digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Colin Powell: Terrorists are Not the Greatest Threat to the Nation

blogs.usatoday.com — "What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it's terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • cambrown99, on 10/10/2007, -12/+283I like Colin Powell a lot. I just wish he had stood up earlier instead of going along with the whole UN thing. I bet he probably wishes that too....
    • OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -25/+105Colin Powell is a coward for not standing up to Bush. He didn't do it then, and he still hasn't done it. All it takes is for him to say that he was coerced into giving that UN testimony, yet he hasn't done that. Instead, he's only vaguely hinted at it, and continued to make apologies for an administration that blatantly lied to get us into the war.

      You should also note that his son was president of the FCC for a while and repeatedly ruled in favor of the telecoms/cable industry. Powell is "Republican" all the way.
      • the6thReplicant, on 10/10/2007, -12/+31I guess America is full of cowards then.
        • Waiting2awake, on 10/10/2007, -5/+41The last 6 years would indicate that. Sorry, but until we can speak frankly about what happened and why - these delusions of grandeur that got America into this mess, will continue.
        • sodade, on 10/10/2007, -5/+29I couldn't agree more. If you want to look for the roots of our delusions of grandeur, I think that the militaristic pride that we rightfully felt after we saved the world from the nazis would be a great place to start. Both my grandfathers served in WW2 and I agree that they did something to be proud of, but the MIC capitalized on that pride and we willingly became delusional that war is cool and that we are america "***** yeah." Problem is, it has been proven time and time again since ww2 that military strength can't do much without some form of fascism behind it that allows the military to be deeply immoral in its actions. The Neocons realize this and they are spreading the allure of fascism to protect us from the "terrorists." Are we going to let them do that?
          • aadyss, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1 You Bolsheviks are a far better way to go.
          • Pfhreak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7"You Bolsheviks are a far better way to go."

            (Commenting system wouldn't let me reply to aadyss directly.)

            Right, because, as everybody knows, the only options are fascists and bolsheviks. ***** you.

            Let's get back to a freedom-loving, semi-democratic society that doesn't go around bullying the rest of the world.
        • dcherryholmes, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Not to mention the fact that the Russians did far more to "save the world from the Nazis" than we ever did.
          • aadyss, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Hurray for the Bolsheviks!!!!!!!! I think the huge Russian losses were in part due to Stalin's stupidly.
          • Orion682, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3No, it's the "wave of human bodies" attack. Through enough bodies at their bullets and they'll run out of ammo ;)

            Seriously, it's an old tactic that's been used several times, lol.
          • DoscoJones, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Well, we were sort of busy fighting Japan at the same time. Then there's that whole bit about us helping to rebuild western Europe and rebuilding the Japanese society from the inside out while the Russians were crapping on eastern Europe so hard they still haven't recovered. Go Soviet Machine!
      • whataboutdave, on 10/10/2007, -4/+27Colin Powell exerted all the influence he had. He is the only reason Bush went to the UN at all before the war.
        • dftpnkezln, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23Know something very influential he could have done? Called a public press conference, announced his resignation and stated we were about to make a huge mistake...before the war. Too little, far too late.
          • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Exactly. He chose loyalty to his president and party over loyalty to his countrymen, and that's very hard to forgive, even if he regrets it now.
          • ryanisnotsuper, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1You know what else he could have done? Called a public press conference, announced that we have lost all honor, and disemboweled himself with a potato peeler.
          • moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0@ryanisnotsuper:
            If this is a hara-kiri reference, then yes, that certainly would have gotten the point across.

            BTW: Keep in mind that if he had done the honorable thing and tried to stop the invasion, Karl Rove and his spin cronies would have figured out a way to totally discredit him. That's probably why he didn't do it; he realized that it may not have done any good. All the same, it's a shame he didn't have the cajones to do that when he had the chance. No matter how hard he works to end the war now, his reputation will always be tarnished because of his "prudent" silence.
        • NYC10004, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4You're right. The man did everything he could in that position, leading him to have strained relations with Rumsfeld and the rest early on. People have to understand that you just don't declare mutiny in that situation, its better to walk away.
        • 99thPercentile, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Exerted all the influence he had, eh?
          Slacker #1: "Dude, I'm out of cash. I'm going to go next door, waste the family that lives there, and take their money."
          Slacker #2: "Dude, I don't know about that."
          Slacker #1: "See you in a while... be right back."
          Slacker #2 (later, after Slacker #1 returns): "Dude, I'm not feeling right. I'm going to go hang out with Davey."
          I think that's fairly close to the level of influence and effort that Powell exerted before the current disaster began.
      • KnightWhoSaysNi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+28I don't think he was coerced. Bamboozled is more like it. I think he basically believed what he said to the UN at the time. A short time later he realized what a pile of ***** it was and that's why he eventually quit. You can tell he is deeply embarrassed by what he did.
        • ncc74656m, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Bush and his cronies swindled him, you're absolutely right. I feel terrible for the ruin that has been brought upon him, and can only hope that one day his name will be cleared.
        • kimb00, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I agree. I think Colin Powell is a stand up guy who doesn't want to be the centre of a mass controversy, realized his mistake in trusting the Bush administration, and stepped down. He doesn't want to play politics anymore and doesn't want to become a target.
          • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7By not stepping up and telling the whole story about what happened in the run up to war, he's helping our soldiers in Iraq LITERALLY become targets, in order to save his own hide from political barbs. That's not honorable in my opinion.
          • kimb00, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I do agree, but I still think there's more going on than making it simply that Powell just doesn't want to stand up to the Bush administration.
      • heartcoldfusion, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17The fact that he won't say he was coerced is exactly what makes him a man of integrity. He got up and said his piece to the U.N. I seriously doubt he will say that he was coerced by Bush, because, in the end, he was the one who said everything, so he's just as guilty as everyone else.

        And seriously, is he to be judged by the actions of his son? Moron. Let's return to the Nazi practice of Sippenhaft - kin liability. His son did something bad, so he is also to be held responsible? Brilliant.

