October 25, 2005
Cheney, Libby & Rove Like Attack On Wilkerson
Red State Republican Slats’ remarks are in red-state red while my blue-state RightLeft’s responses are in blue, true blue.
My noble adversary always likes to admonish us when we attack the credibility of of the messenger versus responding to the actual facts. Being the good lawyer that he is, I am surprised by this, because I thought that is what good lawyers do -- point out the credibility or lack thereof of the witness. Maybe he just doesn't like this when it is a non-lawyer doing credibility questioning.
There is nothing wrong with being critical of a witness’s credibility provided that the criticism is credible. What my noble adversary has done here is primarily unsubstantiated name calling. As you will see below, he has attributed the label of “liberal” to Wilkerson as if this was equivalent to convicted child molester.
But he is right, we should focus on the facts before we try to question a person's credibility. And I ask you, what facts has RightLeft and Colonel Wilkerson shared with us that are relevant and support his views on the Bush administration's foreign policy? What Wilkerson and RightLeft wish to do is to leverage Wilkerson's relationship to a very respected political personality, Colin Powell, and use that relationship to trash the President, hoping that the public's belief that Powell is a decent and honest man will lend credibility to Wilkerson's personal opinions which represent nothing more than sour grapes.
The implication here is that Wilkerson is really stupid in that he is not reporting fact but is instead reporting falsehoods which he is endeavoring to raise to the level of fact by improperly “leveraging” the wonderful reputation of true-red Republican Colin Powell. However, it is more than interesting to note that wonderful true-red Republican Colin Powell has not refuted anything that Wilkerson has said.
Colonel Wilkerson is just another inside the beltway liberal who is out for nothing more than to trash the administration with the same old liberal talking points. His article might be believable if he didn't bring up the same old worn-out liberal pabulums (e.g. Kyoto, WMD, etc.) -- elements that RightLeft chose not to include in his posting.
Wilkerson's complaints amount to nothing more than sour grapes that he and his man Powell were iced out by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Bush himself. This is typical liberal bipartisanship: If it's not my way, then let's attack it. I've read Woodward's book which makes it clear that Powell had a strong voice in the deliberations leading up to Iraq and Bush gave Powell significant opportunity to negotiate an agreement with the French, Germans, and the UN that would have avoided an invasion. The issue here is that there was nothing that was going to change at the UN and as we know now, Saddam did not have WMD, but he also didn't want to tell anyone he didn't have WMD. We had no choice but to go into Iraq and I believe history will view this as an importantly successful foreign policy victory -- not unlike winning the Cold War under Reagan. The Colonel's petulant and juvenile remarks basically reflect Powell's frustration that he could not replace Bush's foreign policy with his own foreign policy.
Wow. Name Calling Gone Wild. Send in $9.95 and I will send you the tape. $14.95 for the DVD. Here is a sample of the unsupported name calling that you will get with the Slats tape or DVD. "same old liberal talking points;” “same old worn-out liberal pladulums;” “typical liberal bipartisanship;” “petulant and juvenile remarks.” Do you really think that this Republican appointed chief-of-staff would say what he said if wonderful true-red Colon Powell would come out and disagree with him which he has not?
You may ask why is Colonel Wilkerson going public now while his former boss Powell remains quiet. Could it be that Powell has as much too lose by going public? Or is because Powell is behaving consistent with why he is such a revered hero to all of us? Colin Powell is a dedicated and loyal American who understands that even if his views are not adopted by his Commander-in-Chief, his obligation is to follow orders and execute. And this he did with great success.
Slats admits that he has no idea why Colon Powell has remained silent in light of Wilkerson’s remarks. However, he SPECULATES that because Powell is a “revered hero” and a “dedicated and loyal American,” he has remained silent. Is this logical? A revered hero and dedicated and loyal American remains silent when his chief-of-staff goes public with falsehoods? It is clear that Wilkerson is out on a limb here. Recently Powell spoke at the University of Buffalo and the Associated Press (here) reports: Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday the United States is "notdoing bad at all" diplomatically, despite anti-American sentiment over the warin Iraq. "If you stand back a bit," Powell told an audience at the University atBuffalo, "you might see we have done very well in most parts of the world."
Wilkerson himself admits that he has had a falling out with Powell. So what we have here is not a credible Powell protégé, logically voicing why Bush's foreign policy is fatally flawed; but rather, a whining, sniveling liberal who can't stand it that his views and ideas were not adopted by his commanding officers -- the President and Vice-President -- who were elected by a majority of Americans.
Where to begin with this? Yes, Bush and Cheney were elected by an apparent majority of Americans. However, they were elected by a majority that was falsely but effectively terrorized by the threat of gay marriages and “nucular” mushroom cloud attacks by terrorists. In any case, here again, Slats needs to resort to name calling to make his point – “whining, sniveling liberal” – with absolutely no evidence that Wilkerson whines, snivels or is a liberal. But what else should one expect from a Bush devotee? Think Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame.
