Why Isn't He Running for President?
I happened to catch on one of my local NPR stations this afternoon a talk that Colin Powell gave at the Aspen Institute a few days ago, focusing on the Iraq war. Maybe it's just me, but to my ears Powell is the only one out there who talks sense about the war — why it matters, what mistakes we've made, how to move forward from here, without unnecessary hand-wringing and finger-pointing. Plus, I don't think any of the candidates out there can come close to him when he talks about why the idea, and ideals, of America are important and even inspiring. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd vote for him in a NY minute, and I suspect there are lots and lots of folks out there who feel the same way.
The Democrats won't take him because: he's not Hillary!; he's the previous generation's African-American (see Obama); and, he's "without the unnecessary hand-wringing and finger-pointing."
BTW, the Democrats won't take him because he's a lifelong Republican. The fact that he sacrificed his career to sell us a war on false pretenses is just icing on the cake.
Mr. Powell knows what he's talking about and he's very candid. He'd get killed off before the primaries. He's smart enough not to waste his time.
Was that before or after he killed Vince Foster? I always forget.
Got an alternate link? The very idea that someone might discuss the Iraq war without pausing to score partisan points is nearly too much to believe.
Powell simply has no reputation left after the Iraq War. Either he was too blind to know bad the Administration was when he was in it or he knew, and either for reasons of misplaced loyalty or partisanship, chose to do nothing about it. Not exactly Lincolnesque behavior there.
You know, you never seem to hear this from people who opposed the war. It - gosh - almost seems like people are concerned about looking inwards on supporting foreign policy that was nakedly and obviously bad (an easy chapter in a Tuchman book) Just like how all those people who found "the blame game" so unnecessary and vile happened to people who knowingly voted to re-elect an incompetent administration, if only out of concern that Kerry would somehow be worse (I mean, how much worse could Bush get? It's not like he'd accidentally sink an American city.....)
A point in his favor is that he may well be the only candidate who speaks Yiddish.
But since the Repubs are running as George Bush's mini-me's, and apparently no one will fund anything else, he'd have to run as an independent. The only way that begins to be possible is on a Powell-Bloomberg ticket, with the veep candidate writing lots of checks.
(What is up with the Repubs, btw? Is it really impossible for any mainstream Republican to say "let's get back to conservative values"? As it is, they're presenting 2008 as a referendum on what a great presidency it's been.)
Have you been paying attention? Aside from McCain and Brownback, every Republican candidate (I include Fred) harshly criticized Bush on the immigration deal. All of them have criticized the Bush handling of the Iraq war via Bremer. Fred, Ron Paul, and Duncan Hunter all claim to be strong federalists ready to destroy the last remnants of the papa-state "compassionate conservatism."
You can't identify a single Republican candidate who has NOT said "let's get back to conservative values." You can't find a single Republican candidate who actually wants 2008 to be a referendum on Bush.
Put down the pipe and turn off the Daily Show!
Try and keep up, Anderson. Ron Paul's got more money in the bank than John McCain.
Wooga: I did say "mainstream"; Fred's too unknown yet for me to decide where he falls.
I was thinking more about the debates, where they were asked about torture, Gitmo, etc.
What criticism has Giuliani made of Iraq? What's his plan?
Also, truth: I've seen the Daily Show once, when I was out of town &in a hotel room. Don't watch TV much.
The current president won't change his mind no matter what the evidence shows or how things change, while the previous president, who governed by the daily polls, never had a principle he couldn't sell out. We ought to be able to do better than both, but Powell ain't the guy.
It's called "gravitas".
The blackmail concerned Powell's efforts to keep Clinton from intervening in Bosnia. That is where I first became familiar with 18 USC 1001, not that he'd have been prosecuted for it, but his lies would have been used against him. There was clear insubordination and arguable mutiny.
Powell's military enemies saw an opportunity to take him down, and told President Clinton exactly how Powell had stepped over the line. Powell did a Sherman statement a few days after a Georgeanne Geyer hit piece on him using some of this information.
For some background here, I suggest you read Peter Feaver's:
Armed Servants: Agency, Oversight, and Civil-Military Relations
False pretenses? Hmmm......
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
Amen. And it's a pity. Esp. considering that most of the competition seems to be empty suits, with the depth of an oil slick, and whose judgment consists of trying to reflect yesterday's polls.
The bottom line is that in 2003 there were no WMDs, Iraq was of no significance as a base for or supporter of Al Qaeda, and there was no good reason to think otherwise. Since the War was promoted primarily on these two grounds, yes, it was sold under false pretenses. The fact that Democrats may also have taken these positions (mostly several years earlier, I note - we know that Saddam Hussein once did have WMDs and/or programs to develop them, but he had to shut them down) is immaterial.
Kind of like McCain's comment (IIRC) that he wants apportion on demand to be overturned but he'd okay his minor daughter's abortion if she wanted one. Huh?
I want Alan Keyes to throw his hat back in the ring for the eleventeenth time. That guy could give an f'n speech.
