Teddy Roosevelt was an arrogant imperialist. Pretty good domestically, but the granddaddy of much neoliberal & “neoconservative” foolishness predicated on the value of US hegemony.
Well, if he accepts Jesus Christ as his personal Savior, then. . . .
A special edition of Consecutive Thread Titles:
**Can Powell be Redeemed?
If Jesus Could Heal the Sick and Raise the Dead **
Traitor? Excuse me? General Powell a traitor? You really need to explain that one because I don’t see that.
Maybe an exaggeration but what do you call Powell making the case for war to the UN? Btw, here is the transcript from the White House website. A critique from CNN. Here’s someone that pulled apart his Un speech point by point (disclaimer: I don’t know how verifiable this critque is).
Here is what Powell recently himself had to say on the subject.
If General Powell knowingly lied about the evidence to convince the UN, Congress and the American people, then yes he is a traitor. If General Powell allowed himself to be deceived for plausible deniability, then yes he is a traitor. If General Powell had reasonable doubts about the evidence he was shown, but went along with it as a team player I’m not quite sure how to classify it. If General Powell bought the evidence hook line and sinker, when there was publicly available dissenting evidence such as the UN weapons inspectors, then I’d say he is incompetent.
General Powell was the last rational voice of authority that could have stopped or delayed the war long enough for due diligence to be conducted. But he didn’t. Instead General Powell went in front of the whole world and said categorically, that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was making more. You can read his UN speech and easily pick apart now what was presented as a factual case for war. Here’s a quote from the UN speech:
“Dr. Blix told this council that Iraq has provided little evidence to verify anthrax production and no convincing evidence of its destruction. It should come as no shock then, that since Saddam Hussein forced out the last inspectors in 1998, we have amassed much intelligence indicating that Iraq is continuing to make these weapons.”
Bush and Co needed a believeable presenter to make the case to the UN. Who better than General Powell, a soldier, warrior, thinker and man of great personal integrity. Why if Powell says it, then it must be true. General Powell would not stand at the UN and make a mockery of what he has personally exemplified during so many years of military and public service.
General Powell either had horrible misjudgement, paid back the kingmakers, or was a traitor that willing lied to the world. He would be rightfully pilloried in the press and public opinion if he threw his hat in the ring regardless of which scenario is true.
Never.
Nixon was redeemable in the 60’s, but then he’d never started a war. Powell did, and still hasn’t accepted responsibility and apologized. As China Guy’s link shows, he’s blaming the CIA for not telling him there were doubts, but he didn’t show any signs of thinking for himself or asking any questions at all. After a long period of very public reticence about the war, and a good record of knowing what it was all about, suddenly he stopped that. It isn’t anyone else’s fault; he simply showed his essential company-man nature, and he seems to know it.
No, he isn’t presidential timber. Not without a spine, he isn’t. He did bail out in time to avoid equal ranking with McNamara, Rumsfeld, and Cheney, but his public career is now defined by his demonstration of lack of leadership ability. One can only wonder if the man who wrote this got taken over by aliens.
Look, you don’t like the man or his policies, fine. Criticize him on the merits.
Use silly hyperbole and you lose your listeners’ respect, discounting the value of your legitimate arguments.
Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3
Based on the constitutional definition of treason, there are only two questions:
-
Did Colin Powell levy war against the United States? Answer: No. He wore his country’s uniform with distinction for many years, carrying out the orders of his superiors in defence of his country, and putting his own life on the line in combat situations in Vietnam.
-
Did he adhere to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort? Answer: No. Acting on the instructions of the President, and in conformity with a Congressional resolution authorising the President to use force against Iraq, he made a speech at the U.N. to increase support for the policies of the United States, to make war against an enemy of the United States, as determined by the President and Congress. That’s the exact opposite of adhering to the enemies of the United States.
