Seeds of Peace

[BLUEHAWK]

Today, August 12th, fellow veteran General Colin Powell said:

"Those of us here at the State Department will never stop working for the cause of Peace."

In his speech before a group of kids from Palestine and Israel...

So long as General Powell supports and believes in George W. Bush, and ONLY so long as he and he alone, does, then I plan on doing the same.

I'll say it again and again until the Patriot Files cuts this water off, BEWARE
the American Enterprise Institute and Project for the New American Century.

NEVER, stop, working for the cause of peace.

STOP, working for the cause of war.

[MORTARDUDE]

duh....


General Colin Powell... George W. Bush...Rumsfeld....Cheney....Kristol....
American Enterprise Institute .....
Project for the New American Century....

are all same-same...... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

you can't have it both ways....or maybe you can...

Larry

[BLUEHAWK]

I'm graspin' at straws here Larry.. graspin' at the freakin' last dad gum straws.

Nobody in this outfit wants me to give up on General Powell.

[MORTARDUDE]

do a little research...he is as corrupt and dirty as all the rest...

Larry

[BLUEHAWK]

Where should I start.

[BLUEHAWK]

Larry -

Powell is not listed among the fellows at American Enterprise Institute nor Project for a new American Century.

For the present, those two groups are the only ones on the surface that I can be sure are making trouble.

[MORTARDUDE]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/19...o06_powell.htm


Like Ike

by William F. Jasper

Colin Powell: Eisenhower for a new world order?

"He stands, at 57, as the most respected figure in American public life," gushed Newsweek in an October 1994 cover-story panegyric. "He is an African-American who transcends race; a public man who transcends politics. He seems a distinctly American character, with an easy confidence that inspires trust even among the most skeptical."

"Duty, honor and selfless devotion bought this immigrant's son a one-way ticket from Harlem to the nation's top military post," enthused Carl Rowan in a Reader's Digest valentine a couple years ago. "He's a hero and a nonpolitical figure in the eyes of most Americans," says Times Mirror survey director Andrew Kohut. "Clearly, our research shows he's the most popular man in America."

The object of this near-universal veneration is General Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And as Washington Monthly editor John Meacham has noted, "The general is everybody's dream candidate: more pleasant than Dole, more eloquent than Gramm, more stable than Perot...." More powerful than a locomotive, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound -- even Superman would be hard pressed to match the headlines, cover stories, honors, acclaim, and adulation heaped upon this favorite son.

"Powell is the greatest military leader this country has produced since World War II," avers Senator John McCain (R-AZ). His leadership in the Gulf War, said U.S. News & World Report, restored "the public's faith in its fighting force." Similar accolades concerning the general's military accomplishments abound, in spite of the fact that in his entire 35-year military career he saw very little front-line service, and presided over, supported, and implemented some of the most destructive policies ever foisted upon our Armed Forces.

"Bootstrap" Success Story

The Powell allure is not difficult to fathom; in a world of unsavory, unprincipled, and incompetent politicians, this man seems to exude confidence, integrity, dignity, and competence. He is a prime example of "bootstrap" success, a reaffirmation of the goodness of the American dream and the abounding opportunities that allow even one of lowly origins to rise in this country to the highest pinnacles. He seems to be the embodiment of all virtues, as evidenced by the adjectives commonly used to describe him in media accounts: honest, intelligent, modest, decisive, brilliant, articulate, patriotic, courteous, tough, sensitive, tolerant, disciplined, hardworking, compassionate, fairminded, etc.

"Through his intellect and hard work," says CBS News Ed Bradley in an uncharacteristic bouquet to a public figure, "Colin Powell has earned every star." Says Powell's former boss, Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, "Colin is a person about whom there is nothing bad to say." So it would seem. "If Ronald Reagan had been Teflon-coated," observed Powell biographer Howard Means, "Colin Powell was bulletproof -- unassailed and unassailable." Unassailed certainly, but unassailable? We shall see.

Means' book, Colin Powell, is subtitled Soldier/Statesman/Soldier, conveying what seems to be the indelible and overwhelmingly positive image of the now-retired hero sculpted by his numerous media performances during the Persian Gulf War.

George Bush's Desert Storm political capital was soon spent, and, so, it appears is Dick Cheney's. Norman Schwarzkopf's star is fading. Colin Powell's star, however, continues to rise. Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, all lust after him as a 1996 banner carrier; he is a "water walker" who can lead their forces to victory and usher in the new millennium.