        What his son does has no bearing on his character.
      • picsectionpleez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Isn't it amazing the difference in respect you feel when you read this guy's statements versus Bush? I think he decided not to for President simply because he didn't WANT to. Not because he was scared of standing up, but because he choses his battles and just simply did not want to be President. I would vote for him or Condi Rice any day.
        • rootofunity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Condi Rice??? What type of Crack are you smoking???????
      • jefferygomer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4While you're wrong about Powell not standing up to Bush, he should have done it sooner. Bush ignored Powell's advice, which is what lead him to quit. Powell and Bush had several disagreements about Iraq, Bush cherry picked the facts to support the war. The only way Powell was good for Bush was that having a high ranking, well respected General in the administration gave what Bush said have more credibility - Bush didn't listen to Powell, so the only thing he could do was to quit and remove the credibility he gave.
      • Duffeh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0CP has already publicly apologized to the world and specifically the UN for giving deliberately misleading testimony during the whitehouses pre-war PR buildup.

        But still... too little too late Collin.
    • OwdenBowden, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3It is unfortunate that Powell allowed himself to be used as he was. He is a very intelligent person that has all of the capabilities to have made this Iraq conflict actually work - all without the dog and pony show. Another person who is being used is Condoleezza Rice. I am not sure she is aware of it but the "White" house is using her like a two dollar hooker at a whore house.

      In all seriousness - I do think that the greatest threat to our country is Gangs. I would like to see the administration exterminate this problem by placing these groups on the Terrorist watch list and making them an enemy of the state.
      • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Or instead, we could just call them "gangs" and work to eliminate them. You know, instead of continuing to expand the meaning of "terrorist" with propaganda ***** designed to frighten people.

        By the way, I was listening to CNN Headline News on XM while I was in the shower this morning. In the span of 25 minutes, they used the words "terrorist" or "terrorism" 22 times. ***** ridiculous. If you don't think we're being manipulated, you're delusional.
      • aadyss, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1That's right OwdenBowden. Only blacks who are victimized by the evil Conservatives could possibly serve in a Republican administration. The typical liberal search for victims and insulting at that. Of course blacks who serve with Bush are stupid. Right??????
        • OwdenBowden, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I am not bring race into the issue here. I am stating a fact that these people have a lot to offer and are only being used as tools by the current administration. Their reputations are being tarnished. Apparently you have a serious Raciest association problem. and once again you are trying to play the Race card when it is not the venue to do so. Also I am sick and tired of the race card. Get over yourself. There haven't been Salves in this country for a hundred years and to keep bringing up this crap is doing no person any good. If you want to consistently blame White America for your persecution then I think you need to open your eyes and see that the White America you are constantly trying to blame for your problems does not exist anymore. If the people labeled as minorities actually stopped and looked at what they have then them would know that Whites in America are quickly turning into a minority and that if all Minorities would just walk off the job for one day this country would shut down.

          Enough is enough.
    • malcolmlo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Hey we dont know what goes on behind closed doors. I wouldnt put it past the current administration and their cronies to make threats to peoples well being, and even their lives. It's not always about "balls" within a corrupt system like this.
    • rationalthinker, on 10/10/2007, -28/+3Colin Powell only got it half right... Liberal ***** like the moron above posting moronic links are eating at the fabric of this society. Liberalism is a disease.
      • peevegrider, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20You sir...are a *****.
      • whiskeymb, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18Liberalism didn't bring about the Patriot Act. Liberalism didn't start wiretapping. Liberalism didn't keep the borders insecure. Liberalism didn't take us into the Iraq war. I agree with my predecessor, you sir... are a *****.
        • aadyss, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Yep.Clinton had those Muslims and illegals cornered until Bush let them all go free.
        • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Clinton isn't responsible for the greatest failure of national security in the history of our country. They weren't a threat when he was in charge because he actually went to work. It took Republicans taking over and appointing cronies to all the top positions to cause the problems we have now.
          • Pimptastic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1just out of curiosity, who are you referring to when you stated that "They weren't a threat when he was in charge" ?

            As for a failure in national security Clinton did have his problems, for example China stealing nuclear secrets, the dismantling of the cold war military, or the numerous terrorist attacks against Americans and American interests.

            And it wasnt Republicans, it was Bush picking people that were incompetent to handle the job they were given. Imagine no Rumsfeld, or Cheney, or Gonzalez during Bush's time in office, maybe he would have gotten better advice and not gotten into a perpetual habit of screwing everything up.
      • zengonzo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal

        'Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment.'

        I can see how this would be perceived as threatening to fascists ..
        • aadyss, on 10/10/2007, -8/+0Bolsheviks like zengonzo rule.
        • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Your criticisms of liberalism, like most right wing criticisms of liberalism, are based on name calling and nothing more.
      • yournightmare, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1In the United States, liberalism is practically synonymous with leftism, not with individual liberty. According to that Wikipedia definition of liberalism, the GOP would be considered liberal if they actually followed their stated goals (smaller government, personal liberty, etc.). Liberalism in the US generally means big government social progressives.
        • Timetheos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8You mean the GOP stated goals of not allowing gays to get married, warrantless wire-tapping, not allowing people to go to other countries to get prescription meds,...
          • aadyss, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0Don't forget about incestuous marriage and cross species marriage. That wouldn't hurt anyone.
          • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Forget "not getting married", it's only been a few years now since a Supreme Court case which (presumably) invalidated various state laws that made private homosexual sex in someone's own home a jail-time felony.

          • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The only people arguing for incest and cross species sex rights are people like you, assuming they are making a clever argument against gay marriage. Nobody can show that one will lead to the other, but there will always be people like you making outrageous claims.
        • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Liberalism in the US generally means government programs that make appropriate civic investments. Unwisely growing the size of government is the hallmark of Republicans over the last few decades.
      • picsectionpleez, on 10/10/2007, -10/+0No ya'll- Liberalism is for *****, it's just that we have a ***** President. Think Reagan was a *****? How about ***** Clinton, the king of *****?
        • aadyss, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Maybe a little too many drugs???
        • moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Maybe a few too many "*****"s???
        • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2If Bush is a *****, you can't claim Reagan and Clinton were. Even if they had their faults they are nowhere near the same category of King ***** the Retard President.
      • gerran, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Almost every comfort and protection you have today is due to "liberalism". Religious freedom, first Amendment, social security, workplace safety regulations, minimum wage requirements, child labor laws, privacy protections, retirement plans. The list goes on and on. Every single one of those were fought and won by the liberals of that generation.

