Maher -- OK, but praising Powell????

Obviously, Maher's show tonight was vastly superior to the Kingston/Frum atrocity.  Adam Goldberg was neurotically entertaining; Jeremy Scahill was a non-smirking, serious version of Matt Taibi, who effectively called Scarborough on his bullshit, and Farai Chediya was quite good, when she was finally able to shout down Scarborough.

But a low point came, when Maher asked "Whom would you ideally like answering the phone at 3:00 am? and Scar said Colin Powell, and proceeded to launch into a ridiculous paean to Powell that speculated that he would not have gone to war in Iraq and would have followed the "Powell Doctrine" if he had.  Sadly, no one disagreed! (Maher even agreed.)

Powell perverted his legitimacy by making the false case for war, and not speaking out until he left office.  He's as great a villain as the rest.  To see him skate was disgusting.

•  Not bad New rules, either

  Is Goldberg on to something by calling Hillary "bipolar?"  I never quite thought about it.

  by Upper West on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:15:51 PM PDT

  •  Ahem..."Tripolar"... n/t

    by mudslide on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:20:37 PM PDT

    •  The three faces of Hill?

      by Upper West on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:21:18 PM PDT

  •  once again

    do not insult the mentally ill - they cannot help being sick - she has NO EXCUSE for being manipulative, cunning and plain evil.

    by marley619 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:22:21 PM PDT

  •  Go over to Huffpo and

    read Larry David's piece about it....

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

    I watched it too...  and to be honest, I will out myself as a Powell apologist...  you know, the role the Bush administration should have been playing by apologizing for destroying this man's career.  Yes, he should have stood up and he didn't, but I actually thought Joe Scarborough's assessment of the situation was spot on...  that kinda pains me to say.... he was advocating that , if we went, we should have enough troops to do the job...

    by Jen K in FLA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:30:36 PM PDT

    •  I don't remember him

      weighing in on Shinseki's statement that 4-500,000 troops were needed.

      I don't remember him resigning because the fundamental tenet of his "Powell Doctrine" had been grossly violated.

      by Upper West on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:34:57 PM PDT

      •  I don't remember him....

        ... actually endorsin a number, but General Franks corroborated Powell questioning the number of troops Rumsfeld wanted and saying it was far too low to accomplish the objectives.

        by Jen K in FLA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:46:55 PM PDT

•  Powell closed the deal in 2002.

  by kubrick2008 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:16:08 PM PDT

•  Yeah I found that ludicrous.

  Mr. Powell was responsible for selling the false case for war and stayed on in that administration until 2005.

  The whitewashing of his legacy is in full force.

  by michael1104 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:17:48 PM PDT

•  The segment with McCauliffe was awesome. n/T

  by Sparkalepsy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:18:05 PM PDT

•  sorry, but I am one of the Powell admirers

  probably because my dad was a marine, my brothers were/are in the army, 2 sons in law in service, daughter was in air force - so all though I am a peacenik - I do admire strong men, and he had the integrity to leave the administration after they played him and made him their scapegoat for Iraq.

  I am a full on Obama supporter - and find nothing wrong in admiring good and decent people - without our military - we would not be safe and free - hate the administrations that put us in conflict... not the soldiers who die so that you have your freedoms.

  by marley619 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:20:40 PM PDT

  •  OK

    Why would we not be safe and free without a military?

    Canada and Mexico are about to attack and take away our freedom?

    by penguinsong on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:24:15 PM PDT

    •  you must be joking

      why do you think we are one of the most powerful nations in the world?  Not simply because of money - because other countries know that we have the military to back up anything - even Obama stands for protecting us - so what, let all the terrorists in and have another WTC incident - life is not just peace love and dope - life is real with realities.

      by marley619 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:19:53 PM PDT

    •  what about Chavez of Venezuela

      who happens to hate us with a passion - or communist Cuba and the missles that the russians brought in when Kennedy was president - what would have happened to us then?  You are obviously a child that knows NOTHING about real life or losing a loved one in sacrifice for your country. You are showing your ignorance!

      by marley619 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:27:09 PM PDT

      •  Russia has missles right now that can

        land a nuclear warhead on the butt of an ant in Central Park.