Carefully Crafted Image

But the general stands above it all, apparently impervious to petty political ambitions that strike other mortals. Nevertheless, as he continues work on his memoirs (for which he is receiving a reported $6 million) and travels the lecture circuit (for a reported $50,000 per appearance), he dangles tantalizing hints that he may soon be tossing his hat into the ring. The New York Times reported on his speech at Trinity University in San Antonio on January 31st:

When pressed here on Monday he asserted that throughout his 35-year military career "my entire code of honor said, Don't be political, never show any partisanship, either Democratic or Republican or anything that would suggest politics."

But, he continued: "I will develop a political philosophy. I'm developing one now. Time will tell whether or not I find that my personal political philosophy fits one or the other of the two main parties, or whether I just remain independent. I think it's important for me to have something that I believe in, rather than try to make my beliefs fit a party just for the purpose of saying that I belong to it."

Just "developing" a political philosophy now, at age 57? After nearly a lifetime of service in the politically charged environs of the Washington beltway, including postings to all of the most influential and coveted political patronage slots available to a military professional? Not hardly. The image of political neophyte, pure as the driven snow and unsullied by ambition and the "system," is one that has been carefully crafted by Powell, his powerful sponsors, and his hagiographers in the Establishment media. "Implicit in speculation about Powell's potential as a dream candidate is that he is somehow not of Washington," says Washington Monthly's John Meacham. "Powell, however, operates in Washington as shrewdly and capably as anyone in modern memory."

"It was very clear early on that the advice and counsel he brought were more political than you might have expected from a man who's been in the military," Meacham quotes Tom Griscom, Ronald Reagan's director of communication while Powell was at the National Security Council. Which is hardly surprising considering that he has spent most of his military career in Washington, rubbing elbows with the movers and shakers in both political parties.

Being a "beltway general" need not disqualify one from high office, of course, but when the evidence begins piling up so conspicuously as it is in the Powell case that he has been packaged under a false label and marketed by the same snake-oil hucksters who have sold us deadly political poison many times before, it is time to expose the fraud.

Colin Luther Powell was born April 5, 1937 in Harlem, the son of Jamaican immigrant parents. He grew up in a middle-class Bronx neighborhood, attended the public schools, and worked odd jobs to put himself through college. After graduating from the City College of New York's ROTC program in 1958, he was commissioned a second lieutenant and headed to Ft. Benning, Georgia. He went to Airborne and Ranger schools, then to Germany for a stint as platoon leader and rifle company commander. This was followed by a tour of duty at Ft. Devens, Massachusetts, two tours at Ft. Benning, and two in Vietnam, where he apparently served with distinction. In 1969 he graduated second in his class at the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth. In 1971 he received his MBA from George Washington University, and then went to a coveted research analyst position with the Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Army.

Tagged for the Top

Somewhere around that time, if not before, Colin Powell was spotted as a comer with real potential, and began developing a network of powerful mentors who would carry him along with their political fortunes to the peak of Washington's power pyramid.

In 1972 Powell, now a lieutenant colonel, was chosen for a White House Fellowship, a prestigious plumb that all but guarantees a shot at the top rungs on virtually any career ladder. As a Nixon White House Fellow, Powell's ladder started at the Office of Management and Budget under then-OMB head Caspar Weinberger and Weinberger's assistant, Frank Carlucci. Weinberger would go on to head the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) and the Defense Department, with an interlude as a top executive at Bechtel, Inc.

Carlucci, whom Powell refers to as his "godfather of godfathers," went from OMB to be: Undersecretary of HEW (under Weinberger), ambassador to Portugal, Deputy Director of the CIA during the Carter Administration, Deputy Secretary of Defense under Reagan, CEO of Sears World Trade, Inc., and President Reagan's National Security Adviser and Secretary of Defense. Weinberger and Carlucci would be two important keys to Powell's rise to fame. Two others were Donald Rumsfeld (who served as Gerald Ford's White House Chief of Staff before becoming his Defense Secretary) and Dick Cheney (who replaced Rumsfeld as Chief of Staff).