        I don't think you know what it means to be conservative. Conservatism is about maintaining the status quo, and not changing. Conservatism is a drag on human progress. It's a plague of ignorance and backward pressure due to fear of change and fear of changing your opinions. If you like being a conservative so much, I highly encourage you to go join the Taliban. They are the perfect example of conservatism.

        If you want progress, liberal is what you want to be.
        • enki25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2People like rationalthinker will never understand what liberalism or conservatism means, they don't care enough. To them it's enough to imagine that all liberals are their enemies, and to simply find as many opportunities as possible to call them names. They will never understand how everything America stands for is based on liberal political values.
    • dmjarrington, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5I think Colin Powell doesn't really care about us and is still just continuing to play head games with the American people.
      • FRANKeB, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Yeah he is just trying to play nice and reverse his stance before war crimes tribunals commence. 'But I was only following orders' didn't help the Nazi's at the Nuremberg trials after WWII.
    • SiSePuede, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Powell is a yes-man and you can excuse the fact that he didn't stand up and say no but I find that a huge flaw and the fact that he can't stand up for what he might actually believe is right is pathetic...it's a good enough reason for me not to like, trust, or ever want to see him in public office again. That being said, if he believed what he was saying, he's an idiot too. :)
    • wiggles, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2As I recall, he tried to stand up, but was smacked down by Cheney and Rumsfeld.
  • philipl411, on 10/10/2007, -63/+8Great, another rich rino (republican in name only) wants to import the dumb and poor from Mexico to keep wages lower
    • wing05, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9So what are you saying?

      That a true Republican is someone who wants America to be xenophobic, martial law for all, go out into the world and take what others won't just freely hand over?
      • philipl411, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1xe•no•phobe = one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin.


        Is it Xenophobic to want to maintain ones standard of living?

        The numbers that I have often heard throw around is that 85% to 93% of illegal immigrants are low income earners.

        I have also seen figures saying these people earn on average $9,000 to $15,000 a year depending on which numbers you choice to believe.

        Other numbers they receive between $27,000 and $32,000 in governmental handouts.

        That means, if you take the best numbers, the average illegal immigrant earns $42,000 with almost 64% being a handout of some sort.

        We have a poverty rate of 12.6%, if not for illegals; the poverty rate would be much lower, may be as low as 6% or even 5%. The war on poverty would be a success if we would stop importing more poor people into this country.

        I have heard democrats say we have 40,000,000 people without health care. How many of those are illegal’s? What number could we lower this to if they were gone? Not only that, be it has been proven that Low income American citizens would earn 10% to 30% more. Case in point, there has been over 5 meat packing raids in the past 8 months. For those plants to replace the workers, they had to raise pay an additional 3 to 6 dollars per hour. How many of these workers can now afford health care?

        I have also heard that 70% of Mexico population would cross the border tomorrow if they could do so. So the question is “Why is Mexico such a crappy place to live?”

        Also 35% of all illegals are not from south of the border. They need to be sent home too.
    • FatherVic, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2This standard talking point brought to you by: move on dot org: Saying crazy as ***** stuff to get a rise out of people and by: The DNC: bringing you inconsistency and socialism since the 18th century
      • Varney, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2@FatherVic
        Socialism didn't even come about until the 19th century. And liberals didn't adopt socialist ideas until after the second Industrial Revolution near the beginning of the 20th century.
        Go read a history book.
        • FatherVic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The world Socialism and its ideals in written form did not exist, however forms of socialized society did exist.
          http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture19a.html

          give that essay a glance will you.. then do some more homework. See you back after you get your homework done. Hint.... was the fuel behind the French Revolution.
    • wspence, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3One that's racist comment if I have ever heard one. Two you don't have to define a buzz word like RINO. I would venture to say that everyone who reading this story knows what a RINO is. I'm sorry you have to try to prove to yourself you are smart.
      • philipl411, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1My wife dindnt and she has a masters and working on her Ph.d.
        • onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Your spelling and grammar, however, leave something to be desired.
          • philipl411, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1JFK couldnt spell worth a *****, but look he was elected pres
      • philipl411, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Speaking of JFK, did you heard how he often lost his head, once for good.
      • hmunkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Racist? Every nation has stupid and poor.
    • sharpfork, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4To be a "true" republican, you have to love your political party more than your country. I'm a Democrat and the only conservative or republican with any honor running for President seems to be Ron Paul.
    • LeeMaple, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You're right, you're already dumb and poor enough...
  • Spentlife, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7It's ok to be flexible, but not to millions of people...
  • OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -24/+44What, is he thinking about running for office? No way will I vote for the coward that let Dick Cheney coerce him into lying to the UN.
    • AndresLO, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1This comment applies to your reply to cambrown as well, you seem original in your thoughts so one comments seems to cover both.

      Jesus are you calling Colin Powell a COWARD? Well, who are you then? You are saying that because he made a decision and refuses to whine and disavow responsibility for his own actions (regardless of whether or not he agreed with the decision that was made) that he is somehow in the wrong? Colin Powell is an honorable person, he may as you say be a "Republican" but he is a good and honorable one. And regarding his son don't judge someone by the actions of someone else, he is his own person who makes his own mistakes.

      Ezekiel 18:20, puts it a bit more formally: ""The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."

      By the way I'm a Dem, through and through.
    • onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2If Colin Powell did something wrong, it was to let himself get fooled by Bush's innermost circle. They never had any intention of listening to the U.N. and told Colin what he needed to hear and tell the U.N. If you think he knew he was lying you are mistaken.
      There is a good play about it called Stuff Happens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuff_Happens
    • shupy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It was tragic the way Bush and company used Powell. It took a lot of guts to hang in there when he knew what the Bush gang was doing. At least he stayed and tried to do his best to keep the damage to a minimum. He was there working for America, unfortunately, the American voters gave him a crappy boss.
  • Tabou, on 10/10/2007, -36/+51Powell is irrelevant, period. We should let him fade into obscurity where he belongs for betraying his country.
    • Gustav, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11That doesn't discredit anything he says, though.
    • ITpolitico, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6How, exactly, did he betray his country? Would you say that presenting false intelligence to the U.N. was betraying his country?

