As I recall, he was among several top generals who publicly threatened to resign if Bill Clinton allowed gays to serve in the military back in '93. I haven’t really had much respect for him at all since then.
Would have been nice if Clinton had the balls to say “well, I’m Commander-in-Chief, either implement my policy or get out” rather than “let’s compromise.”
Clinton’s goal was to govern effectively, not impose his will on the unwilling.
A quaint idea, no?
Did you find my comment hit too close to home? I deliberately refrained from imputing any specific motives to anyone in a personal way.
You claimed that we can only judge the actions since he has not spoken on his motives, yet you are willing to judge the motives of others based on your own desire to see the world in a particular way.
My arguments will only be persuasive to those whose minds are not already closed to their own views in any event.
::: shrug :::
Of course the ones playing the treason card are exaggerating, but realizing Al-qeada was helped by us going into Iraq, I would not say No with 100% certainty.
And this is AFAIK also not 100% correct: even the president said in public that the resolution was presented not **just ** to go to war in Iraq, but to **show ** credible force to Iraq so they could comply, war was supposed to be the last choice not the first (the dismissal that Iraq was complying to that force by destroying the only WMD like item found: missiles that were found not to compliant, showed that war had been the first choice all along) As it turned out, the **created ** political wind by the administration and others (Press controlled with “scoops”, OSP, Downing street memos, lobbies in favor of war) was for going to war then. It was still the wrong idea.
And while those efforts can not be called treasonous, it is shameful that their actions then and now are not to be helpful to the US, but only for some here and abroad.
:rolleyes:
Then what was that about “the fun of heaping scorn on him”? :rolleyes:
Or that?
If you truly wish, and are able, to discuss Colin Powell, the subject of the thread, you’re certainly welcome to begin at any time. It would even help if you could simply begin to honestly represent the statements you’re addressing. But this acting out you’ve been doing is just silly.
I was actually discussing the topic regarding whether “treason” was a legitimate word to use in connection with Powell’s actions before you decided to take umbrage that I did march in lockstep with your abuse of the language.
Given your earlier defense of “Bush sux” as some sort of objective “fact” (in the way that “Bush is a Republican” is an objective fact), I think you have already established your views on the use and abuse of language to further the abuse of persons whom you dislike.
Now, if you would like to continue abusing Powell, feel free to resume that activity. If you continue to abuse the language, I will probably continue to post correctives.
A while back, we were discussing this, and I opined that Powell might be at least somewhat redeemed if he came clean and told us the truth. Funny thing is, he pretty much has, in dribs and drabs. He talked about how he had misgivings, how he felt misled, that sort of thing. And it seemed to have no real effect, it was dully noted and then passed over like yesterday’s news. Which is to say, he doesn’t seem to have any power to affect things, he’s already shot his bolt, and it landed who knows where?
That said, I agree that “traitor” is too strong a word. We ought to reserve something for rare and horrid occassions, there should be something held in reserve.
“I had misgivings” and “I was misled” aren’t apologies, they’re excuses. Why would that be big news? Bush, his master Cheney, their minions and various chickenhawks and apologists have had lots of excuses. Actually, “I had misgivings” just makes it worse; if you had misgivings why’d you go ahead and help Bush start his war?
What WOULD mean something is if Powell actually said “What I did was wrong.”
I take your point, but I don’t know as it would matter. I am taking “redeem himself” to mean some positive action that might mitigate some of the karmic shit he’s accumulated. No matter what, its going to be too little, too late, the Hellbound Train has left the station.
Did McNamara “redeem” himself when he told the truth, some thirty years too late? Your call is as good as mine.
I’d like to see him march into Times Square with a length of rope and hang himself, at Midday. That’d do it.
Hell, I’d spot him the rope’s cost.
OTOH that’d be the end of my intra-Whitehouse murder-suicide fantasy. Now that would have taken the redemption a little further.
In other words, you admit he’s not a traitor. Your silly use of the term is, as someone else mentioned above, demeaning any legitimate argument you may have.
How about we offer ElvisL1ves one “coward” and one “sycophant” in exchange for “traitor”? Deal?
Could also use “spineless whore that sold out every thing his oaths and career stood for and was then discarded like a used rubber when it was over” in place of traitor. Not sure what word the loved ones of all the Iraqi and coalition dead and mained would use.
