I was up late last night watching tv, and I happened on a cspan broadcast of Colin Powell's speech to the UN about Iraq. It was clear, it was direct, it was to the point and used extensive evidence to support claims that Iraq not only harbors terrorists but assists them, still has plans for weapons of mass destruction, and is in essence giving the finger to the UN and US. It was a very convincing speech and I admit that I am reassessing my views on this whole issue because of it.
Now my real question is this. Why can't we have a president who is capable of this kind of speech? Every time Bush talks about Iraq it comes across as just this grandiose propagandistic good vs evil, we're the cowboys let's go get them indians bullshit that is thoroughly unconvincing to me. Bush says there is a mountain of evidence against him, but he doesn't shed light on even a small pile of dirt of that evidence, and instead defers it to his secretary of state. Why? Why does Bush himself seem happy to just be firm in pushing for aggression against Iraq without really explaining why beyond accusations without evidence?
I think a lot more people would have confidence in our president if instead of saying "we have the evidence to prove our suspicions against Iraq" and then not disclosing that information or instead letting one of his people disclose it, he said "we have the evidence...and here it is: #1....#2...." etc.
Which brings me to Colin Powell. He should be president. He's well-liked, well-educated and well-versed in global politics, he's clear, speaks in a direct and concise fashion without melodrama or stupid little coined phrases to market his cause (*cough*Axis of evil*cough*), and he's not an extremist who'll spend taxpayer money to cover up a work of art because it has a *gasp!* bare breast. He's a man who surely inspires more conviction than Dubya - a man who has proven himself in service of this country and who both Democrats and Republicans have a great deal of respect for.
Thoughts?
Now my real question is this. Why can't we have a president who is capable of this kind of speech? Every time Bush talks about Iraq it comes across as just this grandiose propagandistic good vs evil, we're the cowboys let's go get them indians bullshit that is thoroughly unconvincing to me. Bush says there is a mountain of evidence against him, but he doesn't shed light on even a small pile of dirt of that evidence, and instead defers it to his secretary of state. Why? Why does Bush himself seem happy to just be firm in pushing for aggression against Iraq without really explaining why beyond accusations without evidence?
I think a lot more people would have confidence in our president if instead of saying "we have the evidence to prove our suspicions against Iraq" and then not disclosing that information or instead letting one of his people disclose it, he said "we have the evidence...and here it is: #1....#2...." etc.
Which brings me to Colin Powell. He should be president. He's well-liked, well-educated and well-versed in global politics, he's clear, speaks in a direct and concise fashion without melodrama or stupid little coined phrases to market his cause (*cough*Axis of evil*cough*), and he's not an extremist who'll spend taxpayer money to cover up a work of art because it has a *gasp!* bare breast. He's a man who surely inspires more conviction than Dubya - a man who has proven himself in service of this country and who both Democrats and Republicans have a great deal of respect for.
Thoughts?