      From TFA: "Do you feel responsible for giving the U.N. flawed intelligence?
      I didn’t know it was flawed. Everybody was using it. The CIA was saying the same thing for two years. I gave perhaps the most accurate presentation of the intelligence as we knew it—without any of the “Mushroom clouds are going to show up tomorrow morning” and all the rest of that stuff. But the fact of the matter is that a good part of it was wrong, and I am sorry that it was wrong."

      So, by having someone else lie to him about intelligence, and therefore presenting it as fact (which is what he was led to believe) he betrayed his country? Sounds like someone else deserves that particular blame. Powell always did what he thought was best given the intelligence and information he had.
    • shupy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Bush is the traitor. And Cheney and Rove are traitors. Powell tried to do his job. I'm sure he has lost many nights of sleep over it all. But a guarantee that Bush and company will never give a crap about all the damage they've done. Bush will go back to the ranch and hopefully into oblivion. But I doubt he will ever pay for his crimes.
  • Qtip42, on 10/10/2007, -32/+25Everyone is spot on. Powell is completely worthless to this country. He cashed out early and is trying to place blame elsewhere when he need only look in a mirror.
    • jefferygomer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Looking upon his history, and his record, I'd put more credibility and value to this country than anyone else on digg. I include myself and anyone that is identified after a personal hygienic tool.
  • dainfagerholm, on 10/10/2007, -21/+51Yeah thanks alot Powell for the advice you *****. You were the ***** ***** who sold the U.N. on the Iraq Invasion. *****. Douchebag.
    • cybermort, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14who try to sell the U.N. on the iraq invasion. U.N. didn't bought it, we as a nation were the idiots who ate the ***** they gave us and pissed on our pants every time we heard "smoking gun in a form of a mushroom cloud"
      • kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1..... you did.

        I was stuck in highschool so no one took me serious back in 2002 when I said Bush is an idiot for thinking Iraq is a real threat. THey aren't hell even Iran isn't a real threat neither is N.Korea if we were to be a bit more tactful towards them.

        I said this, and every adult and even teachers said that are unpatriotic, and that as a student I should just blindly follow what they say anyway.

        You see. I didn't turn 18 until march of 2006. .....

        So really anyone born in 1987 and higher can yes rightfully place the blame on every other ***** adult for our ***** situation... I always find it funny that young adults such as myself and many teenagers will have to pay the price for the older generation's ***** ups.
    • NSMike, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Ain't forgiveness grand?
      • onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah at least Colin Powell had the balls to say he did the wrong thing.
  • loganhid, on 10/10/2007, -13/+84George Bush is the greatest threat to the nation. He's already preety ***** up America and made most of the world hate the country (well mostly his government anyway)
    • AntBing, on 10/10/2007, -8/+23I would say education is our biggest problem. Your last sentence is painful to read.
  • str3ama, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5terrorists aren't the greatest threat to the nation, GAMERS are:
    http://digg.com/offbeat_news/PIC_The_Truth_About_What_Really_Took_Out_the_Trade_Towers_2
  • ani625, on 10/10/2007, -25/+21"Terrorists are Not the Greatest Threat to the Nation" Exactly. People like Powell are.
    • onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Because he gets fed lies to tell the U.N. from people like Bush? I'm not following.
    • llamabread, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No. People like you who believe every thing that FOX and your idol Hannity tell you are the greatest threat to our nation.
  • MadScientist420, on 10/10/2007, -9/+68No ***** *****. Premier Bush and his puppetmaster Cheney are the greatest threat as of now.
    • FatherVic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Careful , Cheney is going to shoot you in the face.
  • Schwab, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14If it was anyone else besides Powell, I would expect the next line in that sentenced would have just went, "No, the greatest threat is....homosexuals."
    • picsectionpleez, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0You are so gay.
    • FRANKeB, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Homosexuals like his lesbian daughter, who is on his payroll as a strategist.
  • FatherVic, on 10/10/2007, -17/+3Powell is right. Terrorism is not our biggest threat..... any more.
    • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18Terrorism was never a serious threat. You were always more likely to die from a heart attack in a night of sex with Jessica Alba than you were from terrorism.

      It's just fear doesn't respect reality.
      • AntBing, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Wrong! There has never been anyone who died from a heart attack in a night of sex with Jessica Alba, therefore the odds are 0. Death by terrorist is a bit higher than 0.
        • noreturn, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7That depends on the definition of "with."
      • FatherVic, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1and 9/11 didn't happen
        nor did Cobalt Towers or WTC 93 bombing or the USS Cole and the list goes on...
        Nope. Never a threat. EVER.
        • FRANKeB, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2All those attacks, other than 9/11 and WTC93 happened in other countries when the US was over there ***** with other people's business. Put the shoe on the other foot you ignorant hypocrite.
        • onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0And the Madrid Train bombs? How about the terrorists stopped in Denmark recently? This ***** happens everywhere. Just because every few years a couple hundred, or at most a few thousand people die doesn't mean it should be your biggest concern. You're just frightened because it's a sudden loss of death instead of one or two a day sprinkled throughout the country like most things that kill people.
  • Martlet, on 10/10/2007, -18/+5We should welcome illegals? Has Powell really become this much of a joke?
  • navydavy0107, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8he was a good guy before he got involved in the shrub's regime....then he betrayed us when he went in front of the UN and lied his a** off.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5He was never a good guy. He did the same ***** when he helped cover up the My Lai massacre. He's the same kind of shameless opportunistic politician as all the rest of them.
  • shortstick, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4wise man
  • Sharky35, on 10/10/2007, -12/+1Buried,
    COLON POWEL = Sparkling Wiggle = Doh!
  • somewhatamused, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0Rather a strange comment for a man of his knowledge and experience. They may not be able to change a nation's way of life, but the SOBs can cause a pile of grief and damage when they do decide to do some bastardry.
  • HotMovies, on 10/10/2007, -6/+17If it's not terrorists, then it must be the gays...right?
  • Joe_rigby, on 10/10/2007, -2/+36Dear Colin,

    Please come back and kick the ass of the Bush administration.

    -Joe
    • moskaudancer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0He knows karate, after all.

      And he can kill with his mind.

      =)
  • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -8/+35Gee, thanks Colon. You should have said this years ago when what you thought mattered.
  • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/10/2007, -17/+10STFU, Powell, you POS. I wouldn't trust you to help an old lady across the street.
  • levintofu, on 10/10/2007, -12/+36Known Acts of terrorism on US soil!

