Cheney's comment about Powell brought to mind some thoughts about the term Republican In Name Only. Moderate Republicans who differ from the party base, particularly on social issues such as abortion, gay marriage, immigration and others are often called RINOs. But many of these so-called RINOs actually support the party. They vote regularly for Republican candidates, even though they may disagree with them on various issues, and they generally back the party against Democrats. If they criticize the GOP, it's because they want to move it in a direction closer to their own views -- just as hardcore conservatives want a return to more conservative roots. If conservatives want to call those Republicans moderates, or even liberals, that might be a fair label -- depending on the individual involved. It's possible to be a liberal Republican. Someone with more liberal views who votes Republican doesn't stop being a a member of the GOP. Unlike what the conservative base seems to think, conservative does not equal Republican. People who vote Republican are not RINOs.
But what about a prominent lifelong Republican who served multiple Republican administrations, who then publicly refuses to support the GOP presidential nominee? Not only does he refuse, but he openly throws his support to one of the most liberal Democratic candidates that's ever been up for election. Colin Powell is the true definition of a RINO. No one should be surprised to see that pointed out.
There's a difference between calling someone "a Democrat who hasn't gotten around to changing his registration yet," and calling them a RINO—which may as well mean formerly-Republican independent, the way you use it now.
ReplyDeleteThe later is fine. But the salient point here is that Powell would still be voting Republican if the party hadn't move "too far to the right" (Powell's words)
"The later is fine. But the salient point here is that Powell would still be voting Republican if the party hadn't move "too far to the right" (Powell's words)"
ReplyDeleteExcept that Powell's comment makes no sense, since the party moved left not right under Bush. It adopted liberal nation-building ideas in foreign policy, and big government domestic policy, including massive borrowing & spending. The social policies are basically identical to what they were twenty years ago.
And the party nominated a moderate -- a man despised by the conservative base -- noted for his independence, who won the nomination partly because of open primaries where he was supported by Democrats and independents.
Powell's lame excuse is completely bogus. Unless you want to argue that he only voted for Obama because he's black -- and I don't think that's the case -- he obviously just decided to ditch the GOP. No one pushed him out.
Except that Powell's comment makes no sense, since the party moved left not right under Bush. It adopted liberal nation-building ideas in foreign policy, and big government domestic policy, including massive borrowing & spending. The social policies are basically identical to what they were twenty years ago.
ReplyDeleteHe wrote to McCain to express his opposition to Bush's push for military tribunals of those formerly and currently classified as enemy combatants. He was concerned about Bush's plan to "amend the interpretation of Article III of the Geneva Conventions." He also pointed out that perception of the War on Terror may be losing moral support saying, "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism."
If being pro-torture, isn't a move to the right, what is? I assume he's as much against it as Petraeus is. In 2004, he was quoted referring to neoconservatives as "fucking crazies".
For his 2008 decision, he specifically cited social issues and said he wouldn't be comfortable with more such conservatives on the court, because 2 liberals are due for retirement this term and he wanted the present balance kept. Do you remember who killed his nomination in 1996? James Dobson.
Don't forget that Powell attacked constructionist judges. He has no idea what it means to be a Republican - even the Senate's RINOs supported Roberts and Alito, except for Chafee.
ReplyDeletePro-choice, pro-affirmative-action black guy not excited about strict constructionism—film at 11.
ReplyDelete"He wrote to McCain to express his opposition to Bush's push for military tribunals of those formerly and currently classified as enemy combatants. "
ReplyDeleteWhich Obama is now resurrecting.
"If being pro-torture, isn't a move to the right, what is"
The characterization "pro-torture" is ridiculous except for people like me who are explicitly pro-torture in certain cases. And the whole issue is open to debate within the party. The interrogation policies of the Bush administration weren't a move to the right, they were an attempt to react to a new situation and create new rules.
Basically your argument is that he had some disagreements with certain Republican policies. So do lots of other Republicans. No one threw him out. He left.
