This is really a GQ because I’m interested in real answers, but I have a feeling it just wouldn’t do there. Conversely a Pit thread wouldn’t fly because I’d have to do a mock pitting of the guy and sift out the crapulous responses from those of the 3 or 4 thinkers who frequent the Pit. So there you have it.
Here’s my premise. Take a program like this. Very nice. Seems to have a good idea where it wants to go, no overtly “faith-based” hocus-pocus or idealistic wishful thinking ala abstinence education or “just say no!” In short, what appears to be a level-headed and truly useful social program every bit as devoid of political fluff as the guy’s approach to Iraq in 1992. And then there’s this whole bowing out of the Bush Administration before the doo-doo encountered the turbine. Seems the guy’s got a good head on his shoulders.
I hate that. I hate thinking that there’s a good man out there in the world. Challenges my political paradigm. So let’s hear it. Apart from the numerous kittens he undoubtedly killed as a teenager, what has Colin done that’s worthy of some 20/20 scandal?
I think Powell does good work, and is a fine man, but he bears a large responsibility for the US being in Iraq by overstating the very weak case we used as justification for getting in.
Powell knew that his speech to the UN was was based on weak evidence, but he did nothing to verify the weak spots. There were numerous people in US intelligence who were saying the claims were bogus, but he didn’t seek out their opinions. He knew about the “torture memo” and confronted Cheney about it, but that’s as far as it went.
Powell knew that this administration was leading us down a dangerous path, but he never found the stones to speak out publicly. Maybe it was his military training telling him to follow orders, but he was the Secretery of State, a civilian post. It is hard to say that someone should have thrown away their career at the highest level of government by speaking the truth, but that’s what a great man would have done.
I wonder if after this administrationis over, Powell will write a tell-all book about what really happened. That would be something to read.
when I was still wearing a uniform, Powell always had the stink of “political general” about him - Always knew which way the winds were blowing, and was always in line with those trends.
Powell’s UN speech was the real thing that killed his image.
Up to that point, there was the strong perception that there was a debate within the administration with Powell opposing the invasion of Iraq and Cheney, Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz arguing for the invasion. Powell had tremendous public respect and credibility on the issue from his service as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during Gulf War I. He was also seen as an independent and non-political military man by Americans of all political views, appointed for his qualifications, rather than his party or ideological affiliation.
The other thing about Powell was that he was the godfather of the Powell Doctrine, which said in essence that [in order to avoid another Vietnam], we should only use military force to obtain a clear objective with broad international support, and that we should go in with overhelming force and an exit strategy.
When he made the UN speech, he apparently signed on fully to the adminstration’s (and particularly the neo-non’s) Iraq policy. His speech suggested that he had seen and evaluated the evidence, and it made a compelling case for the invasion. His coming out for war also implied that the invasion was justifiable under the Powell Doctrine.
Because of his great public respect for his military and foriegn policy experience, and the (incorrect) undertanding that the administration would use his insight as the general who had been in charge the last time around, there was a giant feeling of betrayal when he was put on the margins and kept silent after endorsing the war. This feeling of betrayal was multiplied when it came out that his endorsement of the war was based on misleading information that he simply parroted.
Because of his public standing, his initial opposition to the invasion was the last clear chance to avoid the war. When he came out in favor of the invasion, it swept aside a great deal of opposition and made up the minds of many undecideds. The fact that the apparently great man was willing used as a mere pawn destroyed much of his reputation.
My wife works for a Character Education Partnership, and was asked to ghostwrite an article on Character Education for him (I don’t think it went to press, though). So he’s willing to put his name on other people’s work, it appears.
Powell’s worst handicap is that he is a “good soldier.” This is probably the issue with the matter of My Lai and it is certainly the issue regarding Iraq. Whatever he personally believes, it appears that his actions are always governed by a need to be a “team player.” If he is sent out to discover whether rumors of a massacre are true, he will go to the commanding officers of the units involved and ask them what they know about the rumors. Since the COs are supposed to be aware of everything in their units, a declaration from the CO that nothing had happened was sufficient to close the case. (I doubt that it was even a deliberate effort by Powell to cover up the matter, just a decision that his superiors could live with that there was reliable testimony that the rumors were false.)