    • Boston tea party
    • The revolutionary war
    • War of 1812 and burning of Washington
    • The civil war
    • KKK acts of racism between 1880-1860’s
    • Pearl Harbor
    • Various Militia Groups against the prima facie structure of the current US government.

    All of these incidences can be classified as terrorist organizations and/or culpable acts of terrorism on US soil. The only difference between the above incidents and those of 9/11 is that when these incidents happen the US Government did not over react and reconstruct the constitution to fit the times. There was no re-writing of the constitution to fit a radical view point of the world. The US did not lose it sense of context and become afraid of fear itself. So why is the US so afraid?

    Act(s) of terrorism may happen again but under what context? It seems that those in the current administration are not afraid of acts of terrorism happening, they seem very certain it will happen. They seem to be more afraid of being blamed for it. The “probable” blame game has completely taken over the zeitgeist of Washington politics. It’s a paralyzing political virus like no other. The possibility of any one political figure, appointee, or aid being blamed or traced back as allowing thousands of people being killing in a possible terrorist attack has paralyzed entire branches of government. Being blamed for natural disasters seems to be ok, but not acts of random violence. If an act of god happens no body is to blame but if a crazy nut blows themselves up them everyone is quick to point fingers. Why?

    The “worse case” scenario has taken over any semblance of common sense, rational thought, or critical thinking. The possibility of blame game has become the worse hot potato issue ever seen. It has gotten so bad that a lame-duck Congress refuses to stand up to a weak president. And the president has run rough shot over the legal system almost rendering them moot. It is a recipe for disaster. We have become so afraid of our own shadow that it will become a self fulfilling prophecy. At this point any single terrorist organization has to do is just a one act of mass terrorism and the US will freak out! Where is the historical context? 3000 people died in an act of random terrorism on 9/11. Did any less people die during Pearl Harbor? But yet the US didn’t have to over react then why now? Although a few thousand Japanese-American may disagree, but given the context the argument is the same. Did we overreact during the Civil war? Or the revolutionary war? Or even worse the War of 1812? Hundreds of thousands of people died during those “acts of terrorism” on US soil but we managed to keep our perspective.

    Have we become so afraid of dieing that we would rather hide under the bed at the first sight of physical impairment? What would both my grandfathers say? They both fought it both fronts of WWII. They know what it takes to defend the constitution. So why are we so weak? The baby-boomers have collectively failed the greatest generation. I blame them. So EFF You Colin Powell. You have failed me!!

    -Gen-X
    • ayeroxor, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17Pearl Harbor led to the kidnapping and illegal imprisonment of much of the US asian population. The Civil War led to the suspension of habeas corpus.

      But I understand: The point is to learn from the past and not make the same mistakes. Our government is making the same type of mistakes, which means that we are actually moving backwards, when you consider that typical forward motion to where we shoud be today would include something less than the above, which are happening today to America's Arabs. Don't get me wrong: I'm not against profiling. When all of those who have bombed innocents are Arab males age 18-30, I have no problem with the police keeping an eye on them, but the police must not act outside of the law or constitution, even if the King says they can.
      • TexasScott, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6suspension of habeas corpus is legal during rebellion with Congress' consent.

        "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
        • Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It was a rebellion only from the point of view of the northern aggressors. For the south, it was about state rights (and not about slavery: if you believe this you've been indoctrinated, the north in fact enslaved the whole US with the 14th amendment by creating a new class of serfs in the US, the Citizen)
          • NSMike, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1One of those states' rights was to own slaves. And you're saying that slavery was better because at least someone else was enslaved?

            I just read the 14th amendment. I'm not sure how it created a new class of serf either.
    • justice7, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Pearl Harbor is not terrorism -- People.. please stop labelling any violence "Terrorism" .. Terrorism, is meant to "Terrorize" people, and not take over land or destroy military forces; that is called War.
      • bbardlbradd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Well son, we live in a new world now. Have you ever heard of eco-terrorism? Wiki.

        If Terrorism is meant to terrorize then surely every mainstream media source must be considered to be a terrorist organization. The U.S. government, must be labeled terrorist, and a harbor for them. Nobody has scared us more than the US gov and the Press. At least Al-Quida states their agenda... the US Gov just sort of floats around, threatening everyone in the Middle East.... And the people that control the nation just sit and watch, from the safety of their air conditioned homes, on a television, scared ***** worrying that one of those middle eastern people are going to walk through their doors strapped with WMD's and roadside bombs.
      • beernutz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You might want to double check your facts:
        http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=445

        and

        December 6, 1941, A message that was intercepted by the US navy is placed before Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Sent from Tokyo to a Japanese Embassy in Washington, it was encoded in the top-level Japanese "Purple Code", it stated that the Japanese were going to end relations with the United States. Roosevelt, after reading the thirteen-page transmission said, "This Means War."

        But then he did something that is a little strange. Absolutely nothing. Yeah, that's right. He knew about the Japanese secret declaration of war, but he never told the people that needed to know: Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, commander in chief of the United States Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and the unit's commanding general, Walter Short. Pearl Harbor, it was common military knowledge, was where the Japanese would strike. If they struck.

        At dawn the next morning, a Japanese squadron bombed Pearl Harbor and the surprise attack was just that, a surprise. At least to Kimmel and Short and the 4,575 American servicemen who died.

        It may not have been such a surprise to Generals George C. Marshall and Leonard T. Gerow and Admirals Harold R. Stark and Richmond Kelly Turner. They were the military's top brass in Washington and the only officers authorized to forward such sensitive intelligence to outlying commanders. But the decoded war declaration did not reach Kimmel and Short until the morning, with the attack well underway off in the Pacific.

        Marshall and Stark, supreme commanders of the U.S. Army and Navy respectively, later testified that the message was not forwarded to kimmel and short because the hawaiian commanders had received so many intercepted Japanese messages that another one would simply confuse them.

        Internal army and navy inquires in 194 held Stark and Marshall derelict of duty for keeping the hawaiian commanders in the dark. But the military buried those findings. As far as the public knew, the final truth was uncovered by the Roberts Commission, headed by Justice Owen Roberts of the Supreme Court, and convened eleven days for the attack. The Roberts Commission appeared to have identified its culprits in advance and gerrymandered its inquires to make the suspects appear guilty. The scapegoats were Kimmel and Short, who were both publicly crucified, forced to retire, and denied the open hearings they desired. One of the Roberts Commission panelists, Admiral William Standly, would call Robert's performance, "Crooked as a snake."

