(no subject)

[technoir]

For those that missed it, Colin Powell endorses Obama. He among other things listed some very reasonable arguments for why he endorsed Obama. Powell is one of the most widely respected men in public service with good reason. Even if you are not voting Obama, this is probably a good thing to watch. He says some very true things.

Comments

[technoir.livejournal.com]

I would like to see you back that one up with facts. I would like for you to prove to me he willfully lied. He has been open about everything else he dealt with in the white house. I don't mind holding people accounts for their mess ups but I do take issue with unsubstantiated accusations from my side of the fence as well as theirs.

My read is he was shown the same trussed up bit that congress was shown. I can't fault him for believing it or in fact doing what he was ordered to do by the commander in chief. He did resign eventually and he did admit that he had reservations at the time. I am not saying he is perfect but I don't believe he lied willful about the facts. He was wrong sure, but unless someone shows me some kind of evidence I wont buy he lied.

[jeffrey.livejournal.com]

So you honestly believed that he, as secretary of state, believed IRAQ had WMDs? Bush didn't believe it. Cheney didn't believe it. I have sincere doubts that Powell did. He's responsible for the mess we're in. He's not commander-in-chief, no, most of the fault lies with Bush and Cheney. But he's still responsible for it to a degree, as is everyone who was party to that mess.

Powell is smarter than Bush and Cheney combined, and a more decent man by leaps and bounds. Did he believe he was doing the right thing? I believe he did (but hey, there's no backing that up with facts either, is there?). Did he tell the truth about everything? Did ANYONE in the Bush administration? The entire administration is founded on lies and deceit, and he was a part of that. He was given the same talking points as everyone else and gave them out. Yes, he resigned, because he IS a better man than that. But he made a mistake and I do believed he lied to us willingly for what he probably believed was the greater good.

Why you're so quick to defend his every action as one of innocence when the facts aren't there to support it I don't know. I used to really like him, and I do believe he is a much better man than those he was surrounded by, but I certainly don't believe he's some kind of angel who was completely duped.

If WE, the regular public, saw through the garbage they were giving us, you think the Secretary of State couldn't? Hogwash.

[technoir.livejournal.com]

Concidering after the fact he said in interviews he was lied to while he was in office, I will tend to believe him. His career certainly implies a level of integrity that says to me he would not have knowingly lied. Till someone shows up with proof I will not believe other wise.

We the public say a lot of things without proof. This is a problem with people.

[jeffrey.livejournal.com]

But there's no proof that he didn't lie, and he was part of a group of people who founded everything they did on lies.

If someone hangs around with a gang all the time and is a MEMBER of that gang, and that gang is guilty of murdering someone, all members are under suspicion until cleared of any wrongdoing. There's no evidence there to clear him, sadly, so we have every reason to think he was party to the same things Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld et al were (though, as I said, to a lesser degree and probably with more honorable intentions).

We the public DO say a lot of things without proof... which is exactly what you just did. I base my judgment of his character on the people he willingly worked for and the things he did, you base yours on his track record previously. There's no more proof on your side than there is mine.

John McCain used to be a relatively decent guy previously. That certainly doesn't make him so now. People make bad decisions and screw up, and I hold them accountable for that. It doesn't mean they're terrible people (though with McCain I'm beginning to wonder, as the more his campaign tanks the worse of a person he seems to become), but it DOES mean they become far less trustworthy.

[technoir.livejournal.com]

Can you prove any of what you have said? No. If your going to assassinate the character of a man you should show some proof. I will go one further. Can you prove that Bush and company lied? No probably not. Do I believe that they were wrong? most definitely. I find it just as likely they saw some evidence and leaped the conclusion they wanted to see. Without actual evidence all we are is an angry mob.

The one with the facts wins. It is not enough to say the other side doesn't have facts either.

[jeffrey.livejournal.com]

There's plenty of proof Bush lied... about dozens of things. Honestly I can't be arsed to link you to it, because I don't care if you know it and, if you don't know it by now then you might not have been paying attention.

The facts are Bush has lied. You can get that from any of his press conferences where he directly contradicts things he's said previously. I think you're jumping down the wrong path there in defense of a man who we both agree is largely a good guy.

Calm down there. :P

[technoir.livejournal.com]

I am always calm.