Similarly, he walked into the Bush administration thinking that everything was going to be four square. When he discovered just how badly the Neo-Cons were willing to manufacture “reasons” in a “good cause,” I suspect that Powell simply considered himself under some obligation to fullfill his “tour of duty,” so he went along with them until the next Congressional election provided a point at which he could resign without (deliberately) making the administration look bad.
In early 1993, as JCS chair, Powell strongly opposed the Clinton plan to end the Pentagon’s ban on gays in the military - actively lobbying behind the scenes on Capitol Hill against his own CINC, from what I’ve read. This eventually left us with the (IMHO) bizarre, unfair and militarily-unwise “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that is still forcing gay servicemembers - even in vital specialties such as Arab translation - out of the military. Powell said he saw no parallels between the segregated pre-1948 military and the current disparate treatment of gays.
I have no use for the man-he’s a shining example of the "big lie’-and its effect upon subsquent credibility. When he gave the W of MD speech at the UN that night (I watched it0, I actually belived the man. I was dubiuos, but he did convince me. now, i look back and regret it.
So, i can’t say i’d ever believe the guy again!
I served as an Arabic translator 1992-1996. The Military Intel house, at least in Tha Army, seemed too busy to really care all that much about orientation. Homophobia existed, sure (usually in the form of rolling eyes and good-natured ribbing), but I NEVER saw or even heard about an MI soldier getting booted for being a homo. And believe me, we knew who was who–I don’t think I saw as high a %age of uncloseted homosexuals in college as I did in this particular field. Nobody seemed to really care. As long as you could do your job and helped the company excell you could have been a complete flame job in ruby pumps and orange lipstick (as long as you weren’t being inspected by the BC) and not had to worry about a section 8. Not to put too fine a point on it but I distinctly recall an Old Army 1st sergeant nailing a couple guys to the wall for harassing an openly gay soldier. So at least some of the leadership valued competence and morale over enforcing a rule bred of sqeamish insecurity. I always admired him for that. Plus, he had a gerat ass.
'course, translators attached to infantry units might want to keep it in check. They always seemed to be a little rougher around the edges than we were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by An Arky
My wife works for a Character Education Partnership, and was asked to ghostwrite an article on Character Education for him (I don’t think it went to press, though). So he’s willing to put his name on other people’s work, it appears.
I have to clarify here…I talked to my wife about it yesterday, after I posted the thread. The offer is still open for her to write the article; she hasn’t written it yet, but it’s a “back-burner” thing for her and hasn’t gotten around to it yet.
Apparently, this ghostwriting thing is highly prevalent among public figures. I find it appalling that people think it’s OK to do this, but it happens all the time, in politics, business, academa ( :eek: ), et al.
It’s one thing if a less-than-literate movie star gets someone to ghostwrite their biography, but other than something like that, it really gets my goat.
Well, God never wrote his own material. This bugs me too. I for one tend to associate the ability to speak good with the ability to think good. And I’m super critical of politicians who hire shoddy speechwriters and then fail to deliver even those rags with any sense of believableness. Might be wrong though. Did Churchhill, FDR or Lincoln write their own stuff?
To clarify my quip above, the ironic thing to me was not that Powell was going to have something ghostwritten, but that it was to be on the subject of character.
At least 55 Arabic translators have been pushed out due to DADT, according to this article, as well as hundreds of other linguists, at the cost of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14052513/
I think Powell has cultivated this myth that he is just a good soldier and team player. I noticed that he is only a good soldier when it is the Republicans giving the orders. When he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he famously blocked Clinton’s attempt to intervene in the Balkans earlier. He even went so far as to write an op/ed piece in the NY Times while still on active duty opposing intervention and used to show senators, representatives and reporters a picture of a Serb SAM site and tell them about all the American pilots who were going to die over Sarajevo. Clinton once remarked that he’d like to use the US military to stop the slaughter if only Powell would let him borrow it.
This bugs me too. I for one tend to associate the ability to speak good with the ability to think good. And I’m super critical of politicians who hire shoddy speechwriters and then fail to deliver even those rags with any sense of believableness. Might be wrong though. Did Churchhill, FDR or Lincoln write their own stuff?