Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Colin Powells chief of staff tells about cabal

  1. Oct 27, 2005 #1
    It appears that as many of us have been saying all along, the Bush administration has been dominated by a small group of businessmen.


    Last edited: Oct 27, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 27, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yeah - I always read my "news" on a daily basis reather than a week or two later.
  4. Oct 27, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Sounds like news to me.
  5. Oct 27, 2005 #4
    I think he is referring to the age of the article. This is a week old.

    [edit] SOS2008 already posted it in the "World can't wait for 2008 thread. [/edit]
  6. Oct 27, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm not referring to the age
  7. Oct 28, 2005 #6
    Someone else posted it too. (Edit: Astronuc, on the "Rice refuses...." thread.)

    I saw the segment tonight (it was being re-aired on some channel) - Wilkerson wasn't looking too good. Kinda made me take the thing with a grain of salt.
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2005
  8. Oct 28, 2005 #7
    It is consistent with other moderates who left or were forced out. Brent Scowcroft has expressed similar sentiments

    As for looking poorly, if you speak out against the "cabal", they attack you.

    Remember Paul O'Neil?

    They charged him with leaking classified information. (Isn't that rich.)

    Here is a link to an op-ed by Juan Cole you might find interesting.


    (You will need to watch an ad if not a premium member.)
  9. Oct 28, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I agree that originally reading it was more impressive than listening to him live--he's not a professional speaker--a more polished delivery would make it seem more credible. But hey, he's a military man, isn't he?
  10. Oct 28, 2005 #9
    Well I'm not throwing it out by any stretch. I just would have been more compelled by his claims if he seemed to be authoritative instead of distracted and pissed off.

    Things are going down the drains so quickly, that if there is legitimate truth to the cabal thing, I think there must be people really looking into it.
  11. Oct 28, 2005 #10


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    "Businessmen"? Where does it say anything about businessmen in that article? All I see is this:
    So, in other words, Bush's foreign policy is shaped by himself and a small, tight-knit group of advisors. This "cabal" is usually called by it's official name: the cabinet. So how is that out of the ordinary? How is that news?

    I'm having deja-vu, here. I seem to remember a week or two ago, the media reporting something that was normal, but used negative-toned words to describe it, causing an uproar about nothing. Can't quite seem to remember what that issue was, though... :rolleyes:
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2005
  12. Oct 28, 2005 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Russ, we forgive you your memory lapses !

    The original article : http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...0,7455395.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

    Some excerpts :

  13. Oct 28, 2005 #12
    As usual you see what you want to see. Cheney and Rumfeld weren't exactly preschool teachers in their private lives now were they?:rolleyes:

    It is news because this is the first time a former member of the inner circle has spoken out. It is also news because when the speech was originaly given by Wilkerson it recieved little notice from the press, so little that it was on the news again last night just befor I posted it. The word "Cabal" was used by Wilkerson. You can call a cabal whatever you want.

    It is also news because the transcipt of the speech reveals that Bush had little to do with policy making.
    Perhaps what you heard had something to do with Scooter Libbey.:rolleyes:
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2005
  14. Oct 28, 2005 #13


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    What does that have to do with anything? We already knew that they used to be businessmen. So I ask again: why is this news?
    That, I'll buy - so why didn't you mention that? It seemed the point of your OP was that Bush's foreign policy is dominated by business interests, and the article didn't mention that at all.
    Yes, I know. My point was, calling it "cabal" is just a way to make it sound sinister - to make his gripe seem more serious. It doesn't actually mean anything.

    edit: Here, at least, the word is applicable. In the last thread, the words caused the event to morph into something that didn't actually happen. The reporters used the Michael Moore approach: suggest something, but don't actually state it explicitly, allowing the True Believers to turn the suggestion into a "fact".
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2005
  15. Oct 28, 2005 #14
    You give Mr. Moore to much credit. I would hardly say that Michael Moore is the originator of innuendo and insinuation.
  16. Oct 28, 2005 #15
    O -Kaaaaay.

    How about McCarthy then.


    Oscar wilde?




    The list is endless.
  17. Oct 28, 2005 #16
    I see nowhere it my OP that I teferred to anything as being "news."
    You are taking one word, which was my own, and dwelling entirely upon it, then twisting it as if it had some relevance to the topic. Which is actually pretty typical come to think of it.
    Whether something was news or not is totally irrelevant as to its truth.

    When the former chief of staff of the Republican Secretary of State makes a comment of this nature he must have a logical reason. Perhaps it is revenge, but then something questionable must have happened to bring it to fruitition or there would be no reason for Republican Wikerson to say anything. Lets not be coy we all know what happened involving Colin Powell's betrayal by the inner circle.
    Since I have seen no denial of Wilkersons statements, although perhaps there have been and I have missed them, I tend to take them seriously. Make of it what you will.
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2005
  18. Oct 28, 2005 #17
    Don't be naive Skyhunter. Michael Moore isn't a person. It's a terminological function used to to represent anything that you don't agree with in a negative tone because you can't think of anything intelligent to say.
  19. Oct 28, 2005 #18


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If one reads the entire speech, the first half is how he was fishing and received a call on his cell phone. How he took that call, and decided it was time for people to stand up and speak out. It is a little long, but if folks are to participate in this thread, it seems fair enough to expect them to read all of it.
  20. Oct 28, 2005 #19


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    In this instance, the title "retired US Army Colonel" is more significant than the title "Republican". The fact that Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield felt they had a better idea of what an invasion of Iraq would entail than military leaders has irked quite a few high ranking military (Shinsecki and Thomas, Barry McCaffery, etc).

    The discarding of military advice is one reason Iraq is such a mess. Of course, if you compared the number of military required to invade and occupy a foreign country to the number of military left after reaping the peace dividend, the answer to invading Iraq would have been "no" instead of "yes" - an unacceptable answer compared to "You go to war with the army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
  21. Oct 28, 2005 #20
    No Bob Wikerson was Colin Powells chief of staff and he is a "republican "

    Wilkersons ire was more about the lies and totally misleading doctored evedence pertaining to WMD in Iraq. In particualr his anger was centered on the discrediting of Colin Powell.

    If any one had seen Dead Wrong they would understand.

    Last edited: Oct 28, 2005
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Colin Powells chief of staff tells about cabal
  1. No commander in chief (Replies: 15)

  2. Colin Powell resigns (Replies: 10)

  3. Commander in Chief (Replies: 15)