"Pro-choice, pro-affirmative-action black guy not excited about strict constructionism—film at 11."
Again, you are basically supporting my argument. Powell decided that his views fit better with Democrats.
No, I'm saying he was one of those moderate-liberal Republicans you talk about here, until he felt his views were no longer welcome. Which, I think can be fairly attributed to the shifts of the last 8 years.
ReplyDeleteIf now his views are closer to Democrats, it's because they're the the party more inclusive of the center now. But either way, he is within territory Republicans used to occupy.
I, for instance, have never been a constructionist when that means things like imagining the framers had full knowledge of how equal protection clauses could or should apply in modern societies that have different knowledge about what groups may be equal.
> Which Obama is now resurrecting.
You're pretty excited about that, aren't you? Except the versions Obama is considering have provisions for due process. I assume Powell likes these better.
You really want to make this about Powell supporting a liberal Democrat, but I've seen no indication that's how he sees it. All he's done is conclude that Obama is saner than the Republican party on some issues that matter to him—such as nominating a VP who's up to the job, which was enough to sway his vote this time around. And mine. But to suggest that we have left the party is silly. Republicans didn't used to be the party of ignoramus torture proponents and neoconservative warmongers. Powell was Reagan's National Security Adviser, remember? From back when the Republican party used to be against torture?
"You're pretty excited about that, aren't you? Except the versions Obama is considering have provisions for due process. I assume Powell likes these better."
ReplyDeleteI'm not excited about it. A number of those prisoners should be long dead, and others should have been sent to other states where they are wanted. But I think it is the best currently feasible option to deal with a difficult situation.
"But to suggest that we have left the party is silly."
Not at all. It's a normal reaction when people decide to vote for the opposition. It's called looking at the evidence. When someone joins the other side, generally that means they left the party.
"Republicans didn't used to be the party of ignoramus torture proponents and neoconservative warmongers."
Again with the leftist nonsense. Republicans have always been highly concerned with national security. How to treat captured terrorists after 9/11 was a brand-new issue that people disagreed on. The people who are ignoramuses are those who don't understand that torture has been a tool used by the U.S. in the past, or that dirty things sometimes need to be done in the interests of security.
And the use of term "warmonger" is just laughable. Afghanistan was a direct response to 9/11, and Iraq was an open enemy of the U.S. that we were bombing daily. Neither war required any sort of "warmongering" attitude.
"From back when the Republican party used to be against torture?"
Bush was supposedly against torture too. I think there's little doubt that Reagan would have ordered extreme measures after 9/11 if he thought them necessary. Look at the history of CIA operations during the Reagan administration. Look at the activities of the School of the Americas. Reagan understood that dirty wars required dirty tactics.
A 'warmonger' is one who advocates a war, which the Bush administration certainly did. A lot of people were skeptical about the Iraq war until Powell assured us with his 'slam dunk' case. We thought "well ok, if Powell says so, he's not one of the crazies..." But in his defense, according to him (.pdf), he spent two and a half hours trying to persuade Bush not to invade Iraq. "I tried to avoid this war. I took [Bush] through the consequences of going into an Arab country and becoming the occupiers."
ReplyDelete> "Look at the history of CIA operations during the Reagan administration. Look at the activities of the School of the Americas."
The School of Americas that the government has admitted was a "mistake" and contained "materials inconsistent with U.S. policy"--that school?
You'll have to be more specific about the history of CIA operations you're referring to. But since this was the Cold War, I'm sure it was all done with plausible deniability--which is a whole 'nother ballgame than the Bush administration's official policy of torture—that it pretends was not torture—which Republicans now endorse because of their hysterical overreaction to 9/11 (which includes the Iraq war--the danger of WMDs and nonexistent link to Al Qaeda's US operation is what sold the war)
"The School of Americas that the government has admitted was a "mistake" and contained "materials inconsistent with U.S. policy"--that school"
ReplyDeleteWhat does that have to do with how it operated during the Reagan administration?
