Hillary: I'll Send Colin Powell Abroad As My Emissary

Comments (58)

cleter wrote on November 27, 2007 6:07 PM:

Is she insane? How, exactly, is championing discredited members of the BUSH ADMINISTRATION supposed to help her in the Democratic primaries? Is she going to send Alberto Gonzales on little junkets, too?

This is beyond stupid.

patchwork wrote on November 27, 2007 6:11 PM:

Oh dear god. This has got to be the most stupid thing so far she has said. Colin Powell? The liar for Bush who went before the UN and presented trumped up information to the American people and the UN? Jeesuz. This is really stupid. She is out of touch and operating in the twentieth century, not in today's world.

I can't believe it. Colin Powell should be dropped like a hot potato,. Why on earth would she want to resurect him? Does she owe him something?

CT Voter wrote on November 27, 2007 6:15 PM:

I bet David Broder, if he can get over his morbid fascination with the Clinton marriage, is going to just love this statement. It's so...civil...bipartisan...serious.

And stop knocking Colin Powell. He couldn't have possibly anticipated that someone would manipulate intelligence in order to sell a war, could he? Therefore, he's still credible as a representative of an administration because this time, no one will be manipulating anything to make a case for anything...

Skeptic wrote on November 27, 2007 6:16 PM:

Sounds like a pander to the 50% of the electorate in S.C. that's black that will still play well with conservative white Dems in the state.

anon wrote on November 27, 2007 6:17 PM:

This is the most retro campaign I've ever seen.

Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 6:18 PM:

Set aside the question of whether it is even wise to tap Colin Powell. What in her mind makes her think he'll say yes? Wouldn't she be better off asking George H.W. Bush? At least she knows that he's willing to work with the Clintons....

Unless this is her attempt to pick up the black vote in South Carolina by showing her willingness to work with popular, reasonable black men. "You don't have to vote for Obama; I'll talk to the other popular, reasonable black man when I'm in office. That should satisfy you."

Anonymous wrote on November 27, 2007 6:18 PM:

Send James Baker.

anon wrote on November 27, 2007 6:20 PM:

Another centrist bit of posturing from the candidate representing the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

danger wrote on November 27, 2007 6:21 PM:

Hillary is smart

Rudy is an idiot

Rudy says he will protect us from murdering terrorists -
if now - why not on 9-11.
Can a leader stop murderers from crashing planes into buildings -
oh but they weren't murderers, they were enemy murderers.

but no fear - Rudy is not responsible for future attacks from them - but he will protect you from them.

texasdem wrote on November 27, 2007 6:21 PM:

As a disclaimer, I support Obama. Didn't Obama already say he would take the best from either party as cabinet members? Secondly, if Hillary wins after "turning up the heat" on the Republicans, will there be any goodwill about working in her administration?

Helter wrote on November 27, 2007 6:22 PM:

Well, at least we know Powell won't hesitate to go out and say whatever the White House tells him to say. It's what he's good at.

AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on November 27, 2007 6:23 PM:

No. You silly critics. It makes sense. That way -- when Senator Clinton demands a UN resolution to go to war in Iran -- she'll have someoneon tap who is already trained to do the job.

stlounick wrote on November 27, 2007 6:24 PM:

Senator Clinton has now officially lost her GD mind.

Ni Daye wrote on November 27, 2007 6:36 PM:

I know you left wingnuts will say anything to discredit Hillary. I have read somewhere that Obama consulted Powell frequently and have not heard any of you complaining about that, about his so-called superb judgement.

Yes, it is sad to see Powell was such as good soldier for Bush. But does anyone believe Powell intentionally lied to the world about WMD? He is a diplomat and he will be happy to go around for Hillary to re-build his "credit". I mean what is wrong with deploying a good U.S. citizen to re-build our reputation in the world.

Get a life and give Hillary a break!

texasdem wrote on November 27, 2007 6:41 PM:

Ni Daye, if I am not mistaken, Powell himself called what he was being asked to present to the UN "bull***t." And yet he proceeded. Coming from a military family, I understand being a good soldier, but his obligation was to the country, not to a president's lie. That's not being a "good citizen" any more than obeying an illegal order is.

Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 6:45 PM:

he will be happy to go around for Hillary to re-build his "credit".