        There were eight investigations of Pearl Harbor altogether. The most spectacular was a joint House-Senate probe that reiterated the Roberts Commission findings. At those hearings, Marshall and Stark testified, incredibly, that they could not remember where they were the night the war declaration came in. But, a close friend of Frank Knox, the secretary of the Navy, later revealed that Knox, Stark, and Marshall spent most of that night in the White House with Roosevelt, awaiting the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the chance for America to join World War II.

        A widespread cover-up ensued. A few days after Pearl Harbor, reports Historian John Toland, Marshall told his top officers, "Gentlemen, this goes to the grave with us." General Short once considered Marshall his friend, only to learn that the chief of staff was the agent of his frame-up. Short once remarked that he pitted his former pal because Marshall was the only general who wouldn't be able to write an autobiography.

        There were multiple warnings of the Pearl Harbor attack concealed from the commanders at Pearl Harbor. The Winds Code was perhaps the most shocking. That was an earlier transmission, in a fake weather report broadcast on a Japanese short-wave station, of the words "higashi no kaze ame". Which means, "East wind, rain." The Americans already knew that this was the Japanese code for war with the United States. The response of top U.S. military officials? To deny that the "winds" message existed and to attempt to destroy all records of its reception. But it did exist, and it was recovered.

        Completely apart from the cloak and dagger of cryptography, the Australian intelligence service, three days before the attack, spotted the Japanese fleet of aircraft carriers heading for Hawaii. A warning went to Washington, where it was dismissed by Roosevelt as a politically motivated rumor circulated by Republicans.

        A British double agent, Dusko Popov, who siphoned information from Germany, learned of the Japanese intentions and desperately tried to warn Washington, to no avail. And there were others.

        Why would Roosevelt and the nation's top military commanders sacrifice the U.S. Pacific Fleet, not to mention thousands of servicemen-an act that could justifiably be deemed treason? They had concluded long before Pearl Harbor that war against the axis powers was a necessity. The American territory would surely bring the public around.

        "This was the president's problem," wrote Rear Admiral Robert A. Theobald who commanded Pearl Harbor's destroyers, "and his solution was based upon the simple fact that, while it takes two to make a fight, either one may start it."

        "A small group of men, revered and held to be most honorable by millions," wrote Toland, "had convinced themselves that it was necessary to act dishonorably for the good of their nation-and incited the war that Japan had tried to avoid."

        But why? Why was FDR so cold-hearted in allowing the bombing at Pearl Harbor to take place? "For the good of the nation...", more like, "I don't care how many of our men die as long as the Japanese are killed." It's really sad that we elected a man as sick and sinister as that as president.
    • CaptainStone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Your argument may be flawed. Through today's eyes, yes, those acts would be viewed as acts of terrorism. I am not convinced those acts would be viewed as terrorism by those that lived in that time period.

      I don't understand the relevance of referencing your grandfathers. I have four uncles and one cousin that all participated in D-Day at Normandy. I spent decades of my life in and tied to the military. Does that lend authority to what I write?

      Now that said, I do like what you have written.

      I leave with this question. Is Colin Powell not allowed to make a mistake and be forgiven?
      • Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2In politics nothing happens by chance. Colin Powell was not stupid enough to believe the WMD crap, but he was weak enough to be manipulated into presenting the case to the U.N.
      • zombiedepot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Forgivable mistakes don't cost people's lives.
    • picsectionpleez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The government seems to actually WANT terrorist acts- it keeps the fear and uncertainty alive for perpetuating our war machine.
      But you're wrong to sign your letter "Generation X". You can't speak for me, and this is not my political manifesto.
    • aadyss, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0levintofu is going to talk any enemy "who doesn't exist in liberal fables" to death.
    • battlerex99, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Umm... when Congress declares war, it's a war... not terrorism. Also, the Boston Tea Party was not terrorism. No one was killed and no one was scared. All they did was piss people off by making them lose money.
  • Smiths, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Read the comments on that article. That's some ***** scary stuff. We have become a culture of fearmongers.
  • steve693, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4This almost makes up for his 3 hour "Iraq has teh Wmdz!!!!" report before congress.
  • olik, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7By some measures more people die by drowning in a bathtub every year than from terrorism. Meanwhile homocide is the number one cause of death among black youth age 18-25. Gang violence is the worst threat to our nation, but I have never heard any politician bring it up.
    • heartcoldfusion, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It's not a threat to our nation, it's a threat to a very small minority of people
      • Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What's a threat to our nation is building a police state around ourselves because 3000 got killed 6 years ago.
    • Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Ron Paul wants to end the war on drugs, which causes a lot of the violence amongst the poor youth, just like the war on alcohol caused a lot of violence back in the 1920's. Now you know a politician who's bringing it up.
    • Ebulating, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The problem is that the violence is mostly confined to gangs and the poor neighborhoods that they live in. Terrorism is random and spectacular and so scares people a lot more, irrationaly so. Humans are AWEFULL at rationally assesing risk, we are too emotional.
  • nastronomical, on 10/10/2007, -21/+2Liberals and lazy ***** are.
  • Mise777, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Powell is dead-on correct. While he doesn't say so explicitly, the implication is crystal clear: The greatest threat to the United States of America is the neoconservative controlled Republican Party.
    • Frei, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thank You, I think a lot pf peolpe seem to be missing that message. The people are willingly giving up their rights and power to the executive branch and it has got to stop. But in ohter news Brittney Spears...
      • onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0She popping another one out?
  • truspark, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Colin Powell will go down in my book as a greater villain than Bush or Cheney because he knew they were lying yet kept his cowardly mouth shut. He was the only one who could have stopped them - yet did nothing.
    • Shandooga, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5He was used but he may not have kown it was a lie. He is on record as having attempted to talk Bush out of finishing his daddy's war--no chance that was ever going to happen. He was a cog in the wheel and he jumped out as soon as his turn came around. They rerplaced him with another black so that they could use her in the same way. People don't want to see patterns like this.
    • forgottenhope, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Lower than bush and cheney? Never. The very air bush and cheney breathe is a poisonous fume. If there ever was pure evil, its those two and their friends and family. Would the gods do us a favor?
    • onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The Iraq war is one thing, but Bush and Cheney have done so many other evil things. Plus Powell did not want the Iraq war, he was just telling the U.N. what he was told was true. He tried to talk the president out of it but to no avail. There is no way Colin Powell is worse than Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld.
  • TheBrudwich, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14No question Powell was wrong about Iraq, but he is right about this:

