The whole question of Colin Powell is disturbing. Like many others, I held him in fairly high regard until the Recent Unpleasantness. Now, I have to ask myself: why? Boiled down, it comes down to impressions, demeanor, gravitas. But there really isn’t anything his history to support such an impression.
For instance: Colin Powell was peripherally involved in the investigation into the My Lai atrocity. He interviewed a man who reported upon it, and returned a pretty neutral report. This is, in itself, not culpable, not indicative of anything more than a standard military attitude of solidarity. But the My Lai massacre did happen, and a proactive investigation would have uncovered it. Had Colin Powell been truly motivated to uncover the truth, he might well have done so. The Colin Powell that I thought he was would have done so, even at risk to his career.
When Powell spoke to the UN, I listened to the speech on the radio. And I thought to myself, well, if a guy like Colin Powell states the case so clearly, so authoritatively, there must be something to it.
But there wasn’t. His speech before the UN has been proved to be a complete and utter travesty. Not one of his spectacular charges had any substance. How does a man with a shred of integrity take on such a grave charge, presenting a case in support of war, without knowing for certain that he is speaking the truth? Would any of you?
The conclusion is well-nigh inescapable. My impression of Powell was entirely at odds with the truth. He was, and remains, a whore to his ambitions. I would like to be wrong, I would like to have someone to trust amongst this band of goons who hold the lives of millions in their grasp. I would also like to be able to trust my impressions of men, have some faith in my own rough judgement of others.
But I don’t see how that is possible.