Care to back this conclusion up with some facts?

quasar wrote on November 27, 2007 6:47 PM:

Ni Daye wrote on November 27, 2007 6:36 PM:
"Get a life and give Hillary a break!"

Too late...she already snapped.

Matt wrote on November 27, 2007 6:48 PM:

I can't wait to hear what excuse the Hillary supporters will use to justify this one.

Perhaps: "Well, Powell said he was misled and he's sorry now." Great. Let's appoint Scott McClellan as spokesman again, too.

Maybe: "This shows her bipartisan approach towards blah blah blah." Great. Let's appoint our favorite progressive bipartisan, Joe Lieberman as VP.

Possibly: "Hillary wants people with real experience to help lead the US." Great. Powell's vast experience and reasonable foreign policy did SO WELL during this administration.

This is gonna be fun to see what excuses are formed to make up for the cognitive dissonance of Hillary "progressives".

cleter wrote on November 27, 2007 6:49 PM:

If we wanted disgraced Bush Republicans as our foreign policy emissaries, wouldn't we vote for Republicans? This is a stupid idea, which lends credence to all the bad things people say about Hillary.

What other humiliated former Bush shills is she planning to rehire?

AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on November 27, 2007 6:51 PM:

Consulting is good. (Bill Clinton consulted Bush the Greater.) Not consulting us bad. (Bush the Lesser doesn't seem to have consulted anyone who disagreed with him.) In all seriousness, the problem is making someone so linked with a flawed policy the traveling, public face of a new administration with much to repair in the world. We take a certain positive, albeit mixed, narrative with us when we view General/Secretary Powell. To much of the world,however unfairly, he remains the public face of a United States that lied itself into a war with Iraq. It's not nanotechnology to see this as a bizarre idea on Senator Clinton's part.

But, Barbra Streisand??? Now, that's a lady who can restore our place in the world (That's a joke before anyone gets their knickers in a twist.)

CT Voter wrote on November 27, 2007 6:52 PM:

Ni Daye?

Us leftwingnuts are still waiting for the explanation for Honestly, who would not wish Muslim as a region has never existed from the Romney thread....care to elaborate??

Ni Daye wrote on November 27, 2007 6:59 PM:

CT Voter wrote on November 27, 2007 6:52 PM:

On my original post, I gave you the example to back up my comment. Many religions have past sins but Muslim is the only one that causes all kind of violence in today's world.

Anonymous wrote on November 27, 2007 7:01 PM:

She is so ten years ago.

Raoul Paste wrote on November 27, 2007 7:01 PM:

But does anyone believe Powell intentionally lied to the world about WMD?

You apparently never saw the Time article describing how, on the night before his UN appearance, Colin Powell threw his briefing papers across the room in his hotel and said "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit"

But then he did.

DTM wrote on November 27, 2007 7:02 PM:

It is true that back in June, Powell said on Meet The Press that he met twice with Obama to discuss foreign policy. And as I recall there was some criticism of Obama for doing so in light of Powell's history.

That said, meeting with Powell to discuss foreign policy is not quite the same thing as suggesting he would be a good choice to represent the United States abroad.

Anonymous wrote on November 27, 2007 7:05 PM:

And just to add . . .

I like how she picks a name out of thin air without apparently wondering whether or not he'd want to be her emissary, or whether he'd agree.

How did this woman get a reputation for being a serious person?

CalD wrote on November 27, 2007 7:06 PM:

In fairness, I think everything Powell presented to the UN was material that had been presented to him as fact. I've read that he threw out some other stuff that he did not find credible himself.

Colin Powell rightfully should have and very likely would have made a pretty fine SoS if he hadn't has Dick Cheney and his PNAC cabal sneaking around behind him undercutting everything he tried to do, badmouthing him to Bush every time he left the room and basically shivving him in the kidneys any time his back was turned. Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, I. Lewis Libby, Darth Rumsfeld, John Bolton, you won't find a nastier, more amoral crew on any post office wall and the UN incident was only one of many times Colin Powell got set up by them.

CT Voter wrote on November 27, 2007 7:07 PM:

I guess I'm somewhat geographically challenged, but I don't know where Muslim, the region, is located...

I guess Hillary supporters such as NiDaye can enlighten the rest of us as to where that is, as well as provide a rationale for equating all Muslims with nutcake jihadis....