    "America could not survive without immigration," he says. "Even the undocumented immigrants are contributing to our economy. That's the country my parents came to. That's the image we have to portray to the rest of the world: kind, generous, a nation of nations, touched by every nation, and we touch every nation in return. That's what people still want to believe about us. They still want to come here. We've lost a bit of the image, but we haven't lost the reality yet. And we can fix the image by reflecting a welcoming attitude -- and by not taking counsel of our fears and scaring ourselves to death that everybody coming in is going to blow up something. It ain't the case."

    A man can do both things good and bad.
    • Kevin108, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Any politician that would say criminals are a benefit to our country is out of his mind.

      This kind of nonsense always reminds me of this:

      Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.

      Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.

      Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests. Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house). According to the protesters:

      a. You are Required to let me stay in your house
      b. You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan
      c. You are Required to Educate my kids
      d. You are Required to Provide other benefits to me and to my family

      If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.

      It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house.

      And what a deal it is for me!!! I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior. Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you to learn MY LANGUAGE so you can communicate with me.
      • Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The problem is the amount of laws and bureaucracy needed to become a legal resident. The problem is welfare. The problem is requiring people to provide anything to anyone.

        The problem is NOT people who move here to make a better life for themselves and their families.
        • TheBrudwich, on 11/01/2007, -1/+0"The problem is welfare."??? Undocumented immigrants are by and large the hardest working and most law abiding people of this country. Also, because of their status, they are not eligible for welfare. But I would agree with you, the problem is the system not the honest hard working folk.
          • Ebulating, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2Ah, the unPC term is ILLEGAL immigrant. They are fundamentally trespassing in our country.
          • philipl411, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2What does "hardest working" have to do with the price of beans? "Most law abiding", this is an outright lie. Our jails are over burden with illegals
      • TheBrudwich, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Kevin, brotha. I think you missed the point of what Colin Powell was saying. He was saying that undocumented immigrants are a net benefit to this country in many ways both tangible and not. Economic study after economic study have come to the same conclusion. This is why people see you as a cold, uncaring selfish, and prejudiced bigot. Because the basis for your argument and your outrage is unfounded. I know there are a lot of problems in this country and it is harder than ever to be middle or working class, but don't let Lou Dobbs or Rush Limbaugh trick you into thinking it is the immigrants fault.

        As far as your DEMANDs that immigrants learn English, they are unnecessary. To be successful in America, you have to learn English.
        • philipl411, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I have never seen any report, outside those from the pew hispanic center, that show illegals as a "net gain". Can you provide links to unbias web pages?
      • onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0So you're saying even if I don't want people breaking into my house, there are still legal methods for these people to enter and do my dishes/all that stuff and then demand services like education? I think that's a weak argument. You're appealing to people's unwillingness to pay for somebody else when really the issue is how they got "in the house".
        Oh and Mexicans will speak Spanish whether or not they immigrate legally. Whether they decide to learn English or not is their decision. It will be hard for them to do anything beyond the Spanish community without it though.
  • Shandooga, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2He's a dead man. Anthrax or "heart attack".
  • WoollyMittens, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Complacency is the greatest threat to the USA. You sheep let all this happen. As long as you have your over-mortgaged house full of chinese products to hide in, your masters will get away with causing the downfall of the western civilization.
    • onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dude, shut up. You're as much of a sheep as any of the rest of us. I bet your computer was made in China or another asian country. Humans are social animals, get used to it. There will be leaders that exploit that. If life is good enough, people won't complain. If ***** starts to get hard aka the start of "the downfall of western civilization" people will start getting their ***** together. Right now, there is no need to. Why do you think the mortgage crisis is/was such big news? Because it is/was a major financial blow not only to companies but to average people. When things get rough the people do something about it.
  • Kevin108, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5He's correct. Teachers Unions are a bigger threat to this country than terrorists. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/20/boortz-teachers-terrorists/
    • blackfog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I love Boortz, just finished reading his book "Somebody's Gotta Say It..." which really opened my eyes to some huge flaws in our government. The teacher union having complete dominance over the education system and sacrificing child education in exchange for securing the jobs of inadequate teachers was one of them.
    • Magsec, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You can digg this one down all you want, I accidentally doubleclicked submit.
    • Magsec, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yea I used to enjoy listening to Boortz back in the day when I thought the Iraq War was worth fighting for. He's still okay, but damnit I've changed my views on the war thanks to my relatives and RP.
  • NYC10004, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14Are you people nuts? Powell didn't betray the country. Why would you even say something like that? He was given the assurance of everyone from the President to the head of the CIA that the information he had was correct. We now know for a fact that he was lied to and used. And when he realized this he resigned. What more do you want. Are you pissed that he wasn't all seeing and all knowing, because neither are any of us. This is the type of ignorant commentary that makes the rest of the world look at us and think we're morons.
    • Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I knew they were lying because their lips were moving. Powell is not stupid, he must've saw through the lies (the CIA was split on this intelligence, and rightly so because it was cooked), but decided to go through it anyways.... who knows, maybe he was blackmailed into cooperating.
      • Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Exactly. Plenty of people outside of the government knew they were wrong. Powell certainly had to know.
        • onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He probably knew it, but he felt the peacefull U.N. option could work and urged George Bush to take that route. If he had said "what you are telling me is lies" to Bush's face he wouldn't have lasted long in his job and probably removed all hope (if there ever was any) that the Iraq issue could have been resolved peacefully.
    • nycmac247, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Ever heard of a second opinion? He bet on the wrong horse and should not be trusted.

