagan had nothing to do with this funding either (he was busy supporting Saddam). Reagan didn't even know about it until the day it was disclosed (nor did the head of the CIA). You can blame Charlie Wilson for that one. And yes, he was a Democrat, and one of the most colorful people to ever sit in Congress. He was the original Lieberman Democrat. And he's still an unrepentant terrorist supporter. McCain is lucky he was too ignorant about Afghanistan to know what was going on. Otherwise, he'd have ties to Wilson. And a pretty direct tie to 911. Sometimes being stupid can save you.

But when we look back, Saddam may have been a tyrant, but he was our tyrant. Without him, we have no counterweight to Iran. Instead, we installed an Iranian government in Iraq. But I'm not too concerned about that. After all, we were going to install either a Saudi government or an Iranian one in Iraq. Given the choice, the Iranians are the more responsible and democratic government (but not by much). But having a government that opposed both wasn't so bad for us (it obviously sucked for the Iraqis). Now, we have a government that will control southeastern Iraq by taking orders from Iran, a northern Iraq that will secede and be conquered by Turkey (not so bad), and a western Iraq which will be an eternal nightmare. How's that better? The only good I see there is Turkey controlling Kurdistan and finally putting an end to the world's second most dangerous terrorist organization (the PKK). The most dangerous terrorist organization is, of course, the LTTE in Sri Lanka. Al Qaeda is still battling for third place with the Pakistani ISI. Although 'battling' might not be the right word. They're allies, after all.

As for Ted Stevens, I really don't know what Colin's thinking there. He must have drunk Sarah Palin's Kool Aid on that one. She was a big Stevens supporter until it became politically untenable. But that doesn't seem to be a problem with you, does it?

And Armitage? I'm not a fan, but he was one of the few sane people in the Bush administration. Compared to Cheney's cronies, he looks pretty good. But then again, anyone but Kissinger looks good compared to those guys. And Kissinger can't set foot in most countries without getting a free trip to The Hague. And permanent accommodations, of course.

Powell has a mixed record. But for a Republican, that's pretty good these days. It's better than an entirely negative record.

]]>