A widening circle of Washington Insiders, Republican and Democrat, materialized to boost Powell's fortunes at critically important junctures. In September 1973 he left Washington for a 12-month stint as a battalion commander in Korea. Then it was back to another Pentagon promotion, this time in the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense. In 1975, Powell moved across the Potomac to enroll at the highly selective National War College, adding more lustre to an already glittering r?sum?.

The Army is a rigid hierarchy with a promotion ladder that normally requires command experience for general staff promotions. But, writes Means, "Ultimately, Powell -- like Alexander Haig -- would prove an exception to the hierarchy. He would get his third star without ever having commanded a division." Indeed, he points out, "By April 1976, Powell had led only a battalion. To ascend to the single star of a brigadier general he needed to command a brigade. Fresh out of the National War College and two months a full colonel, Powell took over command of the 2nd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky." The Fort Campbell post, says Col. David Hackworth, the most decorated soldier of the Vietnam War, "was a plum assignment. If you don't have a brigade, your career is finished as a colonel. Then to get this, which is one of the elite units of the Army -- he was being well looked after." (Emphasis added.)

Although no one denies his capabilities, it was daily becoming more obvious to Colin Powell's comrades at arms that he was truly "being well looked after," that a "destiny" was being prepared for him by powerful patrons. One of those patrons was John Kester, Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense, who picked Powell for his executive. "I got a sense he was very acute politically," Kester says. "It was an intensely political job, and I wanted someone who could understand the role of politics and yet would not get himself dirty." Powell would excel at both skills.

"Except for the time he spent on loan to the Department of Energy," writes Howard Means, "Colin Powell's boss of bosses during the Carter administration was Defense Secretary Harold Brown, now head of the Foreign Policy Institute at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies." Like virtually everyone else Means interviewed, Brown speaks highly of Powell:

If there was anything lacking in the Powell package of the late 1970s, Brown says, it was a final touch of what is rarely found among career military types: not so much the political acuity that John Kester talks about -- the ability, for example, to see from which way a bad wind is blowing and to avoid it, a nose for what's dirty and what is not -- as political polish, the deft feel needed to advance an agenda along through the complex and often competing webs of Washington interests ....

"I would say," Harold Brown adds, "that he was ambitious. I don't think unduly so. I think perhaps even then he saw himself -- although he never talked about it -- as a possible Army chief of staff. It must have been '81 or '82 when his name was put up for membership on the Council on Foreign Relations. I remember writing a note that he had a good chance to be the first black Army chief of staff. I underestimated where he would go, but the fact that others saw this potential in him suggests he saw it in himself."

A Ruling Elite

Naturally, for "political polish, the deft feel needed to advance an agenda" in Washington, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the place to go. Indeed, so important is the CFR cachet considered in Washington, Richard Barnet (CFR) wrote some 20 years ago that "failure to be asked to be a member of the Council has been regarded for a generation as a presumption of unsuitability for high office in the national security bureaucracy." More recently, Richard Harwood accurately observed in an October 30, 1993 column for the Washington Post that CFR members "are the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States." Harwood then ran down a partial list of CFR members in the Clinton Administration, which began with the President himself and virtually all of his Cabinet secretaries.

"This is not a retinue of people who 'look like America,' as the president once put it," said Harwood, "but they very definitely look like the people who, for more than half a century, have managed our international affairs and our military-industrial complex" in both Republican and Democratic Administrations. And what is wrong with that? A great deal, obviously, not the least of which is the disastrous way they have "managed" our international and military affairs over the last few decades. Even more strikingly odious, however, is the reality of a small, self-perpetuating coterie holding power and pursuing a private, hidden agenda unknown to the public at large.

The Council protests that it has no agenda, that it is merely a pluralistic study society, a patently fraudulent claim that is easily disproved by an examination of the words and actions of the CFR and its members. The late Admiral Chester Ward, a former Judge Advocate General of the Navy who was himself a member of the CFR for 16 years, charged that the group was formed for the "purpose of promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government." The leadership of the group, Ward wrote, "is composed of the one-world-global-government ideologists -- more respectfully referred to as the organized internationalists." Moreover, he charged, the "lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership .... The majority visualize the utopian submergence of the United States as a subsidiary administrative unit of a global government...."