My noble adversary always likes to admonish us when we attack the credibility of of the messenger versus responding to the actual facts. Being the good lawyer that he is, I am surprised by this, because I thought that is what good lawyers do -- point out the credibility or lack thereof of the witness. Maybe he just doesn't like this when it is a non-lawyer doing credibility questioning.
There is nothing wrong with being critical of a witness’s credibility provided that the criticism is credible. What my noble adversary has done here is primarily unsubstantiated name calling. As you will see below, he has attributed the label of “liberal” to Wilkerson as if this was equivalent to convicted child molester.
But he is right, we should focus on the facts before we try to question a person's credibility. And I ask you, what facts has RightLeft and Colonel Wilkerson shared with us that are relevant and support his views on the Bush administration's foreign policy? What Wilkerson and RightLeft wish to do is to leverage Wilkerson's relationship to a very respected political personality, Colin Powell, and use that relationship to trash the President, hoping that the public's belief that Powell is a decent and honest man will lend credibility to Wilkerson's personal opinions which represent nothing more than sour grapes.
The implication here is that Wilkerson is really stupid in that he is not reporting fact but is instead reporting falsehoods which he is endeavoring to raise to the level of fact by improperly “leveraging” the wonderful reputation of true-red Republican Colin Powell. However, it is more than interesting to note that wonderful true-red Republican Colin Powell has not refuted anything that Wilkerson has said.
Colonel Wilkerson is just another inside the beltway liberal who is out for nothing more than to trash the administration with the same old liberal talking points. His article might be believable if he didn't bring up the same old worn-out liberal pabulums (e.g. Kyoto, WMD, etc.) -- elements that RightLeft chose not to include in his posting.
Wilkerson's complaints amount to nothing more than sour grapes that he and his man Powell were iced out by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Bush himself. This is typical liberal bipartisanship: If it's not my way, then let's attack it. I've read Woodward's book which makes it clear that Powell had a strong voice in the deliberations leading up to Iraq and Bush gave Powell significant opportunity to negotiate an agreement with the French, Germans, and the UN that would have avoided an invasion. The issue here is that there was nothing that was going to change at the UN and as we know now, Saddam did not have WMD, but he also didn't want to tell anyone he didn't have WMD. We had no choice but to go into Iraq and I believe history will view this as an importantly successful foreign policy victory -- not unlike winning the Cold War under Reagan. The Colonel's petulant and juvenile remarks basically reflect Powell's frustration that he could not replace Bush's foreign policy with his own foreign policy.
Wow. Name Calling Gone Wild. Send in $9.95 and I will send you the tape. $14.95 for the DVD. Here is a sample of the unsupported name calling that you will get with the Slats tape or DVD. "same old liberal talking points;” “same old worn-out liberal pladulums;” “typical liberal bipartisanship;” “petulant and juvenile remarks.” Do you really think that this Republican appointed chief-of-staff would say what he said if wonderful true-red Colon Powell would come out and disagree with him which he has not?
You may ask why is Colonel Wilkerson going public now while his former boss Powell remains quiet. Could it be that Powell has as much too lose by going public? Or is because Powell is behaving consistent with why he is such a revered hero to all of us? Colin Powell is a dedicated and loyal American who understands that even if his views are not adopted by his Commander-in-Chief, his obligation is to follow orders and execute. And this he did with great success.
Slats admits that he has no idea why Colon Powell has remained silent in light of Wilkerson’s remarks. However, he SPECULATES that because Powell is a “revered hero” and a “dedicated and loyal American,” he has remained silent. Is this logical? A revered hero and dedicated and loyal American remains silent when his chief-of-staff goes public with falsehoods? It is clear that Wilkerson is out on a limb here. Recently Powell spoke at the University of Buffalo and the Associated Press (here) reports: Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday the United States is "notdoing bad at all" diplomatically, despite anti-American sentiment over the warin Iraq. "If you stand back a bit," Powell told an audience at the University atBuffalo, "you might see we have done very well in most parts of the world."
Wilkerson himself admits that he has had a falling out with Powell. So what we have here is not a credible Powell protégé, logically voicing why Bush's foreign policy is fatally flawed; but rather, a whining, sniveling liberal who can't stand it that his views and ideas were not adopted by his commanding officers -- the President and Vice-President -- who were elected by a majority of Americans.
Where to begin with this? Yes, Bush and Cheney were elected by an apparent majority of Americans. However, they were elected by a majority that was falsely but effectively terrorized by the threat of gay marriages and “nucular” mushroom cloud attacks by terrorists. In any case, here again, Slats needs to resort to name calling to make his point – “whining, sniveling liberal” – with absolutely no evidence that Wilkerson whines, snivels or is a liberal. But what else should one expect from a Bush devotee? Think Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame.