Those words imply simple lack of concern for anything larger than oneself. They also imply *lack * of action, sins of omission rather than the one of commission we’ve been discussing. Somebody who should be expected to know better, to have a more serious love of country, and *still * takes action to betray it deserves stronger language, don’tcha think? True, you may be right that ne’s no better than anyone else in this clusterfuck, but if so, for a long time he did put on an convincing impersonation of somebody who not only had but could articulate greater principles and greater integrity. That’s so hard to do that I seriously doubt it was an act.
I take it you’re pretty proud of your command of the English language. Is there something *else * less harsh but still tolerably descriptive of Powell’s actions you’re aware of? Does it strike you, or anyone else, that we’re discussing a mere quantitative matter, not a qualitative one, in searching for le mot juste?
Too much credit. RickJay is right. He *dismissed * those misgivings, if indeed he even had them. He certainly did not express any such misgivings publicly, but stated as certain facts what he at best was *not * certain were facts (and hence knowingly participated in misleading us). He at best declined to ask any of the questions someone with a sense of the importance of what he was being asked to do entailed. The world of law (since entering that sidewater put us where we are at the moment) does not meaningfully differentiate between “knew” and “should have known”, does it?
When it couldn’t be avoided any longer, he put the blame on others. We’re still waiting for him to acknowledge any real, central responsibility of his own. What exactly *do * you think he should he get credit for?
tomndebb, the rest of us are having an illuminating discussion about something pretty important. If you don’t wish to, or simply cannot, participate in it on the same level, the Pit is always available to you. :rolleyes:
Actually, you seem to be the only one here who is whining about the sort of participation you will permit in this thread.
Get over yourself.
Good point. I am glad someone brought this up or I would have. This is a man who is certainly willing to laying it on the line when it comes to defending bigotry but not when it comes to stopping a war based on lies. I think that shows very poor judgement. It is sad because I really do think that Powell is in many ways a very good person…but as it unfortunately turns out, a deeply flawed one too.
Remembering back to the time leading up to the war though, I almost feel like Powell sent us a signal not to believe what he was saying. What I am talking about is when Osama bin Laden released a tape before the war and Powell pointed to it as proof that ObL and Hussein were in league together. To me, that was a fatal error for someone to make who is trying to convince us to believe that they have evidence we are not privy to that was convincing. I mean, here was evidence that we all had equal access to and it was clear to me that Powell was just not being honest about what that evidence said. It was such an obvious lie that I almost wondered if it was done deliberately, at least at some subconscious level…like the criminal who leaves an obvious clue that leads to his arrest. In this case, I thought maybe in the deep recesses of his conscience, he wanted to let us know not to believe what he was saying.
The problem with Powell is the depth of his betrayal.
Though there were many that were deeply distrustful of the Bush administration, he was the one senior guy in it who was liked and trusted pretty much across the board. He was a natural for the top foreign policy guy, and as former Joint Chiefs chairman, everyone thought he’d have strong influence on Defense policy as well. He was the main proponent of the Powell doctrine, which emphasized military intervention only when the reason was compelling, there was strong international support, the military force to be used was overwhelming and there was a clear exit strategy. These were the touchstones of the initial Gulf War, and he was widely perceived as having been the father of the strategy that led to victory.
In contrast, the rest of the Bush administration didn’t have the level of public trust. Bush personally had virtually no foreign policy or defense experience. Everybody knew Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were neoconservative hawks, and was pretty sure Cheney was one too. Rice was smart, but a touch out of her league.
Powell, everyone thought, was the pragamatist who would stand as a bulwark against the ideologues – the no nonsense military man who would protect the troops.
In the build up to the war, he was obviously uncomfortable with what was going on. Though the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz camp was cheerleading for war (and Cheney was hiding in his bunker), Powell really needed to be convinced it was the right thing. He was, in many ways, the proxy for all of those who were unsure of the need for the war, the level of international support, the strategy and the exit plan (in short, the main tenets of the Powell doctrine). He was the guy who, due to his training, experience and personal integrety, would look at this in a clearheaded manner and give us all an objective read on what we should do.
Eventually, Powell came out for the war in a way that showed he was laying his credibilty on the line, domestically and internationally. All of a sudden, the one administration leader we all trusted to make the right military decision – to not commit troops unnecessarily – to not get us into another Vietnam – to stand up to the ideologues – had said that this war was the right thing to do. And by implication, he endorsed the Defense Department’s plans for doing it.