" But since this was the Cold War, I'm sure it was all done with plausible deniability"
Yes, which would be my preferred method.
"which is a whole 'nother ballgame than the Bush administration's official policy of torture—that it pretends was not torture"
True. But using dirty methods is still the same in effect. You could make an argument that the Bush administration took a more open approach and wanted to define rules, rather than past administrations which simply did things secretly and deniably.
"heir hysterical overreaction to 9/1"
There was no overreaction at all, let alone a hysterical one. If anything, the U.S. underreacted. Anyone who actually think the U.S. overreacted to 9/11 is either a) ignorant of history and how nations respond when attacked, b) completely lacking in imagination regarding what the U.S. could have done, or c) both.
> "What does that have to do with how it operated during the Reagan administration?"
ReplyDeleteReagan not authorizing nor possibly even being aware of what was going on with it? He had bigger issues to deal with, as you may recall.
> ignorant of history and how nations respond when attacked
Oh, nations that suffer 3,000 deaths and a lingering non-existential threat normally torture prisoners and invade nations unrelated to the attack, with costs in the $2-3 trillion range and 100K total deaths? (some of which would have occurred had the US not invaded, but not most)
That's non-hysterical, and how nations normally respond? O.k. then, I guess stary-eyed leftists like me and Powell would rather not live in a normal country....
"Oh, nations that suffer 3,000 deaths and a lingering non-existential threat normally torture prisoners and invade nations unrelated to the attack, with costs in the $2-3 trillion range and 100K total deaths? (some of which would have occurred had the US not invaded, but not most)"
ReplyDeleteYes, of course. The last time we suffered an attack of around that many people killed, we destroyed an empire and slaughtered several million people. The U.S. reaction to 9/11 was extremely restrained. We got involved in major wars over far more trivial incidents.
And the torture thing is ridiculously exaggerated. We mistreated some prisoners -- big deal. That happens in pretty much every war, especially unconventional ones. The difference in this one is that many of the people we abused had no right to decent treatment in the first place -- as they were illegal combatants who would have traditionally been shot out of hand.
In the past when the US has been involved in (justifiable) major wars, there were existential threats. There were allies engaged in bloody conflicts who needed our help. There were enemies who could be tenably defeated by force and it was relatively final--no bloody occupations of "insurgent" countries.
ReplyDeleteNone of the above applies to Iraq, and furthermore, it was totally unrelated to the 9/11 attacks apart from the hysteria. To call the Iraq war an 'extremely restrained response' is an absurdity on multiple levels--not only was it not restrained by any measure (as the Gulf war was), but it also wasn't even a response to people who actually attacked.
Saddam was just saber-rattling with Iran about his supposed WMD capability, never expecting the US to be so insane as to invade and depose him.
> "they were illegal combatants who would have traditionally been shot out of hand."
Shooting combatants is one thing. Capturing and torturing them, quite another. It's not something we tolerate anymore. We have treaties and laws against it--blanket prohibitions that say nothing about only applying to state-sponsored actors, and indeed were adopted to put pressure on places in the world that have little regard for geopolitic niceties.
"In the past when the US has been involved in (justifiable) major wars, there were existential threats"
ReplyDeleteNo, there weren't in most of the U.S.'s wars. There has rarely been an actual threat to the existence of the U.S. And it isn't a good idea to wait until such a threat develops before taking action.
"None of the above applies to Iraq"
Yes, it does. Iraq was an enemy.
"it was totally unrelated to the 9/11 attacks"
Irrelevant strawman. It was our enemy long before 9/11. 9/11 just made us less willing to tolerate its continued hostility.