Another point you might want to consider is that in 2003 Bush had been in power for two years, meaning that the previous two years of intelligence estimates had been produced under his control. Folks like Kerry are largely dependent on the intelligence agencies for their information. Their mistake may well have been to trust Bush not to corrupt the intelligence they received.
More disturbing (to me at least) is Powell's failure to act when the power delegated to the Dept. of State was usurped by Cheney. If Powell was unable/unwilling to assert himself when Cheney ran roughshod over the State Department when it came to the interpretation of international law at a point where an ultimatum to Bush would have had significant consequences, how can Powell be expected to not fold to actors on the international stage?
My Lai, DADT, the Yugoslavian genocides, and Iraq comprise a record of moral and intellectual weakness. (Anent Iraq, he not only went along with the lies and presented them to the world as fact, he didn't even stand up for his own much-touted Powell Doctrine.)
Granted, most people don't know or remember the role he played in some of those events. But everyone knows and remembers his presentation to the UN about Iraq.
You could say he saw it as his military duty to roll over, over and over again, for the Bush Administration. But that sort of begs the question of how his lifelong habit of taking orders would translate to being President: whose orders would he take then? Would we have yet another Republican Administration where the President is a figurehead for a secretive, all-powerful Grand Vizier?
Powell Advising Obama
Appearing this morning on Meet The Press, Colin Powell said that he has met twice with Barack Obama and given advice to the presidential candidate. "I've been around this town a long time and I know everybody who is running for office," Powell said. "And I make myself available to talk about foreign policy matters and military matters with whoever wishes to chat with me." Powell also hedged on whether or not he would support the Republican nominee in 2008, saying only that he would support "the best person that I can find who will lead this country for the eight years beginning in January of 2009."
Link
In Gulf I (aka Desert Storm) the coalition had all-but surrounded the Iraqi forces, who fled back into Iraq via the Highway of Death.
Powell, against all his generals' advice, didn't close the pincer. It would have forced combat contact, caused American casualties, and left the coalition with lots of POWs. Powell left the escape route open, but had air units destroy the escaping columns.
Shortly after that, it was Powell —sickened by the destruction— who begged Bush to cease the conflict. Again, it was against all his generals' advice.
There was a real coalition back then, the POWs could have been temporarily held and processed by Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and/or the United Arab Emirates; IOW, non-US, non-western forces.
Instead the 'destroyed' units fled and re-formed. "The foreign devils didn't dare invade." The tiny window of opportunity to overthrow Saddam vanished.
Thanks for nothing General Powell.
What is 'conservative' about military people is the statism many profess, which is not too definitive. If the Democratic party wasn't so implicitly antimilitary, I suspect a lot of retired military members would be Democrats of the most paternalistic sort.
Well, the recent WaPo series on Cheney gave chapter and verse on how Cheney cut the state department out of loop on the question of the applicability of the Geneva Conventions -- and international treaties are the bailiwick of State.
And there have been numerous reports affirming that foreign policy decisions -- including the most crucial of all such decision, the decision to go to war -- were made with little or no imput from State (other than from people from the Cheney cabal who had been placed in key positions.)
Powell was the quintessential bureaucrat working for a President who was an autocrat, and had no understanding of the purpose and function of the bureaucracies. As another autocrat, Cheney fully understood that Bush would not insist upon the kind of orderly decision-making processes that bureaucracies exist to facilitate, and it was Powell's failure to demand an orderly decision-making process that demonstrates his weakness.
aka "death by powerpoint" = inaction.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/
Another point you might want to consider is that in 2003 Bush had been in power for two years, meaning that the previous two years of intelligence estimates had been produced under his control.
</blockquote>
During those two years they produced the exact same %^&*-ing "assessments" they had about Iraq as during the previous ten. In this they followed the normal pattern of all such agencies. "Intelligence" agencies world wide are populated by a mix of cautious chair-warmers and overconfident know-it-alls.
Seriously, why does anyone take these kind of "intelligence" estimates seriously, anyway. The track record of the major spy agencies of all the great powers, and most of the minor powers, at predicting events and accurately assessing military capabilities during the past century has been uniformly awful. MI5 claimed the UK was riddled with German spies and completely missed the Anglo-Irish war. The OSS told FDR that Japan would almost certainly never attack the USA, but that if it did it would start with a strike at Manila. The KGB told Stalin that his alliance with Hitler was rock solid, told Krushchev that Kennedy was too timid and consumed by domestic issues to do anything about missiles in Cuba, told Brezhnev that Reagan intended to liberate Eastern Europe by force and told Gorbachev that he could gain increased control over the USSR by pitting ethnic nationalists against recalcitrant party kleptocrats in the soviet republics. Even before the missing WMD scandal (and before that, the 911 scandal), The CIA managed to miss the Iranian revolution, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the collapse of Communist rule in Eastern Europe, the military coup that lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and, of course, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.
The CIA and its analogues have a fairly uniform track record of regurgitating the common wisdom to their leaders until events prove the common wisdom is really the common delusion. And you want me to believe that this particular foul up by the CIA was all the fault of the current dim bulb in the White House? Fat chance.