    • rkb2948, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If you've read up on anything about Powell, you would see that everything about Iraq bled of something that was something he would distinctly be against. Every tenant of the "Powell Doctrine" was violated with the Iraq war. What he said remains, but perception is everything; anyone can be fooled and to assume otherwise is ignorant and naieve.
  • khatarnaak, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1There is no redemption. He's the prick who made the case at the UN - be it under duress or not - the case that has killed (and is killing) thousands.
    • hiphoc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He has done this ***** before. he helped to cover up the Mai Lai massacre during vietnam.
  • Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7The greatest treat to the nation is the government.
    • llamabread, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The greatest threat to any nation is its government.
  • forgottenhope, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2There can be no victory in Iraq unless someone polices the entire middle east, or occupies it. Dick cheney admits that invading Iraq involves being the police for the middle east. Its dick on a video, he says it!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
  • digitaldeity, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I can't believe the animosity against Collin Powell. If he were running for President, I believe he would be the most qualified out of everyone. The U.N. speech was a boo boo. When Powell speaks he doesn't seem like a person that's influenced by money, greed, or power. He biggest downfall was that he wasn't the captain of the ship during the Iraq war, maybe a too loyal former general.
  • TypicalDiggeral, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3The greatest threat to our nation isn't the terrorists, its enemy within. The Democrats.
    • nirav72, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Right..its the democrats who are responsible for 3000 deaths in iraq. /sarcasm
    • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2How so?
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"The greatest threat to our nation isn't the terrorists, its enemy within."

      You were right up to that point. The greatest threat is the neo-cons...
    • vSuperLuminal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I agree to a point, TypicalDiggeral. I would actually say that the biggest threat is Liberal idealism. Most politicians are simply opportunists. They tend to parrot what their constituency wants/says/screams. Think of them as mouthpieces for the people they are supposed to represent. Liberal idealism is exactly what will destroy this country, if anything. Think Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid, etc. Those are the true enemies of the US. This will become more clear through the eyes of history and hindsight. These are the people who have invested themselves in the defeat of the US.
      • onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0More like SuperDelusional. Maybe support your argument with some facts? Something that shows Liberalism as the cause and the effect being the destruction of the U.S.? Oh, and your gut doesn't count.
        • forgottenhope, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Liberal idealism? Who the ***** do you think you are? Liberal, is a label, its like being called white, or black. Puts you in a group. The issue isn't right or left anymore. If you cant see that, then yeah vote for Clinton or Giuliani, they are both the same. The idea that Americans have a choice because you have two sides to pick from is a joke. and you are joking if you think the issue is left or right. It is so bad now, it is right and wrong. It is wrong to lie about wars its wrong to abuse the system. Both parties do, both support war with Iraq and Iran and with a lot of countries in the middle east. I'm not dying to make a bunch of rich squares more rich. I'm going to fight for my god damn country here at home.
  • greenbowlball, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5This still will not help you go to sleep at night Mr. Powell.
  • DaveV, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4As much as I respect Mr. Powell, I do not agree with his belief we must welcome illegal aliens into the U.S.
  • i4ybrid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0levintofu: What do you mean the government didn't overreact in those cases? We acted much harsher in those cases. In one of those instances, we reacted by NUKING a country...TWICE!
  • manicallday, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I completely respect Powell. He is one of the best International Policy minds in the world right now. In fact, I'm still dumbfounded how Bush messed up on international policy with both Condelezza Rice and Collin Powell on his team. Moreover, Bush had his father who is also very adapt at international policy. The problem was he listen to Richard Pearl -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle- which is like having both Payton Manning and Tom Brady on your team but going with Harrington. The neocons are now attacking Rice, because she has now shifted U.S. policy to a more diplomatic stance. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060730/ai_n16654563

    • vomac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Great analogy with Peyton and Brady on a team who needs harrington.
    • jefferygomer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Wha... Harrington? Sure, he's had a bad NFL career, but your point would have been better with Grossman. After all, the bears did lead him to the superbowl.
  • rowlodge, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2smart ones never run for president.
  • TheSwashbuckler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Neo-cons are the greatest threat to this country to day.

    To paraphrase Chiang Kai-shek: "The terrorists are a disease of the skin; the neo-cons a disease of the heart."
    • RealHyperX, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2liberals are disease of the mind.
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Cons don't have minds...
      • onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0If it's a disease then I don't want the cure.
  • Spacenoodle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I have always liked and respected Colin Powell, he is eloquent, intelligent and came from truly humble beginnings. He is a decorated war veteran who has dedicated his entire life to service of his country, something that few other people can say.

    It is a shame that he towed the party line for so long. I disagree that he is a coward and a villain though. What choice did he have? Should he refuse to carry out orders given to him by the president he simply would have been replaced by someone who would. He remained and (I would like to believe) tried to be a positive influence in the White House. Though little good it seemed to do.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"What choice did he have?"

      He could have resigned. It would have been a great symbolic step that would have made many Republicans in Congress, the only people who could have stopped it, sit up and take notice.
      • onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0He could have resigned, yes. If he did that he would not have been able to give any more input to the administration about taking a peacefull route regarding Iraq. I think he felt he could do more good in his position than he could by resigning. That of course, is just my opinion though.
    • Kyan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Toed the party line. Standing at attention with his toes on the line.

      Bush is Cheney are towing it. As in - the party line is broken and has to be towed.
  • vomac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It is funny how quicky we forget that this whole country runs on illegal immigrants...they are the only ones doing the jobs most Americans will not touch...At that, when you do find an American doing a job that is of sub-par status the immigrants do it better any way.

    Don't forget we were all immigrants at one point.
    • Kajarago, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0hell yeah, I live in a part of the country where there are alot of hispanics living and working, and I have seen mostly white people begging for money, while I see hispanics take up jobs that one might see as "subpar" to make a living ( in most cases, working 2 or more jobs to make ends meet). Let the white people get welfare, and let the mexicans work.
  • Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Who are these people that are scared of terrorist? I do not know any. Anyways I was agreeing with him until got to the illegal alien part. I disagree, I am all for legal emigration but illegal immigration is wrong and when these people are caught they should be deported back to Mexico.
  • ronaldinho, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I don't think terrorists OR immigration is the biggest problem. Education is. How else could we have voted Bush into the office? I'm Christian but it's utterly ridiculous that religious but uneducated (or even dumb) people voted for Bush as if he's a prophet. Any smarter and they should realize that NO wars are legitimate. God don't tell people to kill one another because He loves.
  • RealHyperX, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Liberals are the greatest threat to the nation.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.