". To call the Iraq war an 'extremely restrained response' is an absurdity on multiple levels--not only was it not restrained by any measure (as the Gulf war was),"
It was extremely restrained. If you don't understand that, you know little about the history of warfare or of the military capabilities of the U.S. The U.S. could have burned the heart out of Baghdad on day one and killed more people than died in the whole war. And that's not even considering the use of nuclear weapons. The U.S. bent over backwards to make a distinction between the government & the people, and to cause as few casualties as possible - neither of which is at all typical in wars. In many cases we put our own forces at greater risk in order to minimize casualties. In both Afghanistan & Iraq the U.S. showed tremendous restraint.
"Saddam was just saber-rattling with Iran about his supposed WMD capability"
Hindsight. And we still aren't sure what Saddam was actually thinking.
" never expecting the US to be so insane as to invade and depose him."
There was nothing insane about it. It was long overdue. Regime change was the policy of three administrations.
"It's not something we tolerate anymore."
Actually it is, depending on who they are and the situation. We will almost certainly do it again if necessary. Hopefully we will do a better job of keeping it secret and denying it.
How can one begin to argue with such the preposterous notion that the Iraq war showed tremendous restraint? Folks like Colin Powell argued for the restraint of not fucking invading. Yet wgat we did, for the reasons given at the time, was restrained? Carpet bombing or nuking Baghdad was on the table as something a less 'extremely restrained' nation would do? What a preposterous notion. Seriously, how can $2-3 trillion dollars and a hundred thousand dead many more dismembered and dislocated be a restrained response--restrained compared to what, what more would any modern nation be willing to do? And why don't we apply the same 'restrained response' to other countries that pose commensurate threats to us or our allies, like Iran and N. Korea, partners in the 'axis of evil'? If we applied this 'extremely restrained' response everywhere, we'd broke and seen as the world's largest villain, responsible for vast death and destruction--and neocons would be at the front of such a charge, bearing the banner of "freedom". What sad joke your position is.
ReplyDeleteThe problem here is that I am judging restraint based on what a country like the United States of America would actually be willing to do, whereas you are judging restraint based on some barbarians indiscriminately razing an empire. If that's your yardstick, by that measure we were restrained. But it's an utterly useless one. I suppose, then, that those who advocated we not invade Iraq were 'double plus good extremely restrained.' It's little wonder you detest most anyone left of Cheney.
"How can one begin to argue with such the preposterous notion that the Iraq war showed tremendous restraint?"
ReplyDeleteYou can start by dropping the ridiculous assertion that it's preposterous. It's not like my position is anything unusual on the right.
"Yet wgat we did, for the reasons given at the time, was restrained?"
Yes. We gave Saddam every chance to cooperate. The build-up toward war went on for months. Saddam could have easily averted it had he wanted to.
"What a preposterous notion. Seriously, how can $2-3 trillion dollars and a hundred thousand dead many more dismembered and dislocated be a restrained response--restrained compared to what, what more would any modern nation be willing to do?"
Do you even pay attention to what other countries with far less power than the U.S. do in their wars? The nearest example in terms of power was Russia in Chechnya. They pounded Grozny flat and drove over the rubble. Look at Sri Lanka right now. They are blasting the hell out of areas regardless of civilian casualties.
"And why don't we apply the same 'restrained response' to other countries that pose commensurate threats to us or our allies, like Iran and N. Korea,"
Iraq was as special case, as it was already in a state of quasi-war with the U.S. Our patience ran out after 9/11 for good reason.
"What sad joke your position is."
You are too busy ranting and spouting nonsense to even understand my position. You are so amazed that someone challenges your poorly supported assumptions that you have no argument other than to just keep repeating it louder.
"The problem here is that I am judging restraint based on what a country like the United States of America would actually be willing to do"
Yeah, that's definitely the problem. You don't seem to understand that the U.S. by its very nature is extremely restrained compared to how many other countries might have reacted, or even to how the U.S. reacted in past wars.
"that those who advocated we not invade Iraq were 'double plus good extremely restrained.'"
When I say that we were restrained, I mean as opposed to the things we could have done, compared to our history, and in light of how we operated in the wars.
"It's little wonder you detest most anyone left of Cheney."
Actually I don't.