BlueStatesForever
(179 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-16-04 12:27 AM
Original message |
|
Good Soldier Powell
As Secretary of State Colin Powell resigned yesterday, reportedly to be succeeded by the national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, it was hard to avoid the feeling that this imposing figure - who once personified the dignity, integrity and promise of government service and was the first African-American considered to have a shot at the White House - will be remembered for one picture and three sentences.
On Feb. 5, 2003, in an appearance before the United Nations Security Council, Mr. Powell, the retired four-star general and former national security adviser, held up a vial of white powder as a symbol of what he claimed - falsely, as it turned out - were Iraq's huge stockpiles of anthrax. He offered a scathing indictment of Saddam Hussein. "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources,'' he said. "These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
As an increasingly angry world soon learned, Mr. Powell in fact offered half-truths, poorly analyzed intelligence and outright fantasies, from a nuclear weapons program in Baghdad that didn't exist to wildly exaggerated estimates of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons stockpiles and its ties to Al Qaeda.
But at the time, Mr. Powell's performance convinced many Americans skeptical about the war that the Iraqi government was a clear and present danger to the rest of the world. His enormous stature and his image as a moderating force within the administration - valued especially by America's European allies - were squandered in defending a unilateral decision he did not agree with to launch a war in which he did not really seem to believe.
From the start of his tenure as secretary of state, there was a question about which Colin Powell had moved into Foggy Bottom. Was it the decisive, charismatic general who coined a military doctrine that called for waging war only after the establishment of a political consensus behind achievable goals and then the commitment of overwhelming force to reach those ends? Or was it the faithful soldier who prized loyalty above all else?
(registration required) http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/16/opinion/16tue1.html
|
BlueStatesForever
(179 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-16-04 12:28 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Should we say "Good Soldier New York Times" |
|
(commenting on my own article)
Isn't it ironic that the New York Times is criticizing Powell. After all, didn't they have to apologize for their own "Good Soldier" loyalty to Bush's rush to war?
Thought so...
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 01:19 AM
Response to Original message |