Ni Daye wrote on November 27, 2007 7:19 PM:

CT Voter wrote on November 27, 2007 7:07 PM:

Unless you are retarded, you should understand that was a case of mis-spelling.

You are clearly not retarded but you will be more than naive if you don't think the teaching from the Muslin the religion has anything to do with all those terrorist activities around the world. Who's idea was that you would be served with 12 virgins if you carried out a suicide bombing against the infidels?

rant wrote on November 27, 2007 7:21 PM:

rant:
> How, exactly, is championing discredited members
> of the BUSH ADMINISTRATION supposed to help her in the Democratic primaries?

Uhh don`t you see? Its part of the "we where all wrong, especially the CIA" BS. It reminds everyone that "credible people were fooled too".

The problem is that Powell wasn`t fooled. Just look at his ominous phonecall with IIRC a democratic senator shortly before the presentation, the fighting he personally had to do to keep BS out of his presentation and his ability to get up-to-date information from throughout the (military) bureaucracy... Cheney had Bolton in state, but Powell was a god within DoD.

Just wait until you see the last parts of "phase II" like a couple of decades from now. In the meantime, have a look at what the BBC wrote about the British dossier in the days before Powell cited it.

Powell didn`t want to get the Shinseki treatment and and be shunned while a bunch of incompetent nutjobs played with the lives of soldiers like himself in the dangerous place he knew so well.

Democrats wanted to support the war (it was that special time in Washinton when elections are coming...its always that special time) and challenging the BS undercut the media friendly Jack Bauer compatible storyline for supporting Bush. And all it required was a willingness to, if reelected, in the future, say you were stupid enough to ignore BBC reporting and stupid enough to understand that "there will be regime change/brining democracy" talk puts a different light on BS coming from the "senior administration officials". Especially at a time when US experts were willing to challenge the BS privately to anyone with anything remotely like a security clearance.

At least with the Gulf of Tonkin and first Gulf war (The Kuwaiti "nurse") the lies where competent and done by professionals. They lasted.

CT Voter wrote on November 27, 2007 7:25 PM:

I'm still waiting for the rationale that explains why it's ok to equate all Muslims with nutcake jihadis, and therefore, it's acceptable that Mitt Romney has publicly made it clear that he wouldn't agree to having a Muslim in his cabinet....Ni Daye, you can just call me a retarded leftwingnut for continuing to ask.

DaveW wrote on November 27, 2007 7:35 PM:

That's it. I don't think I can vote for her if she's nominated. Or have any further hope for the Democratic Party. This is a pathetic, transparent attempt to divert the "Black vote" in SC away from Obama.

How can anybody still think that she's learned anything from the failed "third way" she and hubby championed? The issue here is not appointing Republicans to anything -- though that, too, would be questionable given that party's present record. The issue is that Powell, along with his former bosses, deserves war crimes prosecution, not being honored as a "distinguished American...who can represent our country well".

Clinton is not fit to be president. I'd vote for Ron Paul first.

Carl Nyberg wrote on November 27, 2007 7:36 PM:

I think this statement by HRC should be explained better.

I don't like it. I don't think Powell has much credibility left with anyone who isn't already in the Neo Con/Neo Liberal camps that have dominated U.S. politics.

For whom does HRC think Powell will be a persuasive emissary?

Does HRC think the Democrats should be meeting the Republicans halfway on foreign policy? Which Republicans?

Should Dems meet the old guard Republicans halfway? Or the Neo Cons?

I don't get what she's trying to say other than some half-assed game of name-dropping.

I'm not in SC, but I do spend a little time in the Black community. I don't think Powell is disliked the way White liberal activists scorn him, but I don't think he has much cache either.

As has been said about Powell, what's he ever done for the Black community?

SarahWest wrote on November 27, 2007 7:44 PM:

As if Colin Powell is gonna do ANYTHING to help Hillary, now or ever. Implying a connection to "people like Colin Powell" is so insanely risky that it tells me that the HRC campaign knows something we don't. My guess is her campaign knows the Obama vs Hillary tide has shifted and thus they are taking risks they NEVER would've taken a few months ago. The risky part is Colin Powell (for all his mistakes) could snap her in half right now if he chose to.

Hedley Lamarr wrote on November 27, 2007 7:49 PM:

Sean Penn might be available.