        I do not see Cuba or Venezuala with a massive military.  Why do we need one again?

        by penguinsong on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:48:26 PM PDT

      •  Yes I agree we need a military

        but I hardly think that Cuba or Venezuala beyond their silly rhetoric even thinks of touching us. Chavez is a blusterer and Castro lets off steam as tin pot dictators do. But he has never sent missilles to Florida, only boat people and violent prisoners at opportune times to embarass and annoy us.

        China is far more of a 'threat' as threats go. But most of our international competitive issues are not military; they involve the soft power of economics and diplomacy. In many cases some of our more savage behaving corporations hurt other countries (I don't think it's all bad, in some cases jobs are helping people in other countries), and in other cases due to bad Republican policies, we have fallen way behind other economies, innovations and absolutely no doubt in quality of life (for example Canada and Europe, it is very easy to argue their quality of life, health and state of democracy is in far better shape).

        Our emphasis on military issues and spending in America, exploited by Republican terror war nonsense, is vastly over done. We are behind in many other areas as a result. And in fact it is the very exploitation of military power by Rovian Republicans that is hurting the infrastructure of this country to the point of devastation.

        by doinaheckuvanutjob on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:11:06 PM PDT

  •  I agree....

    ....  I am a military brat... and a Powell apologist.

    I know that drives people on this board crazy so go ahead and flame away, but the man devoted his life to serving his country when others (unfortunately almost all of the administration) would not.

    He got trashed...  George Tenet gets th Medal of Freedom...  Colin Powell gets trashed...  He should said no in the first place... and no, I don't mean Iraq...  he should have said no to the Sec. of State position... ah hindsight....

    by Jen K in FLA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:34:20 PM PDT

    •  yes, now that is what I can agree with

      but not some idiotic mentality that thinks the US can do without it's military - that is just living in a fantasy.  

      And yes, I agree, he should have never taken the job - he worked under Clinton as well - he's a soldier - not a politician.  And I can't believe so-called progressive thinkers on this site can be so narrow minded - there is nothing progressive in being small minded or not seeing the whole picture - it makes you look ignorant and arrogant.

      by marley619 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:23:47 PM PDT

  •  I am also a military brat.

    And still can't believe what Powell did.  

    My nephew barely escaped going to Iraq. I was sure that innocent kid was going to have to go and I feared the worst.  Anyway, he made it.

    Well, that's just my opinion.

    Peace.

    by Dianna on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 11:15:57 PM PDT

•  I have to admit something

  Even after 2002 at the UN.
  I still hold Colin Powell in very high regard.
  I do believe that he was duped.
  I won't go into everything about it, but I do believe that.
  I have listened to his chief of staff, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, and I believe him.
  In summation on that point, I don't hold him responsible. I know that won't make me very popular around here, but that's the way I feel.
  I also believe this:
  If Colin Powell were to emerge as either a strong advocate for Barack Obama or as a Vice Presidential candidate or Sec. Def., I believe that it would soothe the nerves of many Americans who are buying into the whole "3am" argument against Barack Obama.

  Go ahead, fire away, I can take it.

  by irishamerican on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:22:54 PM PDT

  •  Ok then

    what about undermining Clinton on gays in the military?

    by Upper West on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:24:57 PM PDT

    •  I am not going to defend his entire history

      The fact is, I think he is a good General.
      When it comes to fighting wars, he has credibility with the majority of Americans.
      He get's in trouble in Political stuff because he sux as a politician.
      Put him in charge of the Defense Department on an Obama Ticket and we are looking at winning 40 states.

      by irishamerican on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:28:39 PM PDT

      •  I've actually....

        ... thought that Sec of Defense would be a good role for him.  Instant credibility with a lot of people.

        The netroots would go crazy, but you have to remember, there is a world outside of here...  And Colin Powell is still very well respected in it.

        by Jen K in FLA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:41:53 PM PDT

        •  And we are Voting Obama anyway

          by irishamerican on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:30:45 PM PDT

    •  This is a trickier thing....

      ...  My dad is former Air Force...  he is a very progressive individual...  but don't ask him about gays in the military.  He is not in favor at all.

      The West Wing's Joint Chiefs Chairman Percy Fitzwallace played brilliantly by John Amos actually did an episode talking about it... They were talking about troop moral and all... and that the military should not be a conduit for social change...

