St. Colin of Powell and the Devils Advocate

[elucidator]

Listened to the radio today, while Colin Powell gave his testimony before the Senate committee. Listened to it on Public Radio. The attitude of the Committee members ranged from the fawning to the abjectly worshipful. (I’m not sure I heard it right, but I think Kerry said he wanted to have Colin’s baby). I began to think to myself “Ya know, I really respect this guy a lot, but now that I think about it, why? I mean, being a skulking lefty, a sworn enemy of all that is good and decent…why should I like this guy so much?”

Truth is, I don’t really have an answer. Of course, on the other hand, I would have to admit that when GeeDubya was running against President-Elect Gore, I bought his bullshit about being a moderate. Still preferred Al, but thought well, still wouldn’t be too bad, right centrist against left centrist. Well, fuck me for a fool. Won’t get fooled again. Learned my lesson, too smart now. Yessiree, Bob.

All this leads up to my reluctance to post this link:
http://prorev.com/indexa.htm
from Undernews, a favorite site for the liberal traitors that haunt Anne Coulter’s dreams. Lets put it this way: if the worse possible advocatus diable case could be made about Mr. Powell, one heavy on allegations and light on verifiability, this would be it. Pretty much starts with My Lai and skips over some of the highlights.

Fair warning! Some of the posters with whom I retain a cordial state of disagreement will find these allegations inflamatory and offensive. A few of the Usual Suspects might very well go into conniption fits, seizures and anuerysms. If you can’t handle it, stay away from it! I am most assuredly not interested in hearing what a slimebucket I am for bringing it to your attention. I make no claims as to the veracity of these allegations whatsoever.

Yours Truly hastens to point out that this link is posted as a springboard for discussion and debate. I do not purport nor pretend to have a verdict. The site itself begs for the sort of cite searching which I, myself, am not real good at. (Quick, Robin…the Duck Duck Goose signal!)

[Scylla]

I too am puzzled by the left’s affinity to Colin Powell.

I suspect that if he was a white man with a Southern accent he would be viewed quite differently.

He talks and acts and seems to hold many of the same views as my father holds, which is unsurprising as they were both career military men and combat veterans of Vietnam from modest means.

[sleestak]

I respect Powell. I do not respect the sites you cited. They are very subjective and obviously slanted.

I am not saying that the stories about Powell are untrue but I would believe the stories more if they came from a more unbiased source.

At the same time the stories seem to go in two different directions. One direction is that Powell was a cold killer in Viet Nam and okayed killing kids. The other direction is that Powell is a pansy due to his advocating the withdrawl of US forces in the Gulf war.

The articles just don’t make much sense to me.

Slee

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I, of course, believe every word of it. I’ve always thought that Powell was an overhyped non-entity, now I realize that he is an over-hyped, ethically challenged non-entity.

I’ve never really understood the assumption in this country that CP is somehow an embodiment of all that is good and holy. I suspect that he just seems dignified and moderate enough not to scare white America and it makes conservatives feel virtuous to support a white guy (as long as he keeps quiet about those silly notions rgarding affirmative action and abortion).

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I meant black guy, not white guy. Colin Powell is a black guy.

[elucidator]

Well, what I’m thinking is more along the lines of “well, here’s this story, anybody got any facts? cites?”

One of the sub-cites connected to the story is:
http://www.disinfo.com/pages/dossier/id803/pg1/
which expands a bit, not enough, on the Undernews stories.

I remember when I first heard about Colin Powell, and some mention of the unit he served in, and remembered that it connected to My Lai. Shrugged it off, its a big damn army, and all. But the story given here connects CP directly to the investigation of My Lai. Is it accurate? Was CP, as suggested, directly involved in investigating allegations of civilian massacres, including My Lai? If so, how could he have come to the conclusion that the story was baseless? Does he mention any of this in his book *My American Journey: An Autobiography *? And what purports to be a quote “In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between Americal soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent” is an assessment I hesitate to describe. Given his matter-of-fact attitude towards “military age males”, I find it somewhat perplexing.

Not as troubling, but still somewhat perplexing is his involvement with Iran-Contra (as alleged). And to this day I have never quite understood what the whole Panama/Noriega thing was about. Since when do you invade a sovereign country to bust a dope dealer? I suppose after Grenada (Operation Urgent Fury) almost any damn fool thing makes sense in comparison, but still, its hard to think even one “collateral damage” was worth it, never mind hundreds (admitted) or, God forbid, thousands (accused).

I’m not good enough at research and cite hunts to track this shit down, I’m kind of hoping somebody else is. 'Cause I really do want to know…have I been had? Have we all?