It is noteworthy, though hardly surprising, that except for the casual reference by Harold Brown cited above from Means' biography, almost no mention is to be found of the important CFR factor in the millions of words that have been published on Colin Powell. Sacred Honor: Colin Powell, a glowing encomium by Powell's media aide David Roth, makes no reference to the Council. Ditto for the hundreds of articles that have appeared in the CFR-dominated Establishment media. This can hardly be an oversight. That the Council has played a key role in Powell's career is easily verified by correlating the CFR's annual reports and membership lists with Powell's own accounts and those of his biographers concerning the people who were most instrumental in lifting him up. His closest friends, mentors, and patrons were almost universally fellow CFR members: General John Wickham, Fred Malek, General Maxwell R. Thurman, John Kester, Charles Duncan, Harold Brown, Cap Weinberger, Frank Carlucci, Dick Cheney, and Kenneth Duberstein, to name a few.

Driving Ambition

Howard Means records how the "cabal" worked:

In June, 1981, Powell left Washington for the first time in four years to become Assistant Division Commander of the Fourth Infantry Division (mechanized) at Fort Carson, Colorado. It was a good position for rising to the rank of major general -- in Carlucci's words, "We put him out at Fort Carson to get him another star."

Then he was off to another short stint at Ft. Leavenworth to round out the military side of his r?sum? before heading back to the Pentagon for the exalted post as military adviser to Secretary of Defense Weinberger. "Powell became a major general a month after he moved into the slot," notes Means: "by then, at age forty-six, he had a golden r?sum? and a line of mentors and supporters behind him unmatched by any of his contemporaries." And, according to Means, "Frank Carlucci, Powell's 'godfather of godfathers,' says that he began talking Powell up openly for the position of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in the mid-1980s."

The Powell legend has it that he was forever being called back from the field commands that he loved and only reluctantly returned to Washington out of a sense of duty. That is the common version given, for instance, concerning his appointment as President Reagan's National Security Adviser at a time when he had just been posted to command of the Army's V Corps in Germany. According to some stories, he pleaded not to be brought back to Washington. But according to Kenneth Adelman (CFR), who was head of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency at the time and the one who drafted the memo to President Reagan requesting the telephone call to Powell, the "reluctant" general was campaigning hard for the job. Means' biography states that Carlucci and Adelman met at a restaurant and decided on Powell for the slot. This is how Adelman described to Means what followed:

"So he [Carlucci] says, 'All right, I'll call Colin.' And he does it. He goes to the phone right then and there in the restaurant and calls Colin in Germany, and then he comes back and says, 'I talked to him. What we need is a call from the president.' It was all set up.

"Three days later, Colin calls me up and says, 'What's the buzz?' Three days later, it's the same thing -- 'What's the buzz? Where's the president's call?' He's calling me all the time saying what's the story .... Colin has been seen [by some] as the reluctant warrior, but he wasn't so reluctant. He wanted it. He was delighted to do this job."

Adelman's story is significant for a number of reasons. Although the Powell ambition described in this instance is not necessarily dark or evil, it does raise questions, such as: Just how ambitious is Colin Powell? What is he willing to sacrifice to achieve those ambitions? Does his current coyness about running for office mask secret plans? Why have his CFR cronies supported him unstintingly through the years? What do they expect from him?

Our own examination of General Powell's record leads us to the following answer: Colin Powell is supremely ambitious; he has already sacrificed every principle that he has sworn to uphold; he has been supported unswervingly because he has shown a thorough commitment to the CFR's "one-world, global government ideology" and is expected to continue that commitment.

Global View

That commitment has been manifested in many ways, one coming to us by way of Strobe Talbott (CFR), while he was still editor at large for Time magazine and before joining the Clinton State Department. In his Time column for May 18, 1992 ("Peacekeeping Loves Company"), Talbott told of a day-long "post-cold war era" briefing he and "several other curious civilians" were treated to at the Pentagon. Talbott mentioned that he and Samuel Lewis (CFR), president of the U.S. Institute of Peace, "clearly made our briefers uneasy" by pressing the view that UN peacekeeping ventures are essential to our national interests and that U.S. forces "should be prepared to join a posse led by someone else." Said Talbott, "their lack of enthusiasm for the idea was palpable."

That palpable "lack of enthusiasm" was not shared by Chairman Powell, however. Talbott writes:

At the end of our stay, we met with General Colin Powell, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He was much less grudging about multilateral operations in general and the U.N. in particular. In response to more questions from Lewis, Powell recalled that the U.N.'s founders established a Military Staff Committee, composed of representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council, to direct peacekeeping activities. Noting that the committee had been "moribund" through the cold war, Powell said he would now like to see it made "more relevant."

