And if you watched what Steven had said, you would understand it better
I've never found Crowder particularly convincing or interesting. If you link a clip I might try watching it, but I'm pretty sure my reaction will be that he's wrong.
What do you actually like about Powell in terms of actual actions taken post-Vietnam? I can understand respecting... basically just his actions following that helicopter crash. But their should be nearly fifty years of what he did afterward leaving a bad taste in any right-wingers mouth on this guy, he should be very nearly the *personification* of inner party deep state type, whereas I get the sense that you only realized he might be less than popular with many people here after he died.
Like, let's start in Vietnam. His first tour (as a captain) was as a military advisor to South Vietnam. Given the use of "advisors" to "moderate rebels" today, military advisors are probably organizationally suspect, although aiding South Vietnam against the communists is on the face of it unobjectionable. Then he's charged with investigating a letter which backed up allegations of My Lai, and spins it, but then afterward in 2004 he says that he was in the unit responsible for My Lai and got there after it happened. (I have no idea if there's a redpill on My Lai or something, but either he knew about it and helped cover it up
or he went back on himself to back the media narrative after the fact).
He was involved in Iran-Contra, under Weinberger, and despite having solicited a legal opinion and delivered to Weinberger that this was illegal, per Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh he gave incomplete answers and concealed notes that would meet the new test of obstruction.
After Iran-Contra, he seems to have enjoyed what looks to me like a very rapid ascent up the ranks - in 1986 he's in command of the V corps in Frankfurt, then in 1987 he's Deputy National Security Advisor and then still in 1987 National Security Advisor, 1989 he's made the third general to get four stars without having served as a division commander since WW2 and then later the same year he's made Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff the media nicknames him "the reluctant warrior" (which is good PR for liberals) but he disputes this (which is good PR for conservatives, particularly then). He clashes with Aspin and ends up resigning, allegedly over him being "too focused on salad" during a meeting. Which is ridiculous and sus as hell. The operation the meeting was for goes to shit (battle of mogadishu) but he resigns almost immediately before the battle of mogadishu starts, so it can't have been a mea culpa. Then he runs cover for Aspin for the media after it.
Then of course, there's his time as Secretary of State, selling the war on Iraq. As for his politics on social and domestic issues, he's socially liberal on almost every issue (pro-abortion, pro-affirmative action, and expressed support for the AWB). He was part of the roll out of don't ask, don't tell and then supported it's removal. He was pretty much the archetypal "moderate Republican" national security state type, except better at handling PR.
Conservative, Liberal, does it really matter?
When I talk about my issues with conservativism, my alternative is not liberalism or any kind of leftism.