You may think that the policy, conceived by the President and supported by the Congress, was stupid, misguided, illegal, etc., etc. - but your throwing the term “traitor” around like this is a perfect illustration of the reason the drafters defined treason in the Constitution itself - so that lawfully authorised political / government activities can’t be retroactively turned into a crime when the political winds shift.
The word has a colloquial meaning outside the naarrow strictures of law dictionaries. “Silly hyperbole” it may often be, but it’s still the best word available for someone who knowingly works against his nation’s interests for base reasons. Or do you have a different term to propose instead?
The hyperbole is, then, still not justified. There is no evidence that his (disgraceful) actions were done for any “base reasons.” He did not do it for money. He did not do it for acclaim.
He appears to be just a flawed guy who was in over his head when it came time to make an ethical judgment, based on a personality rooted in a “good soldier” or a “company man” or a “loyalty to the boss” mentality.
I’m sure that one could respond that those are “base” reasons, but if one did, that would seem to misuse the word “base” simply to rationalize one’s claim. Loyalty is actually a very highly regarded virtue in a number of societies and claiming that it is base because it does not fit in one’s own category of virtues would only indicate that one comes from a (part of a) society with a different set of values rather than demonstrating an absolute definition of “base.”
I certainly condemn his actions and consider him a flawed person, but I am not going to throw around words like “traitor” just for the fun of heaping scorn on him.
I guess I disagree. I don’t think there was a damn thing Powell could do to stop the war. The President and Cheney and Rumsfeld were intent on going into Iraq, the only question was how and when.
You may be right. But what would have happened if Powell resigned his position and started appearing on the news and talkshow circuits telling people that the President and his cronies were misleading the public and pushing for war under false pretenses?
It would have been a barrel of laughs watching the communicator in chief attempt to give Powell’s speech at the UN. The pushers for war needed him.
There is no first-hand evidence of what his motivations were, since he evades the topic, and therefore no basis for ruling anything out, as you do. His motivations can only be inferred, but unfortunately the only inferrable ones, “a ‘good soldier’ or a ‘company man’ or a ‘loyalty to the boss’ mentality” as you say, are indeed base when compared to his reponsibilities to civilization, to the nation, and most particularly to the Constitution he was sworn to uphold.
Etc. You misunderstand. What is critical is to whom that loyalty is given, and why. Loyalty to a Dear Leader rather than to one’s fellow humans, especially in contravention to an oath, is not a “very highly regarded virtue” in any society we should wish to emulate. We are a democracy still. Those who run the government are our employees still.
You do need to consider that you might be much more convincing in your arguments if you were less ready to personalize disagreement, and impute “base” motives to others who hold views you have not reached for yourself, than those cracks demonstrate.
Precisely. The war plans teetered on the edge, the stated rationales were badly crumbling, Powell still had enormous public respect for his intelligence and honor, and I do agree he could have evaporated the war fever Bush had done so much to drum up if he had accepted his responsibilities. But even now he’ll only go so far as to call it a “blot” on his record. No, General, it is your record, now and forever.
Bush: Saddam has weaponry of mass… weapons of mass destructure… Dubya-MDs. Look. Here’s a photo of trucks parked at a building. There’s yellow cake in Nigeria. Listen, Saddam is a bad man! heh heh 9/11 changed everything. We can’t let the terrists win. heh heh
We wouldn’t need an election in 2008, that’s what. He’d be nominated by both major parties at once, and Bush would probably just resign the Presidency right now, as mobs with lanterns and pitchforks surround the White House.
Yeah, he can be redeemed. When all the people who died in the war he helped start pop back to life.
I meant in February 2003.
I assumed that Bush would have gone ahead and did exactly what he’s done, because he is the decider, not some stupid General, and because he’s so stubbornly certain that’s he’s been right all along.
But, yes, there is a chance that the lanterns and the pitchforks would have started appearing well before 2008 if he’d gone ahead with his plans in that atmosphere.
In front of the U.N. he said he would stake his reputation on the fact there were weapons of mass distruction in Iraq.
I am just holding him to what he said.