Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (93409)	1/3/2005 10:26:44 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794351

Colin Powell's legacy Robert Novak January 3, 2005 WASHINGTON -- What most irritates Colin Powell in his final days as secretary of state is the notion he is leaving government involuntarily as a defeated policymaker. In fact, he is upbeat in his belief that he won out on issue after issue over his adversaries in the Bush administration. Powell's concern appears to be lack of certainty that anybody will play his role as reluctant warrior in George W. Bush's second term. That role by this professional soldier was to point out to his civilian colleagues the limits of military power in the 21st century even when exercised by the world's only superpower. Powell clearly is not confident that his successor, Condoleezza Rice, will follow in his footsteps. It is not easy to grapple with two grizzled veterans of the bureaucratic wars: Don Rumsfeld, who will be around for a while, and Dick Cheney, who will be around all four years. Powell was reluctant to commit U.S. forces to combat because he knows how terrible war is. That, indeed, is his legacy. Opposing those around the Cabinet table who wanted a totally unilateral strike on Iraq, Powell convinced President Bush he should go to the United Nations. He was successful in achieving non-military approaches to North Korea, Iran and Syria. Powell is a proud man who is not happy with the word around Washington that he is some sort of disappointed slug lying around the State Department with a black cloud over his head. "I leave here pretty pleased with what I have been able to do for my country for four years," he said. He sees himself and his sidekick, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, leaving with their heads held high. Powell disputes the reports, spread by some of his friends, that he came to the president on Friday, Nov. 12 with a conditional offer to stay on as secretary of state and was then given his walking papers. Rather, he contends he and Bush talked it over weeks before the election, with Powell stating that he wanted to leave. Indeed, he and Armitage long ago were privately describing themselves as one-termers. The unfinished business in Powell's view consists of an Israeli-Palestinian solution and, of course, Iraq. Powell is no dove. He lists removal of despotic regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq as among the Bush administration's great feats. In public speeches, he often refers to Iraq as "a long patrol," adding: "I don't quit on long patrols." "Nobody expected an insurgency this vibrant, this determined," he admits. Trained in the military code that you don't publicly criticize your superior or brother officers, Powell does not speak ill of his colleagues in government. He is a neo-Wilsonian in seeing America's role as spreading democracy through the world and considers that mission a post-Cold War success story for the United States. But he is clearly no admirer of the doctrine of pre-emption. Iraq was the only instance of a Bush pre-emption in the opinion of Powell, who saw the military operation in Afghanistan as a counterattack against Osama bin Laden. While believing better relations should be sought with France and Germany, Powell is more concerned with anti-American public opinion. He feels the problem is more a question of how U.S. officials talk than what they say. Americans often talk as though they know best and know exactly what has to be done, which Powell does not believe works well in diplomatic circles. Colin Powell is no slug today. He is feisty, confident and, at 67, not nearly ready for retirement. The leadership of New York's desiccated Republican Party would love for him to run for anything he wants, but he will not do it. He crossed that bridge when he decided not to run for president in 1996. But would he rule out a return to government someday? "No," he says, "I would never rule that out because I don't know what the future might hold. But I have ruled out any political office." That is for the distant future. For the immediate future, he will be missed in the second Bush administration, where there is nobody to take up his legacy.

To: LindyBill who wrote (93409)	1/3/2005 10:27:49 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 794351

The Bald Eagles I saw two days ago are beginning to make me believe that true freedom has little to do with money. America is a country of "stuff accumulation". The more stuff we accumulate, the more worried we become that we may lose it and the more work we do to preserve the stuff. Is that freedom? Managing money can be an overwhelming and time consuming process demanding hours of office time everyday. Is that freedom? Not that I am particularly religious, but aren't money and stuff man's creations and the wonders of nature and the beauty of the earth and heavens God's creations. How free do we feel when we visit our stuff vs when we visit God's stuff? Karen and I spent 2 wonderful years traveling the country in a 8'x31' camper. We visited many National Parks, State Parks, historical sites, old battlegrounds, and dozens of museums. We had everything we needed and more in that 248 SF of camper. When we first contemplated that trip, I recalled the years I spent traveling the world for months at a time with one SF mountain rucksack. It too held everything I needed. That recollection convinced me the camper would suffice and it did. Today, my 15'x18' bedroom is 10% bigger than the old camper, and I could not pack my stuff into two hundred rucksacks. Does that make me free? The Bald Eagle sighting is making me think. They live and travel outdoors everyday in the most beautiful natural surroundings. They eat well, mate for life, have sex often, make a home site wherever they wish, and move whenever they want. Eagles are missing a lot of stuff. They don't have alcohol or drugs. They don't own TVs. They don't have retirement accounts. They don't have roofs that need patching. They don't have grass that needs cutting. They don't have shrinks. They don't even have a rucksack. So why do I find the Eagles so fascinating? It is because they have maintained the freedom to live within God's wonders, while us humans strive to accumulate more of man's stuff. I have heard the phrase "Fly With Eagles" often in my life. Two days ago, I learned what it means. I am ready to fly, but what the hell should I do with all this stuff? Mike