In the end, he was wrong. The reason why is really immaterial, because he put his considerable public trust behind the war without adequate basis. Everyone knew that Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and the rest would shade and spin things in favor of the war. But when Powell, the guy we thought we could trust, was found to be doing the same thing, it was over for him.
It really saddens me to read all the negativity expressed against Colin Powell. Here is a biography on this most accomplished man, a four star American general. He was highly respected prior to the Iraq invasion, and now is blamed for lying to the American people.
I don’t see it that way. I see a team player who as a military man values loyalty, particularly in his service to the president. As far as his selling the war to the international community and congress, I can only believe that in his mind there was just enough evidence and likelyhood for WMDs to support his duly elected chief. To refuse the president would also require proof that no WMDs existed, and that just isn’t possible. He could have resigned and undermined a presidential iniative, placing in himself, a presidential appointee, a power beyond that of the president . Only in retrospect can anyone see that a move like that is positive.
The sad thing is that Colin Powell would make a great president. For one thing, America would not be in the mess they are in now if Powell was president. If one were to look at the Powell Doctine, there have been clear violations.
POWELL DOCTRINE
3, 5, and 6 were completely ignored by Bush. The other points are certainly debatable as well. Powell exercised his role as Secretary of State in the Iraq fiasco to satisfy the elements of his doctine where he could, 7, and 8. He bears no responsibility for the failures of the other items.
Powell also believes in using overwhelming force which he did in Iraq I, successfully. The fact that he used 400,000 troops or thereabouts to liberate Kuwait while Rumsfelt only used a little over 130,000 troops to “liberate” Iraq, a decision now deplored, should be taken into account when judging Powell.
Should a presidential appointee be blamed for the clear failures of his president?
Powell served his duly elected president faithfully like a good soldier.
xx
It’s a matter of public record that he lied, and assisted in the spreading of lies. There’s nothing “sad” or not sad about it, it’s simply a fact.
Well, them’s the breaks. Powell was NOT a military man, he was the Secretary of State, a political appointment and one that wields considerable power. You make it sound as if Powell is a victim in all this, that he couldn’t have foreseen what was going on.
But none of that’s true. Colin Powell chose to be Secretary of State. Colin Powell was aware of the machinations and preparations for war with Iraq that were going on for more than a year prior to the invasion. Powell was one hundred percent aware of the fact that George Bush lied when he told the American people that he would use force only as a last resort. He knew much of the intelligence was dubious. He knew that when Dick Cheney said there was “no doubt” that Iraq had WMDs, that he was lying. The war didn’t just spontaneously start; it was a long time in the making and in fact was on the agenda of some Administration members from before Bush become President, and Powell knew about that, too. He could have resigned in 2002; he had months and months and months of leadup to the Iraq War to say something, do something, refuse to help. He just plowed right along.
Would it have been hard to step down or refuse to appear before the UN or generally help Bush lie? Well, of course it would have been hard. But Powell voluntarily took on a hard job. He chose that job. He chose to follow a leader of dubious intelligence and experience. He chose to go along with the administration quietly planning an unprovoked invasion of another country. He chose not to say anything about the lousy intelligence. He chose all this, and he’s responsible for everything he did, because that’s what wanting to be a leader is all about. He’s not nine years old; Colin Powell is a big boy now, and blaming everyone else when you help start a fire is not what adults do.
Oooh, the Powell Doctrine, the Powell Doctrine! Alkso known as “Common fucking sense.”
Colin Powell didn’t seem to mind that the Powell Doctrine was being ignored by George Bush, so why do you think he’d be any better as President? Anyone can write a point form list of common sense. Applying it in real life, that’s the tough part.
Too bad the Secretary of State isn’t supposed to be a soldier. He’s supposed to be a statesman.
Colin Powell’s loyalty wasn’t, or should not have been, to George W. Bush. George Bush isn’t a king or a sovereign lord, he’s a public servant. Powell’s loyalty should have been to the United States of America. Given a choice between doing the right thing to help his country, and staying loyal to his boss and keeping his cushy and important job, he chose boss and cushy job, which is the exact opposite of what a decent and moral man would have done. His behaviour was utterly deplorable. “I was just following orders” is the worst excuse ever invented.