Still, each Presidential candidate has flaws, so I am not sure Powell would be worse than anyone else.
As for his UN speech, I watched it and still believe to this day Powell was brilliant and 100% correct. And, I still think thought that because we took so much time in trying to prove our case it gave Saddam the time he needed to sump whatever he had to. I know Saddam had WMD because he used them on Iran and his own people. There is no way he just decided to give them up because if he did, he would not have kicked out the U.N. inspectors. Besides, after hearing Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy etc. tell me for over a decade how much of a threat Saddam was, I was glad to see Saddam out of business permanently. Saddam didn't all of a sudden become a reasonable, trustworthy leader the day Bush came into office. If you hate Bush, fine. But, don't attempt to sell me on your dislike of Bush by defending Saddam Hussein and acting like Saddam was just another poor victim of Bush.
"He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he’ll use that arsenal." - Bill Clinton
Mark my words. He will develop WMD. He will deploy them, and he will use them." - Bill Clinton
"He could be a mass murderer of the first order of magnitude." - Al Gore
- "He (Saddam) has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Carl Levin (D-Mich)
- "He (Saddam) is too dangerous a man to be given carte blanche with WMD." - Harry Reid (D-Nev).
Simply, don't act like Bush made it up and don't act like Powell said anything at the U.N. that wasn't true. Those mobile units weren't weather stations, and Saddam didn't keep chemical suits and atropine injectors around because he was afraid we would gas his troops.
I actually feel sorry for those of you who hate Bush and Republicans so much you are just willing to act like Saddam never did anything wrong. If you think Bush was wrong for going to war, I can respect that and believe that you have an excellent argument for your position. Once you start with the Bush lied nonsense, you lose me. Look a few comments above for a godd example of what I mean. C.Gray obviously dislikes Bush, but makes a fair and rationale argument, one I can respect and one that makes me take his position seriously.
Americans now would agree with me.
What is your basis for any of that? I have never heard anyone defend Saddam, call him a good leader, or talk about his victimization at the hands of Bush. And I regularly talk to people who hate Bush and oppose the war. The argument they do make is that overthrowing Saddam without having any viable replacement or plan for governing destabilized the Middle East and allowed Iran to increase their belligerence unchecked.
Also, I'm always shocked when, in the year 2007, someone argues that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction when we invaded. Where did they go? How in the name of all that is holy has no one found them yet? I'll give you that Saddam definitely wanted people to believe he had WMD, but isn't the whole point of Intelligence to be able to see past projected images?
To get back on topic, Powell will never be President because, among other things, he lost all credibility when he went to the UN and lied to the world about Saddam's nuclear program. It's also a sticking point that he essentially invalidated the UN Genocide Convention by testifying before Congress that there is an ongoing genocide in the Sudan and the US will take no steps to stop it.
From the Duelfer report:
You insist on suggesting these are bioweapons labs even though they lack major requirements of such a facility. Duelfer detailed eleven "critical requirements" that would need to be present in order to use these trailers for bioweapons production. These critical requirements are all absent, and all would require major reconfiguration. As one named expert memorably said, "it would be easier to start all over with just a bucket."
By the way, the missing, major, critical requirements are system sterilization, media/water sterilization, aseptic growth conditions, agitator/stirrer, aeration sparger, process control instrumentation and sensors, addition and sampling ports, sight glasses, provision of sterile air, sterile filtration of off-gas, and provision of steam for sterilization purposes.
I can go into more detail with you on this subject, if you're still having a Kool-Aid hangover.
"Once you start with the Bush lied nonsense, you lose me."
Once you start with the nonsense that Bush didn't lie, you make as much sense as when you try to claim that those trailers were BW labs.
Bush lied. Lots of proof is readily available, and I've collected some of it in various places, like here, here and here.
This is the problem, in a nutshell: Bush et al claimed "absolute certainty" (and also used terms like "no doubt") even though the underlying intel was very far from absolutely certain. In other words, they pretended to be in possession of factual knowledge which they did not actually possess.
"If you think Bush was wrong for going to war, I can respect that"
The problem is not just that "Bush was wrong for going to war," or that Bush failed to manage the war competently. Another extremely important (and separate) problem is that Bush got permission for his war by lying to us.
A bunch of the quotes cited above are from 1998, around the time of Clinton's Operation Desert Fox. It's true that lots of people expressed concern at that time. Afterwards, though, we gradually became confident that Saddam was becoming less of a threat.
This is what Powell said (2/24/01): “[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors” (video, text).
On 5/15/01, Powell said that Saddam had not been able to “build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction” for “the last 10 years.” Powell said we had succeeded in keeping Saddam “in a box.”
And this is what Rice said (7/29/01): “But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
And even Cheney said essentially the same thing, in a moment of uncharacteristic honesty (9/16/01): "the focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point."
Bush exaggerated the threat in 2002, even though his own people knew Saddam had become significantly weaker, not stronger, since 1998.
An affliction common to idealogues of both stripes.