Colin Powell passed away from cancer and complications arising from Covid-19.
Al the former presidents were there, but Trump was missing.
Here is Trump’s official statement:
Wonderful to see Colin Powell, who made big mistakes on Iraq and famously, so-called weapons of mass destruction, be treated in death so beautifully by the Fake News Media. Hope that happens to me someday. He was a classic RINO [Republican in Name Only], if even that, always being the first to attack other Republicans. He made plenty of mistakes, but anyway, may he rest in peace!
Colin Powell was a classy man.
He made a huge mistake under G.W. Bush when he propagated what he knew was a lie to the United Nations and the world. Yes, that was the mistake his legacy will, unfortunately, always be tarnished by.
But Trump’s statement shows what kind of man he is: One I would not want in my backyard BBQ party. He would not be worthy of sitting in the front row at this funeral.
4 thoughts on “Honoring Colin Powell – Absent Trump”
Now c’mon Norbert, we all know Trump is HALF classy…..the ASS part—!!!
Did he know the claim was false or was he just too trusting?
I don’t know. I am tempted to read his book – I imagine he has to tell all there.
Many people, especially Iraq’s collective populace, feel only disdain for Colin Powell, and who can really blame them?
Every culture/nation has its own propaganda and core beliefs, true and false; though some culture/nations — usually the most powerful — are much more corrupt and brutal than weaker ones. For example, I often hear and read praise heaped upon The New York Times for their supposed uncompromised integrity when it comes to humanitarianism and ethical journalism; however, did they not help create the Iraq War, through then-U.S.-VP Dick Cheney’s self-citing via a Times blog? The same Cheney who monetarily benefitted from the war via Iraqi oil fields — a war I consider to have been much more like a turkey shoot, considering the massive military might attacking the relatively weak country.
I recall reading that The Times had essentially claimed honest-ignorance innocence on the grounds that it was its blogger’s overzealousness that was/is at fault. But is it really plausible that The Times did/does not insist upon securing the non-publishable yet accurate identity of its writers’ anonymous information sources — in this case, a devious Cheney — especially considering that Cheney himself would then use that anonymous source’s (i.e. his own) total BS about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify a declaration of war that inevitably resulted in genuine gratuitous mass suffering and slaughter? I believe that The Times may have jumped on this particular atrocity-prone bandwagon, perhaps due to the massive 9/11 blow the city took only a few years prior. (There was a lot of that particularly bitter bandwagon going around in Western circles back then.)
Perhaps most notable was Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman’s appearance on Charlie Rose’s show on May 29, 2003, where he ranted about the war’s supposed success. One memorable line stated: “We needed to go to that part of the world; and what they needed to see [was that] American boys and girls going house to house, from Basrah to Baghdad, [and] simply saying, ‘suck on this’.”