      They ended the discussion by saying that the same arguments against gays in the military were made about African Americans too...

      by Jen K in FLA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:39:25 PM PDT

  •  Colin Powell, Republicans created a clean image

    for the man who:

    Whitewashed the Viet Nam My Lai massacre:
    "After a desultory check--which consisted mainly of investigating the soldier who wrote the letter, rather than his allegations--Powell reported that everything was hunkey-dory. There may be some "isolated incidents" by individual bad seeds, but there were no widespread atrocities. He wrote: "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between Americal soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." The matter was closed."

    Defends the killing of civilians in war:
    In his memoirs, Powell also defends the torching of civilians' huts, a tactic his unit constantly employed in Vietnam.

    Covered up for Reagan-Bush in Iran-Contra:
    When questioned during the Iran-Contra hearings, Powell grudgingly gave testimony that has been described as contradictory, "limited," and "misleading." At one point in a sworn deposition he said that Weinberger did not keep a diary, but in a sworn affidavit five years later Powell said that his boss had indeed kept a diary at the time.

    Powell later convinced Bush to pardon Weinberger, thus avoiding a trial that probably would've implicated the general.

    On a related note, Powell was and is an unabashed supporter of the Nicaraguan contras. As FAIR notes: "Despite the contras' record of human rights atrocities and the condemnation of the World Court, Powell defends his hardline pro-contra actions to this day . . ."

    Gulf War Syndrome denial. Powell has completely turned his back on sick Gulf War vets. Whether or not Gulf War Syndrome exists isn't the question here. The fact is that tens of thousands of former and current members of the military are complaining of a similar cluster of strange symptoms, and Powell has done nothing to help them. In an interview with legendary investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, Powell pathetically tried to wash his hands of the situation

    There's plenty more bad things about Powell, all you have to do is google.

    Sorry, I know it's hard to face the truth about people's media created heros.

    by doinaheckuvanutjob on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:49:09 PM PDT

•  Powell is a good man and I had high

  hopes for him in the Bush Administration.  Unfortunately, he sold out when he went before the UN and lied. He's told the truth since then, but it's too damned late: he's one of them.

  by phrogge prince on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:23:42 PM PDT

  •  Like I said

    I don't think he lied, I think he was duped.

    by irishamerican on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:24:34 PM PDT

    •  No. He tried to push the BS

      line about Iraq, and he wanted just enough information to make it somewhat believable.  He may have been duped over one or two pieces of information, but he knew that the whole reason for war was being exaggerated.  He might have redeeming qualities, loyalty among them, but I value integrity higher than loyalty.

      by channiga on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:42:38 PM PDT

      •  No, not quite. The "information" was gathered

        through torture, which Powell didn't know about.  So he was definitely duped.  He even questioned the validity of it behind closed doors but was assured it was legitimate.

        by NotablyZen on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:46:21 PM PDT

  •  Powell failed all the way to the top.

    He whitewashed the first military investigation into My Lai as a young officer in Vietnam during the 60's and he has been lying ever since.

    How do you think he became a general?

    by bigchin on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:27:47 PM PDT

•  Well... Maher is a poser, mostly. He can

  be helpful, at times, to a more progressive polity, and he can be funny as hell (he has good writers and good guests) but when he opines from his heart he's more often than not inclined to a self-serving libertarianism that is antithetical to progressivism - especially libertarianism as applied to the economy:  unfettered unregulated capitalism of the sort that has us now facing a decade of pain.  Ayn Rand bullshit and the like.  

  Have you ever heard him talk about Social Security?  He's stupid and uninformed and does not have your best interest in mind.

  Powell is an ass.  Maher's admiration is asinine.

  by bigchin on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:24:55 PM PDT

  •  You take what you can get

    Maher is grossly uninformed on some subjects (and over the top on others, like medical issues), but there's no other alternative, except for TDS and Colbert.

    There really is no other mainstream media program (unless you count Moyers and AAR)  that permits the overtly progressive statements that Maher does (e.g., someone like Scahill as a guest).

    by Upper West on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:27:41 PM PDT

    •  you are right, of course! good point. n/t

      by bigchin on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:28:37 PM PDT

  •  I saw him in an interview where he simply

    couldn't understand the writer's strike.  He had no idea what the big deal was except is was shutting down his show.  He's no progressive.

    by channiga on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:44:09 PM PDT

•  How can Maher

  go on at the end of the show complaining about misinformed assholes all the while claiming Hillary won Texas??

  by zreeb on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 09:34:09 PM PDT

•  my husband left the room when that happened

  he and I firmly believe powell knew what he was saying was a lie that day and took one for the team.