"In addition," said Talbott, inferring that he was reflecting Powell's views, "the U.N. as a whole needs more power and resources for peacekeeping, including an ability to call on American troops to serve under the world body's flag. Powell's subordinates might wince at the thought." As well they should. Those views attributed to Powell are not markedly different from Bill Clinton's. Talbott enthused, "It is encouraging that the American soldier who is most willing to work the U.N. into the Pentagon's plans is also the highest ranking."

That a far-left, CFR one-worlder like Talbott thinks so highly of Colin Powell is not surprising to those acquainted with the common globalist perspective these two share. Besides being a strong supporter of using U.S. military forces for UN "peacekeeping," Powell has consistently taken the CFR line on: aid to Russia and other "former" communist regimes; "empowering" the United Nations to deal with deforestation, ozone depletion, global warming, and other environmental "crises"; expanding NATO membership to include the "former" communist states; promoting Mikhail Gorbachev as the great "reformer"; increasing overall U.S. foreign aid; and negotiating sovereignty-destroying trade agreements such as NAFTA and GATT.

"Powell and his predecessor as chairman, Adm. William Crowe [CFR], deserve credit -- if not for pure prescience then at least for listening to unpopular news," writes Howard Means. "Both seem to have been willing to contemplate a New World Order well before it was ever called that, back when the Pentagon and the military-industrial-political complex still were heavily invested in superpower status quo." For CFR globalists, of course, "New World Order" has long been code for a world government under a United Nations run by a CFR-led socialist oligarchy.

Like George Bush (CFR), in the 1990s Colin Powell began sprinkling his speeches with references to a coming new world order. Speaking to the midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy on January 11, 1993, he said:

When we see you in Europe, we know that it is for the interests of Europe as well as your own. When we see you in Somalia, we know that you don't want to stay a day longer than you have to. That kind of power is to be treasured. That kind of power will be needed more than ever in this daunting new world order we are entering .... You are carrying the culture and the spirit and the lifeblood of America. You are carrying it out to new generations of Americans and you are carrying it out to help a new world order get underway.

The middies he was addressing most probably had no clue as to the meaning of the general's reference to a "new world order." For those who have been watching Powell and his CFR colleagues, however, there can be little doubt that he is promoting the same subversive "internationalism" that caused the Council to come under congressional scrutiny 40 years ago. The Reece Committee to investigate the tax-exempt foundations established by Congress in 1953 warned that the major foundations (Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller) and interlocking organizations like the CFR "have exercised a strong effect upon our foreign policy and upon public education in things international." The committee stated:

The net result of these combined efforts has been to promote "internationalism" in a particular sense -- a form directed toward "world government" and derogation of American "nationalism."

The committee also charged that these foundations (which were invariably directed by CFR members) "have actively supported attacks upon our social and government system and financed the promotion of socialism and collectivist ideas." It declared, moreover, that the CFR had become "in essence an agency of the United States Government" and that its "productions [books, periodicals, study guides, reports, etc.] are not objective but are directed overwhelmingly at promoting the globalist concept."

Eminent Influence

In the years since the Reece Committee made those astounding revelations, the CFR's influence and power has grown dramatically; it is hardly an exaggeration to say that the CFR runs the executive branch of the federal government today. And Colin Powell is certainly marching in step to their globalist cadence. In 1990 he was featured on the cover of the CFR's Annual Report, along with other darlings of the CFR such as Boris Yeltsin, Nelson Mandela, Vaclav Havel, Chairman Mao, and Henry Kissinger. On April 29, 1992, he hosted a private Council meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon. A year later, on April 22, 1993, Powell hosted another CFR "Visit with the Chiefs" at the Pentagon. These meetings, like all CFR functions, were strictly "off the record," so we have no way of knowing what precisely was discussed and who attended. We can see quite plainly, however, the CFR's "globalist" agenda reflected in the pronouncements, actions, and policies of the current Administration's foreign, military, and economic policies. This privileged access to official echelons of power, together with its proven ability to place its own members inside those echelons, indicates that the Reece Committee was guilty of no hyperbole in claiming that the CFR was "in essence an agency of the United States Government."

