|
|||
|
Marie Cocco: Colin Powell’s ComplicityPosted on Oct 18, 2006By Marie Cocco WASHINGTON—This is quite the season for political tell-alls. First came Bob Woodward with another behind-the-scenes account—this one a more critical look at the Bush war machine than earlier efforts by the famous Washington Post journalist. The familiar Woodward technique, in order to portray the intrigue that entangles every White House, is to use insiders who want to spin their own leaden records into gold or turn their stilettos upon bureaucratic rivals. Just the other day, an otherwise unknown former White House aide named David Kuo turned up on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” hawking his own account of life in the Bush White House. Kuo seems to have been shocked—shocked—that Bush’s signature faith-based initiative amounted to a public-relations slogan for doling out grants to Christian conservative groups that were to return the favor by providing grass-roots support and flattering campaign photo ops for President Bush and other Republicans. Now, many of us tended to see the faith-based initiative as a modern-day version of old-time politics, when big-city ward heelers would go around with turkeys and other goodies for shopkeepers, priests, cops and other denizens whose political loyalty they saw a need to secure. What’s so surprising about turning those turkeys into cold, hard cash? You can, perhaps, forgive Kuo for his naivete. But Colin Powell? The former secretary of state emerges in Karen DeYoung’s authorized biography, “Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell,” as a witting accomplice to the worst impulses of a president who leads by ideology, instinct and acquiescence to a coterie of senior advisors who bully to get their way. Advertisement So it went as Powell climbed the ladder, winding up finally as George W. Bush’s secretary of state—after “no vetting” and “no deep policy examinations” and, apparently, without even an explicit invitation to join the new president’s Cabinet. Immediately, Powell was blindsided by the White House, which undermined his early comments on continuing a dialogue with North Korea about its nuclear program and on finding some way to accommodate the world’s demands for curbing global warming. Powell would go on to silently acquiesce in the abandonment of the Geneva Conventions for the treatment of detainees and, most famously, to deliver his crucial U.N. speech promoting the Iraq war—an address based on what we now know to be grossly flawed intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. This, from a man who had defended the first President Bush’s decision not to depose Saddam after the Gulf War: “Had we done that, we would have gotten ourselves into the biggest quagmire you can imagine trying to sort out 2,000 years of Mesopotamian history,” DeYoung quotes Powell as saying in a television interview a year after the first conflict ended. All of this makes you long for an act of conscience that is so out of style it seems quaint: the principled resignation. A handful of Bush administration figures have fled the madhouse, most notably former Environmental Protection Agency chief Christine Todd Whitman. She said all the right things publicly. But later, Whitman let it be known she was exhausted from endless battles with hard-right conservatives. Last year two senior Food and Drug Administration officials resigned, citing their objections to the politics that infested the administration’s delay in approving over-the-counter sales of emergency contraception. But no departure of a senior or mid-level aide, or the quiet leave-taking of a disappointed young acolyte, could possibly achieve what Powell might have accomplished had he resigned on principle during Bush’s first term. He could have done so in 2002—already there was a long list of grievances. He could have left before the Iraq invasion got underway, perhaps saying the newly readmitted international weapons inspectors should be given longer to do their jobs. He might have worked with senior congressional Republicans to defuse the time bomb Bush had brashly lit. Would history be different if Powell had stood tall and walked out? We cannot know. But it surely would have had more weight than the thickest kiss-and-tell tome. Previous item: Joe Conason: Self Service, Not Public Service, in Congress Next item: Ellen Goodman: Conflation of Church and State CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
By Jackie T. Gabel, October 28, 2006 at 12:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
All these “exposés”—each and every one a limited hang out. So what are they about?
A faction (the less-than-Strange-Love faction) within the oligarch elite has decided it’s too dangerous to let the madmen continue running amok. Ultimately, the goal of saving the collapsing petro-dollar, they’ve rightly concluded, will not be achieved by nuking Iran. Moreover the generals are fed up at being used by Big Oil to run private expeditionary armies, and do not want their charges fed to the meat grinder of Iran and no longer Iraq.
The limited hang outs on the whole fiasco are now immerging in an effort to stop the Strange Loves without exposing the 9/11 coup. And to be sure, without some pressure relief, 9/11 truth will blow the lid off the whole kettle of fish. That they will do everything to avoid. Woodward, et al they can live with, 9/11 truth they cannot.
Report thisBy Barbara Anderson, October 25, 2006 at 7:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I agree with all of the above. I lost faith with Powell sometime ago. It’s such a shame. I once respected McCann but I don’t any more . I might add I’m a life time democrat.
Report thisBy hettiemae, October 25, 2006 at 4:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I agree with #29729. Powell knew exactly what was going on and he willingly participated. If nothing else convinces you, look at his son, Michael, and the actions he took as head of the FCC. Father and son, lackeys of the right wing nuts.
Report thisBy MARIAM RUSSELL, October 23, 2006 at 7:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Well Carey, I suppose that even someone who long ago jettisoned principal to defend what his leaders had wrought has his limits.
Report thisBy CAREY, October 22, 2006 at 10:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Oh, spare me, Lib. I’m MAD at Powell, because he seeks to play both sides of the road. The man is gutless at defending the Bush Administration. If he would have had his way during the Gulf War, Desert Storm wouldn’t have occured for over a year.
An honorable Soldier and statesmen dishonored himself - many Republicans have ALWAYS doubted Powell’s loyalty. As a Soldier, I find the man an Embarrassment.
Report thisBy Stephen, October 21, 2006 at 9:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I agree with 29729. I am unconvinced that Powell was the “unwitting dupe” that he’s given the ‘credit’ for being. I stayed home from work that day to watch Powell give that speech, and he looked like a man who knew he was lying, but, for whatever reason, was compelled to go on.
Report thisBy MARIAM RUSSELL, October 20, 2006 at 9:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
yOU ACTUALLY EXPECT DIFFERENT FROM THE APOLOGIST FOR MY LAI?
THIS MAN WAS ALWAYS AN EXTRA, A SPEAR CARRIER, WATER CARRIER, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO SAY IT, FOR THE ELITE WHO RULE. HE LEFT ALL HOPE OF EVER BEING A DECENT HUMAN BEING IN VIETNAM, WHEN HE DECIDED THAT PR WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN MASSACRE. HARD TO RECOVER FROM A STANCE LIKE THAT…..YOU HAVE WAY TOO MUCH INVESTED.
Report thisBy rex, October 19, 2006 at 8:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Why do we continue to be told that Powell innocently presented “flawed intelligence” on Iraq?
Report thisPowell knew that UN inspectors had already been to most of the
sites he described in his speech and found nothing.
The UN had this information posted on their website but nobody reported it in US news media. For instance the famous chemical “decontamination trucks” described by Powell had already been
analyzed and contained only water for fire fighting not decon chemicals. These trucks had been used for decontamination in the 1980s and early 1990s but that piece of “old news” was irrelevant in 2003 and Powell knew it.
In the 1991 Gulf War Powell was able to accurately track Iraqi chemical weapons artillery units by satellite so he knew the difference between actual WMD signatures and fraudulent claims without such data. In 1991 the CIA accurately listed and described in great detail Iraqi underground
bunkers and weapons storage sites so they knew the
difference between real evidence and pure speculation. This CIA data was used in 1991 to bomb these sites out of existence.
Powell did not present “bad intelligence” he misrepresented
a total lack of evidence as if it were proof of an “ongoing WMD program”.