A post from yesterday was updated with a "downfund the military" cite to a reposted item at Jaun Cole's website, plus commentary.
The military. CNN gives us as a pundit the first black general to become Secretary of State, when we all know he lied his cred away completely, fostering Bush getting us into the Iraq quagmire.
Deference to the military mind that did that, as someone to believe, there's a disconnect. Yes the man is bright and yes, he likely is saddened by how Iraq turned out and his role in selling that bag to us, but don't rehab him to the point of offering him as a pundit to explain things to US, (who without him and CNN presumably could not figure things out on our own). Where's the sense to that?
Insult? Plenty. Sense? Not much if any.
So go figure. Beyond simple piling on, why do it? Powell's burned his trustworthiness. It is that clear and simple. A step better than Geraldo Rivera on cred, or not, the level is set at the level of a bad joke.
Is the message that a general loyal to the last awful Republican president before Trump is currently putting aside party loyalty to trash Trump? Is that supposed to be a meaningful measure of something? What? That we do not already know Trump's limitations without Powell's remarks?
Is it that Powell is being offered as a paradigm figure to the black community? That's not saying much in favor of CNN regard for black people's discernment.
He did advance and prosper in the military's up-or-out ranks. So what? He sold it all away cheaply over Iraq, selling false intelligence he had to know as bogus when he spoke it. Frederick Douglass seems a better paradigm, but he's too dead from long ago to be offered as a CNN talking head. Pretty much the same with Bob Marley.
Is it that finding a black Republican who will repudiate Trump is that difficult? That is not saying a lot about black Republicans' diversity of thought or willingness to critique. Scott of South Carolina stays party-loyal over Trump. Who else?