[DaddyMack]

** Powell became a war hero for presiding over a lopsided slaughter–which included burying Iraqis alive and massacring them as they retreated–that left around 200,000 Iraqis dead (including tens of thousands of civilians), compared to 147 Americans killed by the enemy (with an additional 207 killed by accidents or “friendly fire”). **

This single statement summarizes the stupidity of the left. Their strategy in Vietnam was tit for tat warfare. It drug America into a long war of attrition and finally to defeat. And now they are in total opposition to a buildup that ensures success with few American causalities. It seems they don’t realize that overwhelming force, where there is little doubt of the outcome is how to fight a war. Suggesting that we should somehow level the playing field is sheer stupidity. The comparison of Iraqi military causalities to American suggesting either we should not have killed so many of them or we should have let them kill a few more of us. Liberalism and Scientific-Creationism follows the same line of foolishness and neither display any concern for the truth. They both engage in misrepresentation and the furtherance of loony ideas.

[elucidator]

Yeah, ok, fine. You done now?

[XPav]

*Originally posted by DaddyMack *
**This single statement summarizes the stupidity of the left. **

I love the complete waving of hand to the encompassing of the entire left. I’m on the left, and yes, that quote is completely and utterly stupid, about on the level of the people that go “the Americans are cowards because they don’t fight to our strengths.”

**And now they are in total opposition to a buildup that ensures success with few American causalities. It seems they don’t realize that overwhelming force, where there is little doubt of the outcome is how to fight a war. Suggesting that we should somehow level the playing field is sheer stupidity. The comparison of Iraqi military causalities to American suggesting either we should not have killed so many of them or we should have let them kill a few more of us. Liberalism and Scientific-Creationism follows the same line of foolishness and neither display any concern for the truth. They both engage in misrepresentation and the furtherance of loony ideas. **

As a representative of the left, I think you’re engaging in horrible mispresentation of the ideas of the left. Your ideas for what “they” think are horribly loony, as I’ve never seen anywhere in the wide land of the blogosphere any non-insane-chomskyite actually saying the things you claim.

And what the hell is this scientific-creationism thing? That’s the loony idea of the religious right!

[Ace_Face]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**I too am puzzled by the left’s affinity to Colin Powell.
**

I don’t think the “real” left has any particular affinity for him. The DLC, Joe Lieberman-type Dems love him, though. I think many on the left have been deeply suspicious the Powell good-cop, Rumsfeld bad-cop routine. Powell’s “switch” from dove to hawk was about as predictable as the plot of your average Bond film. Just PR games.

I for one have been sickened how the mass media have tried to portray Powell as a “dove,” when it’s clear he supports 90% of the radical Bush doctrine – preemptive strikes, regime change, etc. The only difference is he wants to go through the UN if possible. Well, he’s Secretary of State for Christ’s sake. Of course he’s going to be more likely than Rumsfeld to support such a position.

[december]

I expected a thread like this. When Powell took a position the left liked, they made him a hero. But, now that he has taken an opposing position, they’re all over him with ad hominem attacks.

[elucidator]

Ah, good, december has chimed in! We are all, of course, pleased to hear that the entire matter is quite settled as far as you are concerned. Regretably, in your haste, you neglected to include any of the clear refutations and concrete evidence on which you base your, no doubt, carefully considered opinion. Far be it from you to post a knee-jerk reaction like the intellectually dishonest left. When you have more time you will share some of the rock-solid foundations of your eminent opinion. We await such “with the calm confidence of a Methodist with four aces.”

[elucidator]

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/121700c.html

A long article on the career of Mr. Powell, it does make one note of possible correction: Mr. Powell was assigned to investigate the accusations of an American soldier, Tom Glen, of generalized and routine brutality towards Vietnamese civilians. He wrote a letter, for the record, to his superiors in the Americal Division, outlining his observations and objections. The letter mentioned no specific incidents, nor did it name any specific participants. No mention of My Lai was made. There is conflicting testimony from others, some to the effect that the massacre was common knowledge amongst foot soldiers, others to the effect that it was covered up with complete success.

Therefore, Mr. Powells subsequent statements that he had no knowledge of the events at My Lai can neither be proved nor disproved. However, the letter he was assigned to investigate made no mention of it.

[Ace_Face]

*Originally posted by december *
**I expected a thread like this. When Powell took a position the left liked, they made him a hero. But, now that he has taken an opposing position, they’re all over him with ad hominem attacks. **

You realize, of course, this could just as easily be said about the right. Many conservative pundits were extremely harsh on Mr. Powell when he was perceived to be a “dove.” My point is the whole Powell dove/Rumsfeld hawk issue was trumped up from the start, and played right into the administration’s hands.

[David_Simmons]

I sort of lost respect for Powell during the gays in the military dustup.

In my opinion he was insubordinate and should have been fired. To verge on public disagreement with the Commander in Chief is behavior that Powell wouldn’t tolerate in one of his subordinates. And he shouldn’t. Disagreement during the formulation of a military policy or plan is the order of the day. However once the CO says this is what we’re going to do, you either do your best to carry it out and keep your mouth shut or you ask to be relieved of that duty and be given another. And you hadn’t better do that more than once.

[Latro]

*Originally posted by Ace_Face *
**You realize, of course, this could just as easily be said about the right. Many conservative pundits were extremely harsh on Mr. Powell when he was perceived to be a “dove.” My point is the whole Powell dove/Rumsfeld hawk issue was trumped up from the start, and played right into the administration’s hands. **

Classical ‘Good Cop- Bad Cop’ scenario.
Though I must admit that I get the impression that CP is not too happy with his role.