JMyers wrote on November 27, 2007 8:42 PM:

The Mother of all Ironies: Colin Powell’s innacurate, erroneous hoax/report to the UN Security Council on 2/5/03 supported a conflict that violated every one of the eight conditions required to be satisfied in the POWELL DOCTRINE (1.Vital national security interest threatened. 2.Clear, attainable objective. 3.Risks and costs frankly analyzed. 4.All nonviolent policy means fully exhausted. 5.Plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement. 6.Consequences fully considered. 7.Action supported by American people. 8.Broad international support.)

Colin Powell is the ideal candidate for an ambassador in President Hillary’s administration. He has already sold out to the neoconservative dogma that the preemptive removal of Saddam was necessary, so there shouldn’t be any cognitive dissonance.

But when he travels about, will he be laughed at for his hypocritical betrayal of his own principles, or spat upon in revulsion for enabling the worst foreign policy fiasco ever?

Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 27, 2007 9:42 PM:

Clinton has become a tragic parody of herself.

The poster gal for corporatism is going to send out the advance man for the Iraqi debacle as her face for the world . . . What is she trying to say? Buy our shit or will invade your ass.

How Milton Friedman of her.

lambert strether wrote on November 27, 2007 10:22 PM:

The only reason I can imagine Hillary would want Powell around her is that he's a "good soldier" -- a "Yes man" who coughs up his principles when faced with authority, and who is, moveover, easy to lie to and manipulate.

Oh, wait...

On the Clock wrote on November 27, 2007 10:55 PM:

Colin Powell is going to be Hillary's special international emissary, not five years after lying and obfuscating to the same community to launch our pre-emptive war on Iraq? All Edwards and Obama have to do is rack up the UN tape. It's more depressing to watch now than it was then.

Don't believe me? Watch Wilkerson elaborate on Powell's testimony.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iwdsm-Oux4o&feature=related

This is both a major political and policy blunder, committed by the candidate herself. It's inexplicable, really. For the first time, it makes me think the timbers are rotting on the USS Clinton. And we're still two months out from port.

She'll never be able to defend this to the base. And frankly, I don't think she'd succeed defending it to the general electorate.

loveit wrote on November 27, 2007 11:12 PM:

This is the best comment I've seen. Succinct and oh, so to the point. It bears repeating:

She is so ten years ago.

She is so ten years ago.

She is so ten years ago.

She is so ten years ago.

She is so ten years ago.

She is so ten years ago.

She is so ten years ago.

She is so ten years ago.

She is so ten years ago.

She is so ten years ago.

lane filler wrote on November 27, 2007 11:35 PM:

Anyone looking for some new Hillary video from an SC stop and an interesting commentary on how race is impacting that primary should try: http://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/27/hillary_and_the_black_men_of_god

KathyF wrote on November 28, 2007 3:01 AM:

This is the same Colin Powell who strongarmed Bill Clinton into changing his mind on gays in the military? Who refused to go into Kosovo, despite genocide taking place there, and in defiance of his Commander in Chief's wishes?

I can't think of anyone I respect less in Washington than Colin Powell.

freepatriot wrote on November 28, 2007 7:35 AM:

uhm, colin powell ???

george bush's war monger ???

remember those aluminum tubes in Iraq ???

colin powell has never seen a rocket before ???

they're quite common on battlefield nowadays

so how is it that colin powell didn't recognize those aluminum tubes for what they really were

88 millimeters in diameter, just the size to fit in a rocket launcher, about 3 feet long, just like any other battlefield rocket

and yet, colin powell stood by while georgie porgie and the condiliar told us that those tubes could only be used to refune uranium

colin powell never saw a rocket before ???

don't let the door hit you in the ass, hillary

Michael wrote on November 28, 2007 9:22 AM:

More evidence as to why she doesn't have good judgment and that she is unqualified to be president. Colin Powell is history after the iraq war and un debacle. Now if powell would have resigned kicking and screaming, which would have stopped the war, then I would agree that he might be ok as an emissary. Now, forget it. He is the face of the king's biggest debacle.

B Merry wrote on November 28, 2007 9:52 AM:

I may be late to this party, but for all those who think Obama (or any other president, for that matter) would NOT use the talents and knowledge of someone like Colin Powell, I have this to say pfffftttt!!