Further evidence to that effect can be seen in the article General Powell wrote for the Winter 1992-93 issue of the CFR journal, Foreign Affairs. Powell's piece in this special "Advice for President Clinton" issue dished up the CFR line that more UN and NATO "peacekeeping and humanitarian operations are a given" for our Armed Forces. "We cannot tell where or when the next crisis will appear that will demand the use of our troops," but we must be ready to "shoulder the responsibility." "We must lead," he exhorted. "Now it is time for NATO to underwrite the security and prosperity of the east," Powell declared. "This may be the most important post-Cold War task we undertake." This CFR theme was entirely consonant with that of the other internationalist writers in that issue of Foreign Affairs, most notable being UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, whose "Empowering the United Nations" article dovetailed nicely with Powell's.

Colin Powell is frequently referred to as the "Black Eisenhower," an appropriate comparison since Ike followed a similar career path to the top through the corridors of power opened by his CFR patrons. Like Powell, Eisenhower's meteoric rise was due to politics, not distinguished military service. When the U.S. entered World War II in 1941, Eisenhower was a lieutenant colonel who had never seen the face of battle. Yet within two years he was catapulted over the heads of a whole general staff of battle-tested superiors, made a four-star general, an named Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Western Europe. Although presented to the American public by the CFR press as a military man untainted by politics, Eisenhower (a CFR member) was the consummate ambitious politician and a thorough internationalist. The March 10, 1991 Los Angeles Times quoted this observation by Republican strategist John Buckley concerning the Powell/Eisenhower scenario: "The Republican Party's almost inadvertent catch of Eisenhower forever changed the party: It became the internationalist party and rejected isolationism. If Colin Powell became a leader of the Republican party ... he could lead it in a new direction."

No, he would lead it in the same internationalist direction, toward the same global, totalitarian mega-state his CFR confreres have been building for most of this century.

On domestic issues, a Powell Presidency would surely bring a reprise of the Eisenhower disasters. (It was Ike, remember, not FDR, Truman, JFK, or LBJ, who launched the Department of Health Education and Welfare). Yet most Americans have probably swallowed the media myth that Powell is conservative and devoutly religious. "If he came to speak at the Christian Coalition he'd receive a 20-minute standing ovation," says Powell booster and Establishment "conservative" William Bennett, "and then people would hold their breath and pray, literally pray, that he'd be right on their issues. He wouldn't even have to be perfect, not even on abortion, if his general outlook were conservative."

Morally Flexible

Powell has purposely been vague about his position on many important moral issues, but the New York Times, on February 1st, gave this glimpse into the man's mind and soul:

When asked about abortion, gun control, or drags, he says he believes that most social ills go back to the lack of traditional family values and "the horrible consequences for our society" of illegitimacy. But on Monday night, while discussing "the need to re-create the American family," he said, gesturing to a member of the audience who had criticized the military's policy on admitting homosexuals, "it doesn't even have to be a two-gender family. [Emphasis added.]

It was the same signal he had sent at the Harvard commencement address he gave in June 1993. "In 24 hours here General Powell all but charmed birds from the trees" wrote Anthony Lewis (CFR) in the June 14th New York Times, noting that he "delivered a formal speech to thousands, including protesters on the issue of gays in the military, and got a standing ovation." "The Powell visit was a phenomenon: a political phenomenon," gushed Lewis. The Timesman approvingly continued:

General Powell gave the clearest signal yet that a meaningful compromise on the gay issue is now acceptable to the military leadership -- and is likely to happen ....

What was striking ... was the way General Powell defined the issue, with respect for the interest of gays and lesbians who want to serve.

General Powell's words reflected, I believe, a real change in the political outlook on the issue ....

It probably would not satisfy the gay movement, but it would be a major step. And with the backing of Colin Powell, it would surely get the necessary political support. [Emphasis added.]

Mr. Lewis and his globalist cohorts will see to that, just as they will see to it that Colin Powell gets "the necessary political support" to advance their new world order agenda.

[BLUEHAWK]

Larry -
Thanks for going to that trouble... I had not seen the article, and was not ever aware of his association with CFR. Could be he's the worst of the best, eh?

Sooooooooooo, another one bites the dust.

That leaves you, fifty-seven other old codgers and me, a raving pacifist.