[ElJeffe]

My point is the whole Powell dove/Rumsfeld hawk issue was trumped up from the start, and played right into the administration’s hands.

Powell was chosen for the administration specifically to be a counterbalance to Rumsfeld, just as Karen Hughes was chosen as a counterbalance to Karl Rove. A smart leader will deliberately select people likely to have opposing opinions and methods, so that he can hear both sides of a situation before making a decision. At any rate, from what I heard of Powell’s position, it was never “No war in Iraq under any circumstances”, it was “Let’s try to do this diplomatically first.” We did. Diplomacy failed. Powell got his way, and I’m glad - it lends more validity to the impending war. However, Powell is not a stupid man, and he is by no means a blinded ideologue. He’s seen the evidence, and his mind has been changed, just as many others’ minds have been. Or is every politician who was originally against a war, and now supports it, a pawn of the Bush administration?

As to the OP, the article seems like a typical attempt at demonization. The timing, to me, seems suspect, as well. Powell supports the war? Quick, man the torpedos!
Jeff

[zigaretten]

NEW REPUBLIC: Powell’s career began as an Army Ranger during the Vietnam War. As Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations at a base in Vietnam, he was ordered to investigate claims of Army massacres at My Lai (where US forces murdered hundreds on March 16, 1968 - Powell had no involvement with that tragedy). Powell’s cosmetic “investigation” of allegations by Tom Glen, who knew about the slaughter, claimed that his charges were false since Glen’s superiors stated that he could not have witnessed abuses of Vietnamese. It wasn’t until many months later that another soldier, Ron Ridenhour, complained to his Congressman, that serious inquiries into the My Lai massacre began within the Army, at Washington headquarters. – New Republic, April 17, 1995

The above is from the site in the OP. Trouble is, I have in front of me the article from the April 17, 1995 New Republic which they cite, and those words aren’t in it. What they’ve got there is their interpretation of the article and, in my opinion, it gives a somewhat skewed view of the article. Lets look at some direct quotes from the article……

“…………In the days following My Lai, Glen had heard the talk among the enlisted men about a massacre. He knew it was just an extreme instance of all-too-routine violence by Americal soldiers against Vietnamese civilians.

Shortly before going home in late November, 1968, Glen revealed his misgivings in a letter to Gen. Creighton Abrams, commander of all U.S. forces in Vietnam. The letter did not mention a massacre, but it spoke vividly of murder and torture of civilians and prisoners………”

“……By December 9, 1968, Glen’s letter had worked its way through Army channels to Maj. Colin Luther Powell, deputy assistant chief of staff for operations, G-3, at Americal Division headquarters in Chu Lai. (Powell, who arrived in Vietnam in June, about ten weeks after My Lai, had no involvement in the massacre.) The Americal’s adjutant general ordered Powell to check it out and report within three days with a suggested reply to Glen. ……”

“………Powell’s December 13, 1968, memo to the adjutant general blamed Glen. He had not come forward earlier, Powell complained, nor had he given specifics upon which to base an inquiry………”

“…….Powell seems to have relied on Glen’s commander, who claimed (falsely, Glen told me) that Glen was a rearguard type who could not have witnessed the capture of enemy prisoners, much less their torture………”

“……there was a war on, and as deputy G-3 in the largest division in the Army, Powell had much else on his mind. He had no formal duty or authority to get to the bottom of the matter. Since most of his own visits to combat zones took place by helicopter, with commanders or vips, he may never have seen anything like what Glen described……”

“……But was it the right thing to do? If Powell had been morally engaged by Glen’s letter and taken it upon himself to seek and report the truth, the trail might have led all the way to My Lai………”

Fast forward to April, 1969, after Ridenhour’s letter…………

Powell recalls that a year after the massacre men from the Army Inspector General’s office visited the Americal headquarters………….Powell searched the division’s daily logs at their request for “anything that looked like an unusual incident or a major contact with a large loss of life.” He asked why, but they refused to say. Powell found an entry containing a very high body count in the My Lai area and read it into the I.G.'s tape recorder. “Clearly there was a major investigation going on,” he told Means. Not until the story broke in November 1969, however, did Powell put two and two together.

So, my interpretation is that in December of 1968 Powell was given three days to check out a letter filled with vague accusations and written by someone who had already left for home and then suggest a reply to that letter. This is hardly an order to “investigate claims of Army massacres at My Lai.” True, as the article suggests, Powell might have uncovered the whole My Lai tragedy if he had only pursued this matter all the way to the bitter end, but given the nature of his assignment, not to mention the nature of the entire My Lai cover-up (see The Peer’s Report), I think that’s a little unrealistic.

Later, in April of 1969, Powell co-operated with an Army investigation. Note that the investigators wouldn’t even tell him what was being investigated at the time. It hardly sounds like “his” investigation.

For the record, I cannot find Colin Powell mentioned in “The My Lai Inquiry” by General Peers.