Colin Powell Consults with Barack Obama - MSNBC (June 2007) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN_xwFuiiCo

How about here? http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/062307.html

One again, the blogpundits would rather blather than check facts.

Again, pfffftttt !!!

Xenos wrote on November 28, 2007 10:15 AM:

No more reason to bring Colin Powell on board than to bring 'Buzz' Patterson. Powell lacks respect for civilian authority, whether we are talking about My Lai, insubordination to Bill Clinton, or lying to the American public on behalf of c+ Augustus.

The man is toxic.

Michael A. Olson wrote on November 28, 2007 10:19 AM:

I'll send Colin Powell abroad as my emissary. You know, the
guy who lied to the world at the UN.

colonpowwow wrote on November 28, 2007 10:51 AM:

Okay, everybody calm down. The headline should have read:

"I'll send COLONPOWWOW abroad as my emissary."

With my sunny disposition and sweet nature, not to mention my penetrating insight and wisdom, I'll diplomatically repair the damage to our image in the world that we've suffered the last 7 years under GWB.

Besides, as so many of the anti-Hillary posters have surmised, I must already be on her payroll since I so passionatly support her by putting the truth to counter so much of the Hillogynist nonsense that surfaces here.

What's wrong with Colon Powell? He's been very inspirational to me in one obvious sense ;-) Besides, I would bet any money he's still popular with voters of both parties outside of the left-behind blogosphere - hence the Hillary name-dropping.

All kidding aside, I don't care for him very much. Never did.

Solomon Void wrote on November 28, 2007 10:58 AM:

Hillary and Powell? Obama and Powell?

They're only using Powell for name recognition. They must be stupid if they think they can get much mileage out of it.

Anyone who believes Powell's UN presentation was made in good faith, I have some uranium from Niger to sell ya. Never been used, real cheap.

Anyone who believes democrats (Slick Willie included) are any less greedy, warmongering liars than neo-con republicans, WAKE UP!

Without your cooperation, the system would collapse.

Chuck wrote on November 28, 2007 12:03 PM:

To find out how the strike helps Hillary when she deserves none of it, check out this new hit piece on Hillary at http://thirdrailradio.blogspot.com/

Mike M. wrote on November 28, 2007 1:11 PM:

Wow. This so doesn't make any sense. She really needs to retract this. Nobody who had anything to do with Bush's foreign policy should work in politics ever again.

Coonsey wrote on November 28, 2007 1:31 PM:

OK - now she's lost my vote for sure.

Coonsey's View
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

Big M wrote on November 28, 2007 2:51 PM:

Anybody that would support or vote for ANY of these thieving, lying thugs and scumbags should be pinned to the ground and sterilized with a soldering iron.

These are people whose IQ apparently can't get past watching reality shows, while the actual reality is that they are helping turn this country into a full-blown fascist police state. I hope that there actually is a Hell, and that these people find lodgings there.

Smitty wrote on November 28, 2007 3:59 PM:

The total of America's IQ wouldn't push past 30 ,most of you fuck'n idiots can't even locate Canada on a map, [ thank-God, you'd probably bomb us ], nevermind reach the conclusion your being fucked over and allowing the Clintons back into the US government to protect it's own. Your government has been hi-jacked, and there is nothing you can do about it now. America is the idiot capital of the world with enough weapons to destroy the globe a thousand times over. Now that's more frightening then any CIA created terror network sitting around Saudi land.

quasar wrote on November 28, 2007 4:00 PM:

What I'd like to know is WHAT Obama and he talked about.

Maybe Powell sees himself as in "The Rime of the Ancyent Marinere".

quasar wrote on November 28, 2007 4:08 PM:

Smitty wrote on November 28, 2007 3:59 PM:

You're still a commonwealth of the QUEEN!
geesh!

Smitty wrote on November 28, 2007 4:33 PM:

America signed it's independence away and handed it's country over to England in 1913. The total "Commonwealth of Nations" rounds off to around 30% of the population. At least America only has to pay big bucks not to be included. Wouldn't look good on your record.

RLM Jones wrote on December 17, 2007 7:43 AM:

Just 2 quick statements...anyone that thinks that Colin Powell would simply lie to start a war is crazy and in my opinion short-sighted. second colin has higher approval ratings than any of the clintons.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)