  I lost my respect for him that day and ever since. I can't believe Bill as smart as he is says some real dumb things sometimes.

  by marlakay on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:02:03 PM PDT

•  Terry McCauliffe fucked up

  I can't wait for the video of that interview to get out.  

  He blew it.

  Bill tells Terry that Hillary saying that McCain and her are capable of being President but that Obama is not is damaging the Democratic party.  Terry's answer is to toughen up.

  What an idiot.  I can't believe he said that.  Hasn't he heard of You Tube.

  And Joe was on the panel.

  But worse yet.  

  Bill asks Terry how much foreign experience Bill Clinton had in 92.  Terry's response is GEORGE BUSH'S answer to why he has usurped so much power and taken away liberties from Americans: the world has change after 911.

  And Bill calls his answer bullshit!!

  What a total dumbass.  Terry is probably getting whipped right now as I type this.

  But worse yet.

  The feed gets pulled.

  I imagine that Hillary or Bill or Mark were running into the room to pull the plug after they heard the first answer to 'toughen up'.

  Toughen up Democratic party.  Toughen up.  If you don't like the frontrunner for the nominee being called incapable to be President by the second place candidate while they praise the Republican nominee... toughen up.

  Fuck you, Terry McCauliffe.

  Wait.  I take that back.  You are already fucked.

  by AntonBursch on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:05:19 PM PDT

  •  Do you have a link to that?

    It's darned interesting.

    Or was that just imaginary, that you imagined, yet creatively enticing?

    by doinaheckuvanutjob on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:38:51 PM PDT

    •  i don't have any way to get the video

      i hope someone is smart enough to put it on youtube

      it should be all over MSNBC though, cause Morning Joe was on the panel.

      hehe.

      when Bill asked the panel how the feed suddenly got cut

      Joe make a yanking motion and said something like 'pulled the plug' with a knowing nod.

      i wouldn't be suprised to see this on the Chris Matthews show this weekend and maybe Tim Russerts show.

      this is too good.  and it is clear as day that the folks at MSNBC are pissed at Hillary

      by AntonBursch on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:56:19 PM PDT

  •  A significant insight

    Yes, this was the item of the night I think, and I'm surprised it hasn't been diaried yet that I can find.  

    Maher asked McCauliffe if declaring McCain as the only other fit candidate didn't cross the line.  McCauliffe lost his patience and said "toughen up" and then said (approximately) "come on Bill, you used to be tough".  He waxed on that theme a bit unapologetically, calling Clinton's betrayal of the Democratic Party child's play.

    Now this is a telling moment.  The fact of the matter was never addressed, and one is left to conclude that the Clinton campaign knew exactly what kind of a deed it was committing (as if we didn't know).  It reveals a view of the Clinton campaign at the top level as being based on a supernatural sense of self-entitlement, a kind of pathological narcissism, similar to the present administration.  

    Before the end of the interview, the feed was pulled in the middle of an answer (hard cut to test pattern).  It appeared to come after an off-key joke about Bill Clinton by Maher was given a jocular treatment by McCauliffe, when wham.  No explanation yet given.  I want an answer.

    One thing I can tell you for certain.  I would hate to be a part of any organization that has Terry McCauliffe in it.

    by qphilo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:59:23 PM PDT

•  Watch "Taxi to the Dark Side." Gives a bit of

  perspective to Colin Powell's role in this and you sort of get the feeling that maybe, just maybe, he's not completely culpable in this.

  It completely changed my opinion of him.

  by NotablyZen on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:45:13 PM PDT

  •  He may or may not be innocent at the U.N.

    incident, but his past is full of ruthless and slimy endeavors for Republican militarism in Vietnam, Nicaragua and other misadventures. He is not the clean politician he pretends to be, though yes by Republican politician standards I find him far more rational and responsible than most Republican operatives.

    by doinaheckuvanutjob on